Commons Sitting of 17 May 1836

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lord W. BENTINCK, from various Places, for an Equalization of the Dues on East and West India Sugar.—By Mr. S. CRAWFORD, from Head ford, Clonmany, for Abolition of Tithes (Ireland).—By Mr. Sergeant JACKSON and other HON MEMBERS, from various Places, against a Clause for Removing the Jurisdiction of Minor Courts to the Quarter Sessions.—By Lord JAMES STUART, from various Places, for a Repeal of the Duty on Spirit Licenccs.—By Lord JAMES STUART, from Irvin, in favour of Spirituous Liquors' Sale Bill.—By Mr. CLAY, from the Medical Profession of various Places, for Remuneration for Attending Coroner's Inquests.—By Mr. HARDY, from Sale, for Amendment of Factories' Regulation Act.—By Mr. LAMBTON, from Shelton, against the Bishopric of Durham Bill.—By Mr. HASTIE, from Paisley, for the Exemption of Charitable Bequests from Legacy Duty.—By Mr. G. WILBRAHAM, from Wins ford, for Abolition of the Salt Monopoly.—By several HON. MEMBERS, from various Places, for a Repeal of the Duty on Newspapers.—By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, from Dudley, that the House take the State of Ireland into Consideration.

RAILROADS.
Mr. Morrisonspoke as follows*:—In bringing forward the motion of which I have given notice, if I trespass for a short time on the attention of the House, I must plead the importance and magnitude of the interests involved in the question as my excuse. Honourable Members, Sir, may differ from me on this subject some may consider my apprehensions as altogether unfounded—some, admitting the evil which I would seek to remedy, may think I exaggerate its probable effects—whilst others, perhaps, agreeing that something is necessary to be done, may allege that the remedy I propose is inapplicable or insufficient; but all must allow that the change now going on, and which is likely at no distant period to transfer our chief public conveyances from the King's highways to a number of Joint-stock Railway Companies, is a subject which demands the early, the deliberate, and the serious attention of Parliament.
I need not, Sir, occupy the time of the House by pointing out how important it is to a commercial and manufacturing people like ourselves that our means of conveying persons and goods from place to place should be as perfect as possible; every one must be aware how much has been done in this way during the last twenty or thirty years. It would be
*From a corrected edition published by Ridge way,
978
difficult to estimate the value of these improvements, or their effect upon the trade and prosperity of the country. They have carried competition not only into our smaller towns, but even into our villages; and the facilities which they have afforded to the dealer in visiting the warehouses of the manufacturer and the merchant, as well as in obtaining whatever he might require at the least expense and in the shortest space of time, have promoted in no inconsiderable degree that remarkable development of our internal industry during the last twenty years, which has so far outstripped the anticipations of those the best acquainted with the subject. I should have hesitated much before I brought forward this resolution, had I thought it would check in any degree individual enterprise or fair and legitimate speculation; but I am persuaded it will have no such effect. Though my proposition had been years ago the law of the land, I believe we should not have had one project the less before us. Experience shows in this as well as in other countries, that legislative restrictions, required by the public interests, do not prevent individuals from embarking their capital in public works affording the probability of a reasonable return. We all know, Sir, how much this country is indebted to individuals and companies for great and useful works; but for its water communications with the metropolis and other places, Manchester would now have been merely a large village. The illustrious Duke to whom the public is chiefly indebted for this improvement, is justly considered as among the greatest benefactors of his country; nor must we forget what is due to the public-spirited individuals who first undertook, under many and great discouragements, that truly national work, the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, the success of which has led to the extensive introduction of similar works on the continent, and still more in America. Hitherto on our public roads the most perfect competition has always existed; whoever paid the tolls was at liberty to use them. If any improvement took place which tended to lower the cost or to accelerate the speed of our public conveyances, the public immediately had the full benefit of it; but in the numberless Acts now before the House, no security is taken that the public should have the benefit of any improvement on railways. The superiority of this over all other modes of travelling in respect of rapidity, is perhaps not greater than the capability it promises of reduction of cost. The general

979
introduction of railways may be of great future benefit to the country; and if the public do not reap from them all the advantage it is entitled to, the fault will be laid, and justly so, at our door. It is our duty, Sir, to give every fair encouragement to the enterprise of individuals and of associations, but we are at the same time bound to take care that we do not confer rights and privileges on any individual, or set of individuals, which may be employed to the public detriment, or which may hinder the public from hereafter reaping advantages they would have enjoyed but for the existence of such rights and immunities. All Acts of Parliament conferring on a Joint-stock Company the power of making a canal or railway between any two or more places, necessarily confer peculiar powers and privileges on the subscribers, the abuse of which ought consequently to be guarded against. Such Acts authorise companies to carry their works through the estates and properties of private individuals, often inflicting inconveniences and injuries which no pecuniary compensation can remove or repair, the only justification for which—and in my opinion it is always a sufficient one—being the subservience of private interests to the public good. But this is not all; these Acts further give them what is really equivalent to a monopoly. I put the case thus strongly because it is a fact, that between any two or more places that can be pointed out there is a certain line that is preferable to every other line for a railway or a canal; and which may, indeed, be the only practicable one that can be selected. Now the chances are ten to one that this preferable line will be the first that will be occupied; and a company authorised by the Legislature to take possession of it has thereby acquired an incommunicable privilege and a substantial monopoly, inasmuch as no company that may be formed at any future time for making a new canal or a new railway between the same places, could come into the field under equally favourable circumstances. The advantage conferred in this way may be in some cases so very great as to render all subsequent competition impossible, and in almost all cases it must be very decided. Not only, however, would there be the obstacle of an inferior line in the way of a new company, but the difficulties to be overcome in getting a new Act, the time necessary for the completion of the undertaking, and the vast amount of capital required all contribute to secure the
980
monopoly conferred on the subscribers to the first line, and prevent their profits from being governed by that principle of competition which is in ordinary cases the best protection of the public interests. The railway from London to Liverpool, for example, will cost probably five or six millions sterling. Suppose, now, that the speculation should turn out a profitable one, and that the shareholders realize a large dividend, it is plain that, under the circumstances of the case, it would be all but impossible to reduce it, or to lessen their charges upon the public, by bringing a rival establishment into the field; for, first, the existing company is in possession of the best line; and, second, were it seriously in tended to form a rival establishment, the original company would seek to deter them by reducing their charges; and if, as is probable, they succeeded in this way in getting rid of the threatened competition, they might again raise their charges to the continued injury of the public. But suppose that, in spite of all the difficulties opposed to the formation of a new company, one is formed, obtains an Act, and actually comes into competition with the present line, would not the obvious interests of both parties, unless prevented by some such precaution as that which I have proposed, inevitably bring about some understanding between them, by which the high charges would be further confirmed, and all chance of competition removed to a greater distance?
The history of our Metropolitan Water Companies is most instructive on this point. After a fierce contention among themselves, they came to an agreement by which they parceled the town into districts; and having assigned one to each company, they left it to obtain from the inhabitants the utmost it can obtain, and to profit, without let or hindrance of any kind, by the extension of this ever-growing metropolis The public, too, is served not merely with a dear, but also with a bad article; and the probability of relief is perhaps more distant than it would have been had some of the companies not been established.
It is evident from what has been stated, that in such cases we have no security in competition. I am confirmed in this opinion. by the Report of a Select Committee on the supply of water for the metropolis, printed in 1821.
"The public is at present without any protection even against a further indefinite extension of demand. In cases of dispute, there is no tribunal but the boards of the companies

981
themselves to which individuals can appeal; there are no regulations but such as the companies may have voluntarily imposed on themselves, and may therefore at any time revoke. All these points, and some others of the same nature, indispensably require legislative regulation, where the subject-matter is an article of the first necessity, and the supply has, from peculiar circumstances, got into such a course that it is not under the operation of those principles which govern supply and demand in other cases."
The Committee afterwards state, that the object of Parliament in granting these Acts was to give the benefit of competition to the public, but that they had failed of their object; and they suggest that the companies should be obliged to lay their accounts annually before Parliament.
The history of the existing canals, waterworks, &c, affords abundant evidence of the evils to which I have been adverting. An original share in the Lough borough Canal, for example, which cost 142 l. 17s-, is now selling at about 1,250 l. and yields a dividend of 90 l. or 100 l. a-year The fourth part of a Trent and Mersey Canal share, or 50 l. of the Company's stock, is now fetching about 600/., and yields a dividend of about 30 l. a-year. And there are various other canals in nearly the same situation. But the circumstances already specified, that is, the possession of the best, or it may be, the only practicable line, and the vast capital required for the formation of new canals, have enabled the associations in question, unchecked by competition, to maintain rates of charge which have realized the enormous profits referred to for a long series of years. The advance in the value of the New River Company's shares may be referred to as affording a further and even more striking illustration of the same principle.
It is plain from the facts now stated, and I might have referred to fifty other similar instances, that competition in such cases is not to be depended upon, as a means of reducing the exorbitant rates of charge which produce such extraordinary and unlooked-for profits. But even though competition might be depended upon, the question arises, whether it would be right to trust exclusively to its protection? And to this question a decided negative should be given. The Legislature is bound to prevent, as far as it can, the unnecessary waste of the public capital. Now, it would be obviously a most flagrant waste of capital to construct two or three canals or railways to do the business that might be as well done by one, the only object, in fact, of the
982
construction of the latter being the reduction of the charges made by the first, a reduction which might have been effected without trouble or outlay, by a proper legislative provision.
We have already seen that five or six millions sterling will be required for the construction of a railway from London to Liverpool. Now, suppose that the undertaking should at some future time become an exceedingly profitable one, that the charges are not sufficiently reduced, and that in consequence it is resolved to construct a rival line of road. This rival line will probably require an additional outlay of something like five or six millions for its construction; in other words, in order to reduce the rates on the first, it will be necessary to lay out other five or six millions in making a second! Ought not the possibility of so egregious a waste of the money of the community to have been provided against? And this might have been done without any difficulty whatever. All that can be gained by the second road might have been as effectually accomplished by the Legislature, had they reserved a power to revise the rates or tolls chargeable on the first; so that under the circumstances supposed, a capital of five or six millions will have to be sacrificed to repair a legislative oversight.
But expensive and wasteful as this resource undoubtedly is, it is all but certain that it will have to be resorted to. Had a railway been established between London and Manchester in 1770, and rates of charges fixed that would have yielded a moderate profit at the time, it would be difficult to say what profit they would now have yielded, but it must have been quite enormous. The cotton trade may be said to have almost entirely grown up in that interval. So low indeed was the estimation in which it was held at the period referred to, and for several years after, that it is not so much as once alluded to in the "Wealth of Nations," published in 1777; though the annual value of the manufacture may now be moderately estimated at thirty-five millions! The effect that this wonderful increase has had on the population and wealth, of the country has been quite unprecedented in the history of the world. Liverpool, Manchester, and Glasgow, from inconsiderable places have become great, opulent, and flourishing cities. The population of Lancashire, which in 1770 was about 400,000, was in 1821, 672,731, and at present certainly exceeds 1,500,000, having nearly

983
quadrupled in little more than half a century. Now, can any one doubt that it would have been most unfortunate for Lancashire, and for the community at large, had the principal lines of communication with the metropolis, or any other considerable place been assigned to associations in 1770, with power to levy certain specified tolls and charges in all time to come? So preposterous an arrangement would long since have been felt as a great grievance, and the interference of the Legislature been imperatively required. But can that which, would have been folly in 1770, 1790, or 1800, be wisdom in 1836? Astonishing as has been the progress of the country during the last half century, there is every reason to conclude that its progress during the ensuing fifty years will be still greater. Every department of industry has been for years, and continues to be, steadily and rapidly progressive. It is stated by Dr. Kay, of Manchester, in a Report to the Poor-Law Commissioners, dated July last, that as many new mills were then in the course of being constructed in the cotton district of Lancashire as would, when completed, furnish employment for 45,042 mill hands, and require a moving force equivalent to 7,507 horses! If we look at the other great branches of manufacture we shall find a corresponding advance. The improvement in agriculture is not less striking. The application of bone manure, a more effectual system of drainage, improved machinery, and a better and more scientific rotation of crops, have done for agriculture what the steam-engine and the spinning-frame have done for manufactures; and it has made, and is now making, the most extraordinary advances. But it is unnecessary to trouble the House with details as to this point. It is sufficient to state, that at this moment the population of Great Britain, exclusive of Ireland, is certainly increasing at the rate of 260,000 or 270,000 a-year, and that we have not imported any foreign corn during the last four years.
But besides the improvement of the country, and the consequent increase of traffic, may we not also look for great improvements in the construction of locomotive engines, and in the whole machinery and management of railroads? These are admitted, on all hands, to be in their infancy; and yet the House of Commons has been legislating with respect to them as if they had already attained to the
984
highest degree of maturity and perfection. Parliament fixes a rate of charge, supposed to be capable of yielding a profit to a company using the present engines upon roads of the present construction; so that if, as is most probable, the engines and roads should be so much improved, and the costs and other charges so much reduced, as to enable them to perform the same amount of work for a half or a fourth part of the present cost, the public will be shut out from all participation in the advantage!—Would not this be monstrously injurious to the interests of the public? And is not Parliament bound to provide against such a contingency?
The Legislature seems to have been always impressed with a conviction that while, by protection and the granting of peculiar privileges, it gave all due encouragement to enterprise and the undertaking of great public works, it was also bound to provide that the subscribers to them did not, by means of their peculiar privileges, acquire exorbitant profits at the expense of the public. It is to be regretted, that the measures devised in this view have been singularly ill fitted for the attainment of their professed object. They have consisted mostly in the limitation of the rates of charge for the services rendered, and, in a few instances, in the limitation of the dividend. But the limitation of the rates of charge is, in a progressive country, good for little or nothing. The increase of population and trade has been so very great, that a toll that would have yielded an ample profit on a railway constructed a dozen or twenty years ago, might now, perhaps, yield an equal amount of profit were the rates reduced a half. Nothing, in fact, can be more improvident, or more absurd, than that Parliament should, once for all, fix the rate of toll when an undertaking is entered upon, and divest itself, unless by violating the right of property, of the power to reduce that rate in all time to come, how greatly so ever it may exceed what would be a liberal return for the capital vested in the undertaking. I need not add, that it is of the greatest importance to the interests of the public that the cost of internal communication should be reduced as low as possible. The limitation of the dividend is a practice found to be as ineffectual as the fixing a maximum on the rate of charge. The public has no check on the system of management, nor can it

985
explore the thousand channels in which profits may be distributed under other names among the subscribers, nor has it any means of preventing the wanton and; extravagant outlay of money on the works, &c. To make the provision for limiting the dividends good for anything, it would be necessary that all the proceedings of a company so limited should be controlled: by Commissioners appointed by Government. But I am aware that the objections to this are so numerous and obvious that I do not press this part of my resolution on the House.
For these, and a variety of reasons, I am clearly of opinion that Parliament should, when it establishes companies for the formation of canals, railroads, or such like undertakings, invariably reserve to itself the power to make such periodical revisions of the rates of charge, as it may under the then circumstances deem expedient. It should have the power to examine into the whole management and affairs of each company, to correct what may have been amiss in the former, and to fix the rates of charge for another period of years: always taking care that the proprietors are allowed a fair return for the original outlay of capital, as well as compensation for the risk which such undertakings are generally more or less subject to.
There is not the shadow of a reason for thinking that the reservation of the power to revise the tariff of charges, at defined periods, would prevent any undertaking from being entered upon, that promised a reasonable return; and in most cases, it would be a waste of the public capital to engage in any other. Those who take shares in canals and railroads, with the intention of holding them, do not look to exorbitant, but to reasonable profits for remuneration; and these would not be affected by the proposed provision.
When peculiar privileges and a substantial monopoly are conferred on any set of persons, the public interests ought always to be secured against their abuse: if competition afforded this security, it would be unnecessary, and therefore improper for the Legislature to interfere; but in cases of this sort competition can do really nothing, so that security against abuse, must (if sought for at all) be sought for in positive regulations.
The principle for which I have been contending is not a new one; it is one
986
indeed which is frequently acted upon, and has, in many cases, received the sanction of the Legislature. The limitation of rates and of dividends, to which I have already adverted, involves in fact the principle for which I am contending; and our Turnpike Acts, which are generally, I believe, granted for twenty-one: years, are somewhat analogous. The cases of the Smalls', the Longships', the Dungenness' Lights, and other private light houses, are instances in point. The parties by whom these light-houses were erected, were authorised to charge certain rates for a specified term of years, on all ships coming within a certain distance of their lights; the light-houses becoming, at the: end of such terms, the property of the Crown or the public: and yet though this be a more stringent regulation than any I propose introducing, the arrangement has always been regarded, and with justice, as a most improvident one, on the part of the public. The Smalls' light yielded its proprietors in 1831–32, a net revenue of 10,973 l., and when the Trinity House proposed to purchase it, the price asked for the residue of the term was 148,000 l. The case of the Sherries' light house is even more striking: it was made over for ever to private individuals by an Act of the 3rd of George 2nd, when the! rates of charge were fixed; and it now produces, such has been the increase of trade, above 12,500 l a year, nett revenue, over and above what is necessary for its maintenance.
But important as it is to have the charges on account of lights, as low as possible, it is infinitely more important that the charges on the principal lines of inland communication should be regulated by the lowest standard that will I suffice for their establishment and efficient maintenance. If the giving of power to the proprietors of the Smalls' light-house, to exact certain fees on all shipping for ninety-nine years, evinced a culpable inattention to the public interest; what are we to think of allowing the proprietors of railways to charge certain fees on all parties using them, in all time to come, though the traffic upon them be increased a hundred or a thousand fold? The history of the London Water Companies shows, also, how important it is that some such power as I am contending for, should be retained in the hands of the Legislature, when creating associations to which the

987
ordinary principles of competition do not apply.
The Americans have set us a good example in the management of their public works, and in the proceedings in their legislatures. Whether their practice in this respect be owing to the peculiarities of their social condition or the nature of their political institutions, or to what other cause, I will not venture to conjecture. The Erie Canal in the state of New York, one of the most important public works in the world, was completed only in 1825. It has proved a very prosperous concern; and notwithstanding that polls have been progressively reduced, (between 1832 and 1834 two years only, as much as thirty-five percent.) the revenue has increased. But not only have the tolls been reduced, there is already accumulated a surplus of five millions of dollars; in the year 1837 the whole outlay will be repaid, and this magnificent undertaking will in twelve years have paid the whole cost of its construction and other expenses, and become the property of the State, leaving whatever revenue the Legislature may think it expedient to raise beyond the necessary expenses of management and repair, to be applied to the formation of other public works, or to remit taxes raised for the general expenses of the State. In the United States I believe there is no railroad so ancient as that between Manchester and Liverpool, the first having been completed in 1827, but they are, to borrow a phrase from that country, "progressing" at an extraordinary rate. I find the State of New York alone, granted acts of incorporation to twenty-four rail-road companies as far back as 1832, and others are forming, I believe, at this time in every State of the Union. I will trouble the House with some particulars of one only. They refer to that between Boston and Providence.—By Act of Legislature the dividends are limited to ten per cent., at the expiration of twenty years the State may take the properly, paying the stockholders at par, and making up the dividends at ten per cent, for the whole twenty years, if the revenue should fall short of the amount.
And now, Sir, allow me a few words as to the particular motion with which I shall conclude. Some hon. Members, admitting perhaps the existence and magnitude of the evils I wish to provide against, may consider the proposed reservation as
988
affording the best or most effectual remedy. They may think that, after a certain term of years the roads ought to become, as in the case I have just cited, the property of the public. I have not ventured so far. There are many serious objections to any such resumption, and I doubt if a single advantage could be obtained by making these roads public property which will not be as effectually secured by the plan I propose, for a revision of the rates after a certain number of years. As to the proposed term of years it is one to which I am not particularly wedded, a few years more or less being of little importance. It may be said, perhaps, that the intended provision comes too late, seeing that some' of the principal lines are already occupied; but this is no reason for deferring the measure, though it be a good one for carrying it into effect, with as little delay as possible. It is high time certainly, that the efforts of the Legislature should be directed more effectually to the protection of the public interests in this particular, than it has hitherto been, otherwise great injury will be done, and great public dissatisfaction will eventually be created.—I beg Sir, to move—
"That in all Bills for Railways, or other public works of that description, it be made a condition, with a view to the protection of the public interests, which might otherwise be seriously compromised, that the dividends be limited to a certain rate, or that power be reserved to Parliament of revising and fixing at the end of every twenty years, the tolls chargeable on passengers and goods conveyed."
Mr. Gisbornewas opposed to the first branch of the alternative in the hon. Gentleman's resolution—namely, that which proposed to limit the amount of the dividends. In his opinion, that would be the sure way of securing improvidence in the management of the affairs of any company. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the Turnpike Act in support of his proposition. He (Mr. Gisborne) had never known a case in which the tolls had been reduced. The other branch of the alternative in the hon. Gentleman's resolution—namely, that which reserved to Parliament the right of revising and fixing at the end of every twenty years the tolls chargeable on passengers and goods, he should not oppose. Some limit to the continuance of existing tolls appeared to him to be very proper. Whether twenty years was the period at

989
which the revision of them ought to take place he was not then prepared to say. It appeared to him that the hon. Member for Ipswich under-estimated the value of competition in keeping down the rates. As to the illustrations which the hon. Gentleman had derived from American legislation on the subject, they appeared to him (Mr. Gisborne) to be inapplicable. In America the projectors of canals or railways were not required to give large bonuses to landed proprietors. There was a phrase in the last part of the hon. Gentleman's resolution which he confessed he did not understand. On that, however, he would not dwell. But, supposing the resolution were agreed to, he presumed the hon. Gentleman would bring in a Bill founded upon it. Now was there any probability that such a Bill could pass both Houses of Parliament during the present Session? He should think it a great injustice if the Bills already passed were not subjected to the same restriction as that which the resolution purposed to impose upon all Bills not yet passed, or that might hereafter be introduced. His objections to the resolution were not so strong as to induce him to divide the House against the adoption of it, but at the same time he hoped the hon. Gentleman would consent to withdraw the first clause, and confine himself only to that part of it which proposed to give to Parliament the power of revising and fixing the amount of tolls, at the end of particular periods. If the hon. Gentleman would consent to adopt that course, he (Mr. Gisborne) should see no objection to the passing of the resolution; but at the same time he thought it ought only to be adopted upon the full understanding that it was to have no effect in itself, and to be considered only as a mere declaration of opinion on the part of the House, unless it were followed up by some ulterior measure, which should extend its operation as well to Bills already passed, as to those at present under the consideration of the Legislature.
Lord Stanleywas fully sensible of the very great importance of the subject, and he thought the thanks of the public were due to the hon. Member for Ipswich for submitting such a resolution to the House, particularly at a time when speculation on railroads was carried to a very great extent. At the same time he was bound to say, that although he concurred in the general principle of the resolution, he was by no means prepared to assent to it in the shape in which it then stood. The wording of it,
990
he thought, was open to many objections. In the first place, he should be altogether opposed to any attempt that might be made, either by a resolution or a Bill, to fix the maximum or minimum of profit that any Railway Company should be allowed to enjoy. In support of a provision of that kind, the hon. Member had referred to the clause introduced for that purpose in the Manchester and Liverpool Railway Bill; but all the world knew that that provision of the Bill had always been, and would always be practically evaded. At the same time, he quite concurred with the hon Gentleman, that it was necessary for the protection of the public that there should be a power vested in the Legislature, of limiting in some manner the profits which these companies might derive after the lapse of a number of years; and he also agreed with the hon. Gentleman, that this could only be done by periodical revisions of the tolls or rate of carriage. Railroads, from their very nature, must always be a virtual monopoly. It was necessary, therefore, to give the public a protection against them. Improvements in machinery might enable the proprietors of railways to carry passengers at a much less cost, and yet at a fair profit to themselves. But unless a power were somewhere vested of revising the amount of the toll, the public in every instance, where a Railway Bill had been passed previous to the adoption of the improved machinery, would be for ever deprived of that advantage of cheap communication which they would otherwise enjoy from the improvements in science. The only possible remedy for this would be such a periodical revision by Parliament as the hon. Gentleman proposed in the latter part of his resolution. He should be disposed, therefore, to support that part of the resolution, excluding some of the words which were mere surplusage, and which would therefore be open to objection, if upon that ground alone. He thought the resolution ought to stand in this shape: "That it be made a condition prior to the passing of any Railway Bill, that power should be reserved to Parliament of revising and fixing, at the end of every twenty years, the amount of tolls to be levied under the said Bill." A resolution of that kind he thought would not only be not objectionable, but highly desirable. Then came the question—How were they to deal with the matter practically, or what was the resolution to do? Upon that point he (Lord Stanley) differed from the hon. Gentleman, who thought that

991
such a resolution ought not to be applied to the Bills now in progress through Parliament. He thought it should he applied to every one of them; and whatever the objection upon general grounds might be, he thought that they ought in this instance to run all the risks of making an ex post facto law, and to apply it to all Bills which had already passed in the course of the Session. Because, if to the Bills already passed it were an objection that they conferred a monopoly, that objection would afterwards apply to them with double force, if they were permitted to continue to reap unlimited profits, whilst the profits of all railways subsequently established should be subject to the periodical revision of Parliament. As far as the objection on the score of monopoly went, therefore, he thought they were likely only to increase the evil, unless they followed up a resolution of this kind by a Bill applying the same principle to all Bills passed in the present Session of Parliament. What the time should be he did not pretend to say. Twenty years might be too long or too short, but whatever period should be fixed upon he thought it ought to be calculated as commencing, not from the passing of the Act, but from the time at which the railway came into operation. Many railway might take five or six years in their construction, and during that time, of course, the parties would be receiving no interest for their money. He thought that they ought to have the whole benefit of the period that Parliament should fix upon, whatever that period might be. When that period expired, Parliament would see whether they had derived a fair and reasonable profit, and whether, by improvements in machinery, a fair and reasonable profit could not be continued to them at a reduced rate of carriage. He repeated, that he should be prepared to support the resolution so amended as to embrace the propositions he had just stated; but, at the same time, he doubted whether, if it were necessary to bring in a Bill to apply the principle of the resolution to all measures passed in the present Session, it would be desirable for the hon. Gentleman to press his motion in the shape in which it now stood. He thought it would be much better that he should at once move for leave to bring in a Bill upon the subject. He should not be disposed to support a resolution of the kind proposed, unless he were certain that a Bill extending it to all railway measures would be subse-
992
quently carried. He thought, therefore, that the most advisable course for the hon. Gentleman to pursue would be to withdraw the present motion, and to move for leave to bring in a Bill imposing upon all railroads that had passed, upon all railroads at present under consideration, and upon all that might hereafter be proposed, this condition, that they should be subject to the revision of Parliament at the end of such a time as Parliament should think fit to fix.
Mr. Poulett Thomson, like the noble Lord who had just sat down, could not give his consent to a resolution of this kind unless it were to be made applicable to all railway Bills which had already passed. It would be most unjust to apply a rule to railroads hereafter to be undertaken which was not made applicable to those already commenced. The number of years at the end of which a revision should take place was a very fit subject for the consideration of a Committee. As far as he (Mr. Poulett Thomson) could form any opinion upon the subject, he should think twenty or twenty-one years would be the most proper period that could be fixed upon; but before any decision were come to upon that point, further consideration would be necessary. In any Bill upon the subject introduced by his hon. Friend, the Member for Ipswich, he should also be glad to have a provision introduced imposing upon all railway companies the obligation of making returns to Parliament of a statistical nature, by which the House might be placed in possession of the number of passengers conveyed on each railroad, the weight of goods carried, speed, wear and tear, &c. If a clause imposing such an obligation upon all companies were introduced into the Bill, he thought great advantages would result from it. Owing to the kindness of the proprietors of the Manchester and Liverpool railroad, he had received, with respect to that line of conveyance, such a statement as he had described, and he begged to assure the House that nothing could be more interesting. It threw a great deal of light upon these undertakings generally, and pointed out, in a striking and incontrovertible manner, the great advantages which the public derived from them. He trusted that his hon. Friend would yield to the suggestion of the noble Lord, namely, withdraw his motion, and move for leave to bring in a Bill.
Viscount Sandonheartily concurred in

993
the spirit of the proposition. He thought that Parliament ought not to confer upon any body of individuals the complete and positive control over such vast undertakings.
Mr. Humerose only to mate a single observation. His hon. Friend, the Member for Ipswich, had alluded to an instance of the pernicious effect of vesting a monopoly in individuals which ought not to be passed by with indifference. He meant the monopoly given to a particular person in a particular lighthouse, from which, for years past, that individual had been in the receipt of not less than 13,000 l. per annum. He thought that that single instance ought to be sufficient to induce any hon. Gentleman present to support the Bill which he hoped his hon. Friend would introduce embodying the substance of his present resolution. It would certainly be unjust to apply the principle to any railways unless it were applied also in the instance to which he alluded. He, therefore, agreed with the noble Lord (Stanley)that the most advisable course for his hon. Friend, the Member for Ipswich, to pursue would be to withdraw the present motion and move for leave to bring in a Bill.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhad only one remark to offer. As a Bill of this description was about to be introduced, as it appeared, with the general concurrence of the House, he hoped he should be allowed to avail himself of the opportunity that would then be afforded, of carrying into execution a design which he had long contemplated, namely, to introduce a provision making it obligatory upon all railways to convey his Majesty's mail at the same rate as they carried all manner of other goods. A provision of this kind would be necessary, because as railways were monopolies, they might otherwise make what exorbitant charge they pleased for the conveyance of the mail.
Mr. Morrison, after the general expression of the feeling of the House, begged to withdraw his motion, and in its stead to move for leave to bring in a Bill to the effect stated by the noble Lord.
Resolution withdrawn.
On the Question that leave be given to bring in a Bill,
Mr. E. Denisonrose to express a wish that the Bill about to be brought in should be made retrospective beyond the point yet suggested. Instead of being confined to Railroad Bills passed in the present Session, he thought it should be made to
994
have a retrospective operation upon all railroads now in operation in all parts of the kingdom.
Leave given.

CARLOW.—EJECTMENT OF PEASANTRY.
Colonel Bruen: If the hon. Member for Greenock meant to proceed with his Motion, he begged in the first place to present a petition which had been placed in his hands, from certain landed proprietors and freeholders of the county of Carlow, denying the allegation that they had thrown out of their possessions any of their Roman Catholic tannery on account of the votes given by them at the last election.
Petition laid on the Table.
Mr. Wallacebelieved, that there were a great many respectable persons in the county of Carlow, whose names were not attached to that petition. He begged to remind the House, that his Motion originated in a petition presented from one of the late Members for the county of Carlow, Mr. Visors, in which certain allegations were contained which the hon. and gallant Gentleman who now sat for the county, Colonel Bruen asserted, were not founded in fact. There was also another petition which he (Mr. Wallace) had presented from the tannery of the Messrs. Alexander, landowners in the county of Carlow. Independently of the allegations set forth in those petitions, there was in the Report of the Select Committee on Bribery at Elections, a mass of evidence, the whole of which it would be impossible for him to read to the House, but the substance of which would convince every one whom he addressed, that the Roman Catholic tenantry of the Protestant landlords of Carlow were acted upon by a combination which he could not call otherwise than illegal, and under the influence of which they would be driven from their possessions, and be supplanted by those who professed the Protestant faith. He firmly believed, that a combination of that kind did exist amongst the Protestant landlords of Carlow. He had stated that belief on a former occasion; and although ample opportunity had since been afforded, the allegation had never been denied. It was moreover asserted, that there was an agreement upon oath between the Protestants in that county, to keep up, by every means in their power, that combination which would have the effect of removing the Roman Catholic tenantry from their possessions, and substituting a Protestant tenantry in their place. In the

995
evidence given by the Rev. Mr. Maher before the Bribery Committee, there was a continuous strain of argument and of fact in proof of the assertion he (Mr. Wallace) was then putting forward. There was one instance related by the Rev. Mr. Maher with respect to the hon. and gallant Member for Carlow (Colonel Bruen) of no ordinary nature. It was stated in the evidence, that the hon. and gallant Member was asked—"Have you taken any means to dispossess your tenantry, where they have not been behind hand with their rents, and where they have given you no offence but by voting against your" The reply of the hon. and gallant Member was—" I have done so; and I may mention particularly the case of the man named Keogh. I took from him seventeen acres of land because he voted against me, and I have also taken care that he shall not be restored." He thought that that one instance was enough to prove the animus by which the landlords of Carlow were actuated. Under these circumstances, he could not anticipate that the Government would refuse to appoint a Commission of Inquiry to ascertain whether the allegations against the Protestant gentry on the one hand, and the Roman Catholic Priesthood on the other, were true or not. For his own part, he did not believe, that the allegations which had been made against the Roman Catholic priests were true. He thought they were a class of men who had well discharged their duties, and indeed it was truly marvellous to him, considering the state of Carlow for some years past, and the manner in which the Protestant landlords had treated their tenantry, that they had forborne as they had done; and he could easily foresee, that unless means were taken by the Government in Ireland to check such proceedings, things would soon be brought to a state which would render some legislative measure necessary to protect the Catholic peasantry in Carlow, and other parts of Ireland. It appeared from the evidence, that one of the means adopted to coerce the people, had been depriving them of the comfort of a fire! The tenantry were not only prohibited the free use of the bog-land for this purpose, but even from purchasing it; of this he believed the truth could not be doubted. Since the first petition had been presented upon the subject—indeed, within the last few days—astatement had been placed in his hands which went to verify all the material and important points of the allegations contained in the petition presented from Mr.
996
Vigors. This statement, which was published in the shape of a pamphlet, described the different townships in the county of Carlow, from which Roman Catholic electors, and Roman Catholics generally, had been ejected. From this narrative it appeared, that from the estate of the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Bruen) there had been ejected ninety-three families, comprising 503 individuals; from the estate of Mr. Newton, forty-one families, comprising 235 individuals; from the estate of Lord Beresford, 103 families, comprising 588 individuals; from the estate of Colonel Latouche, sixteen families, comprising ninety-nine individuals, making a total of 253 families, and 1,425 individuals. And it further appeared, that I since those ejectments had been effected, there had been issued notices to quit on the hon. and gallant Member's (Colonel Bruin's) estate to twelve families, comprising seventy nine individuals; on Mr. Alexander's estate, to seventeen families, comprising ninety-six individuals on Major Parson's estate, to twenty-two families, comprising 112 individuals; on Mr. Brewster's estate, to thirty-four families, comprising 174 individuals; so that, in the course of a very short time, the gross number of the Ejectment of Roman Catholics in Carlow would amount to 338 families, comprising 1,886 individuals. But that was not all since this statement had been put into his hands, private letters had been shown to him which went to show that somewhere about 200 Roman Catholics had been ejected by other landlords for the same causes in the same county; so that the gross total of the persons turned out of possession within the last three or four years did not amount to less than 2,000. It was, perhaps, hardly necessary for him to observe, that the condition of the unhappy creatures thus dispossessed was that of the most abject misery. The hon. and gallant Officer had said that the tenants moved of their own accord; if they did, it was because means were taken to induce them. They were led to believe, that if they did not, it would be the worse for them—that they would, on refusal, be exposed to the utmost severity of the law, but that if they assented, they would receive some little consideration, such as being allowed to take their beds away with them; a consideration of from 20 s. to 50 s. was also offered to them, if they would consent to pull down their houses, on the supposition; that it would prevent any outcry about their removal. The severities resorted to were deserving of attention: there was a

997
class of voters, who, when the time of an election arrived were directly called upon for their arrears of rent. There was another class of voters, who had, by a sort of tacit consent, been allowed to run into arrear of a portion of their rent, as a sort of abatement of it, but in the time of political contest, this allowance was forgotten; and for these very arrears the tenants were handed over to the tender mercies of the law, in a country where it was more unjustly executed than in any other, and in which Roman Catholics had no chance of obtaining justice in the courts. Me had lately met an hon. Member who asked him what he intended to do with this motion? He told the hon. Member he should bring it forward, as he considered the inquiry necessary, in order that the House might sec whether it were deceived or not in the statements. made in it—and under the firm conviction, that a combination existed to drive the Catholic tenantry out of the country, and put Protestants in their place. The reply of the hon. Member was, "I have been to Carlow, all over it; I am acquainted with the landed interest there, and I am sure that in making such a statement you will be borne out by the fact." The testimony of this Gentleman was unimpeachable; he might be mistaken, but he thought not. He believed, that if the Commission were appointed, it would be seen that ejectments had been served upon whole villages of tenants who might happen to have been reluctant to vote according to the wishes of the landlord,—attended with an amount of law expenses, which this class of people were unable to bear. The general feeling of the Irish landlords was, that the tenants were bound to vote according to the landlord's wishes, and, that if they did not, it was not an unconstitutional act to eject them. He had already expressed his opinion, that the Roman Catholic priests did not deserve the character which had been attributed to them by the Protestants. He did not believe, that the Catholic priesthood had in any respect overstepped the bounds of their sacred duty. But if the severities practised by the Protestant landlords against- their poor and helpless Catholic tenantry were allowed to continue, he hoped the priests would take a much more active part than they had hitherto done. [Oh, oh!] He would repeat the expression of that hope, since it excited hon. Members. If Protestant O'Sullivans and M'Ghees were
998
allowed to travel the country for the purpose of arousing and exciting the Protestant population, it would become the duty of the Catholic priesthood to admonish their flocks as to the persons they should elect as their representatives in the House of Commons. He now came to another part of the subject upon which he must be allowed to make a few-comments The House would recollect, that he had some time since presented a petition from a Mr., or as he was called, Captain Woodcock. He had since ascertained that the petitioner was a lieutenant on half-pay, in the Dragoon Guards—a highly deserving character, an excellent and a very clever gentleman. Now, it was true that this Mr. Woodcock was a very considerable political agitator, and an unflinching opponent to Conservatism wherever it was to be found, whether in the county of Carlow or elsewhere. It was also true, that Captain Woodcock had done everything in his power to obtain for the different constituencies within his reach in Ireland such Members as he believed would best represent their interests in Parliament. There was nothing Captain Woodcock had done as a politician that was not highly deserving of the approbation of those amongst whom he lived. Now, when he presented that gentleman's petition, the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Bruen) made two statements, which were worthy of observation: first, that he had been under the necessity of prosecuting Captain Woodcock for poaching; and, second, that Captain Woodcock had been obliged to appear at the bar of the House of Lords for some misconduct. Now he (Mr. Wallace) held in his hand the petition of Captain Woodcock, together with his game-certificate for the year in which the gallant officer opposite alleged he was prosecuted for poaching. Independent of this, he was also in possession of other and much more extraordinary information. Captain Woodcock averred that he was not prosecuted by the gallant Officer for poaching, but that the gallant Officer directed two of his tenants, named Nowlan, to prosecute him (Captain Woodcock) for trespassing on the land occupied by them. Now what was the House prepared to hear? Captain Woodcock was prosecuted by these two men. He went to the petty sessions to answer the offence alleged against him. When he arrived there what was his astonishment to find the gallant Officer

999
(Colonel Bruen), who, in fact, was his prosecutor, sitting upon the bench as a magistrate! As an English officer Captain Woodcock had seen nothing of this kind before, and the effect of it was such as to lead him to doubt whether he was in a court of justice or not. Captain Woodcock's offence was this: he had obtained permission from a number of persons to shoot over their land, and, well aware of the feeling that existed between the adverse parties in that country, he was determined, if possible, to give no offence. With that view, and to prevent the possibility of his trespassing on any of the enemy's territory, he asked those who gave him permission to shoot to send a person out with him to see that he did not get into the wrong country. In spite, however, of all his precaution, it so happened that he trespassed on a very small piece of a barren bog belonging to the gallant Member (Colonel Bruen). When told that he had no right to shoot there, his reply was, that he had leave from some of the tenants to go over the land held by them; but rather than do them any injury, he would leave the ground immediately. With that, he called his dogs together, and moved off. He had found no game, and consequently had fired at no game; yet for this trivial offence he was doubly prosecuted; for the two tenants of the gallant Officer brought two separate actions of trespass against him, and in each of these he was subjected to a fine of 107. Captain Woodcock appealed from this decision of the petty sessions to the quarter sessions, when, what again was his astonishment to find the gallant Officer again appearing in the double capacity of prosecutor and judge! In one of the Carlow newspapers it was stated that the assistant barrister who presided at the quarter sessions, finding himself at a loss, in consequence of the legal adviser of Captain Woodcock stating that he was impeached under one Act and tried under another, retired out of court with the gallant Officer (Col. Bruen) for the purpose of holding a consultation. The result was just what might have been expected—the original judgment was affirmed. Captain Woodcock, however, stated that he believed the decision on the appeal was entirely in opposition to the opinion of the assistant-barrister; and with that belief firmly impressed upon his mind, he boldly got up and told the court that they must at their peril attempt to levy the penalties—that they had acted illegally, and that they would never dare to carry their judgment into execution. Up to this
1000
moment the penalties had never been enforced. With regard to the transaction in the House of Lords, he did not know the noble Lord to whom the petitioner alluded; but he understood that something had been said by a noble Lord in the House which the petitioner thought injurious to his character, and he called that noble Lord to account; but afterwards, being sensible of his error, he immediately made the first approach to set himself right with that individual, which it seems the petitioner had no difficulty in doing. He was brought to the bar of the House of Lords, where he made an apology or statement; and such was its effect, that he was discharged without being called upon to pay the usual fees. Tins was the second petition presented by Mr. Woodcock, in treating the House to take such measures as would insure justice being done to the people of the county of Carlow, against whom there was a combination amongst the Aristocracy, which, if not looked at in time, would lead to the most injurious consequences. It was also his (Mr. Wallace's) opinion, that unless some immediate investigation was instituted, such scenes would be enacted in that county as every Member of that House would deeply regret. With these observations he had no hesitation in proposing that an Address be presented to his Majesty, praying—
"That his Majesty be graciously pleased immediately to issue a Royal Commission to proceed to the county of Carlow, there to inquire, first, into the whole facts and circumstances set forth in the petition presented to this House on the 15th of February by Nicholas Hayward Vigor's, Esq., and since by other persons belonging to the said county of Carlow, and especially into those parts of the said petitions which relate to the persecution and Ejectment of the Parliamentary electors of the said county therein referred to, by removing them from their homes and possessions, or otherwise coercing or maltreating them, to the injury or the ruin of them and their families; second, whether any and what measures would best secure the independence of the electors of the county of Carlow, and the purity of election in that county;—and to report their opinions, with the evidence, to this House touching all the matters herein referred to."
Mr. Humeseconded the motion.
Mr. Hardybelieved those gentlemen who were sitting behind and around him had nothing very material to say with reference to the motion of the hon. Member for Greenock. That motion could not be considered extraordinary after Mr. Visors himself had stated, that unless the facts con-

1001
tained in the petition he had presented to that House were fully inquired into, it was impossible they could, ever ascertain what was really the truth, or come to any satisfactory conclusion upon the subject. The hon. Gentleman, in the speech with which he had accompanied his motion, had tied that, according to the allegations of Mr. Vigor's, whole families had been ejected from their houses by the Protestant landlords of the county of Carlow, in consequence of the votes they had given at the elections for that county. Now Mr. Vigors had himself been examined before a Committee of that House, and in not one single instance had he succeeded in producing proof of improper conduct or intimidation on the part of any of the individuals against whom such accusations had been made. The same gentleman had stated that 1,000 l. of Mr. Raphael's money was to be applied towards the relief of the persons ejected from their homes, but had not, in the course of his examination, been fortunate enough to prove that a single shilling of that money had been made use of for any such purpose. In the part which he had taken with reference to the Carlow election, he had acted from a sense of public duty, and he trusted he might be excused if he availed himself of the present opportunity to allude to an imputation which had been cast upon himself at the time Mr. Vigor's petition was presented. An h n and learned gentleman, who was now no longer a Member of that House, had charged him with having been guilty of bribery himself. That charge was most calumnious and unfounded. In 1826 he had been defeated at Pontefract, as the advocate of Catholic emancipation. He had on that occasion petitioned against the return, and the circumstances of the election were brought under the notice of a Committee of that House. He was occupied five days in endeavouring to prove agency, but in vain. Upon that occasion Mr. Harrison and Mr. Sergeant Spunkier were the counsel opposed to him, and Mr., now Baron, Alderson, and Mr. W. Adam, the present Master in Chancery, and who was now frequently seen in that House as a messenger from the Lords, were employed on his side. No question had been put by any of those gentlemen from which anything savoring of bribery on his part could be gathered or suspected; and he would repeat, that the charge was false and unfounded. He was ready to meet it in broad daylight, and at any time; but he could not let the opportunity afforded him by the present discus-
1002
sion pass over without giving it, as he had a right to give, his unqualified denial. He might plead, indeed, that a period of ten years had been allowed to elapse before that charge had been made or heard of. When, three years ago, he brought in a Bill against bribery and corruption at elections, and whilst that Bill was in its progress through the House, it was most extraordinary, could such a charge as was now brought' against him be maintained, that no one then accused him of being an unfit person to bring that Bill forward, on the grounds of being guilty of the very things to put an end to which it was introduced. He thanked the House for its indulgence in allowing him to enter upon a matter so deeply affecting his character, and concluded by expressing a hope, that whatever steps the House should take with reference to the motion of the hon. Member for Greenock, they would take care that justice was done not only in regard to Carlow, but to any other part of the country which might ever become the object of a similar investigation.
Mr. Humethought the attack which had just been made upon the late hon. and learned Member for Dublin was the most extraordinary he had ever heard. When Mr. O'Connell charged the hon. Member for Bradford with bribery, he never thought fit to stand up and deny it. Nay, the charge had been distinctly made against him twice, and yet he sat still. He spoke from his own knowledge of the fact. He was present when Mr. O'Connell twice charged the hon. Member with bribery, and he never rose to assert, as he had now, in the absence of Mr. O'Connell, done, to state that it was false, calumnious, and unfounded. As Mr. O'Connell was not now present, he thought that it would have been as well if the hon. and learned Member had waited a few days before he gave so direct a contradiction to the charge, knowing, as he must have known, that no explanation could then be given. But when the- hon. and learned Member also said that Mr. Vigors did not before a certain Committee offer any explanation on the subject of the allegations contained in his petition, the hon. Member ought to know that that Committee was appointed under special instructions connected with the application of certain moneys, and that it would not have been possible for that Committee to have admitted any explanation of the kind.
Mr. Hardywas anxious to explain. He thought the hon. Member for Middlesex could not have been present when the

1003
charge of bribery was made against him, or the hon. Member must have known that on two occasions he had risen to address the House, and was on both occasions told by the Speaker, that the proper opportunity to give his explanation was, when the petition of Mr. Vigors should be brought forward. When the charge was first made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, it was on his bringing forward the question of the Carlow election. As soon as the hon. and learned Member had spoken, he went out of the House, as was usual in the course of such a proceeding; and he (Mr. Hardy) believed it was under the direction of the Speaker that he did so. Under such circumstances he did not think it proper to say anything in the absence of Mr. O'Connell. [Laughter] Had he ventured to do so, he had no doubt that those hon. Gentlemen who now smiled would have told him what their opinion was as to his answering the hon. and learned Gentleman in his absence. Therefore he took the opportunity of doing so when he was in the House. That was exactly the fact. The hon. Member for Middlesex thought that the proper opportunity for taking notice of it had passed away. He had been anxious to take notice of it before not that he apprehended, anything from the charge, but because he had heard it said, in private company, that the charge had been made and not refuted.
Lord John Russellperfectly recollected on the former occasion that after the hon. and gallant Member for Carlow had made his statement, it was considered that the debate was at an end, and he (Lord John Russell) then rose and told the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, that as no question personal to himself was then before the House, it would be better for him to reserve his explanation until the motion on Mr. Vigors's petition was brought on. With respect to the present motion, it certainly was one entirely without precedent. He thought, to issue a Commission to inquire whether any person had been removed from his house and possessions in the county of Carlow during a certain period would be a most inconvenient course for the House of Commons to take. It would be a very doubtful and perplexing matter to inquire whether, on certain occasions, tenants had been ejected from their farms; because if the fact of their being ejected was established, the question would still remain whether they were ejected on account of their being bad tenants, in arrear of rent, or whether it was on account of the votes
1004
they gave at the elections. However, he did not mean to say, that a matter of this kind might not be made a proper subject of inquiry; but if so, it ought to be an inquiry either by that House, or by a Committee of its nomination. If the House should think it proper to enter into an inquiry of this kind, he should not be prepared to say, that he would oppose the wish of the House in that respect. But as to sending a Commission to Carlow, and still more as to the object which the hon. Member originally contemplated, that of inquiring whether the Vote by Ballot would not be a good remedy for the evil complained of, he conceived it would be a most unprecedented, and a most inconvenient course for the House to take. For this reason he should oppose the motion.
Mr. Gullyobserved, that it was very seldom that he claimed the indulgence of the House; but on the present occasion, after what had transpired, he begged to trespass for a short time on their attention. After having heard the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, it was quite impossible that he could refrain from making a few observations, inasmuch as he felt that he had himself in some degree calumniated the hon. and learned Gentleman—if what the hon. and learned Gentleman stated of himself was the fact. He certainly heard Mr. O'Connell accuse the hon. and learned Member on one occasion in this House of spending 7,040 l. by bribing electors in the borough of Pontefract to the amount of 23 l. for a single vote. On another occasion Mr. O'Connell repeated the charge, and yet the hon. and learned Member for Bradford did not give any explanation on either of those occasions. It was known, perhaps, to hon. Members, that on one election Mr. Raphael was a candidate for the borough of Pontefract, and of course his (Mr. Gully's) opponent. During that election a day never passed without his hearing it said by the people of Pontefract, that more money was spent by Mr. Raphael on that occasion, than ever had been spent at an election in that borough since Mr. Hardy was a candidate. These were the facts he heard. But even within the last three days he had received a letter from one of his constituents, in which he stated, that he had a great mind to send to Mr. O'Connell a letter he had received from the hon. and learned Member for Bradford when he was a candidate for Pontefract, stating exactly the sum he should receive on that occasion. He did not say for what purpose that money was to be given. The hon. and learned.

1005
Gentleman was no doubt acquainted with the writer of that letter. He had not got the letter with him, but would very readily produce it to the hon. and learned Member, if he desired it. He certainly at the time thought it very extraordinary, when the hon. and learned Member was making an accusation against Mr. O'Connell, and after being himself twice accused of bribing electors, that he did not instantly demand an inquiry into the subject himself.
Mr. Hardyshould be very greatly obliged if the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Pontefract would produce any letter addressed by him (Mr. Hardy) to any person, that letter should certainly be read to the House and the public; because if the hon. Member could produce any letter regarding bribery, it would be found stated in that letter, that he (Mr. Hardy) would have nothing to do with any proceeding of that kind, but would rather lose his election.
Mr. Gullysaid, he had the letter at home, and to-morrow he would bring it down to the House, to show that the writer had stated to him, that he had received a letter from the hon. and learned Member, and that he had a great mind to produce it to Mr. O'Connell.
Colonel Bruenwas so anxious that the state of the county of Carlow, and particularly the proceedings there since the year 1830, should be inquired into, that he should support the motion of the hon. Member for Greenock. He had come down to the House prepared to enter at very great length into the particulars of-the charge which had been so often preferred against him and other landlords in that county. But as he perceived the House desired that the discussion should as speedily as possible be brought to a close, he should confine himself to a brief explanation in reply to the hon. Member for Greenock. It had been asserted, that there had been a combination on the part of the landlords in the county of Carlow to extirpate from their possessions all tenants professing the Roman Catholic creed. Now, in the first place, he would meet this charge with a plain and distinct denial. There was not the slightest foundation for the charge. He did maintain, and he thought he should not be opposed in his position, that a landlord had a perfect right to dispose of his property in the manner he might think most fitting, without his being liable to be interfered with by that House, or by any other power. He maintained that a landlord had a right to eke a farm from a tenant who did not
1006
make it productive, and to transfer it to mother tenant, who had better claims: The hon. Member claimed to be well-informed on the state of the county of Carlow, because he had been there; but he (Colonel Bruen) could tell that hon. Member and the House, that if he had made inquiries of the proprietors of land he would have heard accounts of outrageous and monstrous proceedings on the part of the Roman Catholics quite sufficient to justify him in desiring an inquiry, whether that inquiry was by a Royal Commission or through a Committee of that House. Before the system of agitation had been commenced, there was not a more peaceable county in Ireland than the county of Carlow; but such had been the effects of that system, that unless the law was better administered the landlords would be compelled to combine in defence of their lives and liberties, and the consequence must be a serious collision. The landlords had a right to do what they pleased with their own—so long as they confined themselves within the limits of the present law. The hon. Member's present charge was nothing more nor less than a repetition of a charge brought forward, and answered before; and he (Colonel Bruen) thought that the circumstances of the priests not having been able, during the three months* interval, to bring forward new and better supported charges was pretty good proof of the weakness of the cause and the unsoundness of their allegations. The hon. Member for Greenock had complained, that the Carlow landlords did not give their tenants receipts in full; but the fact was, that the manner in which Irish tenants paid their rents was such as to preclude the possibility of receipts in full being given. They paid when, how, and what they liked, and frequently "not at all; and it was extremely difficult to see how receipts in full could be given to tenants who got rid of their obligations in this manner. He hoped the landlords of Ireland would have recourse hereafter to measures of a different kind—such measures as would enforce the payment of the rent. Yes, he hoped that they would hereafter act on a different system. Then, as regarded Captain Woodcock. He remembered that ten years ago Captain Woodcock had been prosecuted for poaching on his (Colonel Bruen's) grounds, and that the result of that prosecution had been the conviction of Captain Woodcock, who found that his knowledge of the English law would not apply to Ireland. The fine was not levied, because the object of the prose-

1007
cution had not been vindictive, but merely to show Captain Woodcock, that he could not shoot the game of the Irish landlords with impunity. On another occasion the same individual had been brought to the; bar of the House of Lords, on the complaint of a Peer, and had there made a public apology. He was let off without payment of the fees from motives of consideration on the part of their Lordships. But the point which he (Colonel Bruen) more particularly wished to impress on the House was the state of the county of Carlow. Such was the system pursued there by the Roman Catholic party, that every man: voting for the Conservative candidates did so at the risk of his life or property. Nothing could exceed the malevolence exhibited. On one occasion (and this he mentioned merely as an example of the length to which the feelings could be carried) a corpse had actually been torn from its grave in order to afford means for the gratification of the impotent spirit of revenge against the deceased for having voted against the popular party. He could multiply instances of that of which he complained, but he would abstain from mentioning more than one in addition. This circumstance had happened in his own presence. He alluded to an occasion when the town of Carlow was taken possession of by a mob of individuals collected from the neighborhood, who retained pos session of it eight days, during which time there were no military in the place, and when (after the interference at last of a few Magistrates) some show of authority had been made, thousands of these savages—[Oh, oh]—yes, savages, for if he told hon. Members of their acts they would not cavil at the term—were collected in an open space in the town, opposite the few who had assembled under the direction of the Magistrates, and it was only by the intervention of the priests, that the yelling, hooting multitude, were restrained from rushing upon those opposed to them. This was a thing which had occurred within his own knowledge, and which was capable of proof by thousands of witnesses. But he would not weary the House by entering further into these details. He thought enough had been shown to prove the necessity for some inquiry on the part of the House, in order to prevent, if possible, the dreadful consequences which must arise from a collision between the landlords and the tenantry. It was immaterial to him in what form the inquiry was conducted; but he hoped that it would certainly be
1008
taken up by the House, and carried in such manner as would render it effectual.
Mr. Hopedid not rise for the purpose of saying anything on the merits of this particular motion, as he had already expressed his desire to forward the inquiry in any way that was calculated to bring it to a satisfactory issue. He confessed, however, that he felt surprised that the hon. Member for Greenock should have thought proper to make charges of so very grave a nature without having at the same time provided himself with something approaching to proof, and without supplying those opposed to him with some distinct and authenticated statement of facts, to which they might address themselves in explanation. He felt himself in the situation of not having had a single fact from the hon. Member for Greenock to which he could offer a reply in explanation. The one sole fact which the hon. Member adduced in support of his charges was, that an hon. Member of that House had, in conversation, admitted that the charges in question were in all probability true; but the speech of the hon. Member did not present any tangible point to which a reply could be offered in the way of refutation. The hon. Member, in referring to the petition of Mr. Vigors, had omitted to read the name of Lord Beresford, although that nobleman was mentioned therein; and this he took as a tacit admission that the hon. Member did not agree in the statement made against his Lordship. But in reference to that subject he would draw the attention of the House to a correspondence in a Dublin paper, between a clergyman named Maher, a curate on Lord Beresford's estate, and a Roman Catholic Priest named Tyrrell, brother of a gentleman of that name examined before the Carlow committee. The hon. Gentleman read extracts from the letters to which he referred. Father Maher wrote as follows, in The Dublin Evening Post, in April, 1835, dated Carlow:—
Dear Sir.—We are sadly persecuted in this most unhappy county. You seldom write us a word of consolation, or a word to check our 'present landlords in their mad career. The offence of having exercised the elective franchise conscientiously, and in favour of a Whig candidate (Mr. Raphael), is not to be forgiven, at least in this world. The offender and his family are to be exterminated.
N.B.—Lord Beresford has served two town lands with ejectments. Their offence is their Popish creed Perhaps 500 persons are, by

1009
these ejectments, to be thrown houseless on the world. Nothing can save the people but a poor-rate. We shall very soon petition the House of Commons on that subject.
The following letter of Priest Tyrrell was published in a Popish journal (The Leinster Independent), under the control of the priests, with the following introduction:—
In justice to the accused, although he be a Beresford, we lay before our readers a letter of the Reverend Thomas Tyrrell, parish priest of Terrill and contradictory of Mr. Maher's statement. Mr. Tyrell's object, in corning forward to vindicate Lord Beresford, is a laudable one, "to avert the evil."
Mr. Tyrrell's letter was as follows:—
To the Editor of The Dublin Evening Post.
April, 1835.
Sir.—On the receipt of The Evening Post this day, I was surprised to see a statement there made fey the Reverend James Maher, curate of Carlow, namely, that Lord Beresford had served ejectments on two town-lands in this county. Now there are but two town lands out of lease on Lord Beresford's property, in this county, and one of them is situated in my parish, named Knockbower, and no ejectment has been served there. I am sorry Mr. Maher would give credit to flying reports; he should consult those who are acquainted with the circumstances, before he brands Lord Beresford with such a mark. I am negotiating with Lord Beresford for the tenants in the town-land in my parish.
The Editor of The Evening Post made a long commentary on the above letter, from which he would read one extract:—
The Evening Mail and Carlow Sentinel, with their accustomed recklessness of truth, asserted that we were reluctantly obliged to admit the "utter fallacy" of the Reverend J. Maher's statements against Lord Beresford. So far from manifesting any reluctance, we were pleased at finding, by Mr. Tyrrell's letter, that the charges were groundless, and we rejoiced at it from our previous recollection of this excellent character of the noble Lord as a landlord."
Priest Maher again addressed The Evening Post, in a letter dated April 20, 1835, in which he observed, that
Ejectments have not been actually served, only threatened, in Knock bower. I made a mistake. A respectable gentleman promised on the part of the tenantry to procure peace able possession without putting his Lordship to the expense of serving ejectments.
He would also read extracts from a letter in reply to the above, in the same paper, by the Reverend T. Tyrrell:—
April 24,1835.
Sir,—I perceive by The Evening Post of
1010
this day, that the rev. James Maher is at hi work again, and endeavours to make the world believe that he made no mistake in his first letter. How has he answered the statements respecting Knock bower, on which there were no ejectments served? By acknowledging the facts, and thereby giving his own statement a flat contradiction. When Mr. Maher writes again, he should be certain of the truth of what he puts on paper, before he indulges in such language. My reason for troubling you at first was to show the world that Lord Beresford was never oppressive, so far as my parish is concerned; never tumbled a cabin, though a good many in this town-land were out of lease since he came to the property; and, as fair play is a jewel, let me turn your attention to some of his acts of kindness, and I do think that Lord Beresford is kind-hearted and good, whatever may have been the cause of ejectments in other places. He has given a farm of forty acres to the old tenant, at my request, when his lease expired. He has continued four or five cabin-keepers in their cabins, charging no rent. He has forgiven arrears of a small spot of land to two orphans, and let them the land at a cheap rate. He commissioned me to pay one old tenant, in capable of labour, 5l. 4s. a-year. But these are trifles, when compared to the whole of what my parish owes Lord Beresford, who has given a lease of an acre of land for 5s. a-year for ever. On this acre, before the lease was obtained from him, or before he had the land, were built an excellent parochial-house and offices, and a very good chapel, with two school-houses. I leave these facts to speak for themselves. Mr. Maher perceives I let him down quietly. My politics are opposed to those of Lord Beresford and of Mr. Maher, one being a Conservative, and the other a Radical; but differing so widely as I do from both, I will not thereby be prevented from doing ample justice to either of them, or to any one.
(Signed) THOMAS TYRRELL.
He could show, and shall be ready to do so whenever the opportunity occurred—that Lord Beresford had made no distinction between Catholics and Protestants; and he could of his own personal knowledge assert that there were now more Catholic tenants on Lord Beresford's estate than at the period that the noble Lord entered into the possession of the property. He, in conclusion, thanked the House for the attention with which he had been heard, and said, that he should not have taken any part in the debate if he had not felt that it was his bounden duty to rise in vindication of the character of an individual against whom accusations had been brought forward without a shadow of foundation existing for them.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhad no fault to find with the speech of the

1011
hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He had done no more than his duty, and required no apology, though he had offered one, for the zeal and readiness with which he had come forward to vindicate the conduct and character of individuals. He wished to address himself to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member who had immediately preceded the hon. Gentleman, which he thought required some animadversion, and afforded sufficient ground of objection to the form of the present motion. The hon. Member who had spoken from the back benches (Colonel Bruen) had made use of a phrase which they had often heard before, and the significance of which was well understood both in that House and out of it. The hon. Member had said, that he thought he had a right to "do what he liked with his own." With respect to the hon. Gentleman's property, no one was more disposed to yield to the position than he was; but with reference to the making use of property for the purpose of controlling the free exercise of opinion, he said, that a man had not a right to do what he liked with his own. He was not pronouncing any opinion with reference to the conduct of individuals engaged in the controversy which was the subject of discussion; but he was dealing with an opinion which he maintained ought never to be allowed to be stated within the walls of a representative assembly without contradiction. It was unfortunately true, that this right was claimed extensively in Ireland, and this was one of his grounds of objection to the present proposition.
Colonel Bruenmerely begged to state that the right hon. Gentleman's argument was founded upon a misapprehension. He had stated that he had a right to do what he liked with his own; but he had added, provided he acted in every respect according to law.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwould take the hon. Gentleman on his own declaration. He would join issue with him. He admitted that a man had a perfect right to act according to law, but he would maintain that if a man used his legal right for the purpose of controlling the opinion of another, he violated the constitutional principles of a free Government. He was not assuming that the hon. Member entertained this intent on, he wished to guard himself specifically against being supposed to do so; but he would say, that if it were stated now,
1012
either by that hon. Gentleman, or any one else, that a man had a right to use his legal rights with the object and effect of controlling the free vote of a man to whom the law gave the suffrage, it was a perversion of justice. If any Gentleman did that, it was matter for the censure of every man: it was matter which called for the censure and animadversion of that House [Colonel Bruen: I do not say so]. Did hon. Gentlemen opposite agree with him? Did they say, that the rights of property ought not to be used for the purpose of controlling the votes of the electors? Did hon. Gentlemen say, that let the tenant vole for the landlord or against him, his position should continue the same—that no subsequent advantage should be held out to him if he voted for the landlord, and no disadvantage threatened if he voted in opposition to his wishes? If these were the opinions entertained on the other side of the House, they were his opinions also, and there was no disagreement or difference between himself and hon. Gentlemen opposite. But it was singular, that when he spoke of the rights of property, hon. Gentlemen opposite were so very vocal that the whole grove resounded with singing birds, and that the moment he spoke of the leaving of the rights of property to act for themselves, free and undisturbed by any undue influence, not a cheer was to be extracted from any one of them. He was against all intimidation. He was as much opposed to the intimidation of the priesthood described by the hon. Gentleman opposite, as to the intimidation of the landlords described by the hon. Member for Greenock. The principle for which he contended was freedom of choice, and whether elections were controlled by the spiritual power of the priest, or the threatened ejectment of the landlord, the freedom of election was alike disturbed. It was a degradation of spiritual functions on the one hand; it was a degradation of the rights of law and property on the other. These proceedings with respect to tenantry were not of very modern date in Ireland; they were matters of which notice had frequently been taken. So long ago as the year 1725, a resolution was entered upon the Journals of the Irish House of Parliament, for which be entertained no very great respect, to which he would refer. When they were talking of the freedom of choice on the

1013
part of the Irish tenantry, let them see what was the doctrine laid down by the Irish Parliament before the Union: "Resolved, that the obliging any tenant, by covenant of entry in his lease, to vote in the election of Members to serve in Parliament, for such person as the landlord shall direct, is a high infringement of the privileges of this House, and destructive of the rights and privileges of the Commons of Ireland." When the Irish House of Parliament had arrived at this resolution, should it be allowed that a man, by indirect means, should arrive at precisely the same result as if there were a clause in his tenants' leases compelling them to vote at the pleasure of their landlords? He regretted the debate had taken such a turn, as it gave rise to an assertion which would, if it were not met with a most decided and unqualified contradiction, have led to the supposition that the House of Commons countenanced the idea that landlords were at liberty to control their tenants as they pleased, and that the House of Commons was indifferent to the great principle of freedom of election. A case of intimidation was stated on the one hand, and met by a counter statement on the other. The censure of the House of Commons ought to fall with equal weight on both parties, if both parties violated the freedom of election. But did the hon. Member for Greenock think, after the statement, after the references to facts, after the declarations of opinion which had been made, that it was in Carlow, in such a state of society as he described, that he could, with any effect, or any advantage to the cause of truth and justice, prosecute this inquiry? Did the hon. Gentlemen opposite, who wished for investigation, think that it was on this spot, in the midst of influence and contention, among these savages, that the inquiry should be instituted? It had grieved him to hear the representative of a county in Ireland, apply such a term to any of its people. Was this the tone in which to approach the discussion of Irish questions in that House? The country was distracted by faction and religious dissensions. Was the speaking of the Roman Catholic clergy in the manner adopted by the hon. Member—was the description of thousands of persons coming into the county town itself as "savages"—the way to make matters better, or was it not the way to exasperate the worst feelings by which the country was distract-
1014
ed and torn, and to estrange the landlords and country gentlemen of Ireland from that tenantry with which they ought to be so closely connected? If he were called upon to express any opinion on the statements which had been made by individuals to gentlemen in that House, on the question under consideration, he should say, that the facts on both sides had been stated in terms of exaggeration and violence. He had no doubt, that in the heat of party—in the fervor of election contest, and the heat of religious excitement—the clergy taking that active part which they unfortunately did take in such matters, great errors had been committed. He regretted, as much as any man could, that the clergy of any religious persuasion should suffer themselves to be led by any circumstances to leave their sacred callings and become partisans. With reference to any other mode of inquiry, he should reserve any opinion he might be called upon to pronounce, until some other proposition was brought forward. With respect to the present motion, believing that it was not calculated to elicit the truth, and that it was calculated to embitter hostilities, believing that it was contrary to all precedent and form, believing that it intrusted to the commission proposed to be formed functions almost of a legislative character, not requiring them to report upon facts merely, but to report their opinion upon constitutional changes. Believing this to be the only effect and tendency of the motion, he felt no difficulty in at once refusing his assent to it.
Mr. Warburtonwas very much disposed to agree with the Government in thinking that a Commission, such as was proposed was not necessary, it being in fact proposed, to institute an inquiry into circumstances which were perfectly notorious. That intimidation had prevailed on the part of the landlords of Ireland, and that this species of intimidation had been met by counter-influence—intimidation, if you will—on the part of the priesthood, he did not believe any gentleman who had been a member of the Intimidation Committee would be inclined to dispute. The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, had referred to the proceedings of the Irish Parliament, but he might have adverted to a more recent period. He remembered Mr. Dawson's stating, when the Catholic Question was under discussion, that the freeholders of Ireland were driven to the poll

1015
like cattle to market. Were we so very quick to forget our ancient practices, as to believe that there was no intimidation now—no attempt to drive voters to the poll, like cattle to market, in these days? Who that knew what human nature was, could doubt it? Had not the hon. Member himself admitted the charge made against him by Father Maher, of depriving a man named Keogh of a beneficial lease. [Colonel Bruen: No, no] Why, what were the hon. Member's own words before the Intimidation Committee? The charge of Father Maher was, that the hon. Gentleman's conduct towards this man Keogh, was influenced by his refusal to vote according to his wishes. How did the hon. Gentleman meet it? He would quote his reply, from the evidence. The question put to the hon. Member was, "Have you ever punished, or attempted to punish any tenants of yours, on your extensive estates, who have punctually paid their rents to you, and who bore a good and peaceable character, because they may have voted against your wish at elections?"—Answer: "I took seventeen acres of land from a man of the name of Keogh, under those circumstances." "State the particulars."—" Keogh came to me, and he stated that he was most anxious, and ready, and willing to support me, but that he had been threatened so severely, and was in such danger, that he thought it was impossible he could support me. I then endeavoured to prevail on him to vote for me. He told me that he would rather be at my nearby than at that of the other party. This man held seventeen acres of bog land, not as Mr. Maher says, by way of cheapening other lands he held, but really as a favour, and these were the seventeen acres of land that I took from him." It was nothing whether Keogh had promised the hon. Gentleman previously to vote in a different way if he could; it was admitted clearly by the hon. Gentleman before the Intimidation Committee, that he took away these seventeen acres of land from Keogh in consequence of the vote he gave. This was an instance of intimidation and influence on the part of a landlord. It was difficult to trace these cases to their source, and it was easy to detect the influence of the priests; and why? Because the influence of the priests was exerted openly, while that of the landlords was exerted in secret; because the priests were compelled to appeal publicly to the religious feelings of their flocks, and because the landlords appealed in secret to the fears and the poverty of their tenants. Let the
1016
House consider what the conduct of Government had been in obtaining information upon these points. He would read a letter of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, the former Secretary for Ireland (Sir Henry Hardinge), written with this view. He did not complain of it, but it did ask for information only of one kind and on one side. The object of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was to obtain instances of intimidation tending to breaches of the peace. The intimidation of the landlords being exercised in secret over individuals had no such effect, but the influence of the priests, being necessarily exerted over assemblies of people, might be construed as having that tendency.
The letter of the right hon. Gentleman was written in January, 1835, and was directed to Mr. Brown lie, one of the Police Magistrates in the South of Ireland. It was as follows:—
"DEAR SIR—I am much obliged to you for your constant communications on the subject of the elections.
"I receive from various quarters reports of the intimidation exercised by the priests over the Catholic voters, and many instances have been communicated to the Government, in which the desire on the part of the voters has been to support their landlords, but have been prevented by the denunciations of their clergy. There are also cases in which voters have asked for protection.
"You will be so good as to forward to me a short abstract of cases of intimidation, &c, that have come to your knowledge during the elections in the south, as well as the opinion of any of the magistrates with whom you may have been in communication.
"Also as to the effect produced by the precautionary measures adopted by the Government on requisitions from the Sheriffs, of moving troops and police into contested counties prior to the day of election; the question of military interference in the election may come before Parliament, and the means of full explanation should be at hand.
"I am, &c, &c,
(Signed) "H. HARDINGE,"
"Castle, January 31, 1835."
The letter certainly alluded to events likely to occur tending to breaches of the peace, but did not allude to the conduct of the landlords, as tending to excite such results. Was such a letter, however, likely to prevent the landlords pursuing the conduct they had hitherto had attributed to them. He was of opinion, at the same time, that if a Commission was appointed, or a Committee sat until doomsday, they would not collect any farther information than was necessary to show the unfortunate

1017
situation of the tenantry of Ireland. A Committee, however, was still sitting on the subject of intimidation at elections in Ireland, but its proceedings had been postponed in consequence of the illness of his hon. Friend, the Member for Newport, to consider how a measure could be devised to give protection to voters on all sides. He trusted, however, that the labours of that Committee would soon be proceeded with.
Sir Henry Hardingeentirely agreed with the hon. Member for Bradford, that it was not necessary to present an address to his Majesty to appoint a Commission, or to have a Committee of that House, to inquire further into the circumstances of this case. He agreed with the hon. Member that the Intimidation Committee of last year went with great detail into the question before the House. This year the same Committee again met, but so little was the disposition of the Members to enter on the subject, that they had abstained from the inquiry. They did not appear to think that further information was necessary as to the conduct of the landlords; but they were satisfied with the evidence before the House, and did not think that more evidence was necessary as to the county of Carlow, or the other counties in Ireland. Other hon. Members also, who generally adopted the same views as the hon. Member for Bradford, thought that the evidence already obtained was ample. He would leave it to any hon. Member to say whether the intimidation of the priests in the county of Carlow, and in other counties in Ireland, as had been proved before the Committee, was not tenfold compared to that of the landlords. The hon. Member for Bradford stated, that the priests always exercised their influence openly, but the landlords re sorted to secret intimidation. He denied that there was any act of intimidation on the part of the landlord over the tenantry, that would not instantly become known; but the priests interfered in a manner that was not known to the public, and worked upon the religious fears of the tenantry. He denied the premises laid down by the hon. Member; but he agreed in his conclusion, that it was not necessary to go further into the investigation of the subject. He thought that every hon. Member who had taken an impartial view of the subject, would agree that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Hope) had most completely vindicated his noble Friend, and refuted the charges brought against him as to his conduct to his tenants in Carlow. He believed that it had been satisfactorily shown
1018
to the House that Lord Beresford did not eject a single tenant from his estate in the county of Carlow in consequence of political feeling; hon. Members, therefore, should hesitate before they believed statements made in Ireland relative to the conduct of landlords, where party feeling ran so high. He did not mean to deny, that there were cases in which interference or intimidation had been resorted to by the landlords; but the intimidation on the part of the priests was carried to a much greater extent. It ad been proved, beyond all question, before the Intimidation Committee that Father Maher had canvassed the voters for Carlow, accompanied by a great number of persons, and in a manner calculated to excite the utmost alarm in the minds of the voters. He went into the shops of a number of persons in the town of Carlow, attended by a crowd of persons, and solicited the votes of the occupiers in a manner which intimidated them to vote in a particular way. It appeared before the Committee that Father Maher never interfered to prevent the intimidation by the populace of the voters which he had canvassed, although it was his duty to do so. He would not go further into the case, but he would beg the House to place against the statement of Father Maher that of Father Tyrrell, with reference to the conduct of Lord Beresford to his tenants. When Father Tyrrell came before the Committee, he said that Father Maher laboured under a misapprehension as to the conduct of Lord Beresford, and that the statements made to him were not correct. For his own part he believed, that the people of Carlow, as well as of other Irish counties, was at present in such a state of excitement that freedom of election could not be ensured without the employment of a large military force. The hon. Member for Bradford had read a letter written by him from the Castle of Dublin, respecting the interference of priests at elections. He (Sir Henry Harding) had been much abused in consequence of having written that letter; and it had been said that he was anxious to carry elections by the bayonet, and to establish a military government. But what appeared to be the case before the Intimidation Committee? Why, every magistrate, every person connected with the police, and every impartial witness, said, that such was the violent state of party feeling, and such was the excitement at the elections for 1835, that it was impossible to come to anything like a fair result, or for the voters on both sides to come up to the poll, but by the agency of a

1019
military force. Some of the witnesses examined before this Committee said, that such a state of society as prevailed in Ireland was to be met with in no other part of the world, and this resulted from the intimidation of the priesthood and conduct of the landlords in consequence of such intimidation. He did not deny the latter point, but the conduct of the priests had been vindicated by the hon. Member for Greenock. On a calm consideration of the question he had come to the conclusion, that if they sent a Commission to Carlow to inquire into the subject, they would increase the excitement which had prevailed since the Reform Bill had passed. He was convinced that either the appointment of a Commission, or the nomination of a Committee of that House, to inquire into the subject would tend to increase the excitement that prevailed in Carlow. He thought that nothing was more clear than this from the evidence given before the Intimidation Committee, he therefore agreed with the noble Lord opposite in objecting to the motion, as well on the ground that there was no precedent for such a proposition as for the other read assigned by him.
Mr. Sharman Crawfordsaid, the Catholic priesthood was forced to use their influence over the people with regard to political matters to counteract the intimidation of the landlords. But it was not merely the Roman Catholic priests who used their influence for that purpose. The ministers of the Established Church had exerted the power they possessed in a most improper manner; and he knew an instance of" a minister of the Church of England who, at the Carrickfergus election, acted as agent for procuring money to be expended for corrupt purposes. Some years ago, when a question most interesting to Catholics was being discussed, the landlords attempted to force their tenants to vote according to their pleasure, and the Roman Catholic clergy then thought it their duty to interfere and they told their flocks that their eternal interest was involved in the manner in which they disposed of their franchise. He thought they were justified in doing so, for it was the duty of the clergy to enforce on their flocks that the exercise of the elective franchise was as a sacred trust, a matter of religion. To show by what means the landlords in Ireland attempted to control the votes of their tenants, he would mention the conduct of a landlord in Louth, who set fire to some part of the property of a tenant who voted against him. The tenant brought
1020
an action to recover the amount of his loss; and the indictment only failed, because he could not prove the property to be his. He was anxious that intimidation on all sides should be put an end to; and to effect this object, it was indispensably necessary that some sort of inquiry should be instituted. The hon. Member for the county of Carlow had called a portion of the peasantry of that county "savages." They might, unfortunately, be savages in appearance, but they were far from being so in heart. But suppose they were as rude and uncivilized as the hon. Member had described them—who made them so? was not the fault to be attributed to those who took every means to keep them ignorant and debased? If they were savages it ought not to surprise any one. But, they were not. He would confidently assert that there did not exist, in any part of the world, a people more grateful for any kindness shown to them, than the people of Ireland. No people would be more mild, tractable, and obedient to the laws for fair treatment, which they did not receive. When hon. Members talked of intimidation of electors, let him remind them that the ballot was the only cure for the evil. If hon. Members could find any other remedy, he had no objection; but if they could not, then they ought to try the ballot. If the people were really disposed to vote for their landlords, they should be protected in that wish,—and the ballot would be an effectual protection. As to the question, he thought there should be an investigation, that the House might know at which side the intimidation had been greatest and least defensible.
Sir Robert Batesonwas not anxious to prolong the debate, but felt called upon to make a few observations in reply to what had fallen from the hon. Member who addressed them just now, and the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They had heard complaints of an expression made use of in designating the assemblies that had taken place for the purposes of intimidation by some term borrowed from the conduct in which they were engaged and the objects which they had in view. The right hon. Gentleman had complained that bodies of men assembling for the purpose of intimidation had been described as savages; but he contended that when men resorted to such means to carry out their objects by violence and intimidation no peculiar nicety of phrase ought to be used in designating their conduct. The hon. Gentleman who had taken up the defence of the people had stated an instance that had occurred in the

1021
county of Louth, in which a landlord had burned a quantity of turf belonging to his tenant; but did the hon. Gentleman recollect what had taken place in that same county of Louth some years ago, when a body of armed men, to the number of forty, assembled and attacked "Wild Goose Lodge," in that county, and spared neither man, woman, nor child. Would any hon. Member pretend to say, that such conduct was not the conduct of savages? The hon. Member for Bradford had referred to the evidence taken before the Intimidation Committee, and had quoted the case of Keogh as an instance of oppression. The hon. Member stated, that Keogh had held seventeen acres of land from his landlord, not as respected any consideration of rent, but as a matter of favour. Now was it unnatural for a landlord to expect the support of a man so circumstanced with respect to him? It had been attempted in the course of the debate to draw a distinction between the influence exercised by the landlord and the influence exercised by the Catholic priest in Ireland. It was said, that the influence of the landlord was an influence exercised in secret, whilst the influence of the priest, to be effectual, was necessarily exercised openly. But that argument had been well met by his right hon. and gallant Friend. There was no influence so secret—there was no influence so absolute, so powerful, and he might add so deadly, as the influence which the Catholic priest used in the confessional. His right hon. and gallant Friend had properly maintained that the intimidation of the Catholic Clergy was a powerful and a dangerous intimidation, and that no comparison could be made between that and the exercise of the legitimate influence of the landlords. He believed that there was no better landlord than the hon. Member for Carlow, nor any one who had a stronger claim upon the regards of his tenantry. He should oppose the motion, as being uncalled for and unnecessary.
Mr. Warburtonbegged to be permitted to say, with respect to the subject of confession, there was no evidence whatever before the Intimidation Committee to prove that it had been used for political purposes.
Mr. Francis Bruen: Sir, it was not my intention to have said a word on this subject, but for the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I had thought that if the right hon. Gentleman had attended to the statement made on a former night by my hon. Relative, he would have found that my hon.
1022
Relative had given a full and complete answer to all the charges that had been brought either directly or by implication against him, and had shown to the satisfaction of every unbiased mind that he had ever refused to use his power as a landlord to the injury of his tenants on account of their political opposition to him, even though frequently urged to it. But, Sir, as I am on my legs, I must say that I am unfeigned rejoiced that the hon. Member for Greenock has at last brought forward his promised motion. This motion, Sir, is calculated to reveal the real facts of the case. I hail it as the means of doing so, and to it or any other means of searching inquiry into the real state of the terror and distress of the electors of Carlow, my hon. Relative and I will give our most cordial concurrence. He, Sir, has had an opportunity of making his defence, and not in the way defences are sometimes made now a-days, by heaping foul and false charges, couched in no very gentlemanly or Parliamentary language, on others, but item by item, clearly, and satisfactorily, and circumstantially—just such a defence as conscious rectitude is sure to make. To that defence I should not have added a word except for the purpose of stating one fact peculiarly applicable to the charge of turning out families made against him in the petition now under discussion. Why, Sir, a short time ago it became absolutely necessary for public county purposes, viz., the building of a courthouse, to remove many poor families from their dwellings, not tenants of the hon. Member for Carlow county, nor having the slightest claim upon him. The jury as sembled to assess the value, and gave a fair remuneration. What was the conduct of the depopulator of villages, the murderer by the slow process of cold and hunger? He actually, unsolicited, paid to each of these poor people double the amount awarded by the jury, lest they should suffer loss or inconvenience by removing. Does this argue a wish to turn poor people houseless on the world? I rejoice, Sir, that in this attack on the gentry of the county of Carlow, they have selected the individual in question. Neither he nor I have ever oppressed or persecuted, for political reasons, one individual elector. The glaring fact is, that no elector has been put out; and as for religious persecution, I can only say, that since I came into the possession of my property I have never turned out a single Catholic, but having at this moment nearly 3,000 English acres out of lease, covered

1023
with a Catholic population, I have divided the land among them in smaller portions than in my judgment I thought prudent, even for their own well-being, and have built last year fifteen slated houses, to preserve as far as in me lies their comfort and happiness; and yet, Sir, we are the individuals selected to be held up to the British public as monsters in human shape, callous to every feeling that dignifies man. But please God, if this Commission is issued, it will soon be seen who the monsters and cruel persecutors of the electors are. What have we done? The worst that can be said of us is, that we have asked for our rent, after waiting four years. The tenant, we have asked, has frequently voted against us; he has every right so to do. He has done more. With our own money, kindly left in his hands for his convenience, he has subscribed to the petitions against us; yes, our own money. And is it not superhuman, I had almost said super Christian, forbearance in us not at once to have insisted on all that was due to us, but we in many instances forbore. What is the conduct of the opposite party if any freeholder dare to vote against them in one county? Why the death's head and cross-bones system is instantly put in action. Some soft-hearted individual among the fanatic rabble may pray for his soul, though that is against orders, but no mercy in this world for his body. What say the priests from the very altars of the God of peace and love? I quote from evidence concerning Carlow now before this House. Put the brand of Cain on his forehead, hold no intercourse with him, assuage not his hunger, quench not his thirst, let the wife of his bosom spurn him from his own door—I shudder, says he, at the cruelty of the landlords demanding their rent. That is unheard of Tory persecution, without parallel in the annals of election oppression. I will visit these electors, says the priest, in the mitigated penalties of proscription and massacre in this world, and eternal damnation in the next. And these are the very persons that have sent this petition to the House. Who is the unimpeachable witness cited here to prove these allegations and calumnious papers? The Rev. James Maher. Now, I beseech the House to listen for an instant to the evidence now before it in regard to his love and attachment to the purity of election:—"Did Father Maher take an active part in the election of Carlow?—A very active part. Did Father Maher go round from house to house to canvass?—He was the
1024
leader, and was accompanied by great multitudes. He came to a man named James Butler's house, a Catholic, and a respectable woollen-draper. Mr. Maher entered, and asked for whom he voted. His wife answered for Mr. Francis Bruen. I was by when Mr. Maher stood at the counter. He turned round to the people, and said, 'Mark this house; grass shall grow at his door; he says he will vote against his county." Allow me to tell the House what was the consequence of this denunciation: no one bought from Mr. Butler—the Catholic merchants refused to sell to him; he, his wife, and eleven young children were reduced to starvation. Once more I beg the attention of the House. "Did Father Maher deliver a speech on the hustings?" Yes, he said, all who vote at the election, being Catholics, shall not vote for Kavanagh and Bruen: we will take our stand here daily in our capacity as priests, and know the name of the man who will vote against us. We will watch the recreant until he goes to the grave. Yes, upon the Catholic slave we will set a mark, who will vote against his God and his country." I heard the substance of this speech spoken myself. Now hear the short but significant address of another reverend gentleman, which will amply bear me out in all the facts I have stated:—"Any person who signified his intention of voting for Mr. Kavanagh had ceased to be a member of his Church, and was delivered over to Satan, the people should not eat, drink, or sleep with them; even their wives should abandon the apostates who would, in the face of God, vote for Mr. Kavanagh or Bruen, who was an Orangeman; and the curse of the Almighty would, fall on them in this world, while, with the mark of Cain on their foreheads, they would go down to their graves for betraying their religion and their country." Any man who voted for Kavanagh or Bruen would be refused all religious rites, and run the risk of everlasting punishment. A freeholder, whose wife, in obedience to high spiritual orders closed the door against her husband, was found concealed from his pursuers in a- gorse cover twenty-four hours after, in the month of December, at death's door, from the intensity of the cold. Are we not then justified in longing for this Commission, that the public and this House be no longer deceived who are now the monster and persecutors? I am here reminded by my right hon. Friend (Sir Henry Harding) of that observation of the hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Warbur-

1025
ton), who stated, that there was nothing in the evidence before the Intimidation Committee, to show that the confessional had been used for political purposes. I think if the hon. Member will refer to the Report of the Committee, he will find his mistake. I shall not trouble the House with the passage, but I shall content myself with stating its substance. It appears that a Mrs. Burgess, the wife of a farmer, went one evening to the chapel of the reverend Mr. Maher, for her private devotions, or for confession. While thus engaged, Father Maher sent for her into the vestry-room, and asked her which way her husband intended to vote. She refused to say; adding, that it was not a question which he should have asked her. She complained to her husband, and he complained of it to Dr. Nolan, the Catholic Bishop, who said that if Father Maher had done so he had exceeded his duty, and he (Dr. Nolan) was sorry for it. Father Maher after ward swished the husband to retract his statement, but he refused to do so. May I not turn to those who accuse us, and ask if, in the reckless attempt to convert our town and county into a link of the vast chain of rotten boroughs subject to the control of that great Agitator and his allies, the priests, the bonds of civil society have not been burst asunder, the dearest charities of life violated, and the iron driven into the very souls of the people? Has the field of agitation which has borne so rich a harvest to the same hon. and learned Gentleman, never been watered by the tear of the widow and the orphan? Has the well-ordered compact first established in Carlow to defraud the Protestant clergy of their lawful property, to dash the very food from their lips, to denounce them to a fanatic rabble, so that they are literally counted as sheep appointed to be slain—has that compact never been cemented by the blood of parents and husbands? I protest, Sir, if the cries of widows and orphans ring in the ears of these lay or clerical agitators, they must be the cries of his own victims. How long will hon. Gentlemen opposite—English Gentlemen of probity and honour—be deceived by the audacious fabrications circulated by the very people that are guilty? How long will this House permit the atrocities which I have enumerated to be perpetrated, in order that a paramount influence may he gained, per fas et nefas, which boldly steps forward in this House to heard King, Lords, and Commons—to
1026
trample under foot the laws of the country—to dismember the empire, and drag captive at its chariot-wheels the executive Government of the country? Hon. Members have heard much stress laid in these discussions on the number of tenants ejected by landlords in the county of Carlow. Now, if any hon. Member will move for a return of the number of tenants so ejected, within the period to which the petitions refer, they will find that there have not been three so ejected in all. Sir, let me add, that if this House will boldly step forward, and say, that it will no longer be parties in conniving at these enormities—that the Reform Bill has become a mere mockery in Ireland—that the franchises of the electors have been forcibly seized and made merchandize of—that to effect this purpose a most cruel and intolerable yoke has been imposed upon the electors, the most galling that ever crushed the energies or afflicted the consciences of any portion of the human race. Then, and not till such a stand is made, may we entertain rational hope that the miseries of the people of Carlow and of Ireland will cease. Why, Sir, if inquiry be made, I have no doubt that for every two instances in which the votes of electors have been constrained by their landlords, 200,000 instances can be shown where they have been extorted by the influence of the priests. One word more: let this commission, or any other fair, unbiased, [searching inquiry, go forth, and I tell the House that when the aggregate of human misery, inflicted by selfish and sordid ambition in my unhappy county is accurately summed up; when the actors in these tragedies, be they who they may, must answer at I care not what bar—the bar of this House, the bar of the country, or at a more awful bar, where the cry of the widow and the orphan can no more be the mere pretence of subterfuge, or the fiction of party malevolence—I had rather take my stand among the gentry and landlords of the county Carlow, who have nobly stood forward in defence of the rights and liberties, the lives and properties, of their fellow-countrymen, than endure the load of guilt which must then attach to the disturbers, and agitators, and incendiaries of their country.
Mr. More O'Ferrallsaid, that it had not been his intention to say a word on this discussion, but as the hon. and gallant Member had alluded to the conduct of the landlords of the county of Carlow, and

1027
as he had said, that it was as good towards their tenants as that of the landlords of any neighbouring county, he felt it his duty, as representing the neighbouring county of Kildare, to say a word or two as to the practice of the landlords of that county. It was the practice there for landlords to place the amount of rent received in one column, and the deficiency of each payment in another, under the head of arrears. Now, in England, this deficiency was generally classed under the head of "abatement," and not claimed any more. In many parts of Ireland it was different, and in the county of Kildare it was, as he had said, the practice to put the deficiency under the head of arrears. Now, though that sum night he claimed at any time by the landlord, and that nothing was more easy for a landlord in that county than to say to a tenant, "If you vote against me I shall call in your arrears, or eject you," yet nothing of the kind was known there. With respect to the charges that had been made against the hon. and gallant Officer, (Colonel Bruen), he could not enter into them, as he personally knew nothing of them. When he had heard them made in that House, he wrote to a friend of his in the county of Carlow, to make some inquiry into the statements. His 'friend wrote him back that he found it impossible to go into every case, but that he had inquired intone case, and found it to be thus:—A person named Caulfield, who was a enfant of the Duke of Leinster for some other property, had taken a farm from the hon. and gallant Member for the county of Carlow at the high war prices. As the rate at which he had taken the land was much beyond the prices that soon after followed, an abatement was from time to time made, but instead of being placed under the head of "abatement," the deficiencies were placed under the head of "arrears." A long arrear had thus accumulated, and at last the tenant not being able to pay the amount, asked as a favour to have the land taken off his hands, but within the last six or twelve months he had got notice to give up the land and pay off all the arrears, which he was obliged to do. This was all he could state on the subject of these charges. On the others he would not touch, as he had no means of knowing personally any thing about them. As to what had been staled by the hon. Member (Mr. F. Bruen) respecting the tampering of the priest in the confessional, and using his influence there for political purposes, he
1028
would observe, that the hon. Member, not having, he supposed, his spectacles near him, could not read the case; and his right hon. Friend who had called his attention to the Report of the Intimidation Committee, not being willing to undertake that office for him, the hon. Member stated the case only from memory. If, however, he had read the case, he and the House would have seen that the case had nothing to do with confession. The woman, Mrs. Burgess, had been in the chapel, and was called into the vestry-room by the priest, and asked how her husband intended to vote; but the vestry-room was not the confessional, and there was not a word said in the evidence about confession or absolution. If, however, any priest or bishop had been so debased as to make use of the sacred rites of his church for political purposes, he (Mr. More O'Ferrall) would say, that in the opinion of the vast majority of the Catholic priests and laymen of his country, he would be regarded as guilty of a gross violation of his duty, and the sooner such a man was removed from his clerical functions the better. With respect to the case of the Rev. Mr. Maher, he must say, that he had denied the whole of the statement against him. From these, and other parts of the hon. Member's (Mr. Francis Bruen's) statement, it would appear, that from the way in which he referred to what had been said by the hon. Member for Greenock, he (Mr. Francis Bruen) seemed not so very confident of his own conduct.
Mr. Francis Bruenthought he had already fully disposed of the accusations brought against him, and that it was not necessary for him to go further into them. With respect to ejectments, he would repeat that he had never turned a Catholic from his estate, and that he had never enforced such arrears as the hon. Member had alluded to.
Mr. More O'Ferrallmust say, in justice to the hon. Member for the town of Carlow, that he had never heard him spoken of as a landlord in any other terms than those of kindness and respect.
Colonel Bruenbegged to say, in explanation as to what had been said by the hon. Member for Kildare, that in the case of Mr. Caulfield, it was true he had taken the land off his hands at Ids own request. With respect to the use made by the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of the term "savages," he was sorry to find his meaning so misconstrued. He had used the term in the warmth of

1029
discussion, and certainly had not intended to apply it to the habits of his constituents of Carlow, or to any other portion of his countrymen. They certainly were not savage in their nature. They were warm and headlong when under the violence of passion, but they were sorry after, if they; did wrong. They had had no more than justice done to them in being described as of most kindly feelings, and they really would show themselves so on every occasion, but for that unnatural conspiracy which had been formed against them by priests and demagogues.
Mr. Wallace, in reply, said, after what had passed, it was not his intention to detain the House by any lengthened remarks, but he could not avoid adverting to the statement made by the hon. Member for: Gloucester (Mr. Hope). That hon. Member had read a letter from the Rev. Mr. Tyrrell, in which he had exculpated Lord Beresford from the charges brought against him by the Rev. Mr. Maher respecting the ejectment from his estates in Carlow of many of his Catholic tenants, on the ground of their being Catholics. Now, he (Mr. Wallace) would not controvert the statements of the Rev. Mr. Tyrrell by any less authority than that on which they had been made,—namely, his own. In reply, therefore, to the letter of the Rev. Mr. Tyrrell of 1835, he would read the letter of the same individual at a subsequent period, when he had a better opportunity of being better informed on the subject on which he wrote. The hon. Member read a letter from the Rev. Thomas Tyrrell addressed to Mr. N. A. Vigors, dated in the present year, in which the rev. gentleman admitted, that he had been wrong in supposing that Lord Beresford had not ejected Catholic tenants from his estates. The letter went on to state, that not fewer than twenty-three families, consisting of ninety-one individuals, had been turned out of their houses, and many of them driven to the roadside as their only shelter; that not one of these had given a vote against the interest of the noble Lord, but that they were turned out on the ground of their being Catholics, and that the places of some of them had been supplied by the introduction of Protestant families from other counties. No answer had been given to the reasons on which he had brought forward this motion, It was true he had not insisted on the ballot as being the most effectual cure for many of the evils of which he had complained. He had not men-
1030
tioned the ballot, because he thought it would only embarrass the case, but he agreed that it would be the best remedy. As to the comparative influence of the landlords and the priests, he was at issue with hon. Members opposite. He should be able to prove that the influence exercised by the latter was as nothing compared with the former.
The House divided.—Ayes 52; Noes 123—Majority 71.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

O'Brien, C.

Attwood, T.

O'Brien, W. S.

Baldwin, D.

O'Connell, J.

Barnard, E. G.

O'Connell, M. J.

Brady, D. C.

O'Connell, M.

Bridgeman, H.

Oswald, J.

Bruen, Col.

Palmer, Gen.

Bruen, F.

Pease, J.

Chapman, Lowther

Philips, Mark

Collier, J.

Power, J.

Crawford, W. S.

Roach, D.

Duncombe, T.

Roche, W.

Dundas, J. Deans

Rundle, J.

Elphinstone, H.

Ruthven, E.

Ewart, W.

Scholefield, J.

Fielden, J.

Seale, Colonel

Gillon, W. D.

Talbot, J. H.

Grattan, J.

Tancred, H. W.

Hall, B.

Thompson, Colonel

Hardy, J.

Villiers, C. P.

Hector, C. J.

Wakley, T.

Hope, H. T.

Walker, C. A.

Horsman, E.

Williams, William

Kemp, T. R.

Williams, W.

Marsland, H.

Mullins, F. W.

TELLERS.

Musgrave, Sir R. A.

Mr. Wallace

Nagle, Sir R.

Mr. Hume.

List of the NOES.

Agnew, Sir A.

Curteis, H. B.

Alston, R.

Curteis, E. B.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Denison, J. E.

Astley, Sir J.

Dick, Q.

Bagot, hon. W.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Bailey, J.

Donkin, Sir R.

Baring, F. T.

Eastnor, Lord Visct.

Baring, T.

Egerton, Sir P.

Bateson, Sir R.

Elley, Sir J.

Biddulph, R.

Etwall, R.

Bish, T.

Fergus, J.

Blackburne, I.

Fergusson, right hon. R. C.

Blamire, W.

Borthwick, P.

Forbes, W.

Bramston, T. W.

Forster, C. S.

Bunion, W. W.

Gordon, hon. W.

Chalmers, P.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Chisholm, A. W.

Hamilton, G. H.

Clerk, Sir G.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Codrington, C. W.

Hardinge, right hon. Sir H.

Cole, Lord Viscount

Conolly, E. M.

Hastie, A,

Crawley, S.

Hawkins, J. H.

1031

Hay, Sir A. L,

Price, S. G.

Hobhouse, right hon. Sir J.

Pringle, A.

Pryme, G.

Hope, J.

Pryse, P.

Hoy, J. B.

Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.

Hurst, R. H.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Ridley, Sir M. W.

Jervis, J.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Ingham, R.

Rooper, J. B.

Inglis, Sir R. H,

Ross, C.

Johnstone, J. J. H.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Irton, S.

Russell, Lord J.

Kearsley, J. H.

Russell, Lord

Labouchere, rt. hn. H

Scott, Sir E. D.

Lefroy, A.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Lefroy, rt. hon. T

Sibthorp, Col.

Lennox, Lord G.

Smith, R. V.

Lennox, Lord Arthur

Smith, B.

Longfield, R.

Somerset, Lord Geo.

Lowther, Lord Visct.

Spry, Sir S. T.

Lushington, Charles

Stewart, P. M.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Strutt, E.

Marjoribanks, S.

Talfourd, Mr. Sergeant

Marshall, W.

Tennent, J. E.

Marsland, T.

Thomas, Col.

Maule, hon. F.

Thompson, Mr. Ald.

Miles, W.

Townley, R. G.

Morpeth, Lord Visct.

Trelawny, Sir W.

Mostyn, hon. E.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Vivian, J. H.

Nicholl, Dr.

Vivian, J. E.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Walter, J.

O'Loghlen, M.

Warburton, H.

Palmer, R.

West, J. B.

Parker, M.

Weyland, Major

Parry, Sir L. P. J.

Wilson, H.

Pechell, Capt.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Pigot, R.

Young, J.

Plumptree, J. P.

TELLERS.

Plunket, hon. R. E.

Mr. E. J. Stanley

Praed, W. M.

Mr. R. Steuart.

BURGHS—SCOTLAND.
Sir Andrew Leith Hay Sir Andrew Leith Hay moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the purpose of establishing Town Councils in certain burghs of barony, royalty, and others, in Scotland, not Royal or Parliamentary burghs. It was a measure, he said, of which the advantage to large towns would be admitted by all persons acquainted with Scotland. At present those towns had no jurisdiction over their own expenditure in the way of paving, lighting, &c, and the consequence was, that many things connected with local government were totally neglected. The object of the proposed Bill was, to remedy these defects, and give them the means of providing against the disposal of general funds being at the will of an individual. He would not now enter into details of the measure, but merely content himself with stating that the intention of the Bill was to enable these towns to
1032
elect Magistrates who would have the direction and control of local arrangements.
Sir George Clerkhoped that the Bill would not be compulsory, but would leave it to the option of the inhabitants of those towns whether or not they should go to the expense of providing themselves with municipal bodies. He made this observation because he was aware of objections being made to the establishment of Corporations in many towns in Scotland, which dreaded the burdens that might be consequent thereon.
Leave was given to bring in the Bill.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
Sir William Raerose to move an address to his Majesty, that he would be graciously pleased to require the Church of Scotland Endowment Commissioners to report forthwith on the matters referred to them, in so far as the same relate to the city of Edinburgh. He trusted that some satisfactory Report on this subject would be returned as soon as possible. A number of petitions had been forwarded to the House, to show that the Commission had not been able to provide for the wants of the Church, and the poor were therefore deprived of the means of religious instruction. The citizens had themselves subscribed a large sum to provide religious instruction for the poor, and all that was required was, that Government would enable them to bring down the seat-rents, so as that the poorer classes might enjoy the advantage. He had felt it his duty to bring the question before the House on a former occasion, and he had made a motion to that effect, on which a debate was taken. The question was decided by the noble Lord opposite requesting him to withdraw his motion, and assuring him that the Government would appoint a Commission to inquire into the subject. The Commission was appointed accordingly; and he appealed to the recollection of every hon. Member who was present, whether the instruction to them to report from time to time, was not understood to mean for the purpose of applying a remedy to those places where the want of church accommodation was most pressingly felt? Yet what was the result? Instead of any remedy being applied, the Commissioners up to this moment had actually made no Report at all; and, what was still worse, he learned from high authority that none would be made this

1033
Session. Nay, he had heard that one of the Commissioners doubted whether a Report should be made at all. Under these circumstances he felt called upon to bring the subject once again before Parliament, for the purpose of compelling the Commissioners to report to the House, or to state their reasons for withholding it. The question at issue was, whether or no there was to be a grant made for church accommodation in Scotland? If there was, why not ascertain at once where it was most needed, and apply it without delay? If not, where was the use or the advantage of keeping up an expensive Commission? That Commission had now been a year in operation; it cost the country 10,090 l., and no one was aware of what it had done as yet, inasmuch as there was no fruit of its labours apparent. It was proposed, moreover, to keep it on foot for several years longer. In that case it would consume more money than twice or even thrice the amount of the entire grant required. A hundred churches might be endowed out of the sum already expended. He had been informed that the Edinburgh district was completed, and that the Glasgow was nearly finished. Why should not the Commissioners report on the former, or on both, if ready? Under these circumstances he felt bound to press his motion. If, however, the noble Lord opposite would give him an assurance that he would obtain a Report in the present Session of Parliament, so as to make it available for legislation, he would withdraw it, otherwise he should consider it his duty to take the sense of the House on the subject. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving the address.
Lord John Russellthought that it was a very unusual course to address the Crown to require a Commission to report forthwith respecting an inquiry which was not concluded, without regard to the state of preparation in which it might be, thus taking out of the hands of the Crown the direction of a Commission appointed by the Crown. It was his belief, that if the Government to which the right hon. Gentleman belonged, or the Government of which he himself was a member, had asked the House for a grant of money to the Church of Scotland, without sufficient proof that that grant was necessary, and that the Church of Scotland did not supply abundant means for religious instruction, the House would have declined, and he
1034
thought very properly, to advance that grant without further inquiry. He had not felt justified in proposing such a grant without further inquiry, and many hon. Members had been of opinion that it would be improper to do so. The instructions which had been issued to the Commission comprehended a great variety of objects, demanding much investigation, both as to the state of the Established Church and the Dissenters, as to the numbers of those who attended public worship, either in Established churches or in Dissenting chapels, and requiring a statement of the means which were applicable to the religious wants of the country. The Commission had been appointed about the beginning of August, and began its labours about the end of September. A great portion of their time—two or three months—had been taken up in framing queries and instructions, and devising modes by which their investigation could be best pursued. They had issued 1,000 circulars, requesting very detailed information, and had received answers from ministers of the Established Church and the Dissenting community, with many valuable communications respecting the objects of their inquiry. In January last they had proceeded to Edinburgh, and examined many witnesses, among them the principal clergy of the town. Immediately afterwards they had gone to Glasgow, where they examined about 200 witnesses. He thought it was not at all wonderful, that having been so occupied, very often from seven to eight hours a-day, they should not yet have been able to make any Report of their labours to Parliament. The circumstance which prevented the Report from Edinburgh being received was this:—One of the members of the commission, who had undertaken to draw up that part of the Report, became unable, from ill health, to fulfill his engagement, and as he had in his possession the data on which it was to be founded, the Commissioners were prevented from completing it. He was not sure that they could make the Report perfect; that they would be able to show what funds were available for the purpose of religious instruction; and if it were presented to the House, he was not prepared to say that it would afford sufficient grounds for the grant of a sum of money to the Church of Scotland. He thought, however, that when they had had the advantage of consulting the gentleman to whom he had re-

1035
ferred, it would be more advisable for them to make a Report relative to Edinburgh immediately, than to defer it to the end of the Session. He had expressed that opinion previously to them, and it was certainly his intention to express it again; at the same time he was not inclined to send any official order, any peremptory summons, requiring them to make this Report. He was satisfied that they had conducted the inquiry with great care and impartiality, and he did not think that any opinion he could form as to the time when their Report might be made, would be so well-worthy of attention as the mature decision at which they would themselves arrive in the close of their labours. A private intimation appeared to him to be the best course of proceeding he could adopt. With regard to the examinations of witnesses by the Commission, he believed they had been conducted with perfect fairness, and its members had acted together with a most praiseworthy spirit of harmony and anxiety for the public interests. The noble Lord concluded by saying, that he should move as an amendment, that there be laid before the House a copy of the letter from the Secretary of the Church of Scotland Endowment Commission, addressed to the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, in May, 1836.
Mr. Gillonhad read the evidence given before the Commission, and it appeared to him that the Dissenters were not precluded by the highness of their seat-rents from supplying religious instruction to the poorer members of their congregations. He took this opportunity of protesting in behalf of the Dissenters against the Report of the Commission, as the Report of a one-sided body. He very much regretted that Government had been induced to appoint that Commission, and he could see no good that was likely to result from it. The effect of it would be to increase the religious dissensions which unfortunately prevailed to such an extent in Scotland". If the Commission recommended an endowment to one particular sect in that country, at present denominated the Established Church, it would take a one sided view of the subject, and if Government granted a sum in compliance with that recommendation, the measure would be productive of much dissatisfaction among the people of Scotland.
Sir George Clerksaid, that the hon. Member who bad just sat down took every
1036
opportunity of manifesting his hostility to the Church of Scotland, and therefore it was, that he protested in anticipation against the Report of the Commissioners. He (Sir George Clerk) had no earthly objection to the hon. Member espousing the cause of the Dissenters with as much zeal as he thought necessary; but he strongly objected to his doing so at the expense of the character and feelings of others. On a late occasion, the hon. Member had, in a manner, and in language, altogether unworthy of him, taken an opportunity of reviling and vilifying one of the purest, the most learned and the most pious bodies of men in Europe—the clergy of the Church of Scotland in Edinburgh. With respect to the question before the House, it was undeniable that there was a want of church accommodation for the poor in Scotland. It was also undeniable that the understanding was on the appointment of the Commission, that it should report from time to time, for the purpose of applying the remedy provided for by the grant to those places which more immediately were in need of it. He admitted, that the course proposed by his right hon. Friend, to address the Crown, for the purpose of making the Commissioners report was an unusual one; and he would beg to suggest one which was less startling, and which he was sure would have the support of the hon. Member for Middlesex. He would propose that the vote of 10,000 l. included in the miscellaneous estimates to be brought on next Friday, should be withheld until the Commissioners' had shown the House what they had done to deserve it. If that would not be more effectual than the private admonition of the noble Lord he was very much mistaken.
Mr. Horsmanfelt himself to a certain degree implicated by the motion of the right hon. Baronet—as he had the honour to be one of the Commissioners whose conduct was under discussion—and as, before he was a Member of that House, he was one of those on whom both individually and collectively the hon. Bart. who spoke last (Sir G. Clerk) had made his personal attacks—he trusted that the House would excuse his intruding on them for a moment to explain the position of the Commissioners, of whom the public had hitherto heard chiefly through their opponents. And first he must say, as one of those Commissioners, that he felt the motion of the right hon. Baronet was of an invidious

1037
nature. On what was it founded? Solely on his own assumption, unsupported by any evidence or argument that those Commissioners wished to avoid their duty—that they were tardy in their inquiries, and backward in making their Report. It was quite consistent that the right hon. Baronet, who did everything to oppose and decry the Commission in the first instance, should now do his utmost to thwart and misrepresent its labours. But it was not consistent in him, who at that time predicted everything that was bad from it, and that its Report would be worthless, that he should now show such an anxiety for its appearance, as if it must needs be perfect. One thing was especially gratifying in the discussion of that evening, that the right hon. Baronet who brought forward this motion, now did full justice to the character of the Commissioners; but ought not the error he formerly fell into concerning them to have made him more cautious now? He had been mistaken once about their characters—might he not be equally mistaken again about their motives? The House, however, would judge for itself how far the right hon. Baronet was justified on the very insufficient, grounds that he had shown in requiring it to adopt a course of conduct towards these Commissioners to which no Commissioners had ever been subjected before, depriving them of that discretion with which they were necessarily intended to be invested, and calling on them to make a Report before they were prepared to do it, either with satisfaction to themselves or with advantage to the public. He admitted, that there was an anxiety for this Report, and that it was desirable that it should be made as soon as possible, but he was prepared to show that no unnecessary delay had taken place. It was true that the Commission was appointed in July, as the hon. Member had just stated, but the question was not as to the date of the appointment, but the period at which their labours could be commenced. Parliament did not rise till some time after that, which was one cause of delay, and there were others over which those Commissioners had no control. No Member of this House who was in Scotland at that time, could be ignorant of the excitement that was created on the appearance of this Commission, and the difficult and delicate, and even painful situation in which the Commis-
1038
sioners at times found themselves placed. And this he must say, and he said it with no feelings of acrimony towards him now, that it was the hon. Baronet to whom he was replying that the Commissioners had to thank for the reception they had met with; for, no sooner had the names of the Commissioners been gazetted than the hon. Member for Mid Lothian rose in his place in that House, and, assuming to himself an intimate acquaintance with their characters and qualifications, put forth a statement to the public which was most unfair, most unjust, and most unfounded. He knew not how far the conduct of the clergy was to be attributed to be misrepresentations of the hon. Baronet; but this he knew, that they generally adopted his tone, and even his arguments and his facts. The General Assembly of the Church was especially convoked on the occasion, and they proceeded to record their opinion by a strong and deliberate resolution that the Commission, so constituted, could not be interested in the welfare of the Church, nor entitled to her confidence; and the temper of the discussion was such as to show that the Assembly neither recognised the legality, nor were prepared to aid in the labours of the Commission. Other similar meetings were held where similar opinions were expressed, and it was not until the end of September, that at another especial meeting of the General Assembly, Dr. Chalmers, for the first time, proposed that the hostility to the Commissioners should cease, and assistance be afforded to their inquiries. But even then considerable delays necessarily elapsed before the Commissioners could get answers to their circulars, as many of the clergy were still doubtful as to the course the body might ultimately adopt, and waited for instructions from their respective Presbyteries. Such was the situation in which the Commissioners found themselves at the end of last year. He did not state it of the clergy as a matter of complaint; on the contrary, he was satisfied that they acted from the best and purest motives. He believed that they had been misled by the discussions in that House, and that they were really alarmed by the misrepresentations of the hon. Member for Mid-Lothian, and that they were actuated in their opposition solely by a vigilant regard to the interests of the religion they were bound to protect. If, however, he

1039
had had any doubt on this subject, it would have been removed by the course the church had subsequently pursued, for no sooner had the clergy expressed their intention of co-operating with the Commissioners than they came forward to assist them, and have continued to assist them, heartily, zealously, and efficiently. So, also, had the Dissenters done, notwithstanding what had been said by the hon. Member for Falkirk, and to both parties the Commissioners were indebted for the aid they had received, and in consequence of which the Commissioners had been able to pursue their inquiries more rapidly than they could otherwise have done. They had examined in the Presbytery of Edinburgh alone, before he left them, more than 300 witnesses, principally clergy, and taken evidence there to the extent of 5,000 folio pages, and they had the satisfaction of knowing that while doing so they continued to maintain the goodwill of both parties. He begged to assure the hon. Member for Falkirk, that he had himself heard them thanked by the Dissenting Clergy, for the manner in which, they conducted their proceedings, and he begged to refer the right hon. Baronet who had brought forward the motion, to the newspaper which was considered particularly to represent the feelings of the interest of the Establishment, and which at one time, was most virulent in its opposition to the Commissioners, but which now admitted that their inquiries were carried on "with fairness and impartiality, and no small ability." Such was the position of the Commissioners now; ant having got over the first and most delicate part of their duty, and while they were conducting their inquiries with activity, and industry, and success—such was the moment selected by the right hon. Baronet for bringing forward a motion which any sensible person in Scotland will tell him is uncalled for and ill timed, and which his own parliamentary experience must convince him, is not only unusual, but absolutely unprecedented. He begged to assure the House that there was no disposition on the part of the Commissioners to put off their Report. He knew that the majority of that Commission, not with standing the character to the contrary assigned to them by the hon. Member for Mid-Lothian, were as warm friends of the Establishment as that hon. Baronet himself, or his right hon. Colleague who had
1040
brought forward this motion. The Commissioners did not feel that the question of an Establishment or no Establishment raised by the hon. Member for Falkirk, was within the scope of their inquiries. They knew that such was not intended by the House or the Government at the time of their appointment; and, therefore, when they accepted their office, they conceived that by that very acceptance they gave a pledge that they would strictly limit their duties to the subject that was intended to be remitted to them. It was their task to make a statistical inquiry, and a statistical Report, and their own characters required that that inquiry should be conducted as industriously, and that Report drawn up and presented to the House as speedily as possible, and such was the wish and intention of the Commissioners.
Lord John Russell, in explanation, stated, that the payment of the Commissioners was not to commence from July last, when the Commission issued, but from the period when the Commission was opened.
Dr. Bowringcontended, that when this Commission was granted, it was left open to the House of Commons to decide whether any grant should be made to the Church of Scotland or not.
Mr. James Oswaldwas sorry, that the Minister had, from the first, allowed the Commissioners to report from time to time; and he hoped that they would now, on no account, consent to their making any Report which did not include Glasgow as well as Edinburgh. In his own opinion, the time was gone by for making any grant to the Church of Scotland, and such a grant would only serve; the cause. Of the Dissenters, and injure, the Church.
Motion withdrawn.

CONSTABULARY, (IRELAND).
Viscount Morpethhoped, that the House would allow him to call its attention to the amendments made by their Lordships on the Constabulary (Ireland) Bill, even at that late hour of the night (a quarter past twelve o'clock.) [Cries of "adjourn!" adjourn!"] He assured the House that he would not detain them at any length upon the present occasion. The amendments of their Lordships on this Bill were rather voluminous; but he was not prepared to offer them any opposition, and should, therefore, abstain from entering into any captious cavils respecting

1041
either the propriety or the necessity of reducing the number of appointments originally contemplated in the Bill. The Government, not intending to fill it up to its extreme limits, had proposed a scale of appointments, which they conceived would enable them to secure the efficiency of the police, being well aware that the more complete the constabulary force was rendered, the more easy and the more speedy would be the reduction of the military force now employed in Ireland. The House of Lords, not having the same reliance which that House had in the abstinence of His Majesty's Ministers, had made considerable reductions in the; number of appointments fixed by the Bill. The Government must, therefore, make the best use they could of the powers which were still left to it. Any man who had ever had the slightest experience in the office which he had then the honour to fill, must know full well that the reduction of patronage effected by the amendments of their Lordships was not a point of which he (Lord Morpeth) had any reason to complain. He should have some amendments to propose, in consequence of the alterations which their Lordships had been pleased to introduce into this measure. They had considerably diminished the number of paymasters, and, by thus placing them over larger districts, had greatly increased, if they had not doubled, the duties which it was originally intended that they should; perform. In consequence of this increase in their duties, it was only right that their pay should be proportionally increased. That increase in their pay could not be proposed in the House of Lords, and he should, therefore, introduce a short Bill in a day or two, authorizing that increase to be made. The only alteration which he proposed to make in the Bill was rendered necessary by the amendments which their Lordships had made in clause 11, in which they laid down the number of constables and sub-constables to be employed in the different baronies of Ireland. By those amendments, in one of the counties that was now much disturbed, (Tipperary) the Government, which had now 560 constables therein, would only be entitled to have 176 in future. In the county of Galway, where the Government had now 762 constables, it would only be entitled to have 272 in future. In some places, however, the
1042
contrary effect would be produced. In the town of Galway the amendments of the Lords would entitle the Government to have 100 constables, where it was now only entitled to have twenty. Precisely the same thing would occur in the city of Kilkenny; whilst in the town of Carrickfergus the amendments would enable the Government to have 100 constables, where it was now only entitled to have five. In point of fact, the provisions of this clause, if acted on, would be inapplicable to the present state of Ireland, and disastrous to the public peace of that country. Another clause introduced by their Lordships, rendered it necessary for the Lord-Lieutenant to keep the constabulary force up' to its present amount: but did not provide, that when a member of the present force died, the Lord-Lieutenant should be at liberty to supply his place, by appointing a successor. He believed that the object of their Lordships in that clause was simply to keep the constabulary force up to its present amount, and that there was no intention on their part to curtail the Lord-Lieutenant's power in this respect. He should propose a proviso, in addition to that clause—a proviso which he had taken 'pains to ascertain would not meet with any opposition elsewhere. That proviso would S enact that, where the constabulary force was required to be increased, owing either to the district being proclaimed, or; a requisition being received from the I magistracy, the Lord-Lieutenant should have power to make the necessary appointments. He would not detain the House longer than to move that these amendments be agreed to.
Colonel Percevalhoped, that the noble Lord would have no objection to include the society of "Friendly Brothers," which was not an exclusive or political society, in the exemption from the operation of this Bill, which was given to the Freemasons in the 16th clause of it.
Viscount Morpethwas not sufficiently acquainted with the nature of the society of "Friendly Brothers" to be able to give his assent to the introduction of such an exemption into the Bill.
Mr. Sergeant Jacksonsaid, that unless the noble Lord would give the same exemption to the "Friendly Brothers" which the 16th clause gave to the Freemasons, he should move the adjournment of this debate till to-morrow. He

1043
should do so in order to give the noble Lord time to obtain that information respecting the "Friendly Brothers" which he admitted he did not possess.
Mr. Frederick Frenchtrusted, that the noble Lord would not afford the Friendly Brothers the exemption which was now claimed for them. He had always understood in Ireland that they were a political society.
Colonel Percevalsaid, that he was a Friendly Brother as well as a Freemason, and assured the House that the one Association was not a whit more political than the other. The Friendly Brothers was nothing more than a social club.
Mr. Sergeant O'Loghlenhad always understood the Friendly Brothers to be a species of mitigated Orangemen. If they were exempted, the House would also have applications to exempt the Riband-Men and the Eccentrics, on the ground that they too were mere sociable clubs.
Mr. William Smith O'Briencorroborated the statement that, the Friendly Brothers was considered in Ireland a species of mitigated Orange Club.
Mr. Sergeant Jacksonsaid, that if the noble Lord persisted in resisting the suggestion of his hon. and gallant Friend, he should certainly move that the House be counted.
Viscount Morpethhoped that the hon. and learned Sergeant would not persist in that Resolution, for if he did, the Royal assent could not be given to the Bill before the recess, and it was important to the public service that it should be passed with as little delay as possible.
Lord Cole Lord Cole moved that the House be counted.
House counted out.