Commons Sitting of 1 March 1839

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Double and Treble Costs; County Courts; District Sessions; Borough Courts; Transfer of Aids.
Petitions presented. By Mr. C. C. CAVENDISH, from the Magistrates of East Sussex, for Amending the Beer Act.—By Sir R. BATESON, from Dublin, against the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill.—By Sir S. GLYNNE, from places in North Wales, against the Appropriation of Ecclesiastical Revenues to other purposes.—By Captain WEMYSS, from Fife, against any further Grants to the Church of Scotland.—By Mr. BROADLEY, from a place in Yorkshire, against Idolatrous Practices in India; and from the same place, for Protection to the Established Church in Canada.—By Mr. COLQUHOUN, from twenty Parishes in Scotland, for Church Extension; and against

1047
any further Grant to Maynooth College,—By Mr. BEAMISH, from Cork, for Municipal Reform.—By Mr. CURRY, from Armagh, for a general system of Railways by the Government—By Mr. HUME, from Lyme Regis, for the Abolition of Ecclesiastical Courts.—By Mr. MAKER, from New Ross, for a real Union, and Equality of Civil Rights.—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from several places, to the same effect—By Mr. O'CONNELL., from Dublin, for placing the Management of Irish Railways into the hands of Government—By Mr. W. ROCHE, from Limerick, for Encouragement to Irish Railways.—By Mr. LASCELLES, from Wakefield, against the present state of the Law for the Recovery of Debts.—By Mr. PRINGLE, from Mid Lothian and Selkirk, for Church Extension in Scotland.—By Messrs. C. C. CAVENDISH, DARBY, PRINGLE, GASKELL, and Lords INGESTRIE, and ASHLEY, from several places, against the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Mr. WALLACE, and Mr. STRUIT, from several places, for the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Sir R. INGLIS. from Canterbury, and another place, against the Ecclesiastical Revenues and Duties Bill.—By Mr. HAWES, from a number of Persons, in favour of the Oaths and Affirmations Bill.

MR. WYNN'S CASE.
Mr. J. Jervisbrought up the Report of the Select Committee which had been directed to inquire into the appointment of the right hon. Charles W. W. Wynn to the office of Steward of the Lordship of Denbigh, which was read by the Clerk at the Table, and was to the following effect:—
"The Committee having heard evidence and fully considered the appointment which they were directed to investigate, have come to the following resolutions:—that the office of Steward to the Lordship of Denbigh is an office of profit held under the Crown, and that the right hon. Charles W. W. Wynn was appointed to the said office by her present Majesty; but that the said right hon. Charles W. W. Wynn did not accept the said office since his election as a Member of the present Parliament."
Mr. Jervissaid, it was due to the right hon. Gentleman that he should state, that the decision of the Committee had been unanimous; but he was also bound to say, and he believed he expressed the general opinion of the Committee, that there had been considerable irregularity and laxity in the office from which the patent issued. He should, therefore, move, that the report be printed, as it was his intention, as early as possible, to bring under the consideration of the House, the ante-dating of the patent by which the right hon. Gentleman held his office.
Report ordered to be printed.

VACATING SEATS.
Mr. Harveysaid, it was not necessary for him, after what had so recently passed in the House, to trouble the House with any remarks. He, therefore, moved, for "an Address to her Majesty, for copies of any appointments
1048
made by the Earl of Durham, as Lord Commissioner of the British North American Colonies, previous to his departure from England, and during his stay in Canada; the name of each person appointed, the amount of salary, if any, and the nature of the duties to be performed."
Lord J. Russellsaid, the only objection which could be made to this motion was, he believed, this—that the papers in question were already on the Table of that House. He observed, that the motion of the hon. Member did not contain that which appeared to be most essential for his purpose—namely, the dates of the appointments, although he believed that the dates were included in the papers already before the House. He would, therefore, suggest to the hon. Member, whether he had not better consult the papers already before the House, to see if he required any additional information.
Mr. Harveythought it would be more convenient for hon. Members to have a small paper in their hands with the simple facts contained in it, than to have to wade through a large volume, which very few would take the trouble to do. As to the fact about the dates of the appointments, that might be at once ascertained by a compliance with the motion for the returns, because it called upon Lord Durham to make a return of the dates of the appointments before he left England, as well as of those made while he was in Canada; and he apprehended, that the time of the departure of Lord Durham from England, and the time of his leaving Canada, were matters of no uncertainty; and therefore, if a return were made of those two periods, it would be easy to arrive at the object which he sought. At the same time, it would be more correct to insert in the return, the day and the date of each specific appointment. But as to calling the attention of the House to the whole report to which the noble Lord had alluded, it must be obvious, that it would be far more convenient that an extract should be made of the simple facts required.
Mr. Laboucheresaid, the papers already before the House comprised all the appointments made by Lord Durham both before he left the country and afterwards; and that it was not consistent with the usages of the House to require the same return to be given again.
Mr. Harveysaid, he must confess that he was somewhat surprised and a little

1049
mortified to find that there should be any resistance made to this motion. It looked like an attempt to defeat the object of it; for though it might be conceded, as was known to every one who had read the report to which the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman had alluded, that Lord Durham had therein stated that he had appointed Charles Buller, Esq., to an office, and two or three other persons to other offices, and that he might also have given dates, yet the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the appointments themselves were not set forth therein.
Mr. Labochere: Yes, they are.
Mr. Harvey: No, not the appointments themselves. What he wanted, was to have before the House the specific appointments under the hand and seal of Lord Durham. Now, they certainly did not appear in the papers before the House; and what pretext there could be for not producing in a more comprehensive form the return he wanted, he could not understand, unless it might be with a view to give the go-by to this question. Let the House deal with the motion as it might, he cared nothing about it. He only wanted to bring his mind—which he owned he found it difficult to do—to something like a conclusion, that impartial justice might be obtained in that House. When the motion was made for a similar return in his case, no objection was made to it: there was none of the zealous opposition which appeared now, then manifested to the production of the date of his appointment. Whether the House rejected or agreed to the motion, was equally a matter of indifference to him. If it would be any convenience to the noble Lord to let the motion stand over for the purpose of introducing any specific word as to the object of the motion, he would most readily yield to the suggestion. But if the object was to defeat the motion, he should certainly take the sense of the House upon it, and see whether it would refuse to do that in one case which it had thought absolutely necessary to be done in another.
Lord J. Russellsaid, there was not, he believed, the smallest objection to the motion; and certainly, if the hon. Gentleman thought it more convenient to have a single sheet of paper, and have the appointments without the dates rather than with them, it was not worth while to have any dispute upon the subject, He must say, however,
1050
that it appeared to him to be rather a remarkable accusation to make, that the Government were endeavouring to conceal facts which were already fully before the House.
Mr. C. Bullersaid, he had a very strong objection to the motion. Simply for this reason, that it tended greatly to delay the decision of the House upon this question. He was surprised, that the hon. Member for Southwark, in coming forward to attack his seat, should have thrown out such imputations against the noble Lord as he had heard, because the information with respect to this subject had been laid before the House in two distinct returns last Session; and no new information could be added upon the points in question. Let the House, however, if it thought proper, appoint a Committee from either side; he should be quite ready to abide by the decision of any Committee.
Mr. Harveywould observe, in reply to the noble Lord, that he could not contemplate that they could have copies of any appointments, without the dates of those appointments, including every other particular relating to the making and reception of those appointments. It was very true, as the hon. Member for Liskeard had stated, that these facts were already before the House, and that they had been before the House last Session as well as the present. That was just the matter of which he complained. He was surprised, that there should have been a return made last Session, setting forth, that Members of that House had accepted offices of emolument under the Crown; and yet that such a return had not attracted the attention of those hon. Gentlemen who had been so anxious in other cases to distinguish themselves by insisting on the strict observance of the rules of Parliament. As to unseating the hon. Member for Liskeard, he had never wished to unseat him. All he wanted was, to see the rules of the House kept with strict impartiality in all cases. He wanted to bring these matters under the eyes of other persons. He did not want to unseat the hon. Gentleman, or any other hon. Gentleman, but that those persons should have their attention drawn to the subject who had already been occupied with similar questions. He did not want to send the hon. Gentleman back to his constituency merely because he (Mr. Harvey) had been sent back to his. He disclaimed any petty

1051
feeling of that sort. He had no desire to disturb others, because he had been disturbed. All he wanted was, to make the public believe that there was an uniform sense of justice in that House.
Motion agreed to.

RAILWAYS (IRELAND).
Viscount Morpeth Viscount Morpeth moved the Order of the Day for a Committee of the whole House on the Railways (Ireland) Commission.
Mr. Lucasrose and said, that before the Speaker left the Chair, he wished to say a few words. The public, more especially the Irish public, had reason to complain of the manner in which they had been treated by the Government in respect to the railways in Ireland. It would be in the recollection of the House, that two years and a-half ago, a Commission was appointed to make certain inquiries with regard to railways in Ireland. He was not one of those who was disposed to quarrel with that Commission; on the contrary, he thought the measure likely to promote the object in a very desirable manner. But what he complained of, and what the Irish public almost universally complained of, was, that no intimation could be obtained from Government as to what course they intended to pursue. The Commission became void by the demise of the Crown, and a new Commission was issued by her present Majesty. On the 20th of October, 1835, the Commission was appointed, and ordered to report on or before the 31st of March, 1837. The report was very considerably delayed, but it was eventually given in the month of July, 1838; and since that time there had been no possibility of getting any information from the Government as to what course they intended to pursue. Three courses were open to the Government on the subject. They might have said, that they would take the making of the railways into their own hands, or that they would have nothing to do with railways, and that they would confine themselves to opposing those that were not sanctioned by the Parliamentary Commissioners; or, thirdly, they might have taken the middle course, and have given certain assistance to those railways which had been recommended by the Commissioners, and have refused to support any others. He knew, personally, that no effort had been spared to obtain an answer from the Government on this subject; and he knew, also, that no answer could be got
1052
from the noble Lord opposite. In consequence of this, the public had been extremely disappointed; and the effects would, most probably, be very injurious to individuals concerned in those undertakings, who did not know what the Government would do. Private individuals were thus prevented from making surveys, and taking any steps towards making railways. The noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, had now allowed the month of March to arrive; the consequence was, that two years would elapse before any private individual could take any step with regard to railways in Ireland, and that time would be entirely lost to the public. What was the case with regard to some of the railroads in Ireland? The surveys had been made, and expenses had been partly incurred, in reference to one or two of them, before the Commission was issued, and they were now lying in abeyance. The parties had suffered very considerable loss; but they would have been satisfied, if the noble Lord had declared that he would take the railways into his own hands, whether he would or would not render assistance to any. Parties had been debarred from presenting their petitions to the House for private bills by the delay which had occurred. He knew, that the Irish Central Railway Company had received some indulgence, by being allowed time to present their bill. But still the consequences of the delay and uncertainty that had taken place, had been productive of great mischief. He had said, that he was not one of those who quarrelled with the appointment of the Commissioners. At the same time, he could not disguise from the House the fact, that the proceedings of the Commissioners were looked upon in Ireland with the greatest possible suspicion; the public were not only alive, but jealously alive, to their proceedings; and both the English and Irish public had a right to be fully satisfied before the noble Lord opposite should propose any course to that House, that the recommendations of the Commissioners, and the data on which those recommendations proceeded, were such as were just, and as would carry that confidence, both with the House and the country, which he was sure the noble Lord himself would wish. He was prepared to state, on the authority he had already mentioned, that the recommendations which the Irish commissioners had made with regard to the Great Irish Central

1053
Railway were erroneous, inasmuch as they were based on erroneous data. He would not now go into any details, but what he wished to impress on the attention of the House was, that the petitioners were prepared to substantiate at the Bar of the House, or before a select committee of the House, should they so think fit, these important facts, that the Commissioners in making their recommendations had assumed different data and different reasonings for different lines of railway; in short, their data and reasoning upon them with respect to the southern and northern line were different from those which they had assumed in regard to the western line. He had a statement of six or eight particulars in which it e as stated by the petitioners, that the Commissioners had used one mode of calculation for the north and south line, and another mode of calculation for the west line; and he would state shortly in what the omissions and alterations consisted. In the first place, in comparing the traffic of the western line with the traffic which at present existed, they had put out of consideration the traffic which at present was carried by the canal; whereas it was perfectly notorious by experience in all parts of England, that although canals had not suffered from railroads running in the same direction, yet at the same time the railway did derive the benefit of an increased traffic, though the canal traffic continued the same. The Commissioners had also thrown out of consideration on the western line all traffic that was now conveyed by common carriers amounting to one-fourth of that at present conveyed by canals. They had also omitted in the consideration of the western line the entire quantity of cattle at present conveyed by canals, to the extent of 100,000 l., though that railway would be a direct line to Balinasloe, the great market for cattle. In the third place, the Commissioners had also omitted from their western calculation the passengers by canal boats, although on the other lines they put that subject of traffic forward as a new view of their own; and although upon those lines they said the passengers now travelling by canal would, after the formation of the lines, no longer travel by canal, they had not given credit to the Great Western Railway for the possible benefit which would accrue to that line from that class of traffic, but had thrown it wholly out of their consideration, Again,
1054
they had taken into consideration on the north and south lines the passengers now travelling on parallel lines of road, while they had left out that class on the western line. It was, therefore, evident, that they had assumed data for one set of railways different from those which they had assumed in another. They had also divided the passengers into two classes—principals, who went the whole way from point to point, and secondary passengers, who only went parts of the distance. If that division were just, it at least ought to he applied to all their lines of railway; but he was instructed to state, that the Commissioners had taken these collateral passengers into consideration on the north and south lines, but had left them out in consideration of the western line. Again, in separating the primary and secondary passengers they had adopted different scales of calculation for different railways, taking the gross number of passengers in the first instance, which was matter of fact, and then dividing them into primary and secondary classes, a division which was mere matter of opinion, and they had considered the rates of primary passengers on the small line would be as eight to five, on the north line as seven to four, while on the western line they had reversed the rate by stating the primary passengers, would be as five to nine. The Commissioners might be right, or they might be wrong, but the public at all events had a right to look at statements so exceedingly various. The only other point had reference to the facility of getting coals, which, though that facility was much greater on the western line, it had been excluded that benefit in the calculations of the Commissioners. The Irish public were, he repeated, alive to this subject, and viewed with a great deal of natural jealousy the proceedings under the commission, and he had felt it due to them to state these facts, and read the prayer of their petition, which was, that they might be allowed to prove at the Bar of the House, or before a select committee, the allegations of their petitions, which were, that the data taken would work unfairly for one railway and fairly for others, and that the calculations of the Commissioners were erroneous.
Viscount Morpethsaid, the hon. Member had complained, that the Government had taken too much time in determining the course they would pursue on this question,

1055
but, instead of entering into that complaint would it not be better to allow him (Viscount Morpeth) to go into committee, and state what were the intentions of the Government on the subject. No doubt, the commission had thrown difficulties in the way of companies undertaking the formation of railways in Ireland, but it should be remembered, that the commission had beeen issued in consequence of an address to the Crown from the other House of Parliament. The report had only been put into the hands of the Government in the month of July last, a period of the Session at which it was manifest it was impossible the subject could be taken up, and he must say he thought a very long space of time had not elapsed in the present Session before her Majesty's Government were prepared to come forward and state what their intentions were. He, though applied to on the subject, had certainly not thought it proper to make any premature disclosure of those intentions to individuals before he had announced those intentions to Parliament. Any other observations in answer to the hon. Member for Monaghan he should reserve for the statement it would be his duty to make in committee, and from which the course they proposed to pursue with respect to the Great Western line would be made apparent in common with the rest.
Mr. Hodgson Hindesaid, he had a complaint to make of a different nature from that which had been raised by the hon. Member who had preceded him from that (the Opposition) side of the House. The House was aware, that a committee had inquired on the general subject of railways; over that committee the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade presided, and it was attended by a great number of Members, in whom great authority was placed. That committee made a report to the House, and when last year he (Mr. Hinde) brought forward a motion on the subject of a particular railway, the right hon. Gentleman had quoted that report against his motion. Now, nothing could be more decided than that the terms of that report were against any proposal that could emanate from the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Morpeth) in the committee for which he had now moved. He would read that portion of the report which had reference to the subject of railways in Ireland: "With regard to Ireland, when any great works had been commenced, it would he possible that some
1056
assistance might be afforded to them by the Board of Works;" and then, after alluding to a memorial presented to Lord Melbourne for a general survey at the expense of the Government, for the best line, the committee state "they cannot recommend, that the Government should take upon itself the responsibility of deciding the points between which railway communication should extend." It might, perhaps, be replied, that the House had decided against that part of the report of the committee, and had directed the survey to be made, not at the expense of individual parties, but at the expense of the Government. But how had that vote been gained? No sooner had the committee determined on their report, and before the report was in the hands of Members, than the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down and moved an address to her Majesty for the purpose already stated, and that address was carried, although he (Mr. Hinde) had humbly endeavoured to show, that the motion was not in conformity with the terms of the report. He trusted, that the House would not, because it had already taken one false step, now commit another. His (Mr. Hinde's) motion of last Session was, for an address to her Majesty to appoint engineers to decide the best mode of railway communication between the capital of England and the capital of Scotland. The report, he repeated, had then been quoted against him, and he asked, whether it was fitting for the Government, now that they were pressed by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin on this matter, to adopt a different line of conduct. This was certainly one species of justice to this country, and another species of justice to Ireland.
Mr. H. Grattansaid, that the charge that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin pressed the subject upon the Government was one of those claptraps to which he should not have supposed the hon. Member would have resorted. He denied, that the matter was pressed on the Government by the hon. and learned Member, and he hoped hon. Gentlemen would have some regard to the feelings of independent Irish Members, and not suppose, that nothing could be done for Ireland but at the instance of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin.
Mr. H. Hindeobserved, that be had stated the matter as one of fact within his

1057
own knowledge: for the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had presented a petition that evening to the House, and emphatically supported its prayer, which he recommended to the Government.
Mr. O'Connellremarked, that the hon. Member laboured under a most extraordinary delusion. He believed the noble Lord was not in the House when he presented the petition in question, which was in favour of a general railway measure. So far from his having on any occasion interfered with the Government on the subject, the fact was the reverse. He had attended a meeting of his constituents held in Dublin, at which the Lord Mayor presided, and which was attended by Lord de Vesci and several other noblemen and gentlemen, and resolutions were proposed to which an opposition was got up. He (Mr. O'Connell) argued the question against that opposition, and succeeded in getting the meeting to agree to the petition, but from that hour to the present he had not had the least communication with her Majesty's Government on the subject. It was unbecoming a Gentleman of the independent character of the hon. Member opposite to draw such inferences and make such observations.
Mr. Hodgson Hindewished to know, what expression he had made use of that was unbecoming. If there was one word personally offensive to the hon. and learned Gentleman, it was understood contrary to his meaning. His accusation was not against the hon. and learned Member, but against her Majesty's Government, for adopting one plan, when he (Mr. Hinde) had submitted his motion to the House, and one entirely different when a similar point was pressed by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. He should move, by way of amendment, that the part of the report of the committee relating to railways in Ireland be read.
Lord J. Russellrose to speak to the fact of the accusation which had been made against her Majesty's Government. The accusation of the hon. Member was not founded on the merits of any plan which his noble Friend was about to bring forward, or on any knowledge, that the plan was not a good plan, but, determining not to listen to what his noble Friend might have to say, the hon. Member had resolved not to learn the merits of the plan, but to state it was brought forward, because it was suggested by the hon. and learned
1058
Member for Dublin. That was the accusation, as he understood. [Mr. Hinde: No, no.] The accusation was not against the hon. and learned Member, but against her Majesty's Government. Now, he would state, as far as he was concerned, what he had to do with the matter, and would state facts. There had been brought to him officially an address to her Majesty from the House of Lords—whether suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, and carried by his prevailing influence in that House, he knew not; but it was an address of the House of Lords to his late Majesty, praying, that his Majesty would be graciously pleased to appoint a commission on the subject of railways in Ireland. On receiving that address he had consulted, not the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, but other persons connected with the Government in Ireland and others here in official appointments, and it then appeared to him and his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that Mr. Griffiths, a gentleman well acquainted with Ireland and this subject, that Colonel Burgoyne, who was at the head of the Board of Works in Ireland, and that Mr. Barlow, the professor of mathematics, at the Royal Military College, Woolwich, together with Mr. Drummond, whose scientific attainments, whatever might be his politics would not be denied, were proper persons with respect to a subject which the House of Lords had asked the Crown to appoint a commission to inquire about. These gentlemen had inquired into the subject with great labour and assiduity, and by the application, not of their political doctrines, but the science and knowledge they possessed, had made a report last year which contained as much knowledge, as much research, and as much information, on these subjects, as was ever presented in any public document, by persons appointed under a commission from the Crown. And he must say, that these gentlemen had fully justified the choice and selection made of them by the Crown, in consequence, in the first instance, he again repeated, of an address by the House of Lords. On that report he had thought it to be the bounden duty of the Government to consider what would be the best proposition to make to Parliament both for the benefit of Ireland and of the whole community. That proposition and the reasons for it, his noble Friend, the Secretary for Ireland was now prepared to state, and he did not think the House would be deterred from hearing that state-

1059
went by the imputation upon the Government, that they had not considered the merits of the question—that they had not considered the reports of the commissioners, but, listening to the suggestions of others, they had brought the subject forward for any paltry purpose, which he utterly disclaimed and despised.
Mr. H. Hinde,in explanation, said, the charge he made against her Majesty's Government was, that when he made a proposition last Session, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought was contrary to the recommendation of the committee in the report which he had just now read, that report was urged as conclusive against his motion; but now, when a motion was brought forward by the Government in the present Session contrary to that report, which he defied them to deny, they threw aside the report as not binding on them.
Colonel Percevalconcurred in the opinion, that the recommendations of the commissioners were regarded with great suspicion in Ireland. The commission had first been issued during the reign of his late Majesty, in consequence, it was true, of an address from the House of Lords, and on the death of the late King it was necessary that commission should be renewed. Now, in the original commission, which he bad read to-day appeared these words:—"That with a view to ascertain the best lines between any principal places in Ireland which it might be advisable to connect by railways, and for which works joint-stock companies might hereafter apply to Parliament." Implying, that joint-stock companies were contemplated. But in the renewal of the commission these words were left out, and he wished to know upon what authority that omission had been made. That circumstance had increased the suspicions existing in Ireland, and he trusted the noble Lord would be able to satisfy the House by what authority those important words had been left out.
Lord J. Russellconfessed, that he was not aware why those words had been left out. He was responsible for the first commission, and likewise for the renewal, but he did not remember, that his attention had been called to any alteration in the renewed commission, except that be had desired it should be limited in point of time. He, however, would make inquiries
1060
to satisfy the hon. and gallant Member opposite.
Mr. Redingtonsaid, that on referring to the report of the committee to which the hon. Member for Newcastle alluded, it appeared, that the committee were of opinion, that a general system of railways might be proper for Ireland.
House in Committee.
Viscount Morpeth: Now that I am permitted to go into committee, to state what it is intended to propose on the part of the Government, it will clearly be convenient for the consideration of the subject, and will certainly be just, prior to the condemnation of the plans we intend to bring forward. I feel conscious, however, that the proposition which I shall submit to the House, notwithstanding the slight indication to the contrary that has ruffled the short preliminary discussion, can have no tendency to excite political feeling or acrimony, inasmuch as it has for its sole object that which I am sure is common to all parties, both in and out of this House—to promote the practical and, if I may be allowed to use the term, the material interests of the Irish nation. Yet I confess that I do feel much; and I am not aware that on any previous occasion I ever felt more, of the suspense and anxiety which might naturally accompany the introduction of a measure on the most ambiguous and tempestuous subject of party warfare. This feeling I attribute partly to my own conviction of the great importance of the subject, and my unaffected sense of the slight and most inadequate justice that I can render it, inasmuch as, considering the great extent, the great variety, and the complexity of all its bearings, it might require, and would well deserve, the most undivested and unoccupied attention, whilst I have been able to confer upon it only the gleanings of a scanty leisure. However, I feel that the circumstances under which I bring this proposition forward will tend materially to relieve me from much of the burden and much of the responsibility which would otherwise attach to it. The circumstances are well known to every Member of this House, that in consequence of an Address which was unanimously voted by the other House of Parliament a commission was appointed by his late Majesty, which was subsequently renewed in the present reign, and taking notice of the variation between the wording of the two commissions alluded to by the hon. and gallant Member opposite, I must say that it was not effected through

1061
the design or through the interference on the part of the Irish government. The Irish government has never exercised any influence over or interfered with any of the deliberations of the commissioners. The commission appointed to inquire into the whole subject of Irish railroads was composed of persons to whose nomination there was generally a feeling of assent on the part of the country; and I believe that my assertion will be borne out by all competent contemporary testimony, when I say that they were above exception. But, however, that may be, their qualifications are best tested by the report which they have made. I do not pretend that this report has been received with universal approbation; there have been various complaints; some vehement symptoms of attack and of opposition have proceeded from different quarters in contravention of the statements which have been made, and the deductions which have been drawn; but when hon. Gentlemen say, that the report of the commissioners had only been adopted by the Government on the pressure of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, I will observe, in passing, that all I have heard, either in public or private, from my hon. and learned Friend was the condemnation which he made to this House of the report on its first inspection, and I am glad to find that on a minuter inspection of the contents of this report the hon. and learned Gentleman has been enabled to modify considerably his original opinion. While I admit, therefore, that on the first appearance of that report it met in various quarters with considerable hostility, yet that opposition has gradually diminished, and, I believe, that, on a closer examination of the present sources of opposition, it will be found, that it generally proceeds from those quarters where the persons are embarked in the prosecution of schemes which are liable to be affected by the recommendations of the commissioners; or from persons who have peculiar interests which they may consider not to have been sufficiently attended to in the report. I think, then, that it may fairly be stated, that the report may be considered as having risen gradually, but surely, in the estimation of competent and impartial judges. Many meetings have been held in all parts of Ireland, in the metropolis, in the larger cities, and in various parts of the country, attended by persons of all political parties, and in which resolutions have been carried, calling upon the Government to act in furtherance of the recommendations of
1062
the commissioners. Amongst others I will refer only to one document, an Address to her Majesty, signed by the great body of the peerage in Ireland, headed by the Duke of Leinster. It is to the following effect:—
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, being deeply interested in the prosperity of Ireland, and deeming it of the utmost importance to her welfare that the Poor-law Act of the last Session of Parliament should be followed in the next by measures for the general improvement of the country, most respectfully solicit your Majesty's gracious attention to the subject.
"It is not for us to specify particular undertakings, but we beg leave to express our anxious hope that the report lately made on railway communication in Ireland may be taken into serious consideration.
"We do so under the persuasion that the promotion of works of public utility in Ireland would not only prove one of the safest remedies for her wants, but, by encouraging commerce and increasing her means of contributing to the exigencies of the state, most essentially benefit all parts of the empire.
"November, 1838."
This Address was signed, as I have already said, by the Duke of Leinster, and amongst other names, by the Marquesses of Headfort and Clanricarde, the Earls of Meath, Arran, Courtown, Mil-town, Clanwilliam, Mountcashel, Clancarty, Gosford, Rathdowne, and Listowell; the Viscounts Southwell, Barberton, Lismore, and Gort; and the Lords Kinsale, Louth, Riversdale, Cloncurry, Clonbrock, Rossmore, Wallscourt, Dun-ally, Bloomfield, Fitzgerald and Vesci, Carew, and Oranmore. The recital of these names will convince the House that all parties have cordially concurred in calling upon the Government to prosecute a work which will be of great advantage to their common country. I think then, Sir, that the assent and authority of the Irish public have been sufficiently shown to justify the Government in acting upon the recommendations of the commissioners appointed to inquire into the subject; but I am aware that this alone is not a sufficient motive to induce the adoption of these recommendations by the imperial Legislature, unless these deductions are founded on truth, and unless their suggestions are based in policy. I do not, of course, challenge implicit reliance upon every single deduction of the commissioners, or adoption of every recommendation, but we do subscribe to the general tenor of the suggestions as being

1063
in our opinion sound and just, and proper and politic. Several of the propositions laid down in the report may be taken for granted at once; it would be a loss of time at this period of the railway question to labour to prove, that railroads are wonderfully effectual means for promoting the public convenience and of increasing the public wealth; and it would be superfluous for me to add, that their introduction into Ireland will be of signal advantage to that country. The main point for our consideration is, how this introduction is to be obtained. Shall we leave it to the energies of private enterprise and competition, as it has been wholly done in England; or shall we call for the assistance and intervention of the State, as has been wholly done in Belgium? I will not conceal from the House that the abstract principles of political economy, as applied to such a country as England, may not be considered as in accordance with the course of procedure recommended by the commissioners. I admit also that the report of the committee of this House which sat upon the subject of railways equally seems to discountenance such a course; but I do not conceive, as the hon. Member for Newcastle does, that this report did so absolutely, as there is an evident distinction drawn in the report between the basis on which we should legislate with regard to Great Britain and with regard to Ireland; and with respect to Ireland be it remembered that the recommendations of the committee have been in a great degree thrown over by the appointment of a commission to inquire into the system of railroads suitable to that country, on the unanimous vote of the other House of Parliament, acquiesced in by this. The question for us to consider, therefore, is, whether the course' which is perfectly consistent with true political economy, when applied solely to England, is supported with equal force of reasoning when applied to Ireland? Although, for myself, I think it is a question whether in this country the resolution we have formed to leave these public works solely to private competition, and to the management of private individuals, does not require some modification and revision; still I will not quarrel with the rule as it is applied to such a country as England, possessed of all the advantages and all the resources which advanced wealth and civilization can supply; yet the case is different with Ireland, which cannot be said to be prodigal
1064
of means, or bursting with opulence. I was rather taunted last night for not pressing more upon this very point, when we were urged to make both countries alike in electoral matters; but so far from the treatment in some matters being necessarily the same between this country and a country situated like Ireland, the singularity would be all the other way; however, the present is a question to be resolved by facts, and not by theories. Is England in want of the intervention of the State? Look at the surface of England, and then contrast it with the surface of Ireland. In the one country a soil improved by all the matured processes of agriculture, pouring through countless channels; its produce and its wealth into lines of manufacturing industry, its mills and its workshops, its factories clustered on the banks of every river, and forests of masts thickening in every port; in the other, a soil more fertile scantily cultivated, plains are yet more extensive, and yet more level, from which the busy hum of industry scarcely rises, and yet more noble rivers, along which the easily-counted sails drop down into deserted harbours. I find by a reference to tables the comparative wealth of the two countries. It appears by a*
Again, the amount of capital authorised to be raised for making railways in England under Acts passed in 1833, 1834, 1835, and 1836,was upwards of twenty-nine millions. The estimate for those for which bills were petitioned in 1837 was very near thirty-one millions. Therefore, sixty millions have either been applied or are in the course of application in England, whilst in Ireland we can only boast of the completion of one line of five miles in length. In England the canals and navigable rivers exceed considerably 4,000 miles, but in Ireland they are little more than 400. Therefore, the system of intervention of the State is unnecessary in England; but the same circumstances being taken into consideration show that intervention is required and is called for in Ireland. If we look at other countries, united or connected with this, what has been the course pursued by the parent country towards those other countries? Large sums have been voted for the Caledonian Canal, for highland roads and bridges in Scotland, for military roads and bridges in Scotland, and for the Rideau and Ottawa canals, and for canal communication in Canada. By a
*See Table in the following page.

1065
return of the sums voted in each year for these works, from 1770 to 1839, I find that there has been voted for the Caledonian Canal the sum of 953,638 l.; for the highland roads and bridges in Scotland, 25,752 l.; for military roads and bridges in Scotland, 241,918 l.; and for the Rideau and Ottawa canals, or for canal communication in Canada, 1,034,429 l. After all this, I cannot think the application unreasonable, to grant railways in Ireland—I will not say the gratuitous assistance—but the intervention of the State. It seems to have been a part of the past policy of the State, wherever in any portion of its dominions or dependencies, it had reason to think there was a deficiency, either of population or capital, to make what it did not find. Wherever we pursue the inquiry, I think it will be found, that the facility of intercourse and of communication has a marvellous tendency to reproduce and to multiply itself. I may instance the reports on the amount of communication subse-

*Statement of the Gross Receipt and Net Produce of the Customs and Excise Duties received in England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, in the year 1837, that the Customs Duties of the different parts of the Empire were as follows:—

CUSTOMS' DUTIES.

England.

Scotland.

Total Great Britain.

Ireland.

£.

£.

£.

£.

1. Gross Receipt

19,335,474

1,626,292

20,961,766

1,945,849

Drawbacks and Re-payments.

721,362

114,319

835,681

8,816

2. Net produce

18,614,112

1,511,973

20,126,085

1,937,033

Balances of former years received in 1837

*586,968

77,823

3. Total Income

20,713,053

2,014,856

quently to the introduction of railways, and the increase of traffic occasioned by the improved method of transit:—
"On the Stockton and Darlington line, the passenger traffic, prior to the establishment of the railway, amounted only to 4,000 persons in the year; it now exceeds 16,000. On the Bolton line the average weekly number of passengers is 2,500, whereas the number of coach journeys out and in per week, which the railway has superseded, amounted only to twenty-eight, carrying, perhaps, on a weekly average, above 280 or 300 passengers. On the Newcastle and Carlisle road, prior to the railway, the whole number of persons the public coaches were licensed to carry in a week were 343, or both ways 686; now the average daily number of passengers by the railway for the whole length, viz. 47½ miles is 228, or 1,596 in the week. The number of passengers on the Dundee and Newtyle line exceeds at this time 50,000 annually; the estimated number of persons who performed the same journey previous to the opening of the railway having been 4,000. Previous to the opening of the railway between Liverpool
and Manchester, there were about 400 passengers per day, or 146,000 a-year, travelling between those places by coaches, whereas the present number by railway alone exceeds 500,000. In foreign countries the results arising from the same cause are equally, if not more striking. The number of persons who usually passed by the road between Brussels and Antwerp was 75,090 in the year; but since the railroad has been opened from the former place to Malines, it has increased to 500,000; and since it was carried all through to Antwerp, the number has exceeded a million. The opening of a branch from Malines to Termonde appears to have added 200,000 to the latter number; so that the passenger traffic of that railway, superseding a road traffic of only 75,000 persons, now amounts to 1,200,000."
Now, in Ireland, we have only the experience of one railway, and what has been the effect produced by the completion of that line? The commissioners, in their report, say,
"As yet there is but one railway in Ireland, and that depending, perhaps, on peculiar local circumstances, and, at all events, being on too limited a scale to be fairly cited as a guarantee for the success of undertakings, in their nature and design, more general and extensive; but its history, as far as it is applicable, perfectly accords with our opinion as to the increased intercourse that follows the adoption of improved means of carrying it on. The Dublin and Kingstown railway has been in operation for three years only; the prices are not lower than those of the ordinary road conveyances, and the line being a very short one, no considerable saving is effected in point of time; yet it has more traffic than ever was known to be on the high road, while the latter is still frequented, to a great extent, with carriages, horses, and foot passengers. The owners of hackney-cars, who had derived all their support from the intercourse between Dublin and Kingstown, and feared that they would be thrown out of bread by the railway, have actually experienced an improvement in their business—not all, indeed, being employed upon the same line as before—but finding the defect amply made up by calls to places not directly in the line of railway, and in journeys and excursions to and from its several stations."
There are other details showing the great increase of intercourse and communication produced by steam navigation, and the different facilities afforded to the coasting trade, with which I will not trouble the House further than to say, that the effect produced by them has been to multiply the intercourse which is carried on in a marvellous manner, and that the profits have risen to an extent
1068
which could not have been anticipated by the most sanguine of the projectors of the undertaking. But if such are the benefits which have resulted from the opening of new means of intercourse, and from the adoption of a new species of communication, it may be asked, why not leave the whole matter to private competition and enterprise? Now my answer is, that although I consider it as undoubted, that the introduction of a well-conducted system of railways in Ireland would be of the most material advantage to the districts through which they would pass, and to the places between which such railways would be carried, and to the country and empire generally, yet it by no means follows, that they would hold forth the promise of sufficient remuneration to induce the promotion of the undertakings, or to secure the perseverance of private individuals or of companies. There may be portions of lines (and for some of them Acts of Parliament have been already obtained) which would sufficiently remunerate any company or set of individuals who might undertake them, but I doubt whether you could secure sufficient remuneration along such entire lines as it would alone be of much use to undertake; what we should wish to see, would be an extended system, I will not say of how many miles, or of how many lines, carried on so as to connect the interior of the country with the sea coast, and to reach from shore to shore, thus connecting Dublin with the extremities of the island, and the British channel with the Atlantic; or, as I might say, in large but still appropriate terms, the old world with the new. What are the calculations which the commissioners have made upon this subject? And here let me say once for all, that I, of course, cannot pretend to assert that these calculations must be considered infallible, or that the House must repose implicit reliance on them, for, like all other human matters, they may be found to contain some mistakes; but when I admit this I profess to ground myself on these calculations. With respect to the commissioners themselves I have the strongest opinion of their competence and abilities, and of their uprightness and integrity. I refer to the report which they have furnished as evidence of their zeal and diligence, and I am not aware that any one essential point of the statement which they have made has been questioned, or that any material error or miscalculation has been discovered, which can be brought for-

1069
ward against them. But although in saying this I must admit also, that they may have been liable to mistakes, and that in the course of the series of the vast calculations which they have had to make, they may have fallen into some errors, yet I feel, that no pains which I could have given to the subject could have enabled me to form any more just calculation, and I am disposed to think, although, of course, in a less degree, the same observation applies to those individuals who take upon themselves to impugn the defects. Some parts of the lines which the commissioners have recommended would carry with them a profit of five per cent., while others, which would be equally necessary, would carry a profit of only seven-tenths of a unit per cent. Many would doubtless undertake to produce lines which would secure for them a return of five per cent. for the capital which they invested; but there would be very far from the same alacrity displayed in the preparation of those lines by which a profit of seven-tenths of a unit only would be realised, and therefore there is great reason to doubt whether such lines would be undertaken at all, and the interests of the country would entirely be thrown aside and lost. All, that is most, of the meetings which have been held in Ireland bear out this view of the case, which I am now anxious to impress on the House, At the great meeting held in Dublin, at which it is true that the hon. and learned Representative for that city was present, but which was also attended by many decidedly opposed in politics to that Gentleman, amongst whom was Viscount de Vesci and others, the meeting being called upon a requisition, which, if I mistake not, was signed by the right honourable and learned Recorder, it was resolved,
"That it appears to this meeting that the establishment of any such comprehensive system of railways, on principles calculated to extend its usefulness to all parts of the country to which railways are applicable, cannot, under existing circumstances, be effected by private capital, and enterprise; and that it, consequently becomes the obvious duty of the Government, in order to secure to the people of Ireland advantages of such vast importance, to take this great national work into its own hands.
"That railways, in the hands of individuals or chartered companies, however valuable and important the advantages and facilities which they afford to the public, are necessarily and unavoidably monopolies, and, as such, irre-
1070
concileable with the public interests; that the nature of the vested rights acquired by the shareholders in such undertakings renders it difficult, if not impossible, to apply any remedy to the evils of the system, while, if such establishments were the property of the State, they could be at any time reviewed or altered, as circumstances might require, without injury to any party.
"That the advantages and facilities possessed by the Government over individuals or companies, in the accomplishment of such an undertaking, are manifest. Capital would be obtained at a much lower rate of interest, and the enormous law costs, and those consequent upon parliamentary investigation, almost entirely saved, while the professional assistance, to he obtained in the several public departments, would be calculated materially to lessen the general expense. It is also unquestionable (having been already ascertained in various important instances) that noblemen and great landed proprietors, who, if ground were required from their respective estates, for a work undertaken with views referable solely to private emolument, would naturally exact its utmost value, are prepared to give it freely and without compensation, for an object of such vast public utility. Central management would.' also be found not only the most efficient and economical, but its general effect would be to establish a system of such strict regularity and responsibility, as it would be impossible to attain under the direction of separate local boards."
At the meeting which was held with respect to the Great Northern Railways, it was declared,
"That in a country under the peculiar citcumstances of Ireland, whose landed proprietary and commercial interests have been depressed from various causes, it is not to be expected that sufficient capital can be obtained from its own resources for the execution of great lines of railway; and in the incipient state of national improvement, which is now progressing in Ireland, it is still less to be expected that British capital will be withdrawn from an investment on British soil, where certain prospects are afforded of large remunerative returns, to be invested in the less encouraging projects of Irish speculations. Under such circumstances, it is therefore, in our opinion, not only the duty but the interest of the State to give liberal aid in the advancement of such great lines of public communication as may offer a reasonable security for the amount of public money expended; because, although that degree of profit may not be directly or immediately produced to the State, which is necessary for the remuneration of private capital, still the State would have a certainty of ample remuneration, by the increased property of the country, and the consequent increase of revenue which must be the certain accompaniment of that prosperity."

1071
I will only read one more extract, which I will take from the resolutions agreed to at a meeting of the landowners and population of Caher and its vicinity. It was there re-solved,—
"That this meeting do fully approve of the opinion expressed by the Commissioners, that the circumstances in which Ireland is placed with reference to the amount of capital disposable for enterprises of that nature, are not favourable to the establishment of local and separate lines of railway, executed and conducted by private companies, and that the interests of the country would be promoted much more effectually by a general system of railway intercourse, embracing within its influence the most populous and wealthy districts, and carried into effect under the immediate superintendence and control of her Majesty's Government, and that a petition to Parliament and the Lords of the Treasury to this effect be adopted."
I do not intend, and it is far from my wish, to impeach the conduct of any railway company in England; on the contrary, the country is immensely indebted to the energy, skill, and enterprise which they have displayed; and I profess myself to be friendly to railways in every shape, and in every form; but still I believe, that it is thought, and the opinion is gaining ground, that Parliament in the first instance, in the necessary inexperience which enveloped the subject, did somewhat blindly and precipitately throw the whole control and superintendence and legislation, in fact, of these vast concerns, which are fast gathering into a monopoly throughout the kingdom, into the hands of private, irresponsible individuals; and that it is now beginning to be found, that great as are the advantages resulting from the undertakings, yet, that there are some abuses found to have grown up, on account of the monopoly, and the irresponsibility of the persons in whose hands they rest, which it would appear that a law of nature always attached to monopoly and irresponsibility. The ground is comparatively open to us in Ireland, and I want on that new field, having laboured to prove that the circumstances of that country do justify, and I even venture to say, call for, the intervention of Government, in the introduction of this great and marvellous modern improvement reserved for the skill and energy of our own day, to introduce the system in its most complete and effective form, relieved from all the imperfections which inevitably accompanied it here, adopting all the various improvements which have been supplied, and which
1072
are now every day in the course of being supplied, avoiding the expense and delay attending ordinary parliamentary proceedings, and taking care that the plan shall be executed under competent control, by persons selected exclusively for their fitness and ability, and with a regularity and order, which perhaps a public department alone can effectually insure. The course adopted by the Belgian government is in strict accordance with the views which I have stated; and if the Committee will allow me to trouble them with a few details, it will afford us ample authority and excuse for treading in the same steps. The course there adopted is almost precisely similar to that taken in this country, and the quotation which I shall read is from the report of the Statistical Society on public affairs in Belgium, published within the last month; they began nearly as we did in Ireland:—
"The first step which the Government took for the accomplishment of its object was, to employ a number of competent engineers to survey the kingdom, and to determine the main lines with reference not only to the general features of the country, but also to the interests of the several large towns, and to their internal and foreign relations. On the first of May, 1834, a law was passed authorising the Government to carry their project into execution. Mechlin was taken as the centre of the system, with four branches extending from that town, in different directions, to each frontier."
It then gives a summary of the lines resolved on, and goes on:—
"The people have had the advantage of a much earlier introduction of this important means of communication than if the undertaking had been left to private speculation—without risk to individuals—without the interference of private interests—on lines per. haps which of themselves would have offered no temptation to private enterprise, but which as part of an extensive system will repay, either directly or indirectly, the money expended upon them. The Government will, in all probability, recover its outlay from the profits of the undertaking, but will assuredly be repaid by an augmentation of revenue arising from the increased commerce and traffic throughout the kingdom. If it be objected that the Government will be enabled to exercise too despotic a power over the means of public communication, the experience of similar private undertakings in our own country may give rise to a question, whether the control of the State is likely to be more absolute than that of the directors of a chartered railroad."
Now what are the causes which have pro-

1073
duced this very great disproportion in the costs incurred under the respective systems; and I think it will be found that the advantages which have been acquired in Belgium, will apply with equal advantage to Ireland,—the great and main item of expense to which railways are liable in this country, is that of conducting the necessary bill through Parliament, and it is said, that this has exceeded in many lines 1,000 l. per mile. I will give the estimated expense of obtaining the bills for several railways.

London and Birmingham

£72,868

Great Western

88,710

London and Southampton

39,040

Midland Counties

28,776

Birmingham and Gloucester

12,000

Great North of England

20,526

Grand Junction

22,757

Bristol and Exeter

18,592

Total

£303,269

The total estimated cost of these eight railways was 11,595,800 l.; the above item amounted to two and a-half per cent. of that sum, or nearly 500 l. per mile." The most extravagant expense incurred is that which the directors of the London and Brighton railways have been called upon to pay, which far exceeds all other cases. Another great source of expense is the enormous amounts of compensation which have been required by individuals who have held the land through which the lines pass, and particularly those who have any Parliamentary interest. The hon. Member for Lancaster on a former evening made a statement to the House touching this point, and he said that persons possessing Parliamentary interest have received many times the amount which others have received, and in the report which I have already quoted it is said, "There are instances in which this species of extortion has amounted to 10,000 l. per mile. One case has recently been the subject of a trial in the Court of Chancery, in which a nobleman obtained from the directors of the railway, in consideration of his withdrawing his opposition to the bill, 20,000 l. for land belonging to him required by the company; and 100,000 l. for the injury done to his estate." Immediately afterwards it is stated that—
"The contrast afforded by the United States of America is very striking. Mr. Fripp, in his account of the New York and Erie Railway, mentions, that besides the support granted by the State loan, donations of great
1074
value have been made to the company by individuals owning lands on the route of the railway. These donations consist of many thousand acres of land; for instance, 50,000 in one county only, proffered by the proprietors for the purpose of inspiring confidence in the stock, providing for dividends, and the payment of interest, and to secure the speedy construction of the road."
Now I am happy to think that an advantage similar to that here recited will be obtained in Ireland. The several individuals possessing the respective properties in Ireland through which the proposed lines will run, have most handsomely said, that if the Government undertakes to conduct the extensive lines of railway, they will give their land free of all cost, and I may mention the Duke of Leinster, the Earl of Kingston, and others, as some of those who have thus come forward. But I am empowered to say, and indeed I have good reason to know, that these munificent offers will not be repeated in case of the railways being carried on by any individuals or by private companies. Another source of expense arises from the haste with which it is found necessary to push the works forward, and which, under the regular system proposed by Government, would be obviated. But, perhaps, the strongest reason of all, that induces us to give a preference to making this a Government measure, especially in a comparatively poor country, to which I have all along referred, and to which the argument is mainly applicable, is, that in the case of private individuals or companies, of course it is to the interest of the parties, and as long as human nature remains what it now is, it will ever be so, to raise their prices as high as they will bear the strain, while in a work undertaken by the State we have the means of limiting the prices and profits to that amount which will make a fair return upon the sum actually expended. By the report to which I have before alluded, it is made clear, that the reduction of fares which the State may, but which companies hardly ever will carry into effect to the same extent, would, probably, also have the effect of increasing the amount of profit returned, and it is said—
"Another source of extravagant expenditure arises from the haste with which these works are frequently pushed forward; which is such, in many cases, as to require day and night work, and many other heavy extra charges. Short lines are frequently rendered expensive by their requiring a greater proportionate number of stations, warehouses, work-

1075
shops, and other establishments; these always forming a large item in the general cost of construction."
"It is not sufficient to assert that the fares are moderate, and the accommodation adequate to the present traffic. The experience of the railroad system itself, compared with turnpike roads, proves, that as the fares are reduced, and the accommodation is extended, the traffic will more than proportionably increase. There can, indeed, be no doubt that if the present rate of charge be maintained, the monopoly which railways possess will prove a great obstacle to increased travelling. That the directors have little to fear from adopting a system of low fares will appear from the following comparison of the present amount of travelling in England and Belgium."
"The population of the towns on this line (Liverpool and Manchester) exclusive of the adjacent districts, which teem with inhabitants engaged in commerce and manufactures, was, in 1831, Liverpool, 196,694; Manchester, 270,963; Warrington, 19,155;—total, 486,812. This number could not have been less, in 1836, than 523,000, which is the number of passengers using the railway in that year. On an average, therefore, each inhabitant may be supposed to take one trip in a year."
Now I will state the population on the Belgian line:—
"The population of these three towns did not, in 1838, amount to one half of that on the English line, namely, Brussels, with its suburbs, 134,302; Mechlin, 22,895; Antwerp, 75,363:—total, 232,960; and neither the population nor the commercial activity of the surrounding districts can be compared with those of its competitor, yet the intercourse in 1837 was more than twice as great, and with reference to the difference of population, was five times as great, the average number of trips to each inhabitant having been five per annum. A comparison with the intercourse on both lines previous to the formation of the railroads is equally favourable to the Belgian undertaking. On the Liverpool and Manchester line, the average number of passengers which the coaches carried, in the year 1825 was estimated at 450 daily, or 164,250 per annum. The number actually conveyed by the railroad, in 1836, was 523,000, showing an increase of 218 per cent., or rather more than three times the former number; the fares having been reduced from 10 s. and 6s. to 5s. 6d. and 4s.: the higher rates one-half, and the lower only one-third. On the Belgian line the number of passengers between Brussels and Antwerp, before the opening of the railway, is said to have been 80,000 yearly. The rates of conveyance have been reduced from 4s. to 2s. 6d. and 2s. 6d. to 1s. 0½d.; the higher fares two fifths, and the lower three fifths: and in 1837 the number of passengers booked at Brussels and Antwerp, excluding Mechlin,
1076
whence a portion of the passengers were proceeding on other lines of railway, was 781,250, showing an increase of 876 per cent., or about nine and a half times the former number."
"The Belgian government adopts the last system, and expects to realize an annual profit of five per cent. upon the original outlay beyond the current expenses. It has, however, been estimated, that the line from Brussels to Antwerp will yield sixteen per cent."
"The cost of the ten sections already completed, comprising the expenses of locomotive power, stations, and buildings, was about 1,360,000 l., or 8,526 l. a mile."
"Let us now compare these results with the cost of similar undertakings in this country, and elsewhere. The lowest sum yet incurred in the construction of a well-executed railway in England, is stated to be 10,000 l. a mile. This was the amount on the Newcastle and Carlisle, and on the Wigan lines, but of the former only about one-half the length was laid with a double line of rails. Others however, (exclusive of lines in the vicinity of the metropolis, the cost of which is enormous), have amounted to 40,000 l. a mile. The cost of the Manchester and Liverpool line was 38,553 l. per mile; of the Warrington and Newton a branch of the latter, 12,470 l.; of the Leeds and Selby, 10,500 l.; of the Dublin and Kingstown, 41,823 l. The short line from London to Greenwich, of only three miles, has cost more than 600,000 l., or 200,000 l. a mile. The estimated cost of the 44 railways for which Acts were obtained in 1836 and 1837, was 25,692,500 l.; their length, 1,457 miles; and the average estimated cost per mile, 17,600 l. But, judging from the experience furnished by those already executed, this estimate will fall considerably short of the real expense."
Having now sufficiently stated the views which I entertain on the general principle, and by which I shall be guided, I will now mention shortly the particular provisions which I propose to introduce into the measure which I shall submit to the Committee, and which I hope I shall be allowed to embody to-night in a bill, which, of course, will be submitted to the ample and mature consideration of Parliament. We do not propose in 'the first instance, that the Government should undertake more than one of the lines recommended by the railway commissioners. I own that I myself should have rather liked to have grasped at more, because I think the efficacy of the measure would have been increased by our doing so, but the line which we propose to adopt, is of sufficient magnitude fully to test the experiment; and while it must be admitted that to some extent it is still only an experiment, perhaps it is more fair to the country and to the public, and to the

1077
interests of those concerned, that the Government should not monopolize the whole field at once, but should leave a little room for experience and consideration, in order that the House might consider whether the whole plan should be eventually carried out, or whether private companies should be allowed to come in. The line which we propose to execute is, that from Dublin to Cork, with branches to Limerick and to Clonmel, which will comprehend an extent of line 213 miles in length. The main line from Dublin to Cork will be 166 miles long; the branch which will diverge at Holycross to Limerick will be 36 miles; and that which will lead to Clonmel will be 10 miles in length; and this, by the calculation of the commissioners, will involve an expense of 2,556,000 l. The reasons which have determined us to adopt this line, is, that we think, that it will benefit a larger area of country, and that it will open a communication with greater districts and towns than could be obtained in any other line, because it will at once throw open the advantages to be gained to the large and important counties of Tipperary, Cork, Limerick, Kerry, Clare, and Waterford. Another reason is, that that district is now without any navigable canals or rivers. The line will connect Dublin and all the manufacturing districts of Lancashire and its neighbourhood, and indeed the metropolis of London itself, with Cork, which is the port most in use in the south of Ireland. Whether there may be others which may afford better means of communication between Ireland and America is a point which I will not now raise, but Cork is the harbour which is resorted to more than any other in the traffic between Ireland and America, and it will give the remotest part of the British empire ample means of communication, through the city of Dublin, with all parts of the western world. The country is extremely favourable to the making of railways, and although in other districts some of the advantages to be obtained there might be secured, yet I do not think that there is any other line which would so combine equal facilities, or in which greater practical good would be effected. I certainly should have been glad to have included the great northern line between Dublin and Belfast, which was also strongly recommended in the report of the commissioners, in my plan, but, for the reasons which I have stated, I think that that to which I have alluded already will be sufficient, and
1078
it will be remembered, indeed, that in the line to which I have last referred, there are not only two railways proposed, for which Acts of Parliament have been already obtained, but two railways are actually in progress—not indeed in the identical lines proposed by the commissioners, but in which a Government railway would be a very formidable competitor. The proprietors of those undertakings have made loud representations against the report of the commissioners, and although I will not give those complaints more weight than they are strictly entitled to, yet I think it will be wiser to give time to see whether those companies which have obtained Acts, or any others, may choose to undertake a connecting line between Armagh and Drogheda, which is not already provided for, or whether, after the experience which we shall have acquired, after making the Great Southern Railway, it will be considered best, that the State shall take into its consideration the completion of the Great Northern Railway also. I will now briefly state the heads of the measure. It is proposed,
"That the lines of railway recommended by the commissioners, between Dublin and Cork, with branch to Limerick, should be executed as public works. The management to be vested in the Board of Works, with power to the Treasury to confer such assistance as may be requisite."
When I mention the Board of Works, and particularly the individual at the head of that Board, I feel that no other guarantee is needed, that all possible activity, zeal, and intelligence, will be brought to bear upon the construction and management of these railways. I cannot pass this branch of the subject, without adverting to the supposed danger of undue interference of Government with the Board of Works in the way of patronage. I can only say on this, that since I have been connected with the Government of Ireland, no such interference has taken place with any of the operations or proceedings of the Board of Works. It is further proposed in the bill,—
"That the usual powers, as to appointing officers, entering on lands for survey, &c., be given to them: Detailed plans and sections to be made out by the commissioners, and submitted to the Treasury for approval Compensation for lands or premises required for these works to be determined by the commissioners in a manner similar to that laid down in the Act for the improvement of the Shannon; The Treasury empowered to issue

1079
Exchequer Bills from time to time as may be required for execution of these works, and all other purposes of this Act, not exceeding a given amount: Accounts of expenditure and reports of progress to be annually laid before Parliament: Commissioners to fix the rates of carriage, and give facilities to parties desirous of making branch lines, subject to the approval of the Treasury: Appropriation of the revenue received—1st, Maintenance and working of railways; 2d, Payment of interest at 3½ per cent. on advances; arrears of interest on advances accruing before the works become productive, to be added to the capital advanced, and to bear interest accordingly; 3rd, Repayment of capital at a rate not exceeding 1½ per cent per annum; 4th, Surplus to be afterwards disposed of in reduction of rates, or extension of railways, as Parliament may direct"
These are the main provisions of the bill. There still remain those, however, which provide for the possibility of a deficiency. The calculation of the commissioners is, that there will be a profit of about four per cent.; and, as it is admitted on all hands, that if the commissioners have erred at all in their calculation, it is on the side of over-prudence; that, in fact, they have understated the probable profits of these undertakings. There is every reason to suppose, that these estimates of their's will be realised. But so unwilling are we to excite any prejudice either in Parliament or the country, that Ireland is about to be benefitted at the expense of England, and thereby to create obstacles to the progress of the measure, that in order to guard the public treasury against the possibility of risk, we propose to enact, that in the event of the revenue proving inadequate to the maintenance and working of the lines, and payment of the interest at the aforesaid rate, the deficiency should be made good by assessment on the counties through which the lines pass; one-third of the assessment on each county to be charged on the baronies intersected by or adjoining the lines; the remaining two-thirds to be charged on the county at large, including those baronies. These (continued the noble Lord) are the provisions of the bill which I hope to have leave to introduce. We propose to employ the credit of England for the benefit of Ireland, but, at the same time, to secure England against all loss out of the benefit she confers. We propose, not as in the case of private companies, that if there is a profit, that profit shall go into our own pockets, but that whatever does arise, over and above the profits of the works, shall be applied to the general benefit of
1080
the Irish people. We propose also to substitute the public and responsible management of an official department for that of a private company, accompanied, as private enterprise must be, by irresponsibility, feeling, as we do, that if the formation of railways in Ireland were left to private enterprise, no general plan would be undertaken, and carried to a successful conclusion. We think, by these means, we shall be able most considerably to lessen the cost of construction of the works, as well as to reduce the rates of travelling. We believe, also, that we shall be enabled so to shape the whole of the arrangements, as to conduce exclusively to the advantages the public will derive from the railways; that, by undertaking works more extensive and useful, than could be undertaken by parties who would only look to profit, we shall secure the attainment of what otherwise we must despair of, a great increase, by means of our more enlarged scale of operations, to the employment for labour in Ireland, an increase which, if it has been at all times essential to the real welfare of the inhabitants of that country, is now rendered still more so as an accompaniment to the measure introduced last Session for the relief of the poor. Sir, I will not indulge in any further, perhaps visionary and high-flown anticipations of the benefits of the measure. I only hope, that the House will, at all events, give me leave to introduce the bill, and that the subject will meet with a calm, clear, and dispassionate consideration; and as, in the course of the lengthened and, I fear, unavoidably tedious address which I have inflicted on the patience of the House, I have had occasion to cite many prosaic authorities, I will now, in recommending this practical but splendid work to your adoption, cite the words, and use the authority, of one of the most practical as well as splendid of our poets:—
"Bid harbours open, public ways extend,
Let temples worthier of the God, ascend;
Bid the broad arch the dangerous flood restrain,
The mole projected, break the roaring main;
Back to his bounds, the subject sea command,
And roll obedient rivers through the land,
These honours peace to happy Britain brings;
These are imperial works, and worthy kings!"
The noble Lord concluded, by moving, that her Majesty be enabled to authorise Exchequer Bills, to an amount not exceeding 2,500,000 l., to be made out by direction of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, and to be by them advanced for the con-

1081
struction of a railway or railways in Ireland, the sum so advanced being secured, and the interest and sinking fund to be secured on the profits of the works, the deficiency, if any, being provided for by an assessment on the several districts through which such railway or railways may be carried, or which may be benefited thereby.
Mr. Redington,seconded the motion, and congratulated the noble Lord on the statements he had made. He had the highest respect for the zeal and talent of the Railway Commissioners; but while he admitted that they had given the most important information respecting three provinces in Ireland, they had almost entirely misrepresented or omitted to make mention of the other province, that was Connaught, his native place. The western part of Ireland had not come in for its fair consideration on the part of the Commissioners, like the southern and other parts of Ireland. The whole province of Connaught had been completely past over by the Commissioners; they had not proposed to lay out a single line there, for they had not made any surveys or taken any proceedings for that purpose. The Commissioners had not dealt fairly with the people of Galway.—He felt bound, however, to admit, that there was one paragraph in the Report of the Commissioners which must be considered candid in the extreme; he alluded to that part of the Report in which the Commissioners stated that there were certain parts of Ireland into which they had not thought it necessary to make any investigations. He thought it was the duty of the House, before they adopted the present measure, to see whether railways could be introduced with great benefit into the other parts of Ireland which the Commissioners had not referred to. With regard to the general principles involved in the measure proposed by the noble Lord, that the Government should take the place of private enterprise in such a country as Ireland, there existed a very high authority against it; that authority stated, that when Governments interfered with private enterprise they interfered with that which neither did the country or the Governments any benefit: he however, was not one of those who thought that when Government interfered with private enterprise they would not succeed. If he wanted a proof of that he had only to refer to both statements of the noble Lord
1082
opposite with respect to what had taken place in Belgium. Upon that ground it was that he agreed in the general principles of the measure of the Noble Lord. He was glad that the measure had been introduced, and he trusted that it would meet with the sanction of the House. He could not however, agree to the details of the noble Lord's Bill, because he desired that the people of the West of Ireland should have the same benefit as had been given to the southern and the other parts of Ireland.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that the very progress of this debate as far as it had gone afforded an illustration which confirmed the doubts he had always entertained of the policy of departing from the great public principle of non-interference of government with private enterprise. First, however, let him observe, that if he opposed the adoption of the contrary practice, let it not be supposed that the ground of his objection would be the expense which the measure would be likely to cause to England; that contributed nothing to his opinion on this subject. On the contrary, once show him that the proposed measure would benefit Ireland, and the expense would not deter him from assenting to it. But he greatly feared that every proposal for the carrying out of a line of railroad would expose the Government to enormous difficulties, from the opposing interests of the proprietors of estates contiguous to the different lines. An instance of this had already presented itself in the present debate, for the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, the very first speaker who had addressed the House on the subject, being a resident of one part of Ireland, at once rose in his place, and charged on the promoters of the measure partiality and injustice towards a large district. The hon. Member declared that Connaught had been overlooked, and Ulster also. [Mr. Redington Not considered to the same extent as the other districts.] He meant to illustrate his argument as to what must be the invariable consequences of Government undertaking enterprises of this sort. There was much in the objection of the hon. Gentleman. Was it not unjust that Connaught and Ulster should be taxed for the completion of a line in the south? ["No!"] Why, how could the expense be defrayed by Government, except out of the means created by general taxation? The effect of the proposition was, that the money of individuals throughout the country was

1083
taken to carry into effect a line of railroad which was to benefit a particular district. The report of the commissioners, able as it was, as regarded all the engineering information required, only sufficed to convince him of the extreme impolicy of the interference of Government in these undertakings; for it showed that there was already a sufficient inducement to individuals to undertake all profitable speculations. In England the Government did not interfere in this way with private enterprise, and all the great works of which she boasted had been undertaken and completed by private enterprise. The noble Lord, however, invited a comparison between the two countries as regarded the amount of private capital available for such purposes. Suppose he carried the comparison farther, and compared Wales with England. Suppose he showed that the customs duties of Wales did not amount to more than 400,000 l. or 500,000 l. and those of England to nearly 20,000,000 l, was it to be inferred that the public improvements of Wales should be taken under the guidance of Government, or were we to leave that country to follow the example of its neighbour, and to trust, that increase of prosperity and commerce would lead naturally to an extension of the means of communication? With regard to Ireland the facts in the report appeared to contradict the assumption of the noble Lord. He found proofs in the report, that the opening for the introduction for capital existed, if the intelligence and enterprise of individuals were duly exerted. One object of the report was to show how enormously the profits upon intercommunication had increased, and how the internal prosperity of the country would be increased by the opening of railway communications. The former fact it shewed most conclusively, choosing for example the case of Mr. Bianconi—one apparently the most surrounded with difficulties, and the least tempting to speculators, that could have possibly occurred. That gentleman was a native of Milan, with originally a very small capital, who settled in the county town of Tipperary, and in the first instance set up only a single car. Undeterred by all the accounts of violence, and all the prejudice which might operate against him—a foreigner, single, unsupported, bringing intelligence and industry to individual enterprise, and acting by that love of profit which actuated all specula-
1084
tors. What was the result? "The enterprise and intelligence," said the report, "of an individual, has, within the last twenty years, supplied the entire of the South and a great portion of the West of Ireland, with means of internal communication, by a species of accommodation, and in directions which, till then, had been unattempted—he meant a regular system of communication by cars between the provincial towns; for it is worthy remark, that while the intercourse has been long kept up by public coaches and other vehicles, between Dublin and the great towns, and between the several places situate on those lines one with another, there was scarcely an instance of a public conveyance plying regularly by the crossroads, until the individual we allude to undertook it. We speak of Mr. Bianconi, of Clonmel, whose flourishing establishments afford a distinct and unequivocal proof that Ireland is in a condition to take advantage speedily and effectually of such facilities of internal communication as may occur. Mr. Bianconi is a native of Milan, who, when he settled in this country, was unacquainted even with the language spoken by its inhabitants. With a capital little exceeding the expense of the outfit, he commenced running a car between Clonmel and Cahir"—then in a disturbed state. "Fortune, or rather the due reward of industry and integrity, favoured his first efforts, and he soon began to increase the number of his cars, and to multiply their routes, until his establishments, which are still extending themselves in all directions, spread over the whole province of Munster, passed through Kilkenny to Wexford, Carlow, and Mountmellick, in Leinster, and penetrated into the counties of Sligo and Leitrim on the north-west. He has now ninety-four public carriages in constant work, and the distances traversed by them exceed 3,000 miles per day." Why, he asked, should not Gentlemen interested in the prosperity of Ireland, imitate the example of Mr. Bianconi, and establish their own railroads, trusting that their intelligence and industry in the application of their own enterprise and capital would insure the same success as in this country? "These results," said the report, "are the more striking and instructive as having been accomplished in a district which has been long represented as the focus of unreclaimed violence and barbarism, where neither life nor property

1085
can be deemed secure." Why, he again asked, should not Irish gentlemen and capitalists undertake their own works and trust to their own intelligence and enterprise for their natural reward? But the Government stepped in, and said Ireland was too poor to undertake such works; and there must be a grand scheme with a public department, and a cumbrous provision, that if the income should not be sufficient to maintain the line and pay the interest, the deficiency should be made up by an assessment on the country at large; but was not this creating and holding out difficulties and discouragements to private capital and enterprise, at the same time that it must lead to jealousy and disappointment in those parts which were not traversed by the favoured line? Every one of the arguments which had been used in support of this measure, might, with equal justice and cogency, be adduced in support of a proposition to establish a Government cotton manufactory in Ireland. Ireland, it might be said, was very poor; England was very rich: the cotton manufacture had not been introduced into Ireland; it would cause a great increase in the means of industry and social improvement: they could take advantage of all the improvements and benefit of all the experience and inventions of the cotton-mills near Manchester; but what was the answer to all this? It really was a great insult to the people of Ireland, to suppose that they were not capable of appreciating the benefits of railroads, and that it was necessary for a public department to introduce among them all the improvements which had taken place in that mode of communication. He knew how plausible it appeared at first sight, to advance English credit in support of such an undertaking; but, although he took no objection in point of expense, his firm belief was, that the moment Government interposed and supplied its credit, it must inevitably disparage native intelligence, industry, and enterprise, besides being a most unfair interference with the capital already in the field. He took the case of Bianconi, the native of Milan, to which he had just referred; who, undeterred by all threats of violence in a disturbed district, relying on the exertion of private industry and intelligence, invested his small capital in the single car, the speedy success of which enabled him ultimately to maintain no less than ninety-four public convey-
1086
ances through different parts of Ireland: if the advantage of his position were interfered with by the legitimate application of private skill and capital, Mr. Bianconi might fairly be allowed to suffer; but he very much doubted, whether Government had a right to interpose so formidable and destructive an opposition to his private resources as the establishment of this line, which must of necessity engross all communication along the line. What said the report? "So great are the powers, so vast the capabilities of a railroad, that it must, wherever established, at once supersede the common road; and not only will all the public conveyances now in use disappear, but even the means of posting will, in all probability, rapidly decline, and eventually, perhaps, cease to be found along its line." Exactly the same consequences would follow as to an individual already engaged in the cotton manufacture, Government credit and public capital being employed with all its facilities against him. But was it fair in the Government, first, by remitting the usual charges on private bills, and then, with increased facilities, to come into competition with individuals, when, according to this report, the certain effect of these railroads would be, to supersede the common roads? Would not Mr. Bianconi have a fair claim for compensation in such a case? He might be ready to abide the consequences of fair competition with individuals or public companies, but if Government for any general considerations thought it wise to annihilate his establishments by large advances of public credit and capital, he was entitled to ask compensation for the loss. He called on them to consider well the danger of establishing such a competition. The intenvention of Government in such matters should be guarded by the greatest possible caution and circumspection, on account not only of its direct interference with the existing application of capital, but also on account of the unfair advantage it must give to one part of the country over another. He now came to the question of the proportion in which the expense of the railways was to be imposed on the different counties. The report said, "A railway intersecting the country from Dublin would place the cattle of the rich pastures in the great feeding counties of Limerick, Clare, parts of Tipperary, and Queen's County, within reach of Liverpool, Manchester, and Birmingham,

1087
thereby insuring to these markets a larger supply and of superior quality, while the profits of the Irish feeder would be proportionably enhanced." Yes, but if it would do so, why should not those counties contribute directly to the maintenance of the line? But, again he asked, what would be the consequence? "The profits of the Irish feeder would be proportionably enhanced;" why, then, should the feeders on the Limerick line have this advantage? Why should not the feeders in Connaught have a corresponding benefit from British capital? The consequence would be, that next year, having perfectly annihilated all prospect of private gain from these railroads, they would have the feeders of Connaught saying, "Don't throw on us the onus of maintaining this line. You have given the feeders of Clare an unfair advantage, to which we have contributed. Extend the same advantage to us." After choosing to establish one single line by public credit and capital, they could not in justice resist an application from any other projected line in Ireland. They might say, "We are equally poor; nay, we are poorer than the line you have favoured, for you have not only taxed us by the issue of Exchequer-bills, in order to construct a rival line, but exposed us to unfair competition; we have therefore a double claim upon you—to reduce the charges you have imposed, to take the land from the landlord, and advance public money upon our line. The speculation might be a losing one to the Government—the experiment might have failed; but, being profitable to the feeders, the railway would be kept up, though the profits were reduced; individuals would receive all the advantages, and it would be too late, having committed hardship and injustice in one direction, to refuse the only mode of reparation which would remain by extending the same measure of assistance to other parties. It was absurd to tell him, that poor countries could not compete in these matters with rich countries. It might be said, that England was a great manufacturing country; but he would take an agricultural district. A writer on statistics relates, that two generations back "there were no means of reaching London from Horsham, in Sussex, but on foot or on horseback, the latter not practicable in all seasons. Horsham is thirty-six miles from London, and the journey between the two places now occupies less than four
1088
hours. More than thirty coaches pass through it daily, to and from the metropolis, in addition to private carriages, post chaises, &c. The traffic of goods chiefly coal and agricultural produce, carried on in the district of which Horsham is the centre, exceeds 40,000 tons in a-year; besides which the road is constantly covered with droves of cattle and flocks of sheep." What said the Commissioners upon this? Let the House attend: "This result has been obtained by a rise of only the first degree in the scale of improvement—namely, an excellent road without even a canal. It is the effect of improved communications on a country of rich soil, and bears analogy to what has taken place in many parts of Ireland." Ay, and to what will take place in many parts of Ireland, if the great landowners of that country, the Duke of Leinster for instance, and others, being convinced that new lines of communication will be profitable to the feeders, will only meet amicably and on fair terms with the capitalists of England, and will arrange with them the conditions on which these railroads are to be formed. When they shall have done that, the moral improvement produced upon the people of Ireland, from its landowners relying upon their exertions, will exceed tenfold that which would be produced by a Government Board with enormous patronage, interposing in such a concern, and proceeding on the old assumption, so much deprecated on the other side of the House, that the inhabitants of Ireland are an inferior people. He called upon the Government to consider well what they were about to do. They were reversing all the principles on which they ordinarily relied. They asked the House to grant municipal corporations to Ireland on the ground, that it would enable its inhabitants to superintend and manage their own concerns, and yet, in the present instance, they called upon the Members for, and indeed upon the whole people of Ireland, to consent to their own disqualification in so important a matter as the formation, construction, and supervision, of their railroads, and to abstain from doing those things for themselves, which had been done in the poorer districts of Great Britain; as, for instance, in Scotland and Wales, without any interference of the State. "Oh, no," said the hon. Gentlemen opposite, "that has not been done in Scotland, there the Government

1089
has interfered in the management of public works, and especially of the Caledonian Canal." Now to that he would reply, that if this money were intended for the permanent interest of Ireland, he for one should not oppose the grant; but that was just the whole question in dispute. Before we grant this sum to the formation of railroads in Ireland, let us, in the case of the Caledonian canal and in that of the Rideau canal, call for an account of the net profits which have been derived from those undertakings. The Caledonian canal had been put by the noble Lord in the very front of his battle, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were going to prove, that either that canal or the Rideau canal was a profitable speculation—[The Chancellor of the Exchequer: I have no such intention.] Well, then, cadit quœstio. If these railroads were likely to turn out profitable speculations, why not leave them to the spontaneous exertions of the landowners and capitalists of Ireland? If they were likely to turn out unprofitable speculations, let them consider the unfairness of what they were about to do. Let them consider the injury and the injustice which they were about to inflict upon the capital already invested in Ireland upon the improvement of its internal communications, by those who had trusted to their own energies, and who had never dreamt that they would have to enter into competition with the power and the resources of the State. He had thought it his duty to make these observations. It might be unpopular to resist this resolution; for that he cared not, so long as he was performing his duty. If they could convince him that this measure would be for the permanent improvement of Ireland, he would, at once, withdraw his opposition to it; but, if the employment which it was to give to the people of Ireland was only to be temporary, and was merely meant as an adjunct to aid the operation of the new system of Poor-laws recently introduced into that country, then he was convinced, that even if it did not work immediate harm, it would not work any permanent good. The employment, which arose from the natural course of events and from the spontaneous application of capital would confer more permanent advantage upon Ireland than the application of countless millions, which would only give employment for a time to the people of Ireland. But this was not all. He
1090
must repeat what he had said before, "if you once commence this system, you cannot confine yourselves to making only one line of railroad." Let the House, therefore, look cautiously before it. When it had sanctioned the formation of one line it would be difficult to discriminate between the various plans for the formation of other lines, which the future would soon bring before it. Why should it be called upon to form nothing more than the great lines of communication? The very first step which the House took in this direction would involve it in this consequence—that it must place all the railways hereafter to be made in Ireland in the hands of the Government, in justice to the parties affected by their first measure. On these grounds, viewing the consequences—the dangerous consequences, as he thought—which might result from this their first step—believing, as he did, that if peace and tranquillity and cessation from political agitation could once be introduced into Ireland, there would be an application of capital to its internal improvement from its own resources, as there had been in England—foreseeing that a grant of public money could not be limited and restricted to any single railroad—doubting as he did sincerely of the policy of departing from the general principle of not permitting the Government to interpose with capital in speculations which ought to be carried on by private individuals or public companies—he could not refrain from expressing thus openly his doubts whether the measure of the noble Lord, though it might be popular now, would, when judged of ten years hence, be considered as one calculated to promote the interests of that country, for the prosperity of which he professed the deepest anxiety, and for the benefit of which it was specially intended.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that he would trouble the House with only a few observations on the present occasion, as the resolution then before the Committee was one on which a bill was to be founded, and when that bill was introduced, there would be several opportunities for future discussion. He could not, however, allow the present occasion to pass without assuring the right hon. Member for Tamworth—and he said it with the most sincere respect for the right hon. Baronet's high talents and character—that he had never in his whole life heard a speech which astounded him more than the speech which

1091
the right hon. Baronet had just delivered, coming as it did from an individual who had been so long concerned in the administration of Ireland, and who was therefore bound to know the principles on which his own Government and the Governments which were its predecessors, had proceeded. He prayed the Committee to recollect that the observations of the right hon. Baronet were not applied as against any particular system of forming roads, railways, or canals as lines of internal communication in Ireland, but that he had objected to the main principle now at issue—namely, whether it were just, wise, and expedient for the public, either by grant of money, or by vote of credit to interfere with private capital for the promotion of public works in Ireland. First, he would grapple with the general statement of the right hon. Baronet, and then he would say a few words on the question, as it affected this particular recommendation of the railroad Report. If there were one principle on which more than another every successive Government, since the first enactment of the union with Great Britain had relied for the improvement of Ireland, it was the application of the capital and credit of the former country to local works in the latter. The statutes, which had been administered by the right hon. Baronet himself during his residence in Ireland, as well as those which originated with the late Lord Oriel, when Mr. Foster, the statutes which were subsequently much extended by his right hon. Friend, the Member for the University of Cambridge, when Secretary for Ireland—all went upon the assumption of the principle that it was just, wise, and expedient, on a case being made out of general usefulness, that the capital of England could be legitimately staid out for the promotion of public works in Ireland. He therefore felt himself justified in asserting, that for the last thirty-eight years the principle of applying the capital of Great Britain in aid of local improvements in the internal communications of Ireland had been continually acted on; and that so far from its being a principle which was now for the first time brought into operation, as might be inferred from the speech of the right hon. Baronet, it was a principle which had been long tried and approved and adopted without complaint. Without complaint did he say? He should be underrating his case strangely if he so restricted his assertion. The reports of various committees, year after year—numerous Acts
1092
of Parliament—nay, the public at large had recognized that principle as the source of great improvement and advantage to Ireland. To show that it must have so operated, he would take the very case on which the right hon. Baronet Jelled so strongly. He rejoiced, whenever he heard the name and success of Mr. Bianconi mentioned; but where, he must ask, would Mr. Bianconi have been had it not been for the application of the capital of England to the improvement of the roads of Ireland. There was not a single road on which a car of Mr. Bianconi's now ran that had not been improved by the application of the very principle against which the right hon. Baronet was that evening protesting. For proofs of that assertion, if they were needed, he would refer to the reports made to the administration of his right hon. Friend, the Member for the University of Cambridge, and more especially to the reports of Mr. Nimmo, the civil engineer, and to those of Mr. Griffith. Those reports set forth in almost every line they contained, that there would have been no adequate developement of the internal resources of Ireland, had it not been for the application of that principle which the right hon. Baronet now denounced. The right hon. Baronet seemed to think, that he intended or was called upon to defend the Caledonian canal and the Rideau canal as profitable speculations. He had no intention to do any such thing: He left it to the Members of the different governments who had patronised those works to defend both the one and the other, and had no intention to assist them in that difficult task. One of them was undertaken before he had the honour of a seat in Parliament, and the other was a work against which he had protested along with his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) on the opposite Benches, pot only on account of the work itself, but also on account of the mode in which it bad commenced and, was carried on. He should therefore abstain from defending either of them, and would confine himself to the general question before the Committee. With respect to the proposition of the right hon. Baronet, that the State ought not to interfere with either its capital or its credit in undertakings which partook of the nature of private speculations, he must say, that as a general principle he concurred in it. Nevertheless, that general principle was limited by one great and, important exception. Those who defended the expediency of the in-

1093
terpetition of the State in such transactions were bound to prove the clear usefulness of the work, not to a detached portion, but to the generality of her Majesty's subjects. But even that proof if given, was not enough by itself. He admitted, that if the general principle were only thus limited; and if it might be applied, without further restriction, the capital of the State might be brought into competition perpetually with private capital. You must therefore prove, not only the clear general usefulness of the work, but also that the work itself could not be successfully carried on without the interposition of the State. Nor was that all. The interposition of the State must be limited within so strict a boundary as not to go beyond the exact point necessary to accomplish its object. Supposing, that it were conceded, that any Work was one of great general usefulness, and that it could not be carried on by private speculation, then, according to the last of his three rules, the interposition of the State must be reduced to its minimum when made in the shape of a loan of public Money, as it had often been made by the right hon. Baronet himself. Why, even such loans were an interposition with private capital; yet such loans had been, frequent; and a loan was all that her Majesty's Government proposed in this case. Even in England money had been lent to rail, road companies on the security of their works. In Ireland it was now proposed to be lent on Much better security. For his own part he would much rather have a mort gage on the county rates of eight or ten English counties, if he could obtain it, than on the bonds or works of any railroad Company whatever. Now, let the Committee consider what he had already proved. Not only had he shown, that the application of the capital of Great Britain had been useful to Ireland in making public roads, but he had also shown, that even in England public money, through the medium of Exchequer bills, had been furnished to carry on public works, including railroads here. He saw no distinction between the case of advancing money to make railroads in England, and that of advancing money to make railroads in Ireland, except that in the former case the advance of money was secured on their works and their private Acts of Parliament, and that in the latter it was proposed to be secured by a general statute on the rates of the counties through which the railroad passed. He now came to the question of the rail-
1094
road itself. He should attach but little importance to this measure, if it were only to provide employment for the people of Ireland during the period of the execution of the works thus aiding the introduction of the new system of Poor-law into that country. He believed, that merely temporary employment of such a character might be productive of more evil than good in all other countries as well as in Ireland. He believed, that the temporary employment which the formation of the Caledonian canal created in Scotland, had not done any good to hat country. He had been informed, that it had rather introduced into Scotland a number of Irish labourers than given any additional employment to Scottish labourers. If the employment so given ended with the work itself, it might even prove more injurious to a district than if it had not been given at all; but if the work not only gave employment during the tithe of its formation, but also led to the development of new branches of industry after it was completed, nothing could be more highly beneficial. Now, he might appeal to the Horsham case, to which the right hon. Baronet had adverted, to show the advantages which must accrue from opening, as it was pro-posed in this instance, great lines of communication, facilitating the export of produce and the import of manufactures, and accelerating the intercourse between distant places. The excellent roads made in the vicinity of Horsham had not only given temporary employment to the inhabitants of that district, but had also been productive of permanent benefit by the general traffic which they had called into existence. The same consequences would accrue upon the railroad now proposed. He appealed confidently upon that point to every Gentleman who was acquainted with the improvement of Ireland4uring the last ten years. He asked them, first, whether in any part of Ireland which they had visited, the improvements now visible there could have taken place within our times had it not been for the general improvement which had taken place in its road communication? He asked them, next, whether they believed, that that general improvement in its road communication could have been effected without the interposition of the State? He knew what their answer must be to such questions; and he therefore called upon them to profit by their experience of the past, and to apply it to these new undertakings. When the

1095
Mail-road Acts were passed, the interposition of the State was not limited to an advance of money, but power was also given to the Government to undertake certain public works at the expense of the State. Now, he called upon hon. Members to compare the result of those works as completed by the State with what it would have been had they been completed by private individuals. If they had been left to the management of the grand juries of Ireland and to the country gentlemen to whom the right hon. Baronet had appealed, he would undertake to say, that the country would not have had the benefit of one-tenth part of the money which had been expended upon them. What had been the advantages derived under those acts to the country? First, it had secured the employment of the public money according to a scientific survey of all the roads. Next, when the roads were placed under the superintendence of the Government engineers, they had seen the work executed instead of seeing the money jobbed away. He was now referring particularly to the works executed in the south of Ireland at the public expense. He might also refer to what were generally called the Anglesea roads, and the works executed in the south of Ireland by Mr. Griffiths. Let any Gentleman compare the improvements which had been accomplished by them, and the economy which had attended the completion of them with the public works undertaken there by private individuals, and he would see immediately the benefit derived from the interposition of the Government. He would next call the attention of the Committee to the amount of the interposition of the State required by this resolution. It might be assumed from the statements of the right hon. Baronet, that he would not object to the measure on the ground of economy if he could be convinced of its general usefulness to the country; and yet though he did not expressly say so, it might be inferred from his reasoning, that the largeness of the grant of public money now proposed for this railroad was his ground for opposing it. Now, all that his noble Friend asked for at present was a loan upon unquestionable security, being a primary charge on the profits of the principal and the interest upon the money to be advanced on the works themselves; and if those profits were insufficient, secured upon the county rate. The only interposition of the State required was, that the State would advance its credit, and that
1096
the State should direct the superintend: once of the works. All the public works carried on under the administration of the right hon. Baronet in Ireland were carried on in this manner by Government engineers, acting under the authority of Government. He could understand the right hon. Baronet's saying to the people of Galway, or any other place in Ireland, when a work of comparative insignificance, not costing more than 2,000 l., or 3,000 l., was to be completed, that he would leave it to their own capital and energy to complete it; but he could not understand the same language when the argument was to be applied to a public work which was to cost as many millions as the other cost thousands, and in which not only the capital, but also the amount of skill and scientific acquirement requisite to insure its success were of necessity so infinitely larger. He was rejoiced that no one had ventured to speak slightingly of the report, or to undervalue its recommendations. The commissioners were men of high character and talent. The engineers were selected fairly and impartially, and he had never heard it questioned in any quarter, that they were men of the highest eminence in their profession. Their opinion was, that the maximum of profit was 4½ per cent. Did the right hon. Baronet suppose, that capital was to be attracted for the formation of a railway under any circumstances where the profits were not expected to exceed that amount? The right hon. Baronet must know well, that if the State did not undertake the work, with only such a probable profit, individuals would not. The question was not so much whether they would sanction the proposition of his noble Friend, as whether they would say, that there should be no railroads in Ireland. That was the practical result of the right hon. Gentleman's principles. He wished the right hoe. Baronet had to answer the general objections he had raised. If such objections had been brought against the right hon. Baronet for having, when a Secretary for Ireland, applied the resources of the State to the promotion of public works in Ireland, thus giving the weight of his authority to a system he found in practice—if anybody had then talked to him of the employment of private capital, had represented the absurdity of the interposition of the State, and the destruction of Mr. Bianconi's establishment, by the construction of mail coach roads—how powerful would have been the right hon. Baronet's

1097
remonstrances—how indignant his refutation! The right hon. Baronet would have said, "my system tends to promote these improvements and not to discourage them." He could by possibility imagine, that Gentlemen might say, that the public money would be better employed in improving the old communications of the country, than in making railroads, but to say, that you were under no possible circumstances—for that was what the right hon. Baronet's argument amounted to—to advance the credit of the State for the promotion of public works, was contradicted by the whole experience of the last 38 years, and by the practice of the right hon. Gentleman himself.
Mr. O'Connellthought there was one objection of the right hon. Gentleman which had not been answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that which related to the limited nature of this grant. The right hon. Baronet had very distinctly shown that they could not avoid taking under their protection all the railways, if they agreed to this grant. That was exactly his objection. He thought it unfair to the rest of Ireland, that one particular line should be adopted, especially as they were not asking a shilling of the public money. It had been a very common practice to vote absolute grants for the formation of public works; half the expense of a road had often been defrayed by the public; but here no grant at all was asked, nothing was sought but the security of the public credit for raising the money. The fee simple of every county in Ireland was mortgaged for its repayment. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Robert Peel) said, that what Ireland wanted in order to have these railroads made was tranquillity, and what was the instance he had adduced to prove the success that might attend the efforts of private speculation. That of Mr. Bianconi, who had laid out his capital in Tipperary, which was said to be the worst and most disturbed part of Ireland. Certainly Mr. Bianconi deserved great credit, and ought to have had the protection of Government. Now, he would tell them how Mr. Bianconi had been protected by the Government to which the right hon. Baronet belonged. That Gentleman was struggling into the world, taking stations for stables for his horses, when one of the men he employed quarrelled with him, and he refused to give up a particular station, telling him he was an alien, and
1098
had no right to it. The parties went to law; the case came before him and he told Mr. Bianconi, that it was quite true, if he were a Protestant he might have some chance, but he was a foreigner, and a Roman Catholic, and, therefore, an alien. He advised Mr. Bianconi to apply to Government saying, that they would give him letters of denization, that he was a useful fellow, and would certainly get them. Mr. Bianconi did apply to Government, but did not get them, The right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) was then Irish Secretary, and would not entertain the application. Mr. Bianconi applied no less than three times, but he did not succeed in getting letters of denization, till Lord Grey's Government came into office. There was encouragement to improvement! After the right hon. Gentleman's eulogium on Mr. Bianconi's industry, the fact spoke volumes, by way of contrast. The real question now before the House, was, whether they were to have railroads in Ireland at all or not. The right hon. Baronet suggested, that there was intelligence, ingenuity, activity, and patriotism enough in Ireland to make railroads without the assistance of Government. There was all this, but there happened to be wanting one essential ingredient to the construction of a railroad, which the right hon. Baronet had not enumerated, namely, money, and there was none in Ireland, to make those railroads. They had made, and were to make, about 100 in England, and how many were there in Ireland? Only one; and what was its length? Seven miles. During the eight years in which they had been making railroads in England, laying out millions on millions, Ireland had been able to make but one. And how was that completed? 80,000 l. had been advanced by Government, or it would not have been completed at all. He knew, that others were going on the north; and of one of them, the Armagh railroad, he could speak from his own knowledge. That company had applied to Government for a loan of 20,000 l., and had not been able to' get it. Private money had not been able to make a single railroad in Ireland.' It was but the other day, that one of the subscribers to the Armagh railroad complained, at a public meeting, that Government had promised them a loan of 21,000 l., and not granted it. It was quite clear, then, that it was

1099
not private speculation that was to make these railroads. Sums had been advanced in aid of railroads in England as well as Ireland; but was it fair to make roads e with the public money, of which all the profits were to go to individuals? If such a speculation in this country succeeded, private persons would reap all the benefit. Government money was lent, that private individuals might make large gains. But here it was proposed to lend money to the Irish public, not to individuals. Public, not private, interests, would in this case be benefitted by the increased facilities of communication that were proposed, and the roads would be public property. Experience had shown, that they had not capital in Ireland sufficient, and could not get it; but if they had been unable to procure it hitherto, when great expectations had been held out to capitalists, what prospect of success had they now, when experienced commissioners had reported, that four and a half per cent., was the highest rate of profit, that could be raised on these roads in Ireland? Was there a single capitalist who would risk his capital with the chance of a total loss and no greater profit than this? Would any one go to the Stock exchange, taking the report of the commissioners in his hand, and accosting seine wealthy capitalist, say he could show from this document, that if he advanced his capital for the construction of an Irish railroad, he might, possibly, get a return of four and a half per cent., some years hence. Why, the proposal would be met with ridicule, the person would be laughed out of the Stock exchange. He looked on the report as conclusive against the scheme of constructing railroads in Ireland from private sources. If Government did not take up the subject Ireland would be left with no railroads at all. He was very far from admitting, that they had acted wisely in England in giving to private individuals a monopoly of these great high ways. If there were one principle in law better established than another, it was that every possible accommodation should be given to passengers on the King's high road—that it should be free to all. When the road from Horsham to London was first cut, it was the Ii g's highway, open to all; when it was laid with gravel, at the first stage of improvement, it was still the King's highway; when, in the further progress of improvements, it was Macadamized, still it Was the King's highway;
1100
but another step was made—railways were invented, and they ceased to be the King's highways, and public property. They were locked in the bonds of private monopoly; and now, day by day, the charges were increased, more impediments were thrown in the way of travellers, and regulations were passed, compelling persons who wished to have their private carriages transported by railroad, to sign an agreement undertaking, that if the carriage were injured accidentally the company should not pay for it; if it were injured by the misconduct of their own servants, they should not pay for it. Thus a power was given to monopolists against the public. It might have been too bold a measure for any Minister to propose to Parliament to lay out 10,000,000 l., in the speculation of constructing a railway from London to Liverpool; but if any Minister had had the courage to do so, would not the public now be immensely advantaged? Moderate tolls would in that case now be levied instead of exorbitant fares, infinitely more exact care would be taken by public servants liable to punishment if they neglected their duty and the railroads world be the King's highways, as other roads were. Other governments were taking this view of the question. There was not a freer constitution in existence than that of Belgium; the government of that country had taken this course with safety and success, and was lowering the tolls. But they should take a lesson from the other side of the Atlantic. Who had made the great canal from the Atlantic to the northern lakes? The government of the State of New York. Who were making railroads in every State of the Union? The States themselves. The government of the States. The plan there adopted instead of being a detriment to the country, had lessened the public burdens. It might happen, that there would be a surplus, and, of course, that surplus would belong to the country. Whether railroads succeed of fail, in Ireland, there could not by any possibility, be a loss to the English people by advancing the money. A great deal of what had been said by the right hon. Baronet, was based upon the speculation, that there must be a loss but it was most fallacious. He could assure the House, that if they did not allow the resolution to pass, there would be no railway in Ireland. A public highway, as a railway was, ought

1101
not to be a private speculation. A railway had no reference to a cotton factory, or any other private speculation. It was a public highway, and, therefore, ought to be under the control of the Government. He was not then begging for Ireland, for Ireland offered complete and ample security for all the money she asked for. She offered the security of all the county rates in the district through which the railway passed. "We only want," said the hon. and learned Gentleman, "we only want the use of your credit, as you have taken very good Care, that we shall have none of out own. Surely, when the picture, painted so truly, by the noble Lord is now before you, I may call upon you for some sympathising feeling for Ireland before you vote against such a resolution. He trusted, that the resolution would receive the sanction of the House.
Mr. Hodgson Hinde,though he fully agreed with all that had been said as to the integrity of the commissioners, still there was one point in their report which he viewed with suspicion, and that was the estimate of 10,000 l. a mile as an estimate of the whole of Ireland—an estimate much smeller than any that had yet been made in England. It was quite true, that labour Was much cheaper in Ireland than in England; but he had attended most particularly to the statements made by the noble Lord, and so far as he recollected, the only railway completed in Ireland—the Dublin and Kingstown Railway—had cost no less a sum than 41,800 l. With that precedent before him he could not believe, that railways could be executed in Ireland for the small sum of 10,000 l. a mile. When it was calculated that four and-a-half per cent. was to be obtained open what he considered a very inadequate estimate, he could not agree in the vote then under the consideration of the committee, If the House was prepared to pass the vote, he, for one was not prepared to agree to it.
Mr. Lynchbegged to set the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken right. The expenses of the Dublin and Kingstown Railway were no doubt great, but that Was because the land required for the undertaking being in the neighbourhood of the capital, was of course much dearer than that required for a railway in the country. For such an undertaking as the one then under consideration, it must be
1102
remembered, that labour in Ireland was much cheaper, and that the land required was much lower in price than any that was required for a similar undertaking in England. The hon. Gentleman had said, that by-and-by there would be an application from the counties of Ireland for relief, but he would tell him, that Ireland had often borrowed money from England, and had never yet asked to have it converted into a gift. He had the evidence of Sir John Barrington before a committee of that House, that England never lost a farthing by the advances she had made to Ireland. He agreed with the noble Lord (Morpeth) that the commissioners had acted with strict integrity, but, he considered, that they had not acted according to her Majesty's commission, for they ought to have reported o railways throughout Ireland. It was his intention to vote for the present measure, even though it did not extend to the part of the country which he represented. If the south-west were improved by the establishment of railroads, then the west could come to that House and with confidence ask for assistance: He understood from the noble Lord, that individual enterprise was not to be stopped by this vote, but suppose that individuals were willing tom make a branch to join the main line, would they be allowed to participate in any of the profits of the grand junction? He was glad to hear, that the Government had postponed the northern line, for he thought there ought to be only one line from Dublin, with branches to all the large towns, the main line at all events ought to go as far as Cork.
Mr. O'Brien: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had so well answered the objections taken to the vote by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), it was unnecessary for him to travel over the same ground. The question was, whether railway enterprise should be encouraged in Ireland, but before he proceeded to that part of the case, he begged to set the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer right upon one point. He was prepared to deny, that all local improvements were assisted by Government aids—concurring in the, vote as he did, he must express his sorrow that it was not made universal. He did not believe, that there would be a much greater difficulty on the part of the Government in undertaking a general

1103
railway system for the whole of Ireland, than for one great line. The proposition of the noble Lord involved an important principle—namely, whether or not Government were a proper authority to undertake the construction of a railway instead of private individuals, and that being decided by the noble Lord in the affirmative, if the Government could undertake a line for the north, he did not see why it should not for the south and western districts. He had a great respect for the acquirements, zeal, and talents of the railway commissioners, but he could not account for the omission of the western provinces in their report; for he thought, that a line passing through Athlone into the west of Ireland, would produce a large remuneration, when compared with the lines projected towards Enniskillen and Cork. He trusted, that the railway commissioners would give the natural finish to their able report, by furnishing the Government and the public with surveys of lines for the western districts. It had been already shown, that railways had caused an increase of travelling four-fold and tenfold on the Continent and in this country. He did not see why they might not assume an equal increase of traffic for the lines in Ireland. He felt it his duty to return thanks to the Government for their scheme, and his advice to his constituents, who were directly concerned in this measure would be, to accept the accommodation on the terms proposed.
Mr. H. Grattanalso supported the measure, on the ground amongst many others, of the Government being better able, in Ireland especially, than private companies to meet the vast preliminary expenses of railways. The expense in one case had been as great as 18,000,000 l., for the mere purchase of the land necessary to make the railroad. He would say, that the people of Ireland were entitled to this measure, for English capital was expended for Ireland, and Irish capital was expended for England. Why should not Government aid public works in Ireland as well as it had assisted the Rideau and the Caledonian canals? But Ireland had always been disregarded when she came forward for aid from England in such national works. When the late Mr. Leader applied for a grant for the improvement of a great district in Kilkenny, the answer he got was, "Ireland wants nothing but peace and tranquillity." This was the
1104
answer we had heard for the last eleven years, and which had been given upon any application for 100 years before. Now, in his neighbourhood there was a manufactory of his own, and there was peace and tranquillity, and the best opportunity of investing money; but English capitalists preferred investing their money here. The fact was, this country had always been taking capital out of Ireland. There were quit rents amounting to 70,000 l. a-year, and the Fitzwilliam, Devonshire, and other estates, supplied to absentees 300,000 l. He could prove the amount to be much greater. Indeed, he had heard from good authority, the absentees drain from Ireland estimated at 3,000,000 l. Then he would say as an Irishman, "Give us back some of this. We want the railway grants not as a gift, but as a loan." The right hon. Gentleman protested against Irish jobbing. But did he not himself, when Secretary for Ireland, pay 13,000 l. to Lord Trelawney? Let this country now pour its capital into the sister country. Let them encourage and develope its fertile resources, and Ireland would become the unfailing granary of England, as Sicily was once of Rome. He hailed the present measure as one of great utility to the people of Ireland, and he begged to return his sincere thanks to the noble Lord for having brought it forward. The English capitalists would lose nothing by it, and it was calculated to do great good to Ireland. The noble Lord had alluded to the tranquillity of Ireland. He trusted that the present measure was one of the first steps to the permanent attainment of that desirable object.
Mr. Lucassaid, that the noble Lord had not given to the Committee a clear indication of the course he intended to pursue as to the northern and western parts of Ireland. The noble Lord had mentioned incidentally that there were two Acts in existence for lines between Dublin and Belfast. He wished to know what course the noble Lord intended to take in case private individuals proposed to make those two lines into one, from Dublin to Belfast, because then it would not be a commissioners' line. He wished also to know what course the noble Lord intended to pursue with respect to the west of Ireland. He knew that the noble Lord did not propose to lay out any money in the west of Ireland, but would he forward or oppose those who were inclined to lay out

1105
their money in the west? It was perfectly well known that there were many rich individuals who were ready to advance their money to proceed with the despised line. He thought it was necessary that the noble Lord should give the House some indication of what he proposed to do. Belgium and France were in advance of England in the construction and management of railways; in those countries there was no danger of the public being sacrificed to the interests of the railway companies, because he believed that in every scheme for the construction of railroads assented to by the Government of those countries, there was always a proviso with respect to the maximum of fares. He considered that it would be highly advantageous if some such provision were introduced into the Railway Acts in this country. He trusted the noble Lord would inform the House what he intended to do with regard to the western line and to the northern line, for which Acts had been obtained.
Mr. Wysecould not understand why the branch line that was to go to Clonmel should stop there. He could not see why it should not go to Waterford. Perhaps the noble Lord when he again addressed the House would state upon what ground it had stopped there.
Mr. W. Rochesaid, that elaborately argued as the question was, he did not mean to protract the debate beyond a few minutes, but he could not refrain from expressing his apprehension that unless the initiative in this measure be taken up by Government, and under all the advantages of intelligence, influence, system, and resources, which they can bring to bear on the prosecution of these undertakings, every thing will be confusion waste of time, of money, and ultimate failure of arriving at any truly national or judicious plan. If it be left to private speculation, in so poor and inexperienced a country as Ireland, years may elapse before she reaps any solid benefit, and then probably not till after great waste of time and money in correcting errors and defects, and the mischiefs of consulting personal rather than the general interests. Even in rich intelligent England it was admitted that serious disadvantages had ensued, and would ensue from "joint stocks," or "company" monopolies in the railways of this country, as well as an immense waste of expenditure. A good deal had been said
1106
on the score of peace and tranquillity in Ireland, but what could more conduce to those desirable results, than quickness of intercourse and frequency of communication, as well as the employment, the industry and prosperity which facility of intercourse always and rapidly produce, nor could any country testify to this more conspicuously than Ireland, where every new road and improvement have produced, to use an expressive word of the noble Mover of this measure, marvellously happy results. He thought Belgium quite a case in point as regards the economy, rapidity, and judgement, with which these undertakings can be effected, when conducted by the ruling power and solely for the public interests. And sure he was, that one ten years, or even five, after the accomplishment of this improvement in Ireland, will the advancement of that country, physically, morally, and even fiscally, go near restoring to England herself in increased commerce, and to the imperial revenue, in increased resources, any advantage thus conferred. But will not England, at once, participate in the utility of the line now prescribed, by rendering so much safer, cheaper, and quicker, her immense intercourse with the whole western world, which besides the various other motives of preference to this line as a commencement, so strongly call for, and justify the choice. For the sake therefore, not only of Ireland but of England, he hoped this proposition may experience the support it merited.
Mr. Ashton Yatesbelieved that the report of the Commissioners showed conclusively that the people of Ireland would not advance in prosperity, and increase in wealth, unless the plan of the Government was adopted. He, therefore, should feel bound to support it. He thought the Government were fully justified in bringing forward that plan, because it would not interfere with vested interests, either in canals or railroads. He did not think it possible that such a system of railroads as the welfare of Ireland required could be established by private exertions. It had been found that capital could not be raised even in England for the completion of most of the railroads now in course of formation in that country. Very few of them were likely to yield profits sufficient to tempt speculators. Large sums of money were transmitted to America for the construction of railroads. Because six per cent. interest was given and a security of Go-

1107
vernment pledge. He believed, that the Object Of railways, if attained at all in Ireland, must be effected by the aid of Government. He saw no greater reason why the Government of this country should not enter into such enterprises than the Governments of France, of Belgium, and of the United States. The wretched condition, of the peasantry in Ireland was most lamentable, yet their patience was beyond all praise; seeing that they Were dying by hundreds, aye, almost by thousands, through the cruelty of hard and unfeeling landlords. In Carlow alone three thousand Min had been turned but without a bed on which to lay their heads. The hon. and reverend Baptist Noel in the course of his travels through Ireland, had discovered that the miserable condition of the pea-sentry was the cause of the outrages which were unhappily so common; and that honest Quaker, Mr. Binns—sent by Govetnment—as art Assistant Commissioner oft the Poor-law inquiry, summed up his report by saying that it was natural the peasantry should resent such cruel neglect. His opinion was, that unless you gate employment to these peasantry, they would remain in their unhappy condition; and as a means of promoting that desirable object, he should support the bill recommended by the noble Lord.
Mr. Humewished to make a few observations on the motion before the House. He was Satisfied that the observations made by the right hon. Baronet the Member fat Tamworth, in respect of what the Government would have td do if they how began the work proposed, were deserving of serious consideration. The House would recollect, that this was the first time that it was about to undertake as a public work what had hitherto been considered as a commercial speculation. It behoved them, therefore to consider well to what extent the plan was to be carried, and what means were to be applied to carrying it out. A suggestion had been made by an hon. Member on the second bench (Mr. Lucas) which he thought extremely well deserving of the attention of her Majesty's Government. Coupled with the observations of the right hon. Baronet, it appeared to him to hold out a prospect of having accomplished all that the Government meant to do, and at the same time of satisfying the country. He was quite sate that the Government after beginning once could not stop short with
1108
one line. They therefore should be prepared to do more. The people expected more, especially after the survey of the whole country which had taken place. With respect to the plan before the House, the utmost opportunities should be given for receiving suggestions from different parties, with a view of carrying it completely through. He thought, that whilst railways were making such progress in every part of the civilized world, Ireland could not be without them. It was impossible that Ireland could be left without the means of quick communication, when other countries were to so great an extent enjoying, or about to enjoy that advantage. The question, therefore, was, in his opinion, specially pressed on the Government. Government must take up the subject, that Ireland might keep pace with this country, as well as with other countries. But then came the question, how was this to be done? whether the people of England, Scotland, and Ireland, were to be called upon to undertake this work for the benefit of one part of the country, whilst Scotland would have equal claims. He did not say this to discountenance the proceedings which were necessary to be taken, in order to have railroads in Ireland. He said it in order that her Majesty's Government should consider the means they were to use before they began the work. He thought he understood these means were to be a new advance of public money. The credit of the Government Was to be used to make this advance, and on the faith and strength of the report of the commissioners, her Majesty's Government expected a return of four per cent. If that return were certain, or anything like certain, he did not believe that any man in the House would, for an instant, oppose the advance to Ireland, with a View of promoting such great good as might be done to Ireland by the establishment of these roads. But the noble Lord must bear in mind, that before they commenced, it was better to calculate the cost of the whole, and the amount likely to be called for, before taking the present step. It would be highly unjust to look hastily at the map, and determine to carry a line to two or three places, and leave out other places equally important perhaps—at least equally important in the opinion of the parties living in the district. It, therefore, appeared to him absolutely necessary, before the measure was proceeded with,

1109
to ascertain all the bearings of the plan to the satisfaction of the House. Allusion has been made to Belgium. He happened to be in Belgium in 1833, when the rail, way question was under consideration. It became a Matter Of grave debate there, whether the Government should undertake the railways, or leave them to private speculators, as they were left in England. He could tell the House what had decided the course which the Government took. There was no want of capital in Belgium any more than in England. There were all the requisites for a successful speculation, provided the country was in a state of peace and quietness, such as to satisfy parties having capital, that they might safely advance it. But there was an army on each frontier. It was impossible to say, that within three, six, or twelve months, war might not break out, and on that account it was deemed impossible to obtain, by private speculation, capital enough to carry on the work. The Government, therefore, saw themselves in the situation of being unable to undertake the work at all, unless they undertook it as a government speculation. It was, therefore, adopted as a government speculation, there being no private individuals to undertake the risk. He thought this was something like the state of Ireland at the present moment. He wished to know, whether there was any want of capital in that country? None at all, if it could be shown, that it might be applied with security and safety. An hon. Member had stated, that capital was flowing to the United States very rapidly. He knew it—many millions of the capital of this country were going thither. He could not to state the precise amount that had been applied to railways, and other improvements, in the United States, but it was considerable. Within three months Carolina had borrowed from half a million to a million of dollars, to make improvements in every district. In every state money had been borrowed from England, and applied in a way similar to what was now proposed for the improvement of Ireland. When every country was thus benefiting by the application of English capital, it did appear to him matter of serious consideration, whether if the credit of this country could be applied to promote the same objects in Ireland—although in a way opposed to the rules which had been heretofore observed—whether it might not
1110
be sound policy anti wisdom to make the attempt. But, in doing go, he thought they would risk serious loss, acid the stoppage of the work, if they did not take under their view, and make up their thin as to the extent to which the Government ought to go. To stop at this single work was out of the question. He did not believe that the measure could even go through the House with such a limitation. Let them, therefore, see the measure the Government proposed. Let them see the security proposed to be given hi case of failure. Let it be seen whether the parties who, it is said, were to become securities, were willing so to bind themselves. He bad heard from different quartets, that what the noble Lord had promised, namely, security from the counties, the counties would not be willing to give. He had seen certain statements emanating from public meetings in Ireland, professing a willingness fairly to come forward and advance money towards that object., And he should hope that, considering how it would conduce to the general interests of the country, and what great advantages so many particular districts would derive from railways, there would be a readiness to make sacrifices towards the accomplishment of the work. If it was wisely undertaken—not as public works had been heretofore, in which every species of jobbing and mismanagement of the public money was practised, but conducted by a separate department—a department free from the influence which had hitherto directed the public money into wrong channels; in such case, he believed it possible that there might be security for the proper conduct of a work of so great national importance. Its importance was not confined to Ireland, for England was interested in the prosperity of Ireland. He did think, then, every man in England, who considered the relative situation of the countries, would agree with him, that the prosperity of Ireland would be art addition to English wealth, and would add to the security and power of England; and he believed, that they would be willing, by every means in their power, to forward the great measure now proposed, if they were satisfied of the proposed, of the means by which it was to be carried into effect. But, then, it was right that the measure should be placed before the country, and that the country should understand the terms and conditions on Which

1111
British credit was to be pledged. He would tell them why. Because, in similar instances heretofore, faith was not kept with them. The Irish had not kept faith with them. Very true; it was the Church. There seemed some fatality attending the Church, that it was always connected with some mischief. When the million loan was advanced to the Irish Church, the amount was to have been repaid. But it was given up. Why? Because they were told they could not have it back, and that they might just as well make a gift of it. After that advance had become a grant, it should not now be left open to hope that this might also be converted into a grant. He should like to see the system of railroads carried to the fullest extent in Ireland; but, as Ireland was the principal gainer, Ireland should be the guarantee against loss. In such a case, he should be very sorry to throw any difficulties in the way. He thought, that before proceeding to take any steps, they should ascertain how far Ireland was satisfied with the limited extent to which they proposed to go, and also what amount would be required for the execution of the whole work. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet, that the Government must in their place become proprietors of the roads throughout all Ireland. He did not believe it would be prudent to make any grant, unless they were prepared to go through with the whole. In conclusion, he would say, that he thought the question of immense importance to both countries, and he wished to know the full intentions of Government in regard to it. If wisely carried out, it might be productive of the greatest possible advantage to Ireland and to this -country; and on that ground he would not let technical or trifling objections stand in the way of giving it his support.
Sir R. H. Inglissaid, that during the speech of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, he found himself agreeing with every alternate sentence. He could not help thinking, that in one part of it he had spoken as the Member for Kilkenny, in another part with the natural and hereditary caution of the Member for Montrose; and in another, as the late Member for Middlesex, with an eye to the interests of the people of England. Seeing the hon. Member for Dublin opposite, he would take the liberty of asking what security the people of England would
1112
have on the adoption of the proposition before the House for the repayment of the grant which it involved, if the hon. and learned Member's darling measure should be carried—the repeal of the union. He certainly did not believe that that question could be answered in a manner satisfactory to the English people.
Mr. O'Connellrose, and said: Sir, the hon. Baronet must be hard to satisfy, if I do not satisfy him. I solemnly pledge myself to introduce a clause into the Repeal Bill—making it a debt on the Irish nation, and by pledging not only the counties that will be pledged by this Act of Parliament, but the entire kingdom, to the repayment of that debt. And I beg to remind the hon. Baronet, that the Irish people have never yet broken faith—but faith has been often broken with them. Those whom the hon. Baronet represents, and to whom he is attached, have broken the most solemn treaties, entered into for a valuable consideration—have broken them, too, with a most indecent violation of faith. In none of the treaties that the Irish made with England, were they guilty of a breach of faith. My hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny, indeed, has said, that they broke faith about the million—they did not. When that vote was before the House, I said, that not a farthing would ever be repaid. The promise I now make I shall perform with equal punctuality.
Sir E. Knatchbullsaid, it was quite true that the hon. and learned Gentleman had said, that of the million not a shilling would be repaid. He only feared a similar result, if the present plan were adopted. If two millions and a-half were granted now, they could not calculate on an expenditure of less than eight millions ultimately; and for this the land was to be a security. When the land was called on to repay 'the advance, he did not believe that one farthing would be paid. He entirely concurred in the opinion, that it would be infinitely better to rely on the private exertions of individuals, than leave the plan in the hands of the Government. He had no hostility to Ireland. He would grant two millions and two millions more, if peace and tranquillity could by such means be restored to that country. But as for the present measure, if it came to a division, he must vote against it.
Mr. Slaneywould support the grant. He had gone through the country through which it was proposed that these railroads

1113
should pass, during the last summer, and he wished that hon. Gentlemen opposite could have seen the misery existing among the population of that part of the empire, be did not think that there was anything in the south of Europe at all equal to the misery existing in that part of Ireland, and this was in the county of Tipperary—a county not poor by nature but of exuberant fertility—where the soil was as luxuriant as that of any county in England—but where the people were in a state of absolute destitution from want of employment. He did not wish to treat the subject as a political question. The disturbed state of Ireland was produced by agrarian distress; this agrarian distress was occasioned by the people being unpaid, and in many places out of employment, and out of this originated agrarian disturbances. If employment could be found for this population—not merely temporary, but permanent employment—he would ask if they were not taking the best means for tranquillizing, the country? What was it, he would ask, that prevented English capital from flowing into that country? The want of tranquillity. Were they not, then, by assenting to this grant, doing that which was for the good of Ireland—by furnishing employment to the population, and consequently tranquillity to the country? Was it not better to spend this money in the tranquilization of this country by finding employment for the population, than in paying police and troops? He would just mention to the House the rate of wages in that part of Ireland. In some instances they were paid 7d., in others 6d., and in others as low as 5d. per day. He would ask hon. Gentlemen whether they did not consider that any measure that would tend to introduce English capital into Ireland would be for the benefit of that country? This measure tended to give employment to the population—security and tranquillity would be the consequence, and security and tranquillity being once obtained, pivate capital would flow into the land. He should therefore support this measure, believing it to be for the good of Ireland, even if he thought they should not get back half the money advanced.
Sir George Stricklandwas anxious to support the Government, and he hoped the House would not come to a division on this subject as he should have some difficulty in giving his vote. He could not
1114
but recollect that this vote was probably only the beginning of an expenditure which might perhaps, eventually lead to several millions, and that he should have to account for his vote to his constituents. He could not but recollect the great difficulty he had experienced in explaining to the satisfaction of his constituents his reasons for consenting to the vote of 20,000,000 l. for the purpose of getting rid of negro slavery; and he did not think, considering the immense amount of our public debt, that a vote of the nature of the one now proposed would be allowed to pass without the strictest scrutiny. He did not think that this measure would be so advantageous to Ireland as had been imagined. Railroads had been of great advantage to England by finding employment for a large amount of capital. He could not see why the plan adopted in England should not be followed in Ireland with equal advantage to both countries, and thereby English capital would have the advantage of employment, and Ireland would derive the advantage of having English capital drawn into it. What Ireland wanted was, not capital, but security. Ireland wanted nothing so much as good government—which she has been without for centuries. If security could be obtained for Ireland she would be as prosperous as England is at present, as England ever was, or as England ever can be. But he did not believe it was necessary to go back to the old exploded systems of the Continent, of the Government undertaking all national works. If they imitated Belgium he did not see why they should not imitate France, and have the Government interfering in every speculation. He hoped the question would be allowed to pass without any division, so that they might have an opportunity of well considering the question before they came to a vote, and of seeing what the public opinion was on the subject. If they laid out 2,000,000 l. that might be followed by an expenditure of 8,000,000 l. Certainly Members on both sides of the House had said, that if they commenced the speculation they must go through with it. All Government speculations turned out failures, whether in regard to canals in Scotland, or canals in Canada, and he hoped they would pause before embarking in a speculation of this sort.
Viscount Sandonremarked that if the subject for consideration was this, that

1115
spreading railways over Ireland could positively tend td improve the condition of the country, he was sure that no man would oppose it, however little likely it was that the money expended in attaining so desirable an object ever would be repaid. Their first consideration, in his opinion, ought to be, Whether railways were peculiarly adapted to forward the interests, and bring forth the resources of Ireland. He believed that railways could not be made of peculiar advantage to Ireland. What were the peculiar advantages of railways in this country? Were they used here as conveyances for agricultural produce? Were they much used for the conveyance of heavy produce? No; and yet what was the produce of Ireland, but heavy commodities? What was it but agricultural produce? These were the only things which could be brought on railways in Ireland, and they would not he much used for travellers. It was putting the cart before the horse it was wearing a frill before they had the shirt. Why was not money asked for improving roads, and carrying roads to distant parts of Ireland, in order to open tip all its resources? Let this be done, let money be asked for that purpose, and he was sure that Englishmen Would not object td it. The greatest good could be done in that way, and sums to effect so desirable an object would be nothing in amount to that which was now required for railroads. It was only two or three years ago, that a sum of 150,000 l. or 300,000 l. was asked of the House for the improvement of the river Shannon, and opening the resources of net less than ten counties. Now, when that proposition was made, the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer threw every difficulty in its way, and offered every opposition td an inquiry on the point; and yet when a measure of this kind was proposed he offered no difficulty, even though so large a Sum was required. If they Once began, he was quite sure, that they could not stop at au expenditure of two millions and a half. If once Government began with railroads in Ireland, they would be compelled to carry them into places where the boldest calculator would not venture to promise a return. On whom, then, was the burden to be thrown? Was it on the counties of Ireland, who derived no advantage from railroads? In case of failure would they be able to bear the expense of
1116
so large a grant? What advantage, for instance, would it be to Cork or Donegal to have a line run from Limerick or Clonmel? Why should they-pay for an advantage which, at best, could be but very minute? If her Majesty's Government proposed an extensive measure for real and tangible improvement for Ireland—if they proposed to open the great water resoUrces—if they proposed to open the Suit, the Barrow, and the Shannon—if they proposed to open the resources of Connaught, then the House, he Was sure, if such a proposition were made to it, would have no objection to enter into the consideration, of a grant for those put-poses. The vote now proposed for so extensive a grant arose entirely, in his opinion, from the mania of the day for railroads. He confessed, that he thought they ought to have ample time, before they embarked upon a plan which, in his opinion, would be attended with very doubtful advantage to the country they wished to benefit. Unless they were prepared to affirm their concurrence in a general plan similar to that proposed, which should extend to tile whole of the British empire, they ought not to take the first step, at least without due consideration. If they made a grant to Ireland, why were they to refuse it to Scotland, and why declare, that they would not assist that country in her public works. In England it was to be remembered, that profits were not made upon railways by the conveyance of heavy goods, but on passengers, and the carriage of goods which were small in bulk, but of considerable value.
Captain Jonesobserved, that the noble Lord had spoken of counties giving guarantees for repayments. He wished to know whether a consent to that effect had been obtained, and then if the noble Lord had made a calculation how much the counties would be answerable for? Suppose 180,000 l. a year was to be imposed upon ten counties, it would amount to 16,000 l. or 18,000 l. a year on each. He wished to know whether it was likely or not such a sum would be repaid?
Mr. Ashton Yatesremarked, that on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway a great profit was Made in the traffic of heavy goods.
Viscount Sandonunderstood the directors of that railway to have said, that they were willing to give up that species of traffic, and to cease carrying coals and

1117
other heavy goods. It was on particular contract, that heavy goods continued to be conveyed.
Mr. Ashton Yatessaid, it Was stated, a few days ago, in the proceedings of the London and Southampton Railway, that they Were on that line carrying goods to a very great extent. The carrying of coals, too, on the Manchester and Liverpool Railway was increasing every day. That, he was sure, would not be the case if the railroads did not profit by it.
Lord John Russellhad only a few words to address to the House upon this subject, and they were chiefly intended as a reply to the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool. His noble Friend had seriously maintained that agricultural produce in Ireland would not be carried by railroads, and, therefore, they could not be profitable. He hardly thought that his noble Friend could come justly to any conclusion of that kind, when the commissioners who had devoted so much time end attention to this, and who, looking to the traffic likely to take place, contemplated that the railroads would produce four and a half per cent., after all expenses. His noble Friend made a calculation—it might be an erroneous one—but it was not to be supposed that on the first night they Sat anti discussed this subject, they were to set aside the calculations that had been made, and to act upon the Supposition that agricultural produce would not be carried on railroads. He believed that some kind of agricultural produce at least could be so carried; and his noble Friend, he was sure, must be mistaken when he affirmed, that much of the produce of Ireland could not be profitably carried by means of railways, if they were established between Dublin and Cork. The fact was, that agricultural produce was so carried and to a very considerable amount. He wished likewise to advert to the arguments of his noble Friend, as to the advantage to be conferred upon Ireland from the establishment of railways. He could not imagine how any man was to suppose that these railroads existing in Ireland, and that they were used as a means of traffic, that no advantage was also to be derived from them in importing the blessings of civilization in that country. Railroads had been said to be a means of traffic unsuited to a country in the State of Ireland. He really believed, that railroads were carried into some parts of the United States of America, which were far more wild than many parts of Ireland. It was said that this proposition was brought
1118
forward in consequence of the present mania for railroads. This certainly wee the most expeditious mode of travelling from one place to another. The highland roads were undertaken in the last Century, and he said that the benefit derived from them, even thought they did not pay their expenses, were sufficient to encourage them in undertaking railroads in Ireland. There had been already a great deal of discussion upon this matter, and he must request them to consider that other opportunities of considering the proposition made to them would occur, he called upon them calmly to consider it, and to weigh the plan maturely before they decided respecting it. Let it not be affirmed that if this plan failed, of which it might also be said, that it was a plan which offered considerable advantages, and that tended to the improvement and civilization of Ireland, it had been defeated by the prejudices of the Assembly to which it had been submitted.
Sir David Rocheremarked, that in the canal to Limerick the traffic was very considerable at present. The agricultural produce that Was now conveyed for 20 s. the ton by the canal, would be carried for 16 s. the ton by railroad, which would bring it so much more expeditiously to Dublin. There could be no doubt, that considerable profit would be derived from this species of traffic.
Viscount Morpethhad already occupied so much of the time of the committee in the beginning of the evening, that he assured them he should be very short in trespassing upon their time again. Some censure been cast by very grave authorities oft the plan he had proposed. Some had said that the plan did not go far enough, and they had objected to him that he did not take more in hand at once. He should not be sorry to find that the successful issue of this experiment, and the advantages it would confer both upon England and Ireland would justify this censure, and induce them to extend the plan. He thought, however, that enough had transpired to justify them in making a beginning; and it was but fair that the country should see what could be done, and done successfully, before they ventured to proceed further with this undertaking. He merely wished to state to the hon. Members who had talked of this being a grant made to Ireland, that they must live paid but very little attention to his opening statement or to the resolution which I was now in the hands of their Chairman. He did not propose to give a single

1119
farthing to Ireland. Under the enactments of the bill it was impossible that a single farthing could be charged upon the funds of the empire in support of the proposition that he made. They first guaranteed the payment of the interest, and then there was to be a sinking fund formed for the repayment of the capital, and both guaranteed out of the profits of the works. He thought from the manner in which many hon. Gentlemen received his statement, that they bad not done him the honour of listening to the proposition he had originally made. It was calculated, and all the calculations were made at a very low rate—they were in fact understated—that railroads would yield four per cent. more than sufficient to pay the expenses of the works. Were they, when such security was offered to them, to be so chary that they would not make an advance which would not touch the general resources of the empire, and particularly when they had already lavished so much upon Scotland. It was further intended, by a special provision, that if the profits of the works should not be sufficient, and if there should be any deficiency, it was expressly enacted, that it was to be assessed on the Irish counties, by which the deficiency was to be made up. This was the course pursued on former occasions. It was that adopted by the Government of the right hon. Gentleman opposite—it was that pursued by them when making advances for public works in Ireland. The expenditure on such objects was guaranteed by assessments to be made by the respective grand juries. All those works were carried on under the Board of Works, and the sums were now in course of repayment. Was it then to be told that the House of Commons would not sanction the proposition of funds being advanced upon the credit of England for the execution of works in Ireland, when they had a guarantee for punctual repayment? Let hon. Gentlemen who objected to such a proposition cite an instance where money had been laid out on works in Ireland, under the system now in force, and that it had not been repaid, and he would admit that there was weight in such an objection. He did not expect that the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool, the Representative of that enlightened commercial town, would have stood forth as the condemner of railways in general—a condemner of them at least for any purpose except that of carrying passengers. The noble Lord had designated the successful experiments in every
1120
part of this island as a mania for railroads He did not see if great profits resulted from these railways merely for the conveyance of passengers, why Ireland should be excluded from the advantages arising from them. He begged the House to remember why railways were not so extensively applied to the conveyance of heavy goods in England. It was simply because we had other means of conveyance, such as canals, which maintained a successful competition with the railways. He did not believe, that the noble Lord was warranted in his assertion, that comparatively a small portion of heavy goods was conveyed by the railways throughout this country. The noble Lord had mentioned the article of coals as bringing but a small profit, but the reason was, as he believed, that in many instances a special provision was made for lowering the fare. He might instance the Stockton and Darlington Railway, which was most successful, although the main object of it was the conveyance of coals, which brought in a very large receipt. It was admitted that live cattle could be advantageously carried along the railways, and this, be it remembered, formed the very foremost article of conveyance in Ireland. He wished to answer one or two of the questions that had been put to him. The hon. Member for Monaghan had asked what he proposed to do with the line for connecting Celbridge with Mullingar. Government did not propose to introduce themselves a line to the west into Connaught, but they should feel precluded from offering any opposition to such a line if the parties undertaking it entered into the necessary securities for joining it with the main trunk. He had said before what they proposed to do with regard to the northern lines. Lines were already carrying on from Dublin to Drogheda, and from Armagh to Belfast. If a company should undertake a connecting line between Drogheda and Armagh, so as to form a whole series of lines from Dublin to Belfast, Government would feel bound to give such a proposal every fair play. The hon. and learned Member for Galway asked whether Government contemplated giving facilities to branch lines. Government would be anxious in any measure they introduced to give such facilities, and to enter into any equitable agreement respecting the rate of profit and the trade brought to the main trunk. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, to whose representations he listened with all the respect that was due

1121
to him, although he was sorry to find him an opponent on this occasion, had asked why, after the successful experiments that had been made in England, and after the experience of the large number of railways that had been constructed here, they should try another method in Ireland, and why they should not leave the construction of railways in Ireland to the same competition and enterprise? He could only say, that it was because so much had been done in England, and nothing in Ireland, that they found they could not trust to the same means, and they were obliged to call in the aid of the State there if they wished to extend to that country the benefits of a well-organized system of railways. He must contend that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth did not touch, or attempt to touch, the statements he had made of the good effect of the system of public undertakings of this sort as evidenced by Belgium. The right hon. Baronet merely said, that England had done well, and why should not Ireland do well under the same system? His answer was, that Belgium did better, and he called upon the House to apply to Ireland, a system that worked so admirably well in Belgium. In that country they had undertaken railroads, and those railroads had answered well, had prospered, although under the superintendence and control of the State, and he called upon the House, under the shelter of that experiment, to try to introduce the same system into Ireland, circumstanced as that country was, and requiring, as she did, assistance. He would only make one further remark. The right hon. Member for Tamworth had made great use of the injustice which he said this proposal would inflict upon an enterprising and intelligent gentleman, Mr. Bianconi; indeed, the right hon. Baronet had made Mr. Bianconi his horse of battle. He had, however, the great satisfaction to be able to state that Mr. Bianconi was one of the most ardent supporters of this project. He had only to hope that the committee would give him leave to take the necessary form of proceeding to bring in a bill by which they would be able to give this subject that mature and deliberate consideration that was due to its importance, to the pains taken by the commissioners, and to the interest that had been excited in Ireland. He hoped, without pledging themselves further than maturely to consider the bill to be introduced, that the Committee would agree to his resolution.
Lord John Russellwished the committee before going to a division, to recollect, that the commissioners, who were most competent persons, had investigated this subject, and made a certain report. The Government had taken that report into its consideration, and his noble Friend had explained the plan, which had undergone great discussion. All he wanted was, that the House should have a future opportunity of deciding upon this question, and that they should not now at once go into a final vote, which would decide whether, ultimately the plan was to be proceeded with or not. The carrying of this resolution would merely enable his noble Friend to bring in a bill. He was ready to consent to any examination of the propositions which might be required, but he did hope, that upon further consideration, this question would be considered one which chiefly affected the welfare and improvement of Ireland, and that it would not be treated as the merest partyqueston.
Sir E. Knatchbullagreed with the noble Lord, that there was nothing in this question to excite any unusual party feeling. He did not believe, that those who sat on that (the Opposition) side of the House entertained those feelings. They felt, and he felt, that by agreeing to this proposition they would be pledged to support any future measure that should be founded upon it.
The committee divided:—Ayes 144; Noes 100: Majority 44.

List of the AYES.

Abercromby, hon. G.

Cayley, E. S.

Acheson, Lord Visct.

Chichester, J. P.

Archbold, R.

Collier, J.

Baines, E.

Courtenay, P.

Bannerman, A.

Cowper, hon. W.

Baring, F. T.

Currie, R.

Barnard, E. G.

Dalmeny, Lord

Barry, G. S.

Davies, Colonel

Beamish, F. B.

Donkin, Sir R.

Bellew, R. M.

Duff, James

Berkeley, hon. C.

Dundas, C. W. D.

Bewes, T.

Dundas, F.

Blake, M. J.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Bodkin, J. J.

Ellice, E.

Bridgeman, H.

Evans, W.

Brocklehurst, J.

Fenton, J.

Brotherton, J.

Ferguson, R.

Browne, R. D.

Fitzalan, Lord

Bryan, G.

Fitzgibbon, hon. Col.

Busfield, W.

Gordon, R.

Butler, hon. Col.

Grattan, H.

Byng, rt. hon. G.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.

Callaghan, D.

Grey, Sir G.

Campbell, Sir J.

Hall, Sir B.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Handley, H.

1123

Harland, W. C.

Pusey, P.

Hawes, B.

Redington, T. N.

Heathcoat, J.

Rice, E. R.

Hill, Lord A.

Rice, right hon. T. S.

Hobhouse,rt. hn. Sir J.

Rich, H.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Roche, E. B.

Hollond, R.

Roche, W.

Horsman, E.

Roche, Sir D.

Howard, F. J.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Howard, P. H.

Russell, Lord J.

Howick, Lord Visct.

Russell, Lord

Hume, J.

Salwey, Colonel

Hutton, R.

Sanford, E. A.

Kinnaird, hon. A.

Seymour, Lord

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Sheil, R. L.

Langdale, hon. C.

Slaney, R. A.

Leader, J. T.

Smith, J. A

Lennox, Lord A.

Smith, R. V.

Lister, E. C.

Speirs, A.

Lushington, C.

Stanley, W. O.

Lushington, rt. hn. S.

Stansfield, W. R.

Linch, A. H.

Stock, Dr.

Macleod, R.

Stuart, V.

Macnamara, Major

Strangways, hon. J.

Maher, John

Style, Sir C.

Martin, J.

Tancred, H. W.

Maule, Hon. F.

Tollemache, F. J.

Melgund, Lord

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Vigors, N. A.

Miles, P. W. S.

Vivian, J. H.

Morpeth, Lord

Walker, R.

Murray, rt. hon. J.

Wall, C. B.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Wallace, R.

O'Brien, C.

Warburton, H.

O'Brien, W. S.

Wemyss, J. E.

O'Connell, D.

Westenra, hon. J. C.

O'Connell, M. J.

White, A.

O'Connell, M

Wilbraham, G.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Williams, W.

Paget, Lord A.

Wilshere, W.

Palmer, C. F.

Winnington, T. E.

Palmerston, Lord

Winnington, H. J,

Parker, J.

Wood, C.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Wyse, T.

Pechell, Captain

Yates, J. A.

Philips, Sir R.

Philips, G. R.

TELLERS.

Ponsonby, hon. J.

Stanley, E. J.

Pryme, G.

Steuart, R.

List of the NOES.

A'Court, Captain

Bulwer, Sir L.

Aglionby, Major

Burr, H.

Alsager, Captain

Cantilupe, Lord

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Castlereagh, Lord

Archdall, M.

Clerk, Sir G.

Baillie, Colonel

Conolly, E.

Blackstone, W. S.

Corry, hon. H.

Blandford, Mar. of

Currie, R.

Blennerhassett, A.

Darby, G.

Boldero, H. G.

De Horsey, S. H.

Bolling, W.

Dick, Q.

Bramston, T. W.

D'Israeli, B.

Broadley, H.

Duke, Sir J.

Broadwood, H.

Dunbar, G.

Brownrigg, S.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Dungannon, Lord

1124

Du Pre, G.

O'Neill, hon. J. B. R.

Eaton, R. J.

Ossulston, Lord

Fector, J. M.

Packe, C. W.

Finch, F.

Pakington, J. S.

Fort, J.

Palmer, R.

Freemantle, Sir T.

Parker, M.

Gladstone, W. E.

Parker, R. T.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Pemberton, T.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Philips, M.

Grant, F. W.

Plumptre, J. P.

Grimston, Lord Visc.

Powerscourt, Lord

Grimston, hon. E. H.

Pringle, A.

Hawkes, T.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Heneage, G. W.

Rickford, W.

Hinde, J. H.

Round, C. G.

Hodgson, R.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Hogg, J. W.

Sanderson, R.

Holmes, W.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Hope, hon. Chas.

Sheppard, T.

Hope, G. W.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Hughes, W. B.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Somerset, Lord G.

Irton, S.

Spry, Sir S. T.

Jackson, Mr. Serg.

Stormont, Lord

Jervis, J.

Thomas, Colonel H.

Johnstone, H.

Thornhill, G.

Jones, T.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Lefroy, right hon. T.

Vivian, J. E.

M'Taggart, J.

Wakley, T.

Marsland, H.

Welby, G. E.

Marsland, T.

Williams, W.

Master, T. W. C.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Maxwell, hon. S. R.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

TELLERS.

Morris, D.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Noel, W. M.

Perceval, Colonel

Resolutions agreed to. House resumed. Resolutions to be reported.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND).
Viscount Morpeth Viscount Morpeth moved the second reading of the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that as far as he was concerned, he had no objection to allow the bill to pass through its present stage, provided the committee were postponed till some day after the Irish assizes, so that an opportunity might be afforded to many Irish Gentlemen, now absent to take part in the discussion.
Sir R. Ingliswas opposed to the principle of the bill, and he should certainly not consent to its passing the second reading at that hour of the night. He would take the sense of the House on the motion.
Sir R. Batesonconcurred in the propriety of postponing the bill. He regarded the bill with jealousy; for he believed it would take all power from the Protestants, and throw it into the hands of the Catholics. He called upon the Protestants

1125
of Ireland to rally and oppose a measure, which was only the beginning of an attempt to put down every Protestant institution in that country. He felt justified in making a stand now, when he heard, that a certain noble individual, after making an extraordinary speech in that House, was to be appointed Lord-lieutenant of Ireland. That speech was not known to him merely through a report, for he had heard it himself, and never was he more astonished than when he did hear it. Little had he thought, that an individual, who as a Member of that House had solemnly declared, that he voted for the Tithe Act with the view of increasing the warfare against the Irish Church, and who had stated, that he considered the Protestant Church there a disgrace, would ever have been appointed Governor of Ireland. When he contemplated that individual taking the oaths of office as Lord-lieutenant, he felt, that it was time to pause ere he gave further power to the enemies of Protestantism in that unfortunate country. Every day he saw, that efforts were making to put down Protestantism in general—to weaken not only the Church of England, but her twin sister the Church of Scotland. When he saw, that such was the object of a powerful party in Ireland, who ruled the present Cabinet, on whose smiles they existed, and whose frowns would annihilate them, he thought the time had come when the Protestants of Ireland must look to themselves. They must resist the efforts of Popish domination, and preserve the remnants of that constitution which their forefathers had handed down to them. Having been intrusted with a petition signed by upwards of 1,000 inhabitants of Dublin against the bill, he felt called on to make these remarks; and he should certainly oppose the bill, which had been brought forward under the specious denomination of reform. Considering the lateness of the hour (half-past eleven o'clock), he must call on the noble Lord in common decency not to press forward the measure.
Viscount Dungannonwould divide, if no other Member did, with the hon. Baronet who had addressed the House in a manner which did him credit, against the bill. Though called by the specious name of "A Bill for the Reform of the Irish Municipal Corporations," the measure was nothing more nor less than an insidious
1126
attempt to put down Protestantism in Ireland. It did not deal out equal-handed justice, for its object was to strengthen the baneful influence of a party, and thereby to endanger the institutions of the empire. He could not contemplate without indignation the conduct of those who, to the misfortune of the country, were at the head of affairs, and any man who had any feeling or regard for the Protestant institutions of the state, and for real and rational liberty, must view with suspicion and alarm the acts of a Government which only existed, as the hon. Baronet had truly said, by the smiles of a particular body of individuals—indeed, he might say, of a particular faction in Ireland. It was well known that the frowns of that party would hurl the present Government from their seats; and, however small might be the number of those who divided with the hon. Baronet, they would show to the country, that they were bold enough to record their votes in favour of the Protestant institutions of the country. As a landed proprietor in the sister kingdom, he felt it his duty to oppose the bill.
Mr. Humewished to ask the hon. Baronet, whether the petition which he had that night presented was the one agreed to at a meeting at the Mansion-house in Dublin on 22d of February last?
Sir R. Bateson,when the hon. Member sat down would answer his question.
Mr. Humewould then assume, that the question must be answered in the affirmative. He would call the attention of the House to a report of the resolutions passed at that meeting, one of which was to the effect, that the miseries of Ireland were to be attributed to the laws which fostered a sect whose doctrines were idolatrous and damnable, and that where Popery existed nothing but anarchy and confusion could prevail. This resolution was seconded by the rev. Mr. Gregg, who declared, that in consequence of the existence of Popery, the curse of God was upon the land, and read the 28th chapter of Deuteronomy as descriptive of the present state of Ireland. Now he (Mr. Hume) had referred to that chapter, and he would read to the House the 16th verse of it:—"Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field." The hon. Member then went on to read other verses—"Cursed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and cursed shalt thou be when thou goest out. The

1127
Lord shall send upon thee cursing, vexation and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly, because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me." Now, he thought the noble Lord (Dungannon) would admit, that this was scarcely language to be applied to any party, but when they saw a meeting, at which the Lord Mayor of Dublin presided, passing such resolutions, and clergymen supporting them with such language, he would leave it to the House to judge who they were who produced anarchy and confusion. Did the noble Lord mean to exterminate the Catholics of Ireland? It was impossible to suppose, that that meeting, numerous as it was, did not agree in that sentiment. But let the noble Lord picture to himself a meeting of Catholics, twenty times as numerous, and echoing, but against Protestants, the sentiments which Protestants had avowed they felt with respect to Catholics. He put it to the noble Lord whether, if the Catholics were to act in accordance with those sentiments, it would be possible for the Protestants to resist them.
Sir R. Batesonsaid, be had been called on by the hon. Member for Kilkenny to give an answer to a question which had been put to him, and in doing so the hon. Member had been making a long speech with his usual accuracy and information as to the state of Ireland. He could only say, that he never heard the slightest rumour with respect to such a petition as the hon. Member had read. He did not say, that no such petition was in existence; perhaps it had been intrusted to the hon. Member. But if the hon. Member wished to know what was the petition which he (Sir R. Bateson) had that night presented, he would tell him, that it was one signed by 1,042 respectable inhabitants of the city of Dublin; not a petition agreed to at any public meeting. There was no quoting or misquoting, or profanation of scripture in it, and as the petition had been presented in a very thin House, and was only five or six lines in length, he would, with the permission of the House, read it. The hon. Baronet accordingly proceeded to read the petition, in which it was stated, that the petitioners, inhabitants of the city of Dublin, had seen with much apprehension a bill introduced into that House, for the professed purpose of a
1128
better regulation of municipal corporations in Ireland, but which, it was submitted, would have the effect of transferring the power now possessed by the corporations of Ireland in all instances from the friends of the Protestant religion and of British connexion to the implacable enemies of those principles on which the House of Brunswick was called to the Throne of these realms, and therefore they called upon the House not to agree to such a measure. This was the petition against which the hon. Member for Kilkenny had been declaiming.
Lord Castlereaghwas very glad, that the hon. Baronet had answered the question of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, because it had brought back the House to the question, whether the order of the day for the second reading of the bill should be now read. He should, however, before he adverted to that question, like to know, whether the recent appointment of the noble Lord, who had been made Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, could be defended? The hon Member for Kilkenny inquired, "Are you going to exterminate the Catholics?" He would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite if they were going to put down the Protestant Church by the appointment of their new Lord-lieutenant. The sentiments of that noble Lord were perfectly well known, and if no other hon. Member moved for it, he himself should be very much tempted to move for a copy of the oath which the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland took upon his appointment, and to put it in juxtaposition with the speech which the noble Lord delivered in July, last year. He would ask her Majesty's Government, if they would condescend to give him an answer, and he would ask the Protestants of Ireland if such an appointment was likely in any degree to strengthen the Protestant Church, as had been said by a noble Lord in another place. One thing was clear, that the heavy blow and great discouragement to the Church of Ireland was now to be followed up by strong measures. He should only further say, that he should, because this nomination had taken place, vote with the hon. Baronet below him in his opposition to the second reading of the bill.
Lord John Russellhad hoped, after what passed last year, that all parties in that House were agreed in the principle of this bill. Then he very much misunderstood the character and meaning of the debates

1129
which took place upon the subject on several nights in the last Session. From these debates he gathered that the principle was admitted, that there should be a reform of the Municipal Corporations in Ireland; and that the great points in dispute were points relating to the amount of the franchise and other matters of detail, which could only be properly discussed in committee. But it seemed that a new line of conduct was now about to be adopted by some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that the whole bill was to be resisted upon principle. It was now, as he understood, declared, that as the Government would not consent to the total destruction of Muncipal Corporations in Ireland, this measure for the reform of them was to be resisted altogether. He was quite ready to agree with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn), that as there was some alteration in the details of the bill as now introduced, sufficient time should be allowed for the due consideration of them before the measure was pressed to a committee. He should not wish to proceed to that stage of the bill whilst any hon. Gentlemen were absent at the Assizes; therefore, if a convenient day should not present itself before Easter, he should not be anxious to press the committal of the bill until after the recess. But as to affirming the principle of the bill, he should wish the House not to delay that step for a single instant. The House had repeatedly affirmed it before, and he saw no reason why it should not again affirm a principle so just and reasonable. The hon. Baronet, the Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Bateson), told the House that he was persuaded, and that certain petitioners were persuaded with him, that the persons returned as town councillors under this bill would, for the greater part, be Roman Catholics. He, however, would say that, whether the electors were He, householders, or merely the occupiers of houses or tenements rated to the relief of the poor, if the majority of them felt that the persons in whom they could place confidence as the representatives and managers of their local interests were Roman Catholics, by all means let the town councils of Ireland be composed of Roman Catholics. On the other hand, in towns where the Protestant interest prevailed—where the great majority of the inhabitants were Protestants—he said, let the town councils be Protestant. But he knew not why good, respectable, and loyal Roman Catholics should not stand on a
1130
perfect equality with good, respectable, and loyal Protestants. That was the principle of this bill—a principle to which he believed the House was ready to agree. It certainly was not a principle from which he should at any time be prepared to depart, or to shrink from avowing, and steadfastly determined to adhere to the principle of the bill, he would not consent to any alteration of its details which would deprive the majority in the corporations of Ireland whether Roman Catholics or Protestants, of the power which they ought to enjoy. The hon. Baronet, the Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Bateson) and the noble Lord (Lord Castlereagh) who spoke last, had gone into two other subjects which had no reference to the question before the House. The hon. Baronet had made the very wonderful discovery—a discovery it was true which some others had made before him—that Ministers who held a station in that House must hold it in consequence of the votes of their supporters. He (Lord John Russell) was ready to admit, that that must always be the case. They divided in that House majority and minority, and those who formed the majority being usually the supporters of Ministers it must necessarily be owned, however odd it might appear to the hon. Baronet, that it was to that majority that Ministers owed their station. He must admit, that it was to that circumstance that the present Ministry were indebted for the place they hold; and he was also quite as ready to admit, that if some of the majority who voted with them were Roman Catholics, they were as happy to receive their support as other persons might be to receive the support of those of that party to which the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Bateson) belonged, and which had been for many years an exclusive and intolerant party in Ireland. The other question to which the hon. Baronet and the noble Lord (Lord Castlereagh) had referred was the appointment which her Majesty had been pleased to make of Lord Ebrington to the Lord-lieutenancy to that part of the United Kingdom. Neither upon that question any more than upon the previous one was hp at all disposed to shrink from, or to apologize for, the course which Ministers had pursued. On the contrary, he bad known Lord Ebrington for many years—had had the satisfaction and pleasure of enjoying his friendship—and he knew, as everybody who had the honour and advantage of the acquaintance of that noble Lord knew, that

1131
a man of higher character, of purer public principle, did not exist amongst politicians in this country. He knew also that her Majesty could not have appointed a man more attached to the constitution, or more attached to the Protestant religion as established in this country. He was perfectly aware that Lord Ebrington made a speech in the course of the debates upon the Irish Tithe Bill last year, which speech he (Lord John Russell) stated at the time he thought had been misunderstood by those who followed him. He would not refer to any report which might or might not be correct, but would mention that he heard his noble Friend make upon that occasion, a statement which he had heard also from many others—it was this: that while he was disposed to support the established religion, he thought the Protestant Church in Ireland was too large and ought to be reduced; and he went on to argue that if there were to be a contest upon the subject, it would be much better that that contest should be carried on by tithe-owners and tithe-payers of substance, than by the poor peasantry and the clergy. That was, as he understood, and as he stated immediately in the course of the same debate, the substance of the observations made by his noble Friend. Did he say because his noble Friend was of opinion that the Established Church in Ireland might be safely and properly reduced that therefore he was unfit to be Lord-lieutenant of Ireland? By no means. It was an opinion which he had always held himself, and had frequently stated in that House. He had stated repeatedly that he thought part of the revenue of the Established Church in Ireland ought to be applied to the moral and religious education of the people of that country. And if Lord Ebrington held that opinion, and had stated it in that House, the circumstance of his doing so was in his view no disqualification for holding the high office to which he had been appointed. This he was sure of, that Lord Ebrington in holding that opinion, held it steadfastly—thinking that such a diminution of the revenues of the Established Church would tend to the greater security and stability of the Protestant institutions of Ireland. That was an opinion which he thought might be very consistently held by one who filled the office of Lord-lieutenant of that country. At all events, having to exercise the delegated authority of her Majesty in Ireland, he was quite ready to take his share of respon-
1132
sibility in the appointment of Lord Ebrington. And, though an opportunity had been taken—the very earliest possible—to excite a prejudice against that nobleman. He believed, that the excellent and sterling qualities by which his noble Friend was distinguished, would be known, in spite of all the observations that had been made to the people of Ireland. His opinion was, that his noble Friend would be received by them as one who was attached to their welfare, and if he should be of opinion that the interests, the privileges, the rights and powers of the people should not be confined to the few and small minority, he did not think that that opinion would ruin him in the eyes of the people.
Mr. Sergeant Jacksonregretted that this discussion had arisen at so late an hour (twelve o'clock). He regretted extremely, that the noble Lord had not yielded to the suggestion which had been thrown out, that it would be better not to bring the question forward at so advanced a period of the evening. It seemed that they had wandered from the main question before the House. Perhaps that was one of the inevitable consequences of pressing forward a question of this magnitude and importance against the sense of a great proportion of the House at so late an hour. He believed, that no one in that House, or elsewhere, had impugned the high moral character of the Nobleman to whom the noble Lord had referred. He believed, that no man, either in or out of that House, would venture so to do. He believed, that no man possessed a higher character than that distinguished individual. But he regretted to learn from the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) that he espoused, admitted, and justified the expressions used by that Nobleman upon a question of vital importance to the sister country. Did the noble Lord adopt the language which fell from Lord Ebrington when he was a Member of that House. Did he understand the noble Lord to profess his acquiescence in all that fell from Lord Ebrington upon the occasion in question? Did he not understand the noble Lord to say, that he held the same sentiments? Let him see, if the noble Lord would venture in the face of that House—in the face of England—in the face of that measure which he himself proposed, to admit and repeat the sentiments which he would now take the liberty of reading to the House. What was the

1133
language of Lord Ebrington, then a Member of that House, when speaking upon the bill brought in for the settlement, as the noble Lord (J. Russell) said of the question of tithes in Ireland?—language which, he would venture to say, no individual had ever held upon a similar occasion:—"I shall vote for the bill said the noble Lord, only because I expect that, so far from preventing a thorough reform of the Irish Church, it will, by throwing the payment of tithes into the hands of those who have more power and influence than the present payers, render the war now waged against the Church—more formidable." The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) adopted that language; the noble Lord who brought forward a bill for settling the question of tithes—for putting it completely and for ever at rest—now declared, that he adopted the language of Lord Ebrington. Then, the noble Lord only brought forward his tithe bill for the purpose of making the war waged against the Protestant Established Church more formidable. Did the noble Lord imagine, that it would be possible to wage a formidable and successful war against the Protestant Church in Ireland, without at the same time waging a formidable war against the Protestant Church in England? Were they separate Churches now? Was it not the united Church of England and Ireland? Did the noble Lord venture to wage war against that united Church? And was it fit or decent at that time of day, to say to a country in the predicament in which Ireland now was, after a period of the grossest misgovernment—a period of misgovernment which had completely disjointed the whole frame of society—which had paltered with the administration of the law, and rendered life and property utterly insecure? Was it not monstrous—was it not an outrage to the public feeling in a country so situated, to send an individual to conduct the government of that country who had publicly stated in his place in Parliament that he had only voted for the Tithe Bill introduced by the noble Lord, for the sake of making the war then waging against the Established Church, more formidable? What must be the effect of such an appointment upon the people of Ireland? Must it not, upon the one hand, depress the spirit of the loyal Protestant people of that country, and, on the other, raise the spirit and encourage the attacks of the
1134
precursor societies, the agitators, the discontented, and disloyal portion of the community? What other effect could it produce? He did not mind the gestures of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin.—[Mr. O' Connell: Nor do I mind yours.] The hon. and learned Member had no right to gesticulate in that way, He should be sorry to transgress the rules of order: it was not his habit to do so. He should not have condescended to have taken any notice of the hon. and learned Member's conduct, except that he thought proper to interrupt him. He returned to the subject, and asked what would be the effect of this appointment upon the people of Ireland? And he asked the noble Lord, whether it were reasonable to expect that men should be prepared to go along with him in his present proposition for the establishment of municipal corporations in Ireland upon a different footing, and thereby to increase the power of the party which was waging this war against the Protestant establishment and Protestant institution in Ireland—was it reasonable, that the noble Lord should expect support from that side of the House upon a measure of this kind, immediately after the declaration he had just made? He should conclude the observations he had felt it his duty to make, by moving, "That the House do now adjourn." He took this course, because he did not think it fit or proper that this question should be pressed forward at such an hour of the night against the sense of the great majority of the representatives of Ireland.
Sir R. Inglisrose to second the motion. ["Cries of Chair, chair, Order, order!"] He would not yield to cries of order, whether they proceeded from one side of the House or the other, unless he was called to order by Mr. Speaker. He would take the liberty of saying, that when the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland moved the order of the day for the second reading of the Irish Municipal Corporation Bill, he rose in the hope, that the noble Lord would not press such a motion. His right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge, from whom it always gave him great pain to differ, rose and wished that some compromise might be made, and that the bill might be allowed to pass the second reading, but that some time should elapse before it went into Committee. To that he (Sir Robert Inglis) could not agree, but he had hoped, that some understanding

1135
would be come to, not that the Committee should be postponed till after Easter, but that the second reading should be postponed. He stated this in justice to his hon. Friend the Member for the county of Londonderry, and his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Dublin. One observation only he begged leave to make with reference to the late appointment. A complaint had been made, that this appointment had been questioned, for the purpose of taking the earliest opportunity to create a prejudice. If they had waited till a later period, the noble Lord would have had good reason for saying why had nothing been said until the noble Viscount had gone to Ireland? His noble Friend the Member for the county of Down, had more reason to remember than any one, that a noble person had scarcely been appointed to a most important office, before advantage was sought to to be taken of a speech made in another place as a sufficient disqualification for the office. The course that had been taken was as fair to the noble Viscount who had been appointed as the former motion was to the then Government—in conclusion, he begged to second the motion, that the House do now adjourn.
Lord J. Russellsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Bandon had by no means correctly represented what he had stated in the House. The hon. and learned Member had read something from a newspaper or from some Report, and had said those were sentiments which he (Lord J. Russell) had said he meant to abide by. [Mr. Sergeant Jackson— From the "Mirror of Parliament."] As to those words in the "Mirror of Parliament," he neither concurred in them, nor did he adopt any one of the expressions. What he had said was, that he thought there ought to be a reduction in the revenues of the Irish Church Establishment, and that those reductions would be better effected by the Irish Tithe Bill than in any other way. With respect to the sentiments that had been alluded to, he had only said, that he agreed with them so far as this—that he thought that the revenues of the Church of Ireland might be properly reduced. He did not say even that he concurred in that, nor did he even now concur in the sentiments that that bill was likely to produce any agitation. His opinion at the time the bill was introduced, and his opinion still was, that that bill was more likely to settle difficulties than to raise further contention. As a measure of peace he had introduced it, and as a measure of peace he regarded it.
Mr. Blackstonewas glad to hear the hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford declare, that he would take the sense of the House on the motion for postponing the second reading. He trusted the noble Lord would not at this time of night go into a discussion of a general question. Although he had watched the bill for three years, he had never had an opportunity of expressing his sentiments, although he had not on former occasions been able to concur with his friends in voting for the abolition of Corporations. He conceived these corporations were instituted originally for Protestant purposes, and he was unwilling that those principles should be passed over without discussion. He did not wish to enter into the topics which had been discussed that night, but he did hope the noble Lord would give them an opportunity of discussing the merits of that bill.
Mr. Maxwellpromised the House the hand of the clock should not reach the quarter (it then being ten minutes past twelve) before he finished his observations. He disclaimed being any party to the understanding to which the noble Lord had alluded. He came into that House, attached to no party, his principles were preeminently Conservative, but he was the representative of a large and populous county in Ireland, and he represented the feelings and wishes of nine-tenths of the Protestants of Ireland, with reference to the subject before the House. He meant to say, that it was the feeling of the Protestants in Ireland, that they would never consent to those Corporations, one of the principal objects of which were to protect the rates and institutions, being the means of transferring power into the hands of the Roman Catholics, and he tendered his hearty thanks to those English and Irish Members who had taken this subject in hand.
Mr. Sheil: The hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford announced at the outset, that he would divide the House upon this question. He was sustained in that view by the hon. Gentleman who followed him; and the hon. Baronet the Member for Londonderry (Sir Robert Bateson), and the noble Lord, the Member for Down (Lord Castlereagh), undertook to adopt the same course. Might he (Mr. Sheil) venture to ask them this question—"How does it come to pass that you have taken a step so important in the ab-

1137
sence of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth?" When hon. Members on the opposite side were perpetually referring to the compact alliance which existed on the Ministerial side of the House, was he not justified, without the slightest degree of impropriety, in asking whether those of hon. Members had themselves come forward in concert, and in conformity with a previous determination. ["No! No!"] Then he presumed he was to understand, that the proceeding on this occasion was an isolated one. He presumed, that it was an open question with the Gentlemen on the other side of the House. After all, however, it was not against her Majesty's Ministers, that such strong indignation should be expressed, but against the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, who said, last Session, that this question had already been carried by public opinion. The House must needs remember his memorable words, "when I find," said the right hon. Baronet, "that this bill has been carried by great majorities of the House of Commons, and when I find, that the public mind of England is made up upon the subject, I must give way." If that was the undertaking on his part then, was not he (Mr. Sheil) justified in asking whether the opposition now offered to the progress of this measure, was a preconcerted opposition. Had they not also the solemn pledge of the Duke of Wellington, that this question should be settled? Did he not say, "Give me a Poor-law bill—give me a tithe bill, and when you have done that, I will use my best exertions to carry a measure for establishing municipal corporations in Ireland"? With these facts before him, he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who, in the absence of the right hon. Member for Tam-worth, was the most conspicuous Member on the Opposition benches, he meant the Member for the University of Cambridge—he would ask that right hon. Gentleman, whether he would concnr with those who had announced their predetermination to divide the House?—was the House, after the solemn declaration made by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth—after the equally solemn declaration made by the Duke of Wellington—after the declaration made by the noble Lord, the Member for north Lancashire—and after the declaration of the right hon. Baronet, who was formerly Member for Cumberland—after these repeated declarations, after this species of pledge, was the House to understand,
1138
that they were now to have a division? Let us have a division. Don't shrink from it. Again and again he had heard Conservatives state, that when they came to that House they would take a certain course, they would make certain motions, and move certain resolutions of censure; but he never afterwards saw them fulfil their undertakings. Those announcements were made out of doors; but here was an undertaking given in the House itself, and he now challenged them to persevere in it and perform their pledge. He might now be permitted, for a moment, to diverge from the consideration of this question to a matter to which great importance had been attached he meant the appointment of Lord Ebrington. Surely it must have struck the House, that if that appointment were an objection to the Government by hon. Gentlemen opposite, they had the opportunity of addressing her Majesty to rescind it. Would not that be a fairer course of dealing with it? Would it not be a more direct mode of proceeding, and would it not show the real character of their opposition, if they were to adopt a course for which precedents were not wanting, instead of casting imputations, which were not followed by any motion on the subject. Let them make the speech of Lord Ebrington matter of deliberate censure, let them try the sense of the House upon it. But, at the same time, let it be remembered, that Lord Ebrington was not the only Lord-lieutenant by whom such opinions had been announced. Had the House forgotten, that in the month of April, 1834, when the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, (Lord Stanley), acted, in conjunction with the Marquess of Anglesey, a letter from the Marquess of Anglesey to Earl Grey was produced by the hon. Member for Kilkenny (then Member for Middlesex), and that it contained the following remarkable words, which he begged the House to compare with the speech of Lord Ebrington? They were contained in an official letter written by the Marquess of Anglesey to Earl Grey, when Lord Stanley was Secretary for Ireland:—
"This establishment which has always exceeded the religious wants of the Protestant congregations has hitherto been upheld by the State merely on the ground, that it consolidated the connection between the two countries. But this service it no longer performs. Instead of strengthening the connection, it weakens it. Any Government henceforth pledged to main-

1139
tain that establishment as it now exists, mast be brought into constant and permanent collision with the public opinion, and the prejudices and passions of the Irish people. However attached myself, to the doctrines of the Protestant Church, and however anxious to discountenance any violent changes in its temporal condition, it is impossible for me not to see, that the prevailing resistance to its legal pecuniary claims is only symptomatic of a deep rooted, wide-spread conviction, in the minds of the Irish community, that the continuance of this establishment in its present extent and splendor is no longer justified by the condition of this country; and that the time has arrived for such just and practicable reforms in respect of it as may eventually place at the disposal of the State a national fund, to be applied to necessary national purposes. Such, I have been reluctantly compelled to feel is the general and unchangeable opinion of the Irish people upon this subject; and I am equally impressed with the apprehension, that unless the Parliament takes the lead in the work of now inevitable innovation, the recent confederacy against tithes will prove to have been only the first of a series of deplorable struggles between the Government and the national antipathies—that every day during which those struggles are protracted, the Government will find itself less in a condition of imposing its own terms—and that sooner or later the final result must be, an extorted and undignified compliance with demands which we had not the foresight, or rather, perhaps, the power, to concede. I know, that the times have passed when the will of the Minister could determine the acts of the Legislature, still I cannot refrain from urging on the attention of my colleagues the claims of this suffering and too long neglected country to a participation in the benefit of that enlightened policy which has already conferred so much benefit on other parts of the Empire."
That letter was to be found at page 243 of Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, and in the 23rd volume of that work. This was the language of the Marquess of Anglesey, when Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, and addressed to Earl Grey when Prime Minister. The noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, was Secretary for Ireland at the time, and must have had perfect cognizance, that this letter was written, and yet he did not resign. Let hon. Members read this letter, and then he would ask them with what face they could make a complaint against her Majesty's Government, that Lord Ebrington had been appointed Lord-lieutenant of Ireland.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, as the hon. Member who had just sat down had asked him how he had ventured to oppose the
1140
second reading of the bill before the House in the absence of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, he would beg to say, in reply, that he should always do what he felt to be his duty, whoever might or might not be in the House.
The Speakersaid, the noble Lord had already addressed the House on the subject, and it would be highly inconvenient were hon. Members to be allowed to address the House a second time in reply to questions which might be put to them.
Mr. O'Connellthought the noble Lord was perfectly in order. Since he had last addressed the House a new question had been put. The hon. and learned Member for Bandon had moved the adjournment of the House, and the noble Lord, he apprehended, had a right to address the House again on the question of adjournment.
The Speakersaid, if the noble Lord claimed a right to speak on the new question before the House, he bad a perfect right to do so; but, as it was his duty to preserve order and regularity in the debates, he could not but notice the remark which the noble Lord had made on rising. The noble Lord had said, he rose to reply to a question, and were such a proceeding sanctioned the greatest inconvenience would result from it.
Lord Castlereaghshould always bow with deference to the Chair. A question had been put to him, and in reply he begged to state distinctly, that in his place in Parliament, and in the discharge of his duty as the Representative of a large and populous county, he owed no allegiance to any chief, and would bow to the dictates of no man, nor follow the course which any hon. Member might pursue, unless be was persuaded, that that course was one likely to be productive of beneficial consequences to his country. He was always anxious to perform his duty uprightly and conscientiously, and to do all the good which was in his power, and he trusted, that he should ever discharge that duty in the manner most likely to promote the best interests of the nation, and to secure the good opinion of the important constituency which he had the honour to represent. He had opposed the second reading of the bill before the House, because it was not usual, and because he thought it improper to bring on so important

1141
a measure at so late an hour, and more particularly because he considered it to be a measure of the most vital importance to the Protestant Church of Ireland, and one which ought therefore to have the most mature deliberation.
Dr. Lefroysaid, the letter from Lord Anglesey to Earl Grey, which had been read by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, was a private and confidential communication, and the circumstances of the case were therefore totally different from the speech of Lord Ebrington, which had been under consideration.
The House divided on the question of the Adjournment:—Ayes 65; Noes 151:—Majority 86.
On the question being again put, Colonel Sibthorp moved, that the House, at its rising, adjourn to Monday next.
The House again divided on the question, that the Order of the Day be now read:—Ayes 147; Noes 61: Majority 86.

List of the AYES.

Abercromby, hn. R.

Duke, Sir J.

Acheson, Lord

Dundas, C. W. D.

Aglionby, H. A.

Dundas, F.

Aglionby, Major

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Archbold, R.

Ellice, E.

Baines, E.

Evans, W.

Bannerman, A.

Finch, F.

Baring, F. T.

Fitzalan, Lord

Barry, G. S.

Fort, J.

Beamish, F. B.

Gladstone, W. E.

Bellew, R. M.

Gordon, R.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Grattan, H.

Bernal, R.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.

Bewes, T.

Grey, Sir G.

Blake, M. J.

Handley, H.

Blake, W. J.

Harland, W. C.

Bodkin, J. J.

Hastie, A.

Bridgeman, H.

Hawes, B.

Brocklehurst, J.

Hawkins, J. H.

Browne, R. D.

Heathcoat, J.

Bryan, G.

Hill, Lord A. M. C.

Buller, C.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Bulwer, Sir L.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Busfeild, W.

Hollond, R.

Byng, rt. hon. G.

Hope, hon. C.

Callaghan, D.

Hope, G. W.

Campbell, Sir J.

Horsman, E.

Cavendish, hn. G. H.

Howard, F. J.

Cayley, E. S.

Howard, P. H.

Chalmers, P.

Howick, Viscount

Chichester, J. P. B.

Hume, J.

Collier, J.

Hutton, R.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Crompton, Sir S.

Langdale, hon. C.

Curry, W.

Lefevre, C. S.

Dalmeny, Lord

Lennox, Lord A.

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Lister, E. C.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Lushington, C.

Duff, J.

Lushington, rt. hon. S.

1142

Lynch, A. H.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Macleod, R.

Russell, Lord J.

Macnamara, Major

Salwey, Col.

M'Taggart, J.

Sanford, E. A.

Maher, J.

Seymour, Lord

Marshall, W.

Sheil, R. L.

Marsland, H.

Slaney, R. A.

Martin, J.

Smith, J. A.

Maule, hon. F.

Speirs, A.

Melgund, Lord Visct.

Stanley, W. O.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Morpeth, Viscount

Steuart, R.

Morris, D.

Stock, Dr.

Murray, rt. hn. J. A.

Stuart, V.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Strutt, E.

O'Brien, C.

Style, Sir C.

O'Connell, D.

Thorneley, T.

O'Connell, M. J.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

O'Connell, M.

Vigors, N. A.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Wakley, T.

Paget, Lord A.

Wallace, R.

Palmer, C. F.

Warburton, H.

Palmerston, Viscount

Wemyss, J. E.

Parnell, rt. hon. Sir H.

Westenra, hon. J. C.

Parrott, J.

Wilbraham, G.

Philips, M.

Williams, W.

Philips, G. R.

Williams, W. A.

Protheroe, E.

Wilshere, W.

Pryme, G.

Winnington, T. E.

Pusey, P.

Winnington, H. J.

Redington, T. N.

Wood, C.

Rice, E. R.

Wyse, T.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Yates, J. A.

Roche, E. B.

TELLERS.

Roche, W.

Parker, J.

Roche, Sir D.

Stanley, E. J.

List of the NOES.

A'Court, Captain

Hinde, J. H.

Alsager, Captain

Hodgson, R.

Archdall, M.

Holmes, W.

Bateson, Sir R.

Hughes, W. B.

Blackstone, W. S.

Irton, S.

Blandford, Mar. of

Jackson, Mr. Serg.

Blennerhasset, A.

Lefroy, right hon. T.

Bramston, T. W.

Lockhart, A. M.

Broadley, H.

Lucas, E.

Broadwood, H.

Master, T. W. C.

Brotherton, J.

Maxwell, hon. S. R.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Miles, P. W. S.

Burr, H.

O'Neill, hon. J. B. R.

Cantilupe, Lord Visct.

Packe, C. W.

Castlereagh, Lord

Pakington, J. S.

Cole, hon. A. H.

Parker, R. T.

Conolly, E.

Perceval, Colonel

Courtenay, P.

Plumptre, J. P.

Darby, G.

Powerscourt, Lord

De Horsey, S. H.

Pringle, A.

D'Israeli, B.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Dunbar, G.

Round, C. G.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Rushbrook, Col.

Dungannon, Viscount

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Du Pre, G.

Sheppard, T.

Eaton. R. J.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Fector, J. M.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Grimston, Lord Visct.

Stormont, Lord Visc,

Grimston, hon. E. H.

Thomas, Col. H.

1143

Thornhill, G.

TELLERS.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Whitmore, T. C.

Jones, J.

Lord J. Russellstated, that as he found a disposition on the part of hon. Members opposite to oppose the second reading of the bill at the present hour, he would postpone the second reading until Friday next.
The Order of the Day read, and the second reading postponed until Friday.
[We publish only the names on the second division, they were so alike on both, that to publish both divisions would be needless repetition.]