Commons Sitting of 29 February 1844

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1o. Prisons (Scotland); Commons Inclosure.
Private.—1o. Northern Coal Mining; Wildmore Fen Highways; Beccles Navigation; Preston and Wyre Dock; South Devon Railway; Manchester and Birmingham (Macclesfield and Poynton Branches) Railway; Bolton and Preston Railway; Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway; Leeds and Bradford Railway.
Reported.—Sang's Naturalization.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From St. Paul's, Deptford, complaining of Exemption of the Dockyard from Local Rates.—From John Heathcote, complaining of Dismissal.—From Batley, and Soothill, against Factories Bill.—From Patrick O'Malley, respecting the Usury Laws.—From Bramston, and 54 places, against Alteration in the Corn Laws.—From Merchants, regarding Goods-convey-

393
ance by Railways.—From Bristol (21 Petitions), for Reduction of Duty on Tobacco.—From Brecon, respecting the College Chapel.—From Llifon, and Amlwch, against Union of Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.—From Renfrew, Ayr, and Lanark, for Protection of Game.—From W. Kinnersley, against Church Rates.—From Glasgow, respecting Postage on Printed Works.—From Cork, for Equalizing Municipal Reform.—From Cork, for Amendment of Municipal Boundary Act.—From Weem, for Better Pay to Schoolmasters (Scotland).

GENERAL ESPARTERO.
Sir H. Douglassaid, that he wished to explain what he had said as to General Espartero, as, from a paragraph in a newspaper which had caught his eye, he was represented as accusing him of want of personal courage. The courage of that officer was as unquestioned as it was unquestionable. His (Sir H. Douglas's) observations were confined to the operations of the corps d'armée, which he had thought disgraceful, and he thought so still. He took the earliest opportunity of offering this explanation with respect to an illustrious individual, absent and in adversity.

BUILDINGS OF THE METROPOLIS.
The Earl of Lincolnrose to bring in a Bill, the substance of which he would convey to the House in a very few sentences. His observations should be, not in vindication of the Measure, but in explanation of its enactments. He was relieved from the necessity of saying more from what had passed in the House in legislating upon a similar subject. The voluminous reports made to the House as to the population of large towns must be so fresh in the recollection of the House, and the facts produced so strong an effect upon the minds of Members, that it would he useless to recapitulate the statements in the reports, or to make extracts from them. In the report of a Committee which sat in 1840, and over which the Member for Shrewsbury presided, the Committee stated, that with a view to remedial Measures, they considered that an Act should be passed for the regulation of Public Buildings in the Metropolis. It; further stated, that such an Act not only for the metropolis, but for other large towns, would be of essential but primary importance. The first Bill upon the subject was introduced by a noble Lord, then the Secretary for the Home Department, in 1841. It was brought down from the Lords to that House, but from the dissolution of Parliament happening immediately after, it made no progress. In 1842, the Bill was again brought into the House of Lords, and thence to that House, but before
394
it was carried by the consent of all parties—not only with the consent of the Secretary for the Home Department, but with that of the Member fire Perth,—it was found so deficient in its provisions, that by the consent of all parties it was sent to the Committee then sitting up stairs. That Committee eventually reported the evidence which it had collected without giving an opinion thereon. At the close of the session, by the desire of his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department, he had undertaken to examine the subject, and to introduce a Measure. For that purpose he had consulted architects and surveyors of eminence, but looking to the complication of details, the number of towns that would be affected by such a Measure, and the fact that some of those towns, such as Liverpool, had Local Acts of their own, he thought that any general Measure would be inapplicable to different places. With these views he had brought in a Bill during last Session for regulating the buildings of the metropolis alone; but from the important Measures before the House, the Session became so far advanced, that it became impossible to proceed with the Bill. He ought to state that he did not regret that event, as it gave him fresh opportunities for introducing important improvements not only in the details but also in the form, and bringing it forward in a shape inure likely to be useful than last year. He would now state the provisions of the Bill. The House was aware that the last Act passed for the regulation of Buildings in the Metropolis was in the reign of George III. An enactment of seventy years must be wholly inapplicable to the present circumstances of the metropolis. He therefore proposed to repeal it altogether. That Act contained provisions for the prevention of fires. He, however, would produce a separate Measure for that purpose in the present Session. It was not necessary to trouble the House with details which were not only not interesting, but unintelligible, such as those relating to party walls. That subject had been examined with the greatest care by men able to judge, and he hoped that the provisions with respect to it would prove palateable to the community at large, and be willingly adopted by parties whose will it was intended to restrict. In the Bill of last year several clauses were introduced for the regulation of Drainage, which were intended to promote the health of the people. In the present Bill he had introduced a clause

395
of a general nature as to Draining, but he had omitted several or the clauses, because the question of Draining and the supply of water, not only as to the metropolis, but as to other large towns in the kingdom, was under the anxious consideration of the Commission for the Improvement of Towns and Populous Places; and he hoped, before long, that a report would be made which would enable the Government to deal with these subjects. On these grounds he thought it unadvisable to enter on that subject. The only regulation he had introduced into the Measure as to Drainage was, that for the future no house should be erected without a proper provision to secure adequate drainage. He also proposed to provide for the width of streets and alleys. Hitherto such enormous mortality had been caused by the crowded state of the large towns, that for the purpose of preventing such, he intended to introduce a clause that the streets and alleys should be of a certain width. He also proposed to prohibit buildings for the purposes of trades injurious to the health of the people, such as were likely to produce fever. These were the details of the Bill, but he hoped that Members would reserve any observations they might have to make for the second reading. The present Building Act was carried out by district surveyors. In the new Bill he would not interfere with the appointment of these officers; he would not deprive the Magistrates of the power of appointing them, but there had been great abuses in the appointment of these surveyors, and the interests of the country had, by the appointment of young men, almost boys, been grossly neglected. He would propose to place some restrictions on the appointment, such as that the office of district surveyor should not be held by a Magistrate—that no person should be appointed to it who was under thirty years old, and that the consent of the Secretary of State should be obtained to all such appointments. The Bill would also contain clauses for the appointment of "official referees," who would constitute a tribunal to which disputed questions arising out of house surveys should be referred. By this plan much time, litigation and expense, would be avoided. On another point, namely, the limits to which the operation of the Bill was to be extended, he would propose that the Commissioners should have power to ex tend them to any distance round the metropolis not exceeding twelve miles from Charing-cross. In conclusion
396
the noble Lord expressed a hope, though the proposed Bill did not possess such claims on the attention of the House as others which had occupied its time, that in the course of the Session they might pass a Measure which would promote the health and comfort of the inhabitants of the metropolis.
The noble Lord moved for leave to bring in the Bill.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, he did not rise to offer any objection to the introduction of the Bill, but to call the attention of the noble Lord to complaints which had been made by many persons residing in the localities in which houses had been pulled down to make way for the intended improvements. They complained that they were put to great loss in business and otherwise to much inconvenience by the length of time allowed to elapse between the pulling down of the old buildings and the erection of the new. One consequence of this delay was, that the rating of some of the parishes in which those buildings had been pulled down had been increased. He thought that where buildings were pulled down, they should be replaced as soon as possible.
The Earl of Lincolnwas quite aware of the inconvenience to which the hon. Member had adverted, but it was one which it was impossible altogether to avoid, and he could assure the hon. Member that it was not caused by any want of diligence in the office over which he presided. There were many things to be done, such as the preparation of proper sewers and other improvements, before the rebuilding of the houses could be commenced, but when completed it would be found that the individual rating in the parishes alluded to would be diminished.
Leave given.

SHIPWRECKS—HARBOURS OF REFUGE.—
Mr. Ricerose to call the attention of the House to the Report of the Committee on Shipwrecks, with reference to Harbours of Refuge. He trusted the House would be of opinion that it was the duty of the Government and of the Legislature to adopt such measures as might appear necessary, not only for the security of our commerce, but for the preservation of life and property from loss at sea. These were the objects for which the Shipwreck Committee of last year was nominated. That Committee was appointed with the sanction of Her Majesty's Government, and if the re-

397
commendations of that Committee were supported by good and substantial evidence (and he believed no doubt could be entertained on the subject), it would be a waste of time if they should be attended with no practical result. The Committee made several recommendations of considerable importance; but he would confine his observations to that part of the Report which had reference solely to Harbours of Refuge, and it was not his wish to trespass on the time of the House by referring to that part of the evidence which related to the plans of different Harbours; neither would he advert to that part of the evidence which recommended any particular localities. It might be supposed, that he felt some predilections in favour of the town which he had the honour of representing, but whatever might be its claims, he thought he should best consult its interest by divesting his present motion of any local character. He trusted that other hon. Members would adopt the same course, leaving the Government to refer the matter to competent persons to decide upon the most fitting places for Harbours of Refuge. He believed the evidence on which the Report was founded would bear him out in the assertion that the formation of one or more large Harbours in the narrow seas, was not only a Measure of great national utility, but one of immediate and urgent necessity. He would now trouble the House with a short extract from the Report of the Committee. The Committee said—
"Witnesses of the highest authority have given evidence before the Committee, proving the want of harbours accessible at all times of the tide, and urging the necessity which exists for their erection on those parts of the coast where such Harbours do not exist; and your Committee strongly recommend the immediate attention of the Government and the Legislature to the subject. The witnesses, to whose evidence the Committee refer, have pointed out different localities as most eligible: but die Committee abstain from recommending any particular situations for Harbours, from a conviction that these points will be best decided on by a body, composed of scientific and competent persons, whose attention should be specially and exclusively directed to this subject."
He might observe, that in the Motion which he had submitted to the House, he had adopted, as far as he possibly could, the recommendation of the Committee to nominate a Committee of scientific and competent persons. The Committee went on to say:—
398
"Attaching the greatest importance to this vast project, on national grounds, as well as for the protection and security of trade, your Committee think it most desirable that as large an appropriation of national funds as can be made be devoted annually to the construction of Harbours of Refuge in such localities as may be recommended."
The Committee then gave their opinion as to certain Harbours, to which he (Mr. Rice) would not refer for the reasons already given. A great number of witnesses were examined, amongst whom were five or six experienced officers, and several civilians who had taken a great interest in the subject. But, in order not to weary the House, he would only refer to the evidence of two or three individuals, who, from their station and professional experience, were entitled to the attention of the House. He would first take the evidence of Captain Washington, an officer who had been employed by the Admiralty to survey the eastern coast. Captain Washington was asked, "Have you turned your attention to Harbours of Refuge?" His answer was,
"Yes, I have thought a great deal about them; there is a great want of Harbours of Refuge on the East Coast. We have nothing flow the Forth to the Humber, an extent of a couple of hundred miles; between the Humber and the Thames there is nothing but the port of Harwich; so that there is on the East Coast of England nothing but the Thames, Harwich, the Number, and the Forth; between the Thames and Portsmouth there is nothing at all that I know of."
He thought the House would admit that, considering the position of France, that part of the coast from Portsmouth to the Thames was not the least important. That gallant Officer was then examined as to certain localities which he (Mr. Rice) would pass over, for the purpose of noticing the evidence of Captain Bullock, who said—
"I was directed by the Admiralty to follow the steps of the Commission on Harbours of Refuge, and make examinations of the Harbours they had not time to do; to take the soundings, and so on."
He was then asked,
"Is it your opinion that it would add to the security of shipping coming up Channel on that coast if there were a Harbour of Refuge somewhere between Portsmouth and the Nore."
And he replied,
"I reported that that was necessary."
Mr. Cubitt, who was one of the Com-

399
missioners appointed in the year 1840 to survey the South Eastern coast and the state of the Harbours, was first examined as to the localities of the place which he had the honour to represent; but he was also asked,
"Will you state, without reference to that Report, whether you conceive there is a necessity for a Harbour of Refuge for the safety of Shipping between Portsmouth and the Nore?" And he replied. "I think there is. That was strongly recommended in the Report of the Commissioners; and of those places there laid down—that is, the North Foreland and Dover, and Beachy Head, and so on, we all agreed, that Dover was the most important place, from its fortifications and other circumstances connected with the situation, more so than any of the rest."
His Grace the Duke of Wellington, the Warden of the Cinque Ports, was also examined. He says:—
"The attention of the Committee has been directed to the subject of a harbour of refuge between Portsmouth and the Thames. Will your Grace have the goodness to state your opinion as to the necessity for the erection of a new harbour?" "I have no doubt about it. I entertain no doubt that it is absolutely necessary; there is now no security between Portsmouth and the Downs. Dover Roads is a very secure place in the period of a northerly or easterly wind, but there is no security at other times; but, on the contrary, it is a very dangerous place in a wind from the south-west. They can run for the Downs, but there is no great ease in the Downs; certainly there is no security in Dover, except from warlike attempts. But I should say, that considering the want of protection front the weather and from military attacks in the Channel, the trade of the port of London would be in a very precarious situation, and will be a very losing one in a variety of ways in time of war, if something is not done beforehand, if some precautions are not taken. Steam power in moving ships has made such progress at present, that it must have a most material effect on maritime warfare in future times. I use the words maritime warfare in contra-distinction to naval warfare. If anybody will just consider the advantage the French coast enjoys over the coast of this country, in observation of what is passing at sea; it is to the southward; they have the sun to their backs; they see everything quite clear; and it is possible from the coast of France to calculate to a moment at what period a vessel coming up Channel will arrive at particular points, and they may be in readiness to seize her at any point which may happen to be unguarded, supposing the vessel to be without convoy, and supposing that there should be no naval means at that point to take care of her. I should say that the trade of the port of London would la-
400
bour under a great disadvantage if it were found that every vessel coming up from Portsmouth was obliged to come up in a convoy, that she should be picked up unless there were a convoy; and there are no means of providing for that safety except by ports; not one only, but there ought to be, I should say, at least two between the Downs and Portsmouth; I should say one about Dungeness, and another possibly at Dover. I have given a good deal of reflection to this subject, and have thought of it a long while, and that is the conclusion to which I have come; and it is a rational conclusion, for it is founded on what the state of the commerce of this port—which is the great port of the country—will be by-and-bye, if something is not done."
His Grace went on further to explain the necessity of harbours for this purpose, and was asked—
"Your Grace is of opinion that it is absolutely necessary there should be one?"
His answer was—
"I think it so desirable as to be in effect absolutely necessary."
He (Mr. Rice) did not care, provided a large harbour were made, whether it was a harbour of refuge or a harbour of defence, because a good harbour of defence would be a good harbour of refuge, and a good harbour of refuge would be a good harbour of defence. It was the duty of the Legislature to attend to the commercial interests of the country, and it was the duty of the Government to watch over and provide the means of security, not only for our commerce, but for our coast. He recollected the state of the coast when the country was threatened with an invasion by Buonaparte, and he was quite sure that if another war should arise, steamers might run down upon our coast at any time, unless some efficient means should be taken to prevent them. At the time to which he had referred, if steam-vessels had been employed as much as at present, Napoleon might have easily landed 15,000 or 20,000 men. He did not mean to say that he should have entertained any fear as to the result, but such an occurrence would have tended to destroy the confidence which had been always felt in our insular position. Supposing every one of the invaders to have been cut off, still it would have been shown this country was liable to be exposed to those horrors with which almost every country was visited during the course of the last war. He felt a strong opinion on this subject; and must say, that although England, conscious in her own strength, could afford to stand thus unguarded, yet

401
looking at the great improvement which had taken place in steam navigation, it would be advisable to take every precaution against what might occur in the event of another war. We were now in a state of profound peace, and it was the wish of every right-thinking man in both England and France, that that peace should continue; and he perhaps might here be excused for expressing the satisfaction which he felt at what passed on the occasion of the opening of the Dover railway. The municipal authorities of Boulogne were present, and he was extremely gratified to hear them express their warmest wishes for the continuance of a mutually good understanding between the two countries. He believed that the sentiments of the right hon. Baronet on that subject were fully reciprocated by the French Government. But were the French Government the less active on that account? Were they not increasing their navy, particularly that branch of it which consisted of steam-vessels? He might be wrong, but if so he was of course liable to be corrected; but he believed he was right when he stated, that at the present moment the numerical force of the French steam navy was greater than our own. He did not say that it was more efficient, but he believed it was greater. They had acted according to the old maxim, that the best way of preserving peace was to be prepared for war; and he thought they had acted wisely in taking advantage of a period of profound peace to complete and render efficient the force of their steam navy. They had also improved the whole coast from Dunkirk to Cherbourg—the entrance to the harbours of Calais and Boulogne had been greatly improved, and the harbour and breakwater at Cherbourg were now completed. When he was there in the summer of 1842, there were 400 men employed at the work, and a gallant officer (Captain Taylor), who was examined before the Committee, stated that the harbour of Cherbourg was capable of containing forty sail-of-the-line. When the French Government were thus acting, why were we content to look idly on without doing anything whatever? He asked the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, when he meant to act on the opinion expressed by him in 1840? He really did hope that they should no longer hear financial objections to the proposal from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What was the amount of expenditure considered necessary? In the report laid before
402
Government by the Commission appointed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer's predecessor in office, to examine the plans and estimates for a harbour of refuge on an extensive scale, the total amount for the three first years was 500,000 l. At the end of that time, the harbour, it was supposed, would be so far completed, and would then, in order to give it the solidity necessary for all great national works, require a further period of ten years more at an average of 100,000 l. to render it perfect. Ought such a sum as this to form any reason for longer delay? He believed that no one—not even those Gentlemen who assumed to themselves a peculiar watchfulness over the public purse—would object to the outlay of such a sum for such an object. He hoped, therefore, to hear the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government state that he was prepared to act on the opinion expressed by him on this subject so long ago as 1840. He felt that the subject hardly warranted him in trespassing so long as he had done on the attention of the House; but as the Committee had recommended this subject to their attention, he hoped the House would not deem the observations which he had made irrelevant to the question. The hon. Member concluded by moving,
"That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying that a Commission of scientific and competent persons may be appointed to consider and advise the best means of carrying into effect the recommendation of the Committee on Shipwrecks."
Sir J. R. Reidas a practical man connected with the shipping interest, had no hesitation in saying, that Dover would be the best place for a harbour of refuge. He did not say so from being one of its Members; but he said so because it was his firm conviction that a harbour of refuge at. Dover would be of the greatest benefit to all those connected with the shipping interest. He trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not offer—he would not say some absurd objection—but he hoped he would not offer any objection of a financial kind. There was no difficulty in raising any amount of money at a moderate interest, and nothing would gratify him more than to be entrusted with a commission to raise the amount of money required. He knew the locality and the necessity which existed for a harbour of refuge, and he hoped to hear the right

403
hon. Baronet opposite state that it was the determination of Government to proceed forthwith to execute so desirable and so excellent a work as that alluded to by his hon. Friend who introduced this subject to their attention. It was with the greatest pleasure that he seconded the Motion.
Sir R. Peelcould assure the hon. Gentleman who made this Motion, that the subject had for some time occupied the attention of Government. He had not the least doubt that the object of the lion. Gentleman in bringing forward this Motion, was to promote the interests of humanity; but he thought it rather singular that such a Motion should have been made by one of the Members of Dover, and seconded by the other. He would ask the hon. Gentlemen whether they did not think that there existed a necessity for harbours of refuge in other places besides Dover. In the evidence taken before the Committee, Admiral Dundas asked Captain Washington, "Have you turned your attention to harbours of refuge?" The answer is, "Yes, I have thought a great deal about them. There is a great want of harbours of refuge on the east coast. We have nothing from the Forth to the Humber, an extent of a couple of hundred miles." He had no doubt that some hon. Member representing some place on the eastern coast would tell him that upwards of a million might be usefully expended in the construction of harbours of refuge on that coast, and although the right hon. Baronet the Member for Dover said, that he could raise any amount of money, he did not point out any mode by which it could be repaid. But with regard to Dover being a suitable place for a harbour of refuge, he found there was a difference of opinion on this point, for on referring to the question (1579) put by the gallant Officer opposite (Sir C. Napier) to Captain Washington, he found that the question of the gallant Officer strongly implied that he did not consider Dover a fit place for such a harbour. But take the west coast, and the evidence was most conclusive as to the necessity of having a harbour of refuge, and for facilitating the communication between this country and Ireland, and if he were asked to say what point should be selected for such a harbour, he should certainly select Holyhead. He did not undervalue the considerations thrown
404
out by the hon. Member for Dover with regard to possessing harbours of refuge in the Channel. Considering the recent advance made in the use of steam-vessels, he thought that steam might make such an alteration in naval power as to form an additional reason for their taking into consideration the question of harbours of refuge. There were, no doubt, strong grounds in favour of Dover, but at the same time there were high authorities against it. The opinion of the gallant Commodore opposite was against Dover being selected; and Government felt embarrassed in making up their minds as to which was the best port at which a single harbour of refuge could be constructed. If they were to do anything let them begin with one. Considering the great expense, they could not undertake to construct at once all that were recommended. If they should undertake the work, it would be true economy to make one harbour complete rather than to begin several in an inefficient manner. He thought that such a harbour ought to be made, not only a harbour of refuge, but a great naval harbour, which in case of war could be used offensively and defensively. A great many considerations were to be kept in mind in selecting a port for such a harbour, but three considerations were especially important. Such a harbour should be able to afford refuge for vessels during a storm, it should also be a great naval harbour, capable of being used offensively and defensively in case of war, and it should also be a harbour which could be easily defended from the attacks of an enemy. He had already said that Government had looked at the whole of the evidence, and he had to state, that they were not prepared to submit any proposition to the House at the present time upon the subject. They would reserve altogether the question of expense, and would commit themselves to nothing on this point; but, while so doing, he proposed that they should appoint a Commission, consisting of eminent naval authorities, of persons connected with the commercial marine, and of one or two civil engineers, acquainted with the construction of breakwaters. No satisfactory conclusion could be arrived at until the whole subject had been thoroughly investigated and considered; and he thought he had said enough to show that Government were fully alive to the importance of the question, and that

405
they could not make any proposition until they knew the opinions of the eminent authorities whom he proposed to entrust with the Commission, and by whose recommendations the Government would be in a great measure guided.
Lord R. Grosvenorwas understood to ask whether Government contemplated making Holyhead Harbour a harbour for large steamers, and, at the same time, a harbour of refuge? He asked these questions because the determination of Government would be of great importance to the Chester and Holyhead Railway Company.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that Government had well considered the various reports made relative to the advantages possessed by the different ports on the western coast, for the purpose of facilitating the communication with Dublin and with Ireland generally; and on a consideration of the evidence they had come to a conclusion in favour of Holyhead. Reflections, however, had been made on the impartiality of the persons who made the report, and Government determined to institute a new inquiry. They deputed two naval officers and an eminent civil engineer (Mr. Walker) to make a second examination of the coast, and they confirmed the report previously made. The noble Lord must give the Government a little time to consider the matter further.
Sir C. Napierhad hoped that the hon. Member who brought forward this Motion would not have recommended any particular port for the construction of a harbour of refuge; but would have called the attention of the House to the question of harbours of refuge generally. With regard to Dover, be ventured to say, that it was not at all suited for a harbour of refuge. Vessels were detained in the Downs when the wind was west-southwest, and Dover in that case would be of no use to them as a harbour of refuge, because it would be impossible for them to get there. The best place for a harbour of refuge would be somewhere near the Downs. If the right hon. Baronet was determined to undertake the construction of only one harbour, he ought to give the preference to the Downs. Holyhead might be all very well for the purpose of communicating with Ireland, but it was not of the same importance as the Downs in case of a war breaking out with France. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet in
406
the propriety of appointing such a Commission as that proposed, but he hoped that it would not be made a job.
Mr. Ricewas very happy to have heard the statement of the right hon. Baronet, which appeared to him as much as he had a right to expect. He offered his thanks to the right hon. Baronet, and he bagged leave to withdraw his Motion.
Motion withdrawn.

STEAM COMMUNICATION WITH AMERICA.
Sir V. Blakerose pursuant to notice, to bring under the consideration of the house the subject of the practicability and utility of establishing a ship canal in connection with a railroad from Dublin to Galway, and facilitating the communication between these islands and America. It was but natural and proper of the hon. Members for the town of Dover to advance the local interests of their constituents, and in emulation of that laudable example he would endeavour to show, that the port of refuge that would be most consistent and valuable for the political and commercial interest of the United Kingdom would be the port of Galway. He would briefly state the grounds upon which he founded his claim for this preference. He brought forward this question early in the last Session, but his Motion was then opposed by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), on the ground that it was a Motion for a Committee of the whole House, and that it ought to have been a Motion for a Select Committee. In this view of the subject the noble Lord for Tiverton (Visc. Palmerston) concurred, and he recommended that the Motion should be withdrawn and the subject brought before the House again in shape of a Motion for a Select Committee. Thus encouraged on both sides, and in compliance with the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet he (Sir V. Blake) now brought forward his Motion for a Select Committee, with the addition that the present Motion comprehended also the execution of a ship canal across Ireland. The hon. Baronet said, it would be easily seen that the present Motion had important reference to the peace and prosperity of Ireland, and dwelt at great length with much ability on the subject of the late monster debate. He (Sir V. Blake) called upon the right hon. Baronet to show some disposition to do justice to Ireland. Let him increase the number of

407
Irish representatives, and enlarge the Franchise so as to place them on an equality with England. Let him imitate the example of Mr. Pitt when he sent Lord Fitzwilliam to Ireland with ample power to do justice. Let him select such a man as Lord Spencer, with power to sweep out, in one mass, the personification of bigotry by which Dublin Castle had been so long infested. Let him give employment to the people by the establishment of public works of great national importance, such as were now proposed. Let him elevate the most talented man in the Empire to the first judicial seat in Ireland, and then, let him, to crown all, give a six weeks Session in College Green of the Imperial Parliament for the transaction of Irish business only, and then the right hon. Baronet might be placed in the proud elevation of universal confidence and permanent power. With these few observations he would content himself and proceed to the immediate object of his Motion. His plan was to establish a ship canal from Dublin to Galway, and on the bank of that canal he would propose the formation of a railway. The harbour of Galway was formed by nature into one of the noblest harbours of refuge in the United Kingdom—it would be a harbour of protection in case of war, and a harbour of refuge against the elements, to protect the commercial marine of the country throughout the year. [Here the hon. Baronet read a letter from Sir James Anderson in support of his views, and referred to several authorities.] The writer of that letter intimated that there was a new company about being formed to carry out the design of a newly-invented steam-carriage, by which it was intended to be proposed to the Government to carry the mails gratis to Holyhead, in nine hours, and from Dublin to Galway in four hours, without the necessity of the expenditure of 500,000 l. over the Menai, without which expenditure the present steam cannot proceed to Holyhead. The Railway Commissioners were directed to inquire and report with reference to the most expeditious mode of communication with America across Ireland, and in their report they recommended the establishment of the harbour of Cork, which was an erroneous recommendation, for as expedition in the post-office department was the object, they should have selected the port which was nearest to Dublin, and equally
408
near to America; the time that would elapse after the arrival of a vessel at Cork or Valentia, before that arrival would be notified in Dublin, would be just twice as much as when the communication would be between Galway and Dublin. Besides the Commissioners' reports related to railways, and to the probability of remuneration by the internal trade of Ireland. It had no relation whatever to the making of a ship canal; that was a project which originated several years ago with an Irish nobleman (Lord Cloncurry). He, at his own expense, employed eminent engineers to ascertain the practicability of the execution of a ship canal to Galway. The facility of the undertaking was demonstrated to exceed the most sanguine expectations—meetings were held in Liverpool and Dublin. The gallant and hon. Baronet (the Member for Liverpool) was present at the Liverpool meeting, and was afterwards examined in the House of Lords; and by a paper ordered to be printed on the 11th of August, 1834, it appeared the gallant Officer deposed that he was so present, and that the project of a ship canal was universally applauded. [Sir Howard Douglas was not in the country in 1839.] He spoke from official documents printed by order of the House in 1834, and consequently did not refer to the year 1839. In this last-mentioned year the noble Lord, the Chief Secretary for Ireland under the late Administration, brought forward his proposition in that House for the application of 2,500,000 l. of the public money for the construction of a railway; that railway would have traversed the country longitudinally, and the distance of its termination would be twice as great, and the expense of construction would be twice as much as the cost of constructing a railway between Dublin and the nearest harbour on the western coast of Ireland. This proposition fell to the ground when Lord Morpeth went out of power, and so the matter rested till the last Session, when the hon. Member for Roscommon renewed the proposition of Lord Morpeth. But that Motion was strenuously opposed by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), who objected to the Motion on the mere grounds that the State should not interfere in matters of that kind, and that it would be much better to leave them to private speculation. The hon. Baronet proceeded to quote the evidence of Sir John Burgoyne, and many

409
other authorities, and concluded by an impressive appeal to the Government to take this and every other opportunity to alleviate the distress of the Irish people and give them employment. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving, that
"A Select Committee to inquire and report how far it might be practicable, expedient, and useful to promote a more speedy intercourse between Great Britain and America, by the establishment of steam carriages (in connection with a ship canal also to be executed) across Ireland, and thence by steam communication across the Atlantic Ocean."
The Motion having been put,
Sir R. Peelsaid, it would be impossible for the House to concur in the Motion of the hon. Baronet without consenting to make Galway the particular port of communication between the United Kingdom and the United States, and it would, therefore, be highly inexpedient to acquiesce in a Motion of this kind, emanating from an hon. Member, representing a local interest, as other hon. Members representing other interests might claim a similar privilege. Without disguising the importance of others, still having regard to the great interests of Ireland, the Railway Commissioners in their report recommended two great lines of railway as the preferable means of communication in that country, one a south-western and the other a northern line, and of the southwestern line they proposed that Cork should be the terminus, deeming that port the most convenient packet station or port of call in the event of a communication being established with America through Ireland. Should this line be determined on, it could not fail to confer benefit on Galway. The Commissioners did not recommend the construction of any railroads which could interfere with the interests of the two great canals, in which a large amount of property was invested. He had that day had an interview with some Gentlemen who were disposed to construct a railway in the direction of Galway to Cashel, and who would, if they had succeeded in serving their notices sufficiently early, have brought in a Bill for that purpose during the present Session. He trusted that they would be able to bring it in early in the ensuing Session of Parliament. Under these circumstances, where the object was in a fair way of accomplishment by means of private enterprise, he thought the interference of Parliament
410
would be injudicious, and therefore suggested the withdrawal of the present Motion, as likely to have a prejudicial effecon the efforts of those who were endeavouring to accomplish the same object in a legitimate way.
Mr. Sergeant Murphyrejoiced to hear that a probability existed of the construction of a railway between Dublin and Cashel by individual enterprise, the effect of which must be a great stimulus to the investment of capital and the employment of labour in Ireland. He hoped, therefore, that if after Easter they came prepared with their Bill, the House would give their favourable attention to the subject, and consent to the suspension of the Standing Orders, which had been done on a former occasion with so beneficial a result. In reference to the right hon. Baronet's observations respecting the demands likely to be made by other Members representing local interests, he could only say that his regard for the interests of Cork would never make him regret an advantage conferred on Galway.
Sir V. Blakereplied, the Commission issued, had reference to voyages from land to land with sailing vessels only. Post Office expedition was not the primary object, nor were steam vessels then in existence. If Post Office expedition had been the primary object, the ports of Cork or Valentia would not be thought of, because the distance of those ports from Dublin would be an insuperable objection, in as much as the nearest western port to Dublin, was equally as near to America, as Cork or Valentia. The preference given by the Commissioners to Cork harbour, would not have been so given if a ship canal was contemplated, and upon looking to a work published in Ireland by that early, constant, talented, and patriotic advocate, for the execution of railways in Ireland, Thomas Birmingham, Esq., it will appear that the able and eminent engineers, Messrs. Bald and Henry, have actually made a survey of the line from Dublin to Galway, and report that that line consists of a "series of levels, straightness of line, and cheapness of execution as yet unequalled in railway engineering." One thing is certain, that whatever difference of opinion may exist as to railways, none can exist as to the station of the line for a ship canal—nature has ordered that Galway should be selected for that purpose, if

411
ever it be executed—nor would the interests of the Grand Canal be prejudiced as the property would be purchased for the purpose of executing the ship canal, on the line now occupied by the Grand Canal—and the Grand Canal proprietors would probably become parties in the more comprehensive national undertaking. In the event of a war with France, you must have a ship canal across Ireland, or the trade of Liverpool will be extinguished—the responsibility belongs to the right hon. Baronet. He had done his duty in bringing the matter forward, while there was time to anticipate and prevent the evil, consequent upon a war, which will be a war of extermination on the one side or on the other.
Motion withdrawn.

THE CLONTARF PROCLAMATION.
Colonel Rawdonrose, in pursuance of his notice, to move a resolution—
"That it is the opinion of this House, upon considering the lateness of the period at which was issued the Proclamation of the Irish Government, intended to prevent the assembling of a meeting announced to be holden at or near Clontarf on the 8th day of October, 1843, that a risk of disastrous collision was incurred, and a precedent thereby 'created dangerous to the lives and liberties of Her Majesty's subjects."
He had not yet heard a satisfactory reason why Ireland, and the Representatives of the Irish people, should not call upon the House for that which had not yet been given, viz., the expression of its opinion upon that Proclamation. He gave the noble Lord (Lord Eliot) full credit for being sincerely anxious to perform the duties of his office for the benefit of Ireland, and he was quite sure every Irish Member who had heard the noble Lord's speech must be convinced of the deep sympathy he felt for the Irish people. But he charged the Government of which the noble Lord was a Member, in reference to the Clontarf Proclamation, with supineness and inactivity, and with a neglect of their duty which might have led to the most deplorable results. It had been happily said by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay) that the Government had been weighing words when they should have been weighing lives. If he understood the facts correctly, the noble Lord the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had left London for Ireland on the Wednesday, but it appeared that he did not arrive in Dublin until the
412
Friday morning. Seeing the necessity for his presence, why had he not as he might have arrived on the Thursday? The Council, it appeared, met on the Friday, and deliberated, and why was not the Proclamation issued on Friday? They had as yet received no explanation of the delay. A Proclamation was the exercise of a portion of the Royal Prerogative; but the Proclamation issued by the Irish Government was destitute of the most beautiful feature of the Prerogative—mercy. The Proclamation was riot issued till the Saturday night when the meeting was to take place on the Sunday. It had been asserted that it was issued early on the Saturday, but he had received a letter that day which said—
"There can be no question whatever that three o'clock, or a few minutes before, on the Saturday afternoon, was the earliest moment at which the Proclamation was issued. I am surprised at the statement of Sir Robert Peel that the Government Proclamation was out early on the Saturday, for he must have known the contrary."
The right hon. Baronet at the head of the Home Department, and the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, stated that measures had been taken for posting up the Proclamation, immediately upon its being issued, in all places within thirty miles of Dublin. The hon. and gallant Member read several documents containing declarations from various persons in humble life in Dublin, as to the hour at which the issuing of the Proclamation became generally known in Dublin, and the towns around it. One person had gone on the evening of Saturday to Leighlin town, where he saw no Proclamation; and at Bray, at a quarter past ten o'clock at night, there was no Proclamation posted. Another person had gone to Maynooth on the evening in question. He started from Dublin at ten o'clock, and passed various populous towns, amongst others, Farmer's-town, where he had seen no Proclamation posted. He reached Maynooth at half-after two o'clock next morning, where the Proclamation was generally exhibited. Surely, these declarations proved that the instructions issued by Government to post up the Proclamation had not been observed. The persons whose declarations he had read were ready, he believed to depose on oath to their statements, and they added that the police had information of the intended proceedings of Government with regard to the people. Was such the conduct of a paternal Government? Surely, when infor-

413
mation was given to the police it might have been given at the same time to the people. The declaration of the guard of the Naas caravan was to the effect that he had not seen the Proclamation on the evening on which it was issued in any of the towns betwixt Dublin and Naas. In some instances the people were only informed of it, next morning, through the medium of their clergymen. A bill-sticker in Dublin who might be supposed to be a tolerably good judge of such matters, stated that he had not seen the Proclamations stuck up in the principal streets in Dublin until four o'clock, when he saw a policeman posting one up with wafers. Now, if the places to which he had alluded were English towns, the proceedings of the Government in regard to their delay in posting up the Proclamations would not have been allowed to pass without severe question. With reference to the Cavalry Proclamation issued by the Repealers, of which so much had been said, and upon which the defence of the Ministry had so specially rested; that Proclamation appeared in The Nation newspaper upon the Saturday week before the Clontarf meeting. As soon as it became known at the Corn Exchange that such an article had appeared, a message was sent to The Nation office, and another edition was published without the Proclamation. The Pilot evening newspaper appeared without it. It was well known for three weeks previously, that the Clontarf meeting was to take place. The fact had been advertised over and over again. The Cavalry Proclamation had been suggested upon the Friday, and left at the office of The Nation for publication that night. It was his firm belief that had it not been for the Repeal Association—had it not been for the indefatigable exertions of the hon. Member for Cork, a collision would have taken place at Clontarf between the military and the people. He complained that the Proclamation had not been published in The Gazette before the meeting, at all events it should have been published upon Friday; it actually appeared in the Gazette upon the Monday after the meeting. Now, if this had been done exclusively by Irishmen, how much they would have heard of blunders of the Irish—of the new mode of warning people of danger after the danger was over. Why, the people in many cases, as stated by the declaration he held in his hand, believed that both the Government Proclamation and Mr. O'Connell's counter
414
proclamations were hoaxes issued by the Orange party. Many people even went in the direction of Clontarf, and were only convinced that the Proclamation had really been issued by the formidable array of troops near the place, and by the exertions of Mr. Steele who had the blessing of God upon his head that day, as one of the instruments in warding off an appalling massacre. From these facts, therefore, the House must draw the inference, that the people had not been sufficiently warned. Adverting to the circumstance that the Clontarf meeting was called principally upon the requisition of clergymen, he thought that it was curious that the Government should have prohibited that particular meeting. It was well known that people had come to attend the meeting from Liverpool and Manchester. Now, could it be believed that the same wind which wafted them across the Channel, also brought over vessels of troops for the suppression of the meeting. Surely notice should have been given on the English side of the Channel of the intentions of Government as to the suppression of the meeting. It was notorious that the meetings up to the time of the Clontarf assemblage had been perfectly peaceable and tranquil. He was in Italy when he heard of the Clontarf Proclamation; and he certainly thought that something was expected at that meeting different from what had taken place at the others; that the Government were in possession of some information respecting it, of which the public knew nothing. But the result proved that such was not the case. Donnybrook, where a meeting had already taken place, was much in the same position, as regarded Dublin, as Clontarf, so that no objection could be taken to the latter on the score of situation. Some difference should have been made between the Proclamations issued to put down the meetings in Wales and Ireland. The Welsh meetings were attended with riot and violence—the people there were disguised, and armed with guns. But in Ireland nothing of the kind had taken place.—no circumstance had occurred which could have given the Government cause to fear a breach of the peace, The people met constitutionally to express an opinion—to express in the face of heaven an opinion against the justice of the Act of Union. He considered that there was no crime in that—he considered these meetings more in the light of their forming a safety valve than anything else. But there was another difference between

415
the Welsh and the Irish Proclamations. The Welsh Proclamation called on "civil officers" to repress the outrages—the Irish Proclamation was addressed to the "officers connected with the preservation of the peace." Now he thought that this would apply to military as well as civil officers. He might be wrong, but still that inference might be drawn. By the wording of the Proclamation Government condemned itself; for it was clear, upon their own showing, that if the meetings should have been suppressed at all, they should have been suppressed long before the issue of the Proclamation forbidding the Clontarf meeting. So far as he could see, the military arrangements for the suppression of the meeting were well conducted, but at the same time he believed that, so great was the tranquillity and order of the people, that a corporal, with a file of men, could have effected the object. But complete as those military arrangements were, proper precaution had not been taken—due notice had not been given to the people. By their having permitted similar meetings so long, Government must be understood to have connived at them, and surely a better reason should have been given for their late and arbitrary proceeding than some miserable allusions to the cavalry Proclamation. By affirming his Motion, the House would show that they were alive to, and jealously watchful of the exercise of the Prerogative of Proclamation, and as mindful of the public peace and prosperity. He would tell the House that it would be a dangerous thing to allow the impression to go back to Ireland that they were not to have equal justice. Ireland was asking for equal laws, but it was also asking for equal justice. That equal justice it was determined to have, but by refusing to entertain a resolution on the subject—so guardedly worded as it was—he thought that they would be incurring a heavy responsibility. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by proposing his resolution.
Mr. Villiers Stuartseconded the resolution. Although he thought that it was brought forward under disadvantageous circumstances, not on account of the unwillingness of the House to listen to it, for he was bound to say that they had paid the utmost attention to the gallant Member, but in consequence of the long debate which had recently taken place in reference to Ireland,—notwithstanding this, he yet felt, that however unwilling he was to take a part in the present ques-
416
tion, he would be neglecting his duty if he failed in coming forward to support it. It would certainly have been more consistent with their duty to the public if the Government had given a more early, a much more early, notice to those parties who intended to attend these great meetings, that they were in so doing acting illegally. There was danger likely to arise from the postponement of the Proclamation till so late a period as the Saturday preceding the Sunday on which this intended meeting was to take place, from the fevered and anxious state of mind of the friends of Repeal, who looked to the Clontarf meeting with the most excited interest, and were actually on their way to it from the neighbouring counties of Ireland. He would ask the noble Lord who represented the Government of Ireland in that House, why was it that the Crown Solicitor (Mr. Kemmis), who acknowledged that he might have done so, did not file his affidavits upon which this Proclamation was founded three weeks sooner? This was the more necessary when the advisers of the Crown must have been aware of the condition in which all who joined in these great meetings involved themselves, namely, that by so joining they rendered themselves liable to prosecution for all the consequences of the Repeal Agitation. But this was not the only instance of neglect the Government displayed in reference to those transactions. It appeared to him that when they were called upon more particularly to be present they had thought proper, under some pretext, to absent themselves and run away. Indeed, it would appear to him, from all the inexplicable conduct of the Irish Government at the time, that there was something radically imperfect and wrong in the constitution of the Irish Executive Government. It would, perhaps, be better that its form should be changed, and that the Irish people should be no longer subject to any but an effective and responsible Government, perfectly adequate on occasions like this to act without waiting for instructions from the Cabinet Ministers. Under these circumstances he felt it was desirable—for the sake more particularly of the effect such a vote would produce upon the minds of the Irish people—that a Vote should be taken upon the Motion of the hon. and gallant Officer, and it should therefore have his decided support.
Lord Eliotmust answer the speeches of the mover and seconder of the resolutions almost in the words used by himself and by his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department in the late Debate. He must say, that when the whole conduct of the Government of Ireland was made the subject of a nine day's Debate, on which the House had pronounced, a strong and decided opinion, if the present course could be justified, a discussion might again be revived on every particular act of that Government. He, nevertheless, was not disposed to shrink from all or any portion of the responsibility imposed upon him in consequence of the part which he had taken relative to the intended Repeal Meeting at Clontarf. The serious indisposition of his noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had appeared to most persons acquainted with the fact as a sufficient apology for his temporary absence from his government in the hope of reestablishing his health. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland had been unremittingly engaged in the business of his Court for many months, and it was but proper and customary that at that period of the year he should be enabled to enjoy some recreation. With respect to the character of the proposed Meeting at Clontarf it had quite altered from what it appeared on the first announcement of it to be, and that would be seen by the placards which were circulated immediately preceding the day appointed for the meeting. At first the invitation was addressed only to the people of Fingal, a district of inconsiderable extent. Subsequently the intention that was announced by means of placards, of mustering and marching in military array, through the streets of Dublin, large bodies of horsemen, perfectly authorised, or rather made it the duty of the Government to prevent the meeting. Indeed, if he had been left alone, and without the means of communicating with the Government here, he should have considered it to be his duty to assume all the responsibility of the act, and issue the Proclamation. The alterations that took place in the placards subsequently, such as substituting groups for troops, and which also appeared in the advertisement in the Nation, one of the papers of the Repeal party, could not be supposed to change the character of the meeting. It would be worse than quibbling to attempt to maintain that this artifice at all altered the object or the nature of the meeting. But he had thought it advisable to apprise
418
the Government here of that alteration of this advertisement, and of the placards upon the 2nd of October, and it was not until the 4th that that communication reached London. A fresh consultation became necessary, and it was then determined by Her Majesty's Ministers, that the Lord Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor, should return forthwith to Dublin, and that if circumstances remained unchanged, the Lord Lieutenant in Council should issue a Proclamation, prohibiting the Meeting. On Friday morning they reached Dublin. In the afternoon of that day a Meeting of the Members of the Government took place. The Lord Lieutenant, the Lord Chancellor, the Commander of the Forces, the Master of the Rolls, the Attorney and Solicitor General, and himself were present; and it was determined that a Proclamation should be issued. A Proclamation was accordingly drawn up that evening, and submitted the following morning to the Privy Council by two o'clock on that day, it was in the hands of the printer. Immediately upon its appearance there were placards posted on the walls of Dublin, in which the conduct of the Irish Government, and even the language of the Proclamation, were commented upon and censured. The hon. Gentleman had referred to letters relating to the time at which the Proclamation was posted in Dublin and its neighbourhood. His evidence was of a negative character, for the gentleman on whose authority he relied only said that he did not see any Proclamation. He (Lord Eliot) held in his hand a statement under the authority of Colonel M'Gregor, whose veracity was unimpeachable,—a statement which was signed and certified by the officers of the Constabulary Force under his command, about the stations within a circuit of nearly thirty miles round Dublin, where it was stated that at Howth, the Proclamation was posted at seven p.m. of the evening of Saturday; at Julianstown, seven p.m.; at Bray, at five o'clock; at Celbridge, between seven and eight p.m.; at Wicklow, between seven and eight p.m.; at Kilcock, at eight p.m.; at Drogheda, at nine p.m.; and so on. These meetings did not take place until one o'clock in the afternoon, and this very Proclamation which summoned the Repeal Cavalry did not summon them to meet in the heart of Dublin until twelve o'clock on Sunday; and, therefore, he contended that there was sufficient notice to parties proceed.

419
ing to Dublin, and that very slight inconvenience and no danger was occasioned to any persons by the delay. He could speak from his own knowledge that he saw the Proclamation posted on the quays, and in many other parts of Dublin. It was in the hands of the persons at the Corn Exchange before three o'clock on Saturday. It was admitted that the military measures were well taken. It was true that there was a large and overwhelming force, but that was done from motives of humanity, to prevent any danger from the people taking possession of the ground. He regretted that any individual should have been inconvenienced. If he was, it arose from unforeseen circumstances over which the Government had no control. He did not contend that the meetings on previous occasions had been illegal, and there was no reason to apprehend till the Saturday, on which the placard had appeared, that this meeting would have differed from the others. The hon. Gentleman had commented on the policy of allowing meetings to Petition as a safety valve of the Constitution. In the course of the meetings, which spread over a period of nine months, he did not believe that a single Petition had been adopted, and therefore those meetings were only meetings under the pretence of Petitioning. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the amendment had said that Government were in possession of means of instituting a prosecution before the Clontarf meetings. He (Lord Eliot) had already said, that Government would have been guilty of a dereliction of duty if they had allowed a meeting, under such circumstances, to take place in the heart of Dublin. Although Clontarf was at some little distance, yet the assemblage of these men on horseback, and in military array, would have been a defiance of all law and of all order. The Government entertained no moral doubt whatever of the existence of a dangerous conspiracy, but had not obtained that legal evidence which would have enabled them, with hopes of success, to prosecute the parties. He believed he might appeal with confidence to the Attorney General for Ireland if the first proceedings were not taken the very moment Government were in possession of evidence which they believed would enable them to prosecute with effect. He denied that there was any intention of entrapping the people into the commission of crime, and indeed he was happy to find that that charge had been withdrawn. Under
420
these circumstances he thought the hon. Gentleman had no ground for calling on the House of Commons to express its disapprobation of the conduct of Government in respect to the Clontarf Proclamation.
Mr. Somersprotested against the sophistry of the noble Lord. There was no getting over the fact that it was by a miracle almost that a large unarmed multitude was not brought in contact with an overwhelming force, when the slightest accident might have occasioned an indiscriminate butchery. The present Government received Ireland prosperous and peaceful, and it was now a camp.
Mr. Sherman Crawfordsaid, the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland had objected to this discussion on the ground that the whole question of Ireland had been so fully debated on the recent occasion, but he did not see any reason why every question relating to Ireland should not be repeatedly discussed in that House. With regard to the delay in issuing the Proclamation, if the Lord Lieutenant were obliged on every occasion to refer to the English Government and consult with them, where was the use of that Functionary? He contended that the use of the words "troops" in the Repeal Proclamation did not constitute illegality. The noble Lord said that the illegality of the meeting arose from the Notice, which indicated that the people were to assembled in military order. Had they not assembled in military order before? Did the mere use of the word "troops" constitute illegality, when such things had been done before? But he denied that the appearance of military array constituted the illegality of the meeting. There were precedents, in Irish history, of military array being adopted for thirteen years and not noticed by the Government. When the Orange processions took place, they formed in military array and carried arms and fired shots. The noble Lord said the real purpose of the meetings was not to prepare petitions, but was the noble Lord in the House on a previous day when the hon. and learned Member for Cork presented a whole pile of petitions agreed to at those meetings? He gave the most decided support to the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend, and he hoped that more Motions of a like kind would be made on other points connected with the late proceedings. He trusted that some consti-

421
tutional lawyer would yet take up the conduct of the Attorney General for Ireland in the Court during the late trial, which he could regard in no other light than as an insult to the dignity of justice, an outrage on the bench, and a dangerous attack on the liberties of the subject.
Mr. E. B. Rochewould support the Motion on the ground that Ministers had not meted out the same measure of justice to Ireland in this case as they would have done under similar circumstances to England. Whatever were their motives, the effects of their acts might, perhaps, have been to have created a slaughter of the people on the ground of Clontarf, had it not been for the aid they received from the hon. and learned Member for Cork. Government ought to have had recourse to a Baal-fire on the top of the castle of Dublin, to give notice of the stoppage of the meeting; if they chose to wait till the night before, they ought to have employed some extraordinary means to spread the intelligence. He did not doubt that the military measures had been good, and that the ground had been judiciously occupied; but the publication of the Proclamation would have served little purpose had it not been for the aid of the hon. and learned Member for Cork. He did not know why so much stress had been laid on the gasconade inserted by some senseless blockhead in the Nation newspaper. Every party had some brainless fools attached to it; but was a nation to run the risk of being plunged into civil war because some foolish thing was done which was not acknowledged by the party? He thought the hon. and gallant Officer was quite right in bringing forward this Motion. It was the contemptuous treatment which Irish affairs and the claims of the Irish people received at the hands of that House which had made him a firm and decided Repealer, and he should continue to be so, so long as there was one measure of justice for England and another for Ireland. He had but one course to pursue, and that was, in spite of the threats of Gentlemen opposite, to continue the Agitation of the Question of Repeal, as long as he could, and as ardently as he could within the limits of the Constitution.
The House divided:—Ayes 62; Noes 90; Majority 28.

List of the AYES.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Barnard, E. G.

422

Barron, Sir H. W.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Bellew, R. M.

Maher, N.

Bernal, Capt.

Marshall, W.

Blake, M.

Napier, Sir C.

Blake, M. J.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Blewitt, R. J.

O'Connell, M.

Bowring, Dr.

Plumridge, Capt.

Bright, J.

Roche, E. B.

Browne, hon. W.

Ross, D. R.

Busfeild, W.

Russell, Lord J.

Butler, P. S.

Scholefield, J.

Carew, hon. R. S.

Smith, B.

Cave, hon. R. O.

Somers, J. P.

Childers, J. W.

Stansfield, W. R.

Clay, Sir W.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Cobden, R.

Stuart, Lord J.

Collett, J.

Stock, Mr. Serj.

Crawford, W. S.

Strickland, Sir G.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Strutt, E.

Duncan, G.

Thornely, T.

Evans, W.

Trelawny, J. S.

Ewart, W.

Tufuell, H.

Fielden, J.

Villiers, hon. C.

Gibson, T. M.

Wall, C. B.

Gore, hon. R.

Wawn, J. T.

Greenaway, C.

Williams, W.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Worsley, Lord

Hawes, B.

Wyse, T.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Yorke, H. R.

Hill, Lord M.

TELLERS.

Hutt, W.

Rawdon, Col.

James, W.

Villiers, S.

List of the NOES.

Antrobus, E.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Greenhall, P.

Arkwtight, G.

Greene, T.

Astell, W.

Grogan, E.

Baillie, Col.

Harcourt, G. G.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Hardinge, rt. Hn. Sir H.

Borthwick, P.

Hayes, Sir E.

Botfield, B.

Hinde, J. H.

Bruce, Lord E.

Hodgson, F.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Hodgson, R.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Hope, hon. C.

Clerk, Sir G.

Hope, G. W.

Clive, Visct.

Hornby, J.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Irton, S.

Colvile, C. R.

James, Sir W. C.

Copeland, Mr. Ald.

Jermyn, Earl

Cripps, W.

Jones, Capt.

Davies, D. A. S.

Kelly, F. R.

Dick, Quintin

Kemble, H.

Dickinson, F. H.

Knatchbull, rt.hn.Sir E.

Eaton, R. J.

Lincoln, Earl of

Eliot, Lord

Mackenzie, T.

Escott, B.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Farnham, E. B.

M'Neil, D.

Flower, Sir J.

Mainwaring, T.

Follett, Sir W. W.

Manners, Lord J.

Fuller, A. E.

Masterman, J.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Mundy, E. M.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W.E.

Neville, R.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Cure, M.

Packe, C. W.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Palmer, G.

423

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Stewart, J.

Peel, J.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Plumptre, J. P.

Thompson, Ald.

Pollock, Sir F.

Tomline, G.

Praed, W. T.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Pringle, A.

Trotter, J.

Pusey, P.

Vivian, J. E.

Rashleigh, W.

Wood, Col. T.

Repton, G. W. J.

Wyndham, Col. T.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Scott, hon. F.

Young, J.

Sibthorp, Col.

Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.

TELLERS.

Somerset, Lord G.

Freemantle, Sir T.

Stanley, Lord

Baring, H.

INCLOSURE OF COMMONS.
Lord Worsleysaid, it would be in the recollection of the House that he had, last Session, brought forward a measure for facilitating the Inclosure of Commons, but in consequence of the late period of the Session he had not persevered with the Bill. It was important, in considering this subject, to bear in mind the resolution which had been passed by the House, and adopted into the Standing Orders, with the object of reserving a certain portion of every tract of waste land on its inclosure, for the health and recreation of the people residing in the vicinity. He believed that a very erroneous impression existed as to the effects with which the inclosure of land was attended, in reference to the interests and to the amusements of the humble classes of the community. It was his opinion that if the management of the waste lands were placed under a Board properly constituted, the result would be found to be, that in many places where there was now very great difficulty in finding employment for the poor, there would be, in the course of eight or ten years, a very large number of persons employed in draining the land and inclosing it; that additional encouragement would be given to the poor to cultivate the land, to say nothing of the increased produce they might expect to obtain from it. He was connected with a county in which agricultural improvements had been carried into effect to a very great extent. Looking to the state in which that county now was, and its condition thirty years ago, and to the facilities which modern science placed in their hands for further improvements, he did not despair of seeing a very large portion of England, which was capable of being cultivated, brought into a high state of tillage, and that, be it remembered, by employing persons who were now lamentably in want of employment. He had obtained much information from persons who
424
were well acquainted with the great changes which had taken place in the course of the last generation in the agriculture of this country, and had received communications from persons who were well entitled to be considered as authorities on this subject, which all tended to confirm the views he had endeavoured to express. It might be said, why do not parties now come to Parliament for power to inclose lands capable of improvement? The answer was, that the expense of passing an Act for that purpose through the House was so great as very generally to deter them from doing so; and he believed that this was the reason why parties did not oftener apply for Inclosure Bills. He had received a letter from a gentleman of the county of Norfolk, which said,
"There is a piece of common in this parish, on which feed asses and three-quarter starved horses and cattle, which are a disgrace to the county. All the owners interested are anxious to inclose the land, but are deterred by a dread of the enormous expenses of an Act of Parliament and the lawyers' charges. I have now before me a statement of the expense of procuring an Act for a small inclosure in this neighbourhood."
The items were as follow:—

Parliamentary Agents

£309 13 5

Solicitors

336 15 2

Ditto Clerkship

206 1 10

Ditto Award, &c.

168 12 10

£1,021 3 3

Commissioner, Surveyor, &c.

692 13 9

£1,713 17 0

This business might have been completes by the Tithe Commissioners for less than 500 l. There was a Return presented to the House last year, showing the great amount of land which was still in a waste state throughout England and Wales, but referring only to those districts in which the Tithe Commutation had been effected. It appeared from this Return, which was delivered in June, 1843, that of 6,718,523 acres in England, there were 1,358,419 acres of common or waste land; and of 1,877,502 acres in Wales, there were 501,815 common or waste. He had a letter from a gentleman of much experience in North Wales on this subject. He had written to this gentleman, being fearful that what he had heard might not be correct, as although there was much waste land in Wales capable of cultivation, still there were large mountain tracts in Merionethshire and other counties which were

425
not susceptible of tillage. That gentleman said,
"It is true that large tracts of mountain land in Wales cannot be cultivated as corn-land; but these tracts, comprising the greater part of the counties of Caernarvon and Merioneth, would not be affected by the contemplated Inclosure Bill, as they are already held in severalty as distinct sheep-walks, many of them even being inclosed with stone walls. The Snowden range is all thus already private property, and most of the higher hills. The emaining mountain pasturage, which might not perhaps be well adapted to tillage, would experience the great benefit of being allotted in severalty, like the Snowden range; by which each proprietor would be enabled to ascertain his lands, and the contention caused by the disputes perpetually arising as to rights of common extinguished. Large portions of the lower hills, which would be the object embraced by the Bill, are capable of great improvement, and this comprises all the range in a circular direction round the great mountain masses, from the promontory at Lluyn, in Carnarvonshire, through the counties of Denbigh and Flint to Montgomeryshire. Certainly, many of the best parts in this district have been enclosed under special Acts of Parliament for that purpose, but the operation of them has been so expensive as to check any probable continuance of such measures. There still remains much that would be essentially benefitted under the operation of some of the provisions of the Bill. There probably may be in North Wales 100,000 acres or more remaining, for which the measure would be applicable."
He had heard yesterday, on this subject from a gentleman in the county of Surrey, in which it appeared there were upwards of 60,000 acres of waste land. Although he did not pretend to say that all this could be cultivated, he was assured that there were many large pieces of ground, now useless wastes, which could be brought under cultivation and which would well repay the expenditure necessary for that purpose. In the Bill he now moved for leave to bring in, he should propose to give power to those who were to carry it out, not only of inclosing, but also of regulating the right of pasture on the commons. He would refer to a letter from a Gentleman in Wales, which he held in his hand, showing the necessity of such a provision. He said:—
"During the last year a neighbour of mine, who kept about 1,500 sheep on a range of hills called Radnor-forest (absorbing thereby the pasture on which very many others had rights), kept two men for the whole year as fighting men, in addition to his regular shepherds. It was their duty to quarrel with and challenge any shepherd or farmer who attempted to put
426
sheep on the hill engrossed by this man. One of the men was convicted for an assault and frightened away, but I believe the evil still prevails."
Thus it was evident that the rich were very often benefited by these wastes. In the Report of the Committee that sat last year upon allotments to the labonriug poor, there was some evidence by Mr. Mott, which showed not only the vast extent of uninclosed land in the north of England but also that a great deal of it might be brought into cultivation. A farmer in Yorkshire also deposed that some of this was very good land, and would be profitable if properly cultivated; but that in consequence of the great expense of an application to Parliament, there was no intention of inclosing it, although there was great anxiety to do so. The same witness, alluding to other populous places in Yorkshire, stated his opinion that the greatest benefit would accrue from bringing the land into cultivation, and that if the first expense were got over parties would be ready to invest their capital. There were 18,000 or 20,000 acres of waste laud around Bingley, a great deal of which was good, and a petition had been presented by the Board of Guardians stating their strong impression of the importance of a measure for general inclosure. Mr. Mott stated, that he believed there were in Lancashire 200,000 acres of uncultivated land, and in answer to the question whether the improvement of the land would repay the outlay, be stated that land valued at 30,000 l. would be worth 50,000 l. What he (Lord Worsley) wished to propose was, that Commissioners should be appointed as Inclosure Commissioners, mid that some such plan should be adopted, as that if two-thirds in value of the parties interested in the land, either as common laud, or land in common, should wish to have it inclosed, there should be a meeting called, and that then they should make an application to the Commissioners, who would send down Assistant Commissioners who would take into consideration, not only the interests of the parties, but the locality and the general advantages to he derived from the inclosure. Then, if they should be of opinion, that it would be advantageous to have the inclosure, they would so report to the Commissioners. A day would then be appointed for hearing the claims, and after award should have been given upon them, a certain notice should be given to enable the parties to ob-

427
ject. Then if one-fourth of the parties objected to the inclosure being proceeded with, they should petition the House of Commons, and give notice to the Commissioners not to proceed until six weeks after the meeting of Parliament, or after the date of the notice. He thought that plan would prevent all hardship upon the parties, by giving power to that House to adopt the inclosure if they thought it right, and if not, it would prevent great expense and loss. He assured die House, that he had endeavoured to form the Bill with a strict regard to the rights of the poor commoners, also considering well whether it would be advantageous to the parties to whom the property belonged, as likewise to the population of the surrounding districts; and he hoped the House would allow him to bring in the measure. Much evil had arisen from local acts not having in some instances been fully carried out, and in others unfairly, the consequence of which was, that many persons holding common lands, but really having no title, had been put to great inconvenience in the sale or transfer. He proposed, then, that instead of putting them to the expense of applying to Parliament for powers, an application to the Commissioners should be sufficient. Some hon. Members were anxious that provision should be made for allotments to the poor; and he conceived that a general inclosure measure was so much wanted, and would be of so much benefit to the country, that if a majority of the House should be of opinion such a clause ought to be added, he would not abandon the bill on that account, although he might not approve such an addition. The noble Lord concluded by moving for leave to bring in
"A bill to facilitate the Inclosure and improvement of commons and lands held in common; the exchange of lands, and the division of intermixed lands; to provide remedies for the defective or incomplete execution of the powers of general and local Inclosure Acts, and to provide for the revival of such powers in certain cases."
Colonel Sibthorpknew that it was considered in this House uncourteous to oppose the bringing-in of a Bill, and regretted that he considered it his duty to oppose the Motion. He assured the noble Lord that he gave him every credit for his desire to support the landed interest, and for being an excellent landed proprietor, but when he looked at the Bill he could not but oppose it. It contained 140 clauses
428
affecting the country generally. Innovation was at best a dangerous thing; and he had seen in his own time so many dangerous results from innovations—for instance the Reform Bill, which had done everything to cause revolution-railroads, and other dangerous novelties—that he felt disposed to oppose everything savouring of innovation. The noble Lord attempted to force this Bill through in a former Session of Parliament, though on its introduction he (Colonel Sibthorp) might have counted out the House, had not courtesy prevented him from doing so. The Bill was brought in on the 2nd of June, 1843, and read a second time on the 14th, but afterwards fell to the ground. Why, he knew not, except that the noble Lord found that the House did not approve of it. His great objection to it was, that it was too general an Act to be brought in by any private Member of the House, and that if it were a measure deserving of consideration, and for the public good, it should be left to the Government to bring, it in. Hon. Members opposite talked much of the rights of the poor, but why bring in a Bill to deprive them of the means of recreation and amusement? Why not let them play with their boys and girls, and enjoy the manly and healthful sports of foot-ball, cricket, bowls, and hurling, as they and their fathers had enjoyed for ages? There was another question he would wish to ask. The noble Lord the Commissioner of the Woods and Forests was every day labouring to open wide streets to give free air to the people of the metropolis; but by enclosing these commons they would not only deprive the poorer classes of their pastimes, but in some degree deprive all classes in the neighbourhood of the free circulation of air which they had hitherto enjoyed. Then they were to have a host of Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners and Clerks, and, as a matter of course, a fair amount of jobbing. Who was to pay the Commissioners? This Bill would diminish the protection which the farmer and occupier of the soil now enjoyed, as it would give a power to any one proprietor to call a meeting at any time or place he thought proper, and there originate proceedings for enclosure, which would deprive others of their rights, or, in defending these rights, entail on them heavy and indefinite expense. There was another objection to the Bill—that it gave an absolute

429
veto to the Lord of the Manor, and enabled him to say to the other proprietors, "Unless you accede to my demands, you shall have no enclosure." That was a power none but a Dey of Algiers would require. There were many other objectionable provisions, to which it was unnecessary for him then to allude. The noble Lord had quoted a few letters from Surrey, Yorkshire, Lancashire, and Wales, but was that sufficient to justify the House of Commons in reading, even for the first time, a measure so extensive and novel? It was a dangerous precedent to allow such a measure to emanate from a private individual. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, should take it up, and assure the noble Lord that his endeavours should not be forgotten on so important a measure. As a public servant he felt it his duty to oppose this Bill, and should take the sense of the House on the first reading. He had gone to a division only on one occasion; and on that he had not been so unfortunate as not to hope for success now. The noble Lord might urge that the Bill should be allowed to pass the first and second reading, and that it might be fully considered in Committee; but he had seen enough of the mode in which business was managed in that House to know that nothing was better than stopping such a measure in limine, for if it went through the first reading, vires acquirit eundo. Many a wicked man would have been saved from the commission of numerous crimes if he had been only hanged for the first one.
Mr. Trelawnyshould not have addressed the House on the present occasion, had he not opposed the Inclosure Bill brought in by the noble Lord last year. He was prepared, however, to support the introduction of the present Bill, in consequence of an understanding he had received, that provision would be made in it for the healthful recreation of the working classes. It was evident, that if all the land now unenclosed became enclosed without reference to this, hereafter large towns would grow up near which the people would find no place to enjoy themselves. It seemed to him that a small tax would be levied on parties proposing to enclose in order to create a fund by which ground might hereafter be purchased when required for towns not now in existence. One thing should not be
430
forgotten, that the speculation ought to be profitable without the aid of a Corn-law. For, looking at the present state of public opinion, no one could believe that law would stand; of course, there was always this advantage in enclosing, that the consumer must gain if the speculation be economically sound, to the extent of the expenses of the importation of a given quantity of corn. Under all circumstances, then, he would support the Bill on its first reading, on the understanding, that if, on attentive perusal, it seemed unsatisfactory in the points interesting to him, he should be at liberty to oppose it in a future stage.
Lord J. Mannerssupported the Motion, but he should be most anxious, at a future stage, to promote the introduction into the Bill of provisions, for securing that which he believed in his conscience was the equitable right, and if not the legal right, ought to be so, of the poor.
Mr. Sharman Crawfordopposed the Bill, and said, that if the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln (Colonel Sibthorp) divided the House, he should vote with him. From the explanation of the noble Lord, he found the Bill did not essentially differ from that of last Session. He was of opinion, that no land should be allowed to be enclosed in this country without securing allotments for the working-classes. The recommendations of the Allotments Committee ought not to be disregarded. They recommended, that in any general, or even private Enclosure Bill, that might hereafter pass into a law, provision for making allotments for the poor should be introduced. He cordially agreed in that opinion. The report went on to state, that from the evidence examined before the Committee, it appeared, that the effect produced on the labouring classes by their being enabled to hold land on their own account was most beneficial; that their condition was bettered; and that great advances were made by it in reforming the criminal and dissolute. He thought, therefore, that the House, before allowing this Bill to be brought in, ought to consider how enclosures might be made effectual for these purposes. With regard to establishing playgrounds for the people, he despised the idea, if it was to be the sole idea for which provisions in favour of the poor were to be introduced into Bills of this nature. Allotments would give occupation, and pleasing

431
occupation, to the manufacturing and industrious classes at times when they were discharged from work. That occupation would supply the remedy against their going on the Poor-rates. In places where the system had been adopted, the effect had been greatly to reduce the demands on the Poor-rates. Among other persons that he might mention, who had tried the system with eminent success, was Mrs. Gilbert, who had given great encouragement to the Allotment system in Sussex, with the best effect. The House ought not to go on enclosing land without considering the best means of effecting this great object. Considering that Enclosure Bills, almost without exception, were calculated to give a monopoly to the rich at the expense of the poor, he was opposed to this Bill among the rest.
Sir C. Burrellwas understood to say, that according to the law of England, no man had a right to take from any one that to which he had by law a right in order to give it to another. With respect to manorial rights, the fact was, that a very great part of those rights belonged to poor persons who had claims on the manor. He knew a very large tract of land in Sussex, which it would have been most beneficial to the parish to have had inclosed, but the inclosure was prevented by the copyholders and free tenants. While persons were so ready to object that too little corn was grown in this country, he could not see how they could at the same time object to the enclosure of waste land, but he thought great injustice might be done to the country and to the poor, and industrious classes, if full consideration were not given to a measure of such importance as this. Even where land had been enclosed at great expense, he had known instances where the enclosure had been eventually of great benefit. Near Horsham lands had been enclosed, which he himself had never thought would pay, but they now produced as large crops as some of the very best lands. Considering how great would be the advantage of being able to enclose waste lands at a small expense, instead of the present enormous expenses of obtaining an Act, he should support the Motion.
Mr. Brightlooked upon this Bill with considerable suspicion, and especially when it ran to the length of 140 clauses; but it appeared to him, as the noble Lord had taken the trouble to prepare such a Bill,
432
it was only fair, that it should be submitted to the House, in order that every Member should have the opportunity of seeing it. He was much gratified at hearing the hon. Member for Sussex express his anxious desire to preserve what he considered a great constitutional principle—that the property of one man should not by law be given to another; that property should not be taken from the poor and given to the rich. He trusted, that in some subsequent discussions in which the hon. Baronet might be engaged before long, with respect to the proprietors of land, he would keep the opinion which he had this night expressed in view.
Leave given.
Bill brought in and read a first time.

PRISONS AND PRISON DISCIPLINE IN SCOTLAND.
The Lord Advocatemoved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law with respect to Prisons and Prison Discipline in Scotland. Previous to the year 1839, the law of Scotland in regard to Prisons and Prison Discipline had been in a very unsatisfactory state. The prisons were hardly in a fit condition for the reception of human beings, and they afforded no security for the detention of the prisoners. The expense too for building and maintaining these prisons, was imposed upon the Royal Burghs of Scotland—the counties generally not contributing anything. The burghs being poor, the consequence was that a very defective state of things arose. There were, it was true, certain local statutes that made a difference in some places, but it clearly appeared by various reports laid before the House, that much was required to be done. At last the attention of the public was attracted to the matter, and in 1839, a Statute was passed to improve Prison Discipline in Scotland. That Statute had ever since been in operation, and great improvements had resulted from it. The prisons were in a more fit state for the reception of those confined, while there was greater security against escape. Boards were established in different counties, and a General Board was established in Edinburgh to superintend the prisons. But it was not wonderful that in the operation of a new system introduced by one Act of Parliament, some defects should exist. During the two last years reports had been laid on the Table, noticing these imperfections, and suggesting alterations. The last report, after expressing a complete conviction of the

433
soundness of the principle which had been in operation for four years, at the same time pointed out some imperfections which required to be amended. The learned Lord read an extract from the report, recommending the adoption of measures to carry out the principle of the Bill of 1839. It was in order to accomplish this object that he now proposed to introduce the present Bill. Since 1839 there had been a new census—that of 1841—and the apportionment of the expenses laid on the population being according to the census of 1831, a very imperfect mode of assessment necessarily existed. Again, imperfections were found to exist in the mode of transmitting prisoners from the general prisons to local prisons; and also with respect to the means of providing for the sustenance of the prisoners. He concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.
Leave given. Bill brought in and read a first time.
House adjourned.