HC Deb 25 July 1867 vol 189 cc104-18

said, he rose to call attention to certain transactions which took place at the recent elections for the counties of Waterford and Tipperary, and to move a Resolution on the subject. At the beginning of the Session, two remarkable Petitions complaining of undue Elections had been brought before the House, but the Members petitioned against were seated. It appeared, therefore, to be recognized that in Ireland there might be any amount of riot, turmoil, and intimidation, and yet that the election would be held perfectly valid. He thought the time had come when in Ireland, as well as in England, men should be enabled to give their votes at an election without subjecting themselves to bad usage, and incurring the danger of being murdered. Every one who knew the country would admit the marvellous improvement that had occurred there within the last sixty years, and he must say that he could see no reason why election times should form so prominent an exception to the order and tranquillity that generally prevailed. In the first place, he desired to draw attention to the conduct of a portion of the Irish Roman Catholic clergy. It appeared that at the election for Tipperary the Roman Catholic clergy took one view and the landlords took another. The Roman Catholic clergy had, like other men, a perfect right at an election to exercise their social and political rights; they might meet together and agree to support a particular candidate. But they certainly ought, like any other body of clergy, to set an example of con- ducting the election in an orderly and peaceable manner. The Archbishop of Cashel had, it appeared, called together a meeting of his clergy to select a candidate at the last election for Tipperary. The meeting took place. A candidate was named. It was unanimously resolved to support him. The Archbishop then addressed his clergy, telling them they were to speak to their congregations both politically and as priests. As priests they were to point out to their congregations that they had a Christian duty to perform, and if they did not perform it there were certain penalties, both in this world and in the next, which they would have to undergo. Politically they were to address their parishioners in the churches and point out why they should vote for a particular candidate. What was the result? It was thus described by a witness, a Roman Catholic gentleman of some influence, to the Committee— That last resolution was passed on the 13th of October?—I believe so. On Sunday the 14th of October, did you attend Temple Derry Chapel?—Yes, I did. Were you there at mass?—I was. Was that on Sunday, the 11th?—It was the Sunday previous to the election. Who was the officiating clergyman on this occasion? — The Rev. Hugh Gleeson. Did he on that occasion Say anything about the approaching election; if so, what?—He spoke a good deal about it, and contrasted the qualities of the two candidates, and concluded by saying that any person voting for Mr. Waldron ought to be ducked in the river. Where was this said?—In the chapel. In the presence of the congregation?—Yes. It was part of the service?—Before mass was over. Had he his vestments on?—Yes, he had. Mr. Robert Pratt heard a priest who had a whip in his hand in addressing his flock at Horsmore say, "A man who has gone to Thurles shall never come back alive." Mr. Thomas Butler, a magistrate in the commission of the peace for the county of Tipperary, and residing in the neighbourhood of Golden, gave the following evidence:— You are a Roman Catholic?—Yes. What is the name of the officiating clergyman there; were you at the Golden Chapel on the 14th of October?—I was at the Golden Chapel the Sunday before the last election for Tipperary. Do you know the Rev. Thomas O'Connell?—Yes. Was he the officiating clergyman at mass when you attended that day?—He was. Do you remember after mass the Rev. Mr. O'Connell addressing the congrgation?—Yes. Where was he standing when he addressed the congregation after mass?—On the altar steps in the chapel. How was he dressed at the time?—He was in a black soutane and a cap. Was it the cap worn by the clergymen of that church in the performance of their duty?—Yes, occasionally. Will you be good enough to state to me the substance of what you remember of that address to the congregation after mass?—It was principally in abuse of the neighbouring proprietors and supporters of Mr. Waldron, at the coming election. Will you tell us what he said, the words as well you remember, in reference to the election? He was aware that some parties in the neighbourhood had been canvassing for Mr. Waldron, and that they received promises from some of the electors to support him at the coming election; he then told the people that they were in no way bound to those promises, and that even if they had taken their solemn oaths to support Mr. Waldron they were bound to break them. Do you remember anything further that he said?—He told them that in voting for Mr. Waldron they would be voting against their conscience, their country, and their creed. Was that the way to teach men to appreciate properly the position they would hold in future with regard to the political concerns of great Britain? He did not wish to say a word against the Roman Catholic clergy; doubtless there were good and bad among them, as there were in every other body of men. Many of them were men of experience and great learning—but what he wished to point out was that the effect of such conduct as that to which he referred was to excite the people of Ireland to act improperly at elections. Such exhortations as those he had quoted bore their fruit, as they were certain to do, in scenes of tumult and disaster. The evidence given before the Committee showed conclusively the extent of the rioting at the time of the election. Mr. Robert Shaw gave the following evidence:— You are a constable in the constabulary force in Ireland?—I am head constable. You remember the 20th of October, the polling day at Thurles?—I do. Were you there on duty on that day?—I was. How many men had you with you?—I had about thirty men at the front gate of the Court House. In the discharge of your duty, did you endeavour to make way for the persons to get to the polling-booth?—I did everything I could, as well as the men who were with me; I had only to keep the passage at the gate open. Did you find that an easy duty to perform?—We could not perform it except through the assistance of the dragoons; they rode up and down and dispersed the people. Were any of the men under your charge struck? — There were a good many of them; I was struck myself. In addition to these voters and the police you describe as being struck, do you remember any gentlemen of position?—I saw Mr. Gore Jones struck, a resident magistrate. The stipendiary magistrate?—Yes. You saw him struck?—Yes, I saw an old gentleman struck and knocked down, and I heard him say that he was Mr. Lanigan; they say that he had his eye knocked out. Did you see any person struck?—Yes, several. With what were they struck?—They were struck with stones and mud, and rotten eggs in some cases. Do you remember any of the men under your charge in particular in the Clare police; they are under your charge?—Yes. Do you remember anything in reference to them?—Many of them were badly cut in the head with stones and sticks, and they were obliged to be taken off duty. They were not able to continue their duty?—No. If this sort of thing had taken place in England the Member returned would have been unseated. Why should there be a different rule for Ireland? Mr. William Spaight, residing at Derry Castle, and possessing considerable property in Tipperary, made the following statement:— Do you remember the last election in Tipperary?—I do. About how far is Derry Castle from Nenagh?—About nine-Irish miles. How did you travel from Deny to Nenagh on that day?—I drove in my own carriage. Do you know where the chapel of Portroe is?—Yes. As you were coming towards the chapel of Portroe, passing the quarries along the road, did anything strike you as remarkable?—It struck me that all the people were absent from their work, and all the quarries idle. When you got near Portroe Chapel did anything particularly attract your attention there?—I saw the people going up in twos and threes to the chapel, and collecting there; a great mob of the people were collected there and in the chapel yard. And when you got up there, did you see anything remarkable taking place or going on?—I did not go there; I went away from it; I avoided the village on purpose. Do you remember at any time seeing the curate of the parish of Portroe that morning?—Yes. Whereabouts did you see him; do you know his name?—I heard it was Gleeson; I am not sure. You know he was one of the curates of Portroe parish?—I believe he was. Whereabouts did you see this gentleman?—He was with a crowd of people at Baskerville's public house, half way from my place to Nenagh. What were the crowd of people doing; did you see this gentleman do anything?—I did. Will you describe it? As I came up, I was not looking particularly at him; I was astounded at seeing him lift a great big stick 'wheeling;' he twisted the stick over his head, and commenced jumping in a most extraordinary manner; I thought he was mad; he is a very active fellow; he was jumping the height of the table off the ground; he commenced hallooing for White, and hooting at me; I did not notice him till that began; I thought the man was demented. Did you see anything else going on at Baskerville's publichouse?—Yes, the front rank wheeled upon me; but there were two clergymen with jugs giving out whiskey to two regular lines in the rear, and they never stopped; they continued loading up the rear rank people with the whiskey; they never stopped; they went on giving the whiskey out of the jug; they gave it in glassses. First the Roman Catholic clergy preached to the mob, and then they gave them whiskey; no doubt greatly to the increase of the subsequent disorder. Mr. Wood, an inspector of constabulary stationed at Dundrum, said that during the election there was a large force of cavalry and in- fantry, but not a large force of constabulary. He stated that Mr. Lowe was cut by the side of the nose by a missile, that Mr. Horne was also cut in the face by a stone, that Mr. Maguire, Mr. Baker, Mr. Arundel, Mr. Leech, and Mr. Smith were also injured by stones, and he himself and some of his men were much cut by stones. Colonel Purefoy was only saved from being murdered by another man being murdered in his stead. He would not weary the House by reading through page after page of similar evidence. The same scenes took place at the Waterford Election, in which case the agents of one of the candidates had to apply to the magistrates for assistance in order to enable the voters to come to the poll. A body of voters who had been collected and were being marched to the booth under the protection of an escort of dragoons were, by a clever strategy, attacked in the mountains, the cars smashed, and the heads of those who rode in them broken. At Dungarvan the military had to force the bridge leading into the town, amidst a perfect "hail of stones," the missiles being not what were called "two-year-olds," but large enough to break a man's skull, while the bludgeons were heavy enough to kill a man at a blow. He had brought these cases forward because he thought it was a serious thing in the present day, when they were about to bring in a Bill to lower the franchise in Ireland, if they had no guarantee that this sort of thing would not be heard of in future. He found no fault with the Roman Catholic clergy for endeavouring to carry oot their own political ideas in the best way in their power; but he found fault with them for having put all order at defiance, I and for having led these riots in the most open manner. It was utterly impossible that an election could be carried on properly under such circumstances. The House had been asked to assent to indignant resolutions against the military, because some loss of life occurred in these frays. He should be glad when the practice of calling out troops in Ireland could be discontinued, and order maintained by the constabulary alone. But he was anxious that, in cases like those to which he had alluded, where the voters were prevented from getting to the poll, the election should be declared null and void. When the Irish Reform Bill came before the House next Session he should move that some steps should be taken to render the Irish people free to exercise their votes without the aid of the military. He should do so because it was natural to the Irish disposition to get up a row if possible, and the fact that a body of men were being escorted by soldiers was sufficient to excite that disposition.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "whilst this House regrets that it should be necessary to employ military escorts for ensuring the safety of Voters at Elections in Ireland, it is of opinion that the nature of the intimidation exercised at the recent Elections in the Counties of Waterford and Tipperary not only renders in such cases such a protection essential, but is further of opinion this House should pass a measure which will enable the Voter to freely and fully exercise the franchise in such a manner as he desires, without exposing himself to personal risk,"—(Major Jervis,) —instead thereof.


said, that he disputed the accuracy of the account given of the proceedings at Waterford. The fact was that the Conservative party had used the military as mere election agents to bring in voters against their will to vote for the Conservative candidate. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had opened a question of great constitutional importance, although he did not mean to do so. [Major JERVIS: Yes, he did.] The hon. and gallant Gentleman had alluded to cavalcades of voters coming in, escorted by dragoons. Now, what were the facts? The election took place on the 29th. On the previous day, whilst standing in the streets of Waterford, he (Mr. Esmonde), at three o'clock in the afternoon, heard the clash of arms and the trotting of horses. On looking round to see the cause he found that a body of tenants, who were coerced to support the Conservative candidate, were being escorted by dragoons and the resident magistrates. The men were escorted to an hotel, where they were kept until the next day; in consequence of their arrival not only was the ordinary business of the hotel suspended, but a circular was sent round to the frequenters of the billiard-room to say that it would be closed for that evening—a fact which created no slight sensation. A Liberal friend of his, who kept a china shop at Waterford, told him that 150 mugs had been ordered of him for the purpose of supplying drink. He should probably raise a question on another occasion as to whether those who employed the troops in escorting the voters on the day previous to the elec- tion to the hotel hired by the Conservative candidate, where they were illegally supplied with drink during the night, and on the day of the election itself escorting them from thence to the poll—were not guilty of conduct tending to bring the Prerogative of Her Majesty into collision with the privileges of Parliament. As to the attack made upon the soldiers it was favoured by those who were being escorted to the poll against their will. The voters wished a riot to be got up in order that they might be scattered and not compelled to vote, and amongst the assailants were servants and relatives of the "independent electors," who had recourse to this stratagem to relieve their friends from distress. The sitting Member did not think it at all necessary to call witnesses before the Committee, being of opinion that no case had been made out against him in Ireland. The law was that if an affidavit were made that violence was apprehended at an election so as to prevent a true return the poll could be adjourned until such a day as it was deemed probable the people would cease to be turbulent. If the election referred to was so interfered with as to make it probable the result would be altered through riot, the poll could have been adjourned. The reason it was not so adjourned was because an application should have been made, and an affidavit sworn which could not be sworn. In his own election in 1852, voters who had been collected together under the escort of the military, for the purpose of being brought in to vote for his opponent against their wish, actually sent word to some of his friends to stop them, and, if possible, to do so near a wood, so that they might not be recaptured when they had succeeded in making their escape. The fact was, that these riots as they are called, are stratagems used in self-defence by the voters themselves. As the hon. and gallant Member had intimated his intention of bringing forward the subject at greater length next Session, he would not now go further into the case; but he promised the House that when the time came he would be quite prepared to meet the hon. Member whenever he chose to renew the subject.


said, that as one of the Waterford Committee he rose to refute an erroneous impression which appeared to prevail. Without discussing the question as to whether undue influence on one side is excuse for violence on the other, he maintained that if a man voted from mo- tives of gratitude to a good landlord that man had as much right to protection as he who voted from motives of political partizanship. With regard to the allegations made, he desired distinctly to deny that any evidence was given of undue influence on the part of the landlords, of unnecessary action on the part of the military, or of collusion between the mob and the tenants. Hon. Members might have private information; but the case should be decided on sworn evidence before the Committee. If that private information did exist, why was it not produced not the proper time?


said, he could corroborate everything the hon. Member for the county of Waterford (Mr. Esmonde) had said from his personal experience of the last election for that county. It afforded a lamentable but striking instance of the tyranny of landlords, and the slavish position of the tenants. He had seen on the day before the polling long lines of cars filled with tenants of noble Lords and others of the landed Conservative gentry in the neigh bourhood of the city of Waterford, escorted by large bodies of dragoons with drawn sabres, looking more like convicts on their way to transportation than men going to exercise the franchise, brought in to register their votes against their conscience, their wishes, and, as they believed, their interests. Numbers of those unfortunate people had expressed to him their bitter regret that they dared not vote for Mr. De la Poer, the popular candidate, instead of the Tory one, Captain Talbot, and he had heard many of them pray to God that the man they were compelled to vote for would be defeated. Now, he characterized that as a melancholy and disgraceful state of things. It was enough to make those hapless victims of landlord coercion disaffected to see the Queen's troops employed to drag them to vote, contrary to what they wished. ["No, no!"] He repeated it, and he challenged contradiction; if the landlords had not the use of the troops to carry out their behests one of two thing would have happened—either that the tenants of the Conservative landlords would have voted as they wished for the Liberal candidate, or refrained from voting against, as they believed, the interests of their country. He did not make these observations on account of attaching much importance to political agitation; it had never done any good for Ireland, and probably never would; neither had he the slightest feeling against the landlords because they were Conserva- tives. He hated tyranny whatever side it came from, and would denounce Whig landlords just as readily if they deserved it. But gross tyranny had in the case they were dealing with been perpetrated by men professing Tory principles, and he therefore condemned their proceedings irrespective altogether of their politics.


said, that the hon. Member seemed to imagine that an unusual course was taken with regard to the military upon this occasion. The military were sent to the Waterford Election in consequence of a sworn information having been laid before the Government to the efiect that their presence was necessary for the preservation of the peace. As no Government in Ireland would feel justified in refusing such a demand, the military were sent and placed at the disposal of the local authorities. He believed they were employed with and exorcised the greatest discretion. The statement that they were used to coerce voters was totally without foundation. They conducted voters to the poll, and protected them from assault. When at the poll those electors were left to vote at discretion, without interference on the part of the military or magistrates. All that the military did was to prevent the voters from being maltreated. He regretted that the presence of the military was too often necessary on such occasions. But so long as large mobs, armed with bludgeons were employed to coerce voters in the interest of a candidate, it would be impossible for any Government, in the interests of peace, to refuse to take the course which every Government had hitherto been obliged to take. If the Government refused to interfere there would be riot and bloodshed to an enormous extent. From his own knowledge he could state that it was principally owing to the presence of the military, not only in the South but in the North of Ireland, that scenes of violence did not more frequently occur. If the people of Ireland would conduct their elections in the same manner as the people of this country they would find military interference quite unnecessary. The people of Ireland had the matter in their own hands.


said, that he had not intended to attach the least blame to the Government. They certainly could not have acted otherwise than they did.


said, he regretted that other Members of the Tipperary Election Committee besides himself were not present. They had waited for die question to come on so many times in vain that they had tired of continued postponement. If it had been the first time an Election Committee had had to interpret the wording of a now Act of Parliament, he, as a member of the Committee, would have given his decision in favour of rendering the election void. There were five polling-places where the disturbance was so great that the voters could not easily pass to the poll. But that Committee, like other tribunals, was bound by the general practice of courts of co-ordinate authority, and on looking back at the almost invariable practice of preceding Committees, it appeared to him that there was nothing in the late Tipperary election which rendered the disorder that prevailed there of a graver character than that which prevailed at other elections which had not been declared void. In the few extracts from the evidence which had been quoted by the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich he had brought forward cases some of which were afterwards satisfactorily disproved. There was one case of a priest who had made use of a whip, and who came before the Committee and explained the circumstances satisfactorily to his mind. A number of cars had been employed to bring up voters to the poll. The boys, who were not voters, having got upon the cars, that gentleman took a switch and used it in a paternal spirit towards them. The boys in question were not over forty years old, which was the age, it seemed, of some "boys" in Ireland. But small matters like these did not affect the general merits of the question. It would have been necessary, before declaring the election void, to have had it satisfactorily proved to the minds of the Committee that there had been a greater state of riot than had prevailed at previous elections. No doubt, many passages might be quoted from the evidence for the Petitioners to show that there had been a riot of a very serious nature; but the general tenour of the evidence from first to last went to substantiate the fact that that was an unusually quiet election for Ireland. There was a special reason why an unusual amount of irritation should have arisen. The Conservative candidate had originally come in by the votes of the Liberal party, and at a subsequent time he announced himself as a supporter of Lord Derby. He therefore thought the Government were justified in making unusual preparations for maintain- ing the peace of the county. Various kinds of witnesses were examined, some of whom were ardent partizans on either side. Without wishing to impugn their veracity, in a question of that sort every tribunal would prefer to take as the measure of what really happened the evidence of those witnesses who were there in an official capacity, and who could not be suspected of any leaning to either candidate. Stipendiary magistrates and inspectors and sub-inspectors of the constabulary were called before the Committee. Those witnesses, though they disagreed as to the amount of disturbance which prevailed, agreed that there had not been at all an unusual amount of disturbance for an Irish election. Some of them seemed to think there had been a much smaller amount than they were accustomed to see at Irish elections. Another fact which left a deep impression on his mind was that, although at each of the five polling-places such a large crowd had assembled as rendered it difficult for persons to pass through the streets, the voters that supported Mr. Waldron who were attacked were those who were brought up under military escort. Other gentlemen, who were known to be supporters of Mr. Waldron, deposed that they had no difficulty in getting to the poll except such as naturally arose from the large crowds in the streets. Among these latter were two clergymen who must therefore have been well known to the people. Moreover, the Petitioners failed to show that any considerable number of electors were unable to record their votes owing to the existence of these riots. Again, the Legislature had provided by a special Act of Parliament for the contingency of riots at Irish elections. In that case, and also at Waterford, no application was made to adjourn the poll. If the aggrieved person did not avail himself of the remedy specially afforded by the law, that fact must be assumed to weigh somewhat in the balance against him. As to the conduct of the Roman Catholic clergy, the whole of the evidence had left on his mind the impression that they had interfered with the course of the election in a manner which could not be approved; but there did not seem to have been exercised such an amount of undue spiritual influence as was sufficient to vitiate the election. They abstained from alluding at the altar to the election, though several had addressed their flocks from the chapel yards. Some- times politics were introduced in the pulpit of English Protestant churches. Though he should be glad to see the Roman Catholic clergy adopt a different course on the occasion of elections, there was nothing done in that instance to cause the election to be declared null and void. He thanked the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich for bringing the matter forward. He thought it hard on our soldiers to employ them in that kind of way. If any force was to be employed on those occasions, it should be the constabulary, not the soldiers. He had listened with indignation to the charges brought against the troops, who appeared to have behaved with the most admirable temper. There was nothing to justify the accusations made, either against them, or the constabulary, or the stipendiary magistrates. Being perfectly impartial between the two sides, the impression left on his mind was that if they could obtain by ballot, or in some other way, a free expression of the opinion of the electors in Tipperary as to whether they would prefer to retain or lose the elective franchise, they would prefer to be disfranchised. It was pitiable to see men vacillating between the persuasion of the priests, on the one hand, and that of the landlords, on the other. The best way of dealing with the question of Irish elections would be to show that riotous proceedings would not pay. How that was to be done he hardly knew; perhaps some Amendment might be made in the Irish election law. As things now stood, the Election Committees of that House were found adopting what, to the eye of common sense, and to those who did not understand how they were bound by precedent, seemed to be a very strange course of proceeding.


said, that as a Member of the Tipperary Committee he wished to say that he had felt compelled to differ in opinion from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and also from the other Members of the Committee. He had thought the rioting was of such a character that the election ought to have been declared null and void, and he had therefore felt that the only course open to him was to record his vote singly against that of the Committee. The hon. Gentleman said riots were common at Irish elections; but he had not been governed by the precedents set by former Committees. A lawyer got up and told the Committee on which he sat of the precedent of the Waterford Election. But he had deemed himself bound not to look at that, but to be guided by the evidence adduced before him. Speaking from memory—for he had not the necessary documents by him—he believed it had been shown that more than thirty voters had been seriously injured while proceeding to record their votes. There were about twenty more who declared solemnly that they would have voted for Mr. Waldron if they had been allowed to reach the polling-place, but that they were afraid of their lives to record their votes for that gentleman. Many others would, he thought, have given similar evidence had they felt that they could freely speak their minds. His hon. Friend had said that where there were no soldiers no attack was made upon the voters. But two men—one of them, as well as he could recollect, named Givans—had attempted to go up to the polling-place alone. They were attacked by a mob of twenty or thirty people and prevented from voting. In another instance five or six men were seized and shut up in a room, from which they could not get away until the troops came to escort them. Some witnesses stated that in attempting to reach the polling-booth they had only been able to advance three-quarters of a mile in an hour and a-half, there being thirty barricades in the way. He was sorry that both elections had not been declared void, as it would have given respectable electors a chance of going to the poll without having their heads broken. Could an election be regarded as having been fairly conducted under those circumstances? He had no wish to say anything disrespectful of the members of any religious persuasion; but he was strongly impressed with the belief that the Roman Catholic clergy who had selected a candidate—although their interference might not have amounted to what was called undue influence — had sailed very near the wind. Judging from his experience of this, his first Election Committee, he was sorry the House had not thought fit to adopt the system of voting papers, by means of which quiet and respectable men would be enabled to tender their votes without running the risk of injury. On account of the violence which frequently occurred at Irish elections, it was, unfortunately, necessary to employ soldiers; but all could bear testimony that their conduct, under the greatest provocation, was uniformly temperate and forbearing. He had not much experience of Irish elections, but he once happened to be the unpopular candidate at an election in that country, and although many of the Roman Catholic party, as well as of the Protestants, were in his favour, he was glad to receive the assistance of a certain number of soldiers to enable those who intended to vote for him to go to the poll.


said, the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Morrison) had raised a new issue. This was a most important Committee, where great constitutional interests were at stake, and yet the hon. Member for Plymouth, being a young Member, was put upon it. He had avowed the principle that one Committee was to be governed by the decisions, and, it might be, by the errors of another. The speeches delivered by the Roman Catholic priests from the altar during or after mass were at the bottom of the disturbances that had taken place. Voters were coerced to vote against their will, and Members were sent to that House and kept there for the purpose of defending the interests of the Romish priesthood. If the Roman Catholic voters were not free agents, what were their special claims to protection? Coercion was no strange thing in England. But the peculiarity of the Roman Catholic coerced voters was that they were coerced to return Members who voted not for the interests of the Empire, but for the interests of their own Church. Dr. Cullen had issued a missive desiring the Roman Catholics to return only those men who would vote for the interests of their Church; and those interests were known to be antagonistic to the principle of civil and religious liberty in every country in Europe. There was coercion by the priests as well as by the landowners, and it was the duty of the Government to investigate the whole matter. He had frequently brought before the House the way in which priestly influence was exercised, and he had lately called the Attorney General's attention to the fact that a Roman Catholic bishop had challenged the right of Her Majesty to occupy the Throne of this country. His efforts had hitherto been without effect. He had discharged his duty by again endeavouring to force the matter upon the attention of the House. He thanked the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich for bringing forward the question — and charged the Government with gross neglect of duty, because they had not taken notice of the matter.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.