Sitting of 3 March 1835

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Mr. HODGES, from Tonbridge and Mereworth, for the Repeal of the Malt Tax.—By Sir J. BECKET, from Licensed Victuallers of Leeds, against the Licensing Act of last Session.

ILLEGAL IMPORTATION OF CORN.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonrose, in consequence of seeing the noble Marquess, the Member for Buckinghamshire, (the Marquess of Chandos) in his place, to give him an opportunity of correcting an erroneous statement which had gone abroad through the medium of a speech made by that noble Marquess to his constituents. A

491
printed letter had been published by a Mr. Plaistow, addressed to an hon. Friend of his own, the Member for Norfolk. In that letter the following sentence occurred:—"We find it publicly stated by the Marquess of Chandos, and it remains uncontradicted by any Member of the late Administration, that for some time past the Government has connived at the introduction of foreign corn, duty free, through the Channel Islands, in such quantities as to produce a depression in agricultural produce, and the present stagnation of prices." When that statement was brought under his notice by his hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, he told his hon. Friend at once that he was convinced that the report of what the noble Marquess had said could not. be accurate, for he was perfectly satisfied that the noble Marquess would not have made such a statement had he not believed it to be true, and he was equally satisfied that if the noble Marquess had believed it to be true, he would have felt it to be his bounden duty to have instantly called down upon the Government guilty of such practices the severest reprobation of the country—a penalty such conduct would have richly merited. He had since had the pleasure of hearing from the noble Marquess, that the statement attributed by the report to him was not the statement which he had made; but, as Mr. Plaistow had thought proper to say that the statement had not been contradicted by any Member of the late Administration, he thought it due to the noble Marquess, the late Administration, and also to himself, who had had the honour of presiding at the head of the Department particularly implicated, to obtain, if not a contradiction, at least an explanation from the noble Marquess, and to give the most positive denial to all rumours of the kind, which he knew had been circulated anonymously to a very considerable extent. He was likewise extremely anxious that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Alexander Baring), who now filled the situation which he had held under the late Administration should be present at this discussion; for if he had been correctly informed, that right hon. Gentleman on Friday last, when he was not in his place, had completely acquitted the late Government, as far as his information went, of any want of zeal or activity in endeavouring to put a stop to such proceedings. He
492
was the more satisfied with that declaration of the right hon. Gentleman, as he knew that something which that right hon. Gentleman had said unintentionally and unconsciously on the hustings in Essex, had led to the belief that the change in the Government would cause greater care and attention to be paid to this particular point. Now, whatever might be the effect of the change in the political arrangements of the Government, he thought the right hon. Gentleman would admit that, as far as attention could be paid to the prevention of fraud in the admission of foreign corn into our ports duty free, that attention had been paid to the fullest extent by the late Government. He well knew that rumours of this kind had been most industriously circulated; but for the very reason that he held opinions hostile to the policy of the present Corn Laws, he was anxious that they should have their full effect, and that they should not be infringed in any way whatever. At the proper time he would move for certain papers, which he believed there would be no objection to grant, and which would show that due attention had been paid to this subject, and that Government was ready to propose effective measures to check the fraud, as soon as Parliament assembled. He had made these observations in order to give the noble Marquess an opportunity of repudiating the statement which had been attributed to him.
The Marquess of Chandoswhose attention had been directed to the subject, had no hesitation in stating that the report to which the right hon. Gentleman, alluded did not contain a correct version of what he had said. At the end of last year his attention had been called to the quantity of corn that had been introduced, duty free, into the country from the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man; and at a meeting of his constituents he had read a letter, in which it was stated that a number of vessels had been sent from Dantzic, freighted with corn, to the Channel Islands. He had no information on the subject except that contained in the letter. He then stated, that if the case were such as that information led him to suppose it was, such importations must have a considerable effect upon the corn-market at home. He did not, however, impute to the late Government any connivance at these illegal importations.
Mr. Baringfelt it necessary to rise in consequence of the allusion which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had made to certain observations which the right hon. Gentleman supposed had fallen from him upon the hustings in Essex. He rather thought that he recollected the occasion to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded. In the course of his canvass in the market at Braintree, where the election for the division of Essex which he represented was held, an elector had said to him, "The worst thing that I have heard about you is, that you are the President of the Board of Free Trade. Now, if you hold that office, how can you be anything but an enemy to the Corn-laws, and to the farmer who is protected by them?" To this he replied, that it was undoubtedly his office to preside over the Board of Trade; that everything which affected the industry of the country, be it agricultural, commercial, or otherwise, came under his department; that, instead of seeking to injure the agricultural interest, he was anxious to do everything in his power to promote it, and, as an instance of his anxiety, he mentioned that the first question which had come under his consideration upon entering into office, was whether foreign corn had not been imported into the country fraudulently from the Channel Islands. He had never imputed neglect to the right hon. Gentleman, either in that or in any other department. What he had stated was, and the fact had been established beyond all contradiction, that there had been fraudulent importations of foreign corn, duty free, into this country from the Isle of Man and from the Channel Islands. The late Government had instituted an inquiry into the extent of the fraud. He did not know the precise date when that inquiry was instituted; but a Report was made to them on the subject of that inquiry on the 30th of last July, at a period of the Session when it was clearly impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to have introduced and carried any preventive measures through Parliament. That Report would be presented shortly to the House, and his only reason for not having presented it already, was a fear that he might have overlooked other papers which ought to be presented with it. He should certainly feel it his duty to propose some measure on this subject; for though the fraud had not been practised to such an extent as would affect the markets,
494
still there had been fraud, and it was the duty of Parliament to punish and prevent it. If he had not already introduced a Bill for that purpose, it was owing to the circumstance of the fiscal arrangements of the Isle of Man being in a very anomalous state. He was anxious to see whether some general arrangement could not be made which would apply equally to all the islands. If it had not been for that consideration, he should have introduced a Bill to prevent and stop these fraudulent importations.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonwould ask the right hon. Gentleman one question. Was he to understand that the right hon. Gentleman intended to introduce a Bill to prevent these importations being made, not only from the Isle of Man, but also from the Channel Islands?
Mr. Baringsaid, that it was his intention to include within his Bill all cases of this kind of fraud. It would extend not only to the Isle of Man, but also to the Isle of Guernsey, from the northern part of which the importations had been most frequent.

NORTH AMERICAN BOUNDARY.
Mr. Robinsonseeing the right hon. Baronet (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) in his place, begged to embrace the opportunity of asking, whether any progress had been made since the last Session of Parliament in the settlement of the long pending Question of the North American Boundary Line.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that it would be a difficult matter to give the hon. Member an answer on the Boundary question in terms as concise as those in which he had couched his query. It was one of the most important and complicated Questions with which Government had to deal, as it related to the settling of the limits of the State of Maine on the part of the United States, and of the limits of the province of New Brunswick on the part of his Britannic Majesty. The dispute arose out of a treaty made between the two countries so long ago as the year 1783. By that treaty a line was to be drawn, determining the boundaries of Maine and New Brunswick. Certain high lands were supposed to exist between the waters of the St. Lawrence and the Atlantic, and those high lands were to form the boundaries of the two provinces. But those high lands had never been discovered;

495
indeed, it was physically impossible to find them. In consequence of this, a convention was subsequently made between this country and the United States, by which the settlement of these boundaries was left to the arbitration of the King of the Netherlands. Three points were submitted to his arbitration. On two of them the King of the Netherlands had given a decided opinion; but, on the third, he said, that it was impossible for him to give any opinion at all, as the high lands did not exist in the position in which they were supposed to exist in 1783. Under these circumstances, the King of the Netherlands suggested, that an amicable compromise should take place between our Government and that of the United States. The British Government was desirous to stand by the arbitration of the King of the Netherlands with respect to the terms of that compromise; but the United States refused. The United States then suggested, that there should be a new survey. The British Government consented to make that new survey, and to abide by it, provided certain preliminary articles were agreed to. One of them was whether the Bay of Fundy should be considered as a part of the Atlantic Ocean. A despatch had been sent out upon this point in the course of last autumn, but no answer had yet been received to it, the President of the United States having declined to produce any papers on the point, from fear, he supposed, of compromising himself on the subject. The negotiation, however, was still pending. This was the only point now in controversy between the two Powers, an announcement which would give satisfaction to all lovers of peace, who wished well to the commercial interests of both countries. A paper, he repeated, had been transmitted to the American Government in October last, and it was impossible to ascertain yet whether the terms of that paper had been accepted.

NATIONAL EDUCATION.
Mr. Roebuck,in pursuance of the notice he had given, moved for the appointment of a select Committee "to inquire into the present state of the Education of the people in England and Wales, and into the application and effects of the grant made in the last Session of Parliament for the erection of school-houses, and to consider the expediency of further grants in aid of
496
education, and to report their observations thereupon to the House."
Mr. Harveyfelt assured that the House and Government would concur with him in the opinion, that it was important to give to every inquiry presented to the Committee every possible facility. He did not rise, however, with any intention of opposing the re-appointment of this Committee, but it did appear to him that the inquiry to which it was to direct its attention was far too limited in its objects. The assumption the Motion proceeded on he must dispute, which was, that the resources already existing in the country as applicable to the education of the people were not sufficient for that purpose, and therefore the Committee was directed to inquire into the expediency of making further grants to effect that object. Now, his (Mr. Harvey's) inquiry and experience led him to pronounce without hesitation, that they had already a fund strictly belonging to the purposes of national education, amply sufficient, if directed to its proper purposes, for providing education for every child in the country. Though a commission of inquiry had been sitting for seventeen years, at an expense to the country of not less than 250,000 l. sterling, its inquiry was not more than one-half finished, and what was done was not well accomplished. This was a subject of the greatest possible importance to the House and the country. He would venture to say, that if the actual amount of money arising out of real and funded property, were honestly and strictly applied to those exclusive purposes to which it was intended by its benevolent and pious donors it should be appropriated, there was no child in England that need go without education for lack of means. Now, the terms in which the present Motion was worded went to negative that impression, as they implied that further advances out of the general funds of the country would be required for the purposes of education. Before they sanctioned that impression, the House and the country should be satisfied that all means and resources applicable to that purpose had been exhausted. From the information supplied to him by a laborious investigation of the twenty-six folio Reports of the Commissioners, he would state that not a farthing less than 1,000,000 l. was applicable to that object, and the same source of information told him that not

497
one quarter of that sum was so applied. With a view, therefore, to add to the efficiency of the Committee, he hoped his hon. Friend would see the expediency of allowing him to add the following words by way of Amendment to the Motion: "That this Committee shall not only inquire into the present state of education, but into the nature and amount of property applicable to the purpose of education, together with the mode in which the grants already made for that purpose have been expended."
Mr. Roebuckwished to explain why the inquiry of the Committee was not proposed to extend further. Last Session just such a paragraph as that now brought forward by the hon. Member for Southwark was introduced into the Motion, but it then appeared to be the unanimous feeling of the House that such an inquiry being of a distinct nature, should be prosecuted by a distinct Committee, and he (Mr. Roebuck) accordingly modelled his Motion to its present form. He hoped the hon. Member for Southwark would bring forward his Motion at some other period for a separate and distinct inquiry.
Mr. Brothertonsaid, that there was a school in Manchester, to the maintenance of which 5,000 l. a-year was applicable, and yet it educated only 200 children; at the national schools in the same town 12,000 children were educated at an expense of 6s. 8d. each child. Now, if the whole of this 5,000 l., by which only 200 children were educated, was expended in the way that the money of the national schools was laid out, it would educate 15,000 children.
Mr. Warburtonhoped that the hon. Member for Southwark would not persevere in proposing such an addition to the labours of the Committee. The effect of it would be to entirely swamp the inquiry, remembering the length of time which the inquiries of the Commissioners of public charities had occupied, and the sum of money they had cost the country, he thought the hon. Member must see that if such duties should be superadded to those already devolving on this Committee, they could not possibly terminate their labours this Session; that, in fact, several Sessions must be devoted to them, and that they would cost the country a very large sum of money.
The Chancellor of the Exchequercertainly thought the course of inquiry which
498
the hon. Member for Southwark proposed would paralyze the efforts of the Committee. He did not deny that the subjects to which the hon. Member referred might be fit subjects for an inquiry, but that inquiry should be conducted by a separate Committee. That Committee had made a Report last Session, in which they stated that they were not able to conclude their labours. Now, to superadd to those labours, the inquiry upon which a Commission had been employed for the last twenty years, would be only to withdraw the attention of the Committee from the proper objects of its inquiry. He would suggest, that if any Committee should he appointed for the purpose the hon. Member for Southwark had in view, it should be one to report to the House the progress made by those Commissioners, the steps which they had taken, and the sums which had been expended in their inquiries. Such a Committee would have no power to direct the appropriation of any funds, it could only suggest how they might be appropriated, and it would be then in the power of the House to deal with them as it thought fit. He hoped, with respect to the constitution of the Committee proposed by the hon. Gentleman, that the members composing it would be fairly and indifferently selected, for the true way to gain the confidence of the House was to constitute Committees fairly. If Committees were appointed of certain men with certain opinions, though their names might be of the highest respectability, it was impossible that the House should view any decision to which they might come other than with prejudice. He would have the Committee so constructed, that it would be a fair representation of opposite opinions; but in the present Committee there was, as the hon. Gentleman must admit, a great preponderanee of opinion all on one side. [Mr. Roebuck had nothing to do with the selection of the Committee.] He could only say, that eighteen Members of the Committee were from the opposite side of the House, while there were only four hon. Gentlemen upon it, who had been selected from the Ministerial side. There were, it was true, no political or party feelings mixed up with the matter, but at the same time there should be a fair balance of opinions represented in the Committee. He claimed, therefore, the power to himself, of adding members to the Committee.

499
There were many new Members of Parliament whom it would be well to initiate in their proceedings. He claimed the power of adding some of them, while he would not ask to exclude any of the old Members from the Committee. If the hon. Gentleman would postpone the naming of the Committee until to-morrow, they might be able, in the meanwhile, to arrange as to the names of the members of it.
Mr. Roebuckhad no objection to postpone the naming of the Committee until to-morrow, and to communicate with the right hon. Baronet in the meanwhile as to the names of the Members to be put upon it. He would just observe, as regarded the persons at present on the Committee, that there were many Gentlemen on it sitting now on that side (the Opposition side) of the House, who when the Committee was formed sat on the other side. Though he had moved for the Committee, it had been formed by the Government then in existence, in accordance with his wishes.
Mr. Harveywas cheered by the intimation given by the right hon. Baronet that he might feel inclined to sanction the appointment of a Committee to ascertain the real amount of property fairly applicable to the purposes of education, and to give effect to the labours of a Commission that had been sitting for seventeen or eighteen years. Though he would not assume that this intimation on the part of the right hon. Baronet was a pledge to that effect, he trusted that when he should move for a Committee for that purpose, it would have the right hon. Baronet's sanction. Without meaning to divide the House upon the subject, he would throw out a hint as to whether there was not something in the terms in which the Motion was couched that would render it inoperative. Amongst other words were the following as part of the Motion:— "And to consider the expediency of further grants in aid of education." He could not understand how they could Report upon the expediency of further grants in ignorance of the amount of property now applicable to that purpose. In order that the inquiry might not be rendered inoperative, he would bring the subject of his Amendment at no distant period before the House. For the present he begged to withdraw it.
Lord John Russellquite agreed with
500
the right hon. Baronet, that in the constitution of Committees there ought to be the utmost fairness exhibited. He begged to say that he had nothing to do with the original construction of this Committee further than this—that when his noble Friend (Lord Althorp) proposed to add the late Member for South Lancashire (Mr. George Wood) to it, he proposed to acid to it a noble Lord, who now sat on the other side of the House.
The Committee to be appointed, but the nomination deferred until the following day.

ORDERS TO THE MILITARY IN IRELAND.
Mr. O'Dwyerrose pursuant to notice to move "that there be laid before this House a copy of any order recently issued to Officers commanding troops in Ireland, directing 'that in future military parties shall not be granted to assist in the collection of tithes without special direction from the Officer Commanding-in-Chief; and directing, that in the event of any collision between the King's troops and the populace, the improper practice hitherto pursued at times, of firing over the heads of the peasantry, be discontinued, and that the troops, shall always fire with effect,' or words to this import." When he gave that notice the other evening, owing, he was sure, to some misconception as to the terms of it, some Members opposite had indulged in something like ridicule, there was laughter in the House. If, however, hon. Gentlemen would listen to the facts of the case, they would see that there was nothing ridiculous in his proposition. He was informed and he believed, that the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland had felt it his duty to issue a circular letter to the officers commanding regiments there, directing them that when the King's troops should come in collision with the peasantry, the practice hitherto pursued, of firing wide of them, should be discontinued, and that when the troops were called upon to fire, they should do so with a view to deal destruction amongst the people. He had no wish to indulge in any criminatory attack upon the gallant Officer who had issued that circular. He was disposed to admit that that gallant Officer had done so through the most humane and benevolent motives, and with a view to spare the effusion of blood where it was practicable. But if such an order had really been given,

501
the utmost publicity should be given to it, in order that the people might know what the consequence would be of a collision on their part with the military. Whether it were wise, constituted as the Irish magistracy was, to take away from the Officers commanding the troops the only discretion that was vested in their hands to check the conduct of the Magistrates was another question. He could assert with reference to a recent melancholy inquiry, that one of the Officers had stated that he could have dislodged the peasantry without firing upon them, but that he was obliged to obey the order of the magistrates. The hon. Gentleman concluded by making his Motion.
Sir Henry Hardingesaid, that the hon. Member had made a most satisfactory and gratifying when he admitted that he had intended to impute no improper motives to his gallant Friend the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland for issuing this order. Indeed, the hon. Member acknowledged that the intentions of the Lieutenant-General in issuing such an order, must have been of the most humane and benevolent description. He was also well aware that on every occasion his gallant Friend was actuated by a spirit of humanity and kindness towards the people. With regard to the Motion of the hon. Member, he did not understand, from the terms of it, whether it referred to an order directing that in future no military party without special directions from the Commander-in-Chief, should assist in the collection of tithes, or to some other order. If it were meant to refer to an order with regard to the collection of tithes, by which the military would not be called upon to act without the orders of the Lord Lieutenant and the Lieutenant-General Commanding the forces, if that were the order to which the hon. Member alluded, it was a circular order, and there would not be the slightest hesitation on the part of the Government to produce it. But if the hon. Gentleman referred to confidential orders issued by the Lieutenant-General commanding the forces in Ireland to Officers commanding regiments in that country. It would be his duty to resist the production of such an order, on account of the very inconvenient precedent it would establish. If the hon. Member alluded to an order issued before he (Sir Henry Hardinge) came into office, as to officers acting under the orders of Magistrates, it was not a confidential order, and
502
there would be no objection to produce it. His gallant Friend, in a letter addressed to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Littleton), and dated the 16th of November, 1834, referred to that order. He would just read an extract from that letter to the House, which would show that his gallant Friend was always guided by the most constitutional principles in the line of conduct which he pursued. The Magistrates had expressed a wish "that the Officer in command might be instructed to obey, without comment, such orders as he might receive from them." In reply to that his gallant Friend said "The troops are at all times ready, to attend the Magistrates and to obey their orders. The withdrawal of the troops from Watergrass-hill was in consequence of no Magistrate being prepared to remain on the spot with them to give any orders. The Commanding Officer very properly did not feel himself authorized to remain in the midst of a highly-excited population, without having the civil power at hand to order him to act in case a necessity should arise, and thus expose himself to the alternative of either neglecting that duty which the Magistrates would have imposed upon him, or having recourse to measures (without orders from the civil authority) which, looking to the very proper jealousy the laws have of military authority, might have subjected him to the heaviest penalty of those laws. To placing troops in such a situation, whilst I have the honour to command the army in Ireland, I never will consent; whilst on the other hand, in support of the laws, the military will ever be found ready, as they ever have been, to attend the civil Magistrates and act under their orders." This letter was written in consequence of a requisition of the Magistrates for the assistance of the troops in the collection of tithes. On the margin of the letter the following remarks were written by the late Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland:—" This is a most judicious and truly constitutional statement. I entirely approve of it, and I think that a copy of it should be sent to the Magistrates, and another to the Home-office." If the hon. Gentleman's Motion referred to the order to which that letter alluded, there could not be the slightest objection to its production, or that of any other order or circular; but, he must object to the production of confidential instructions sent to the Officers commanding regiments

503
in Ireland. When the hon. Member gave notice of his Motion, he wrote to his gallant Friend in reference to it. In reply his gallant Friend informed him that he most anxiously desired that that Order, and every order that he had issued, should be laid on the Table of the House; and he (Sir Henry Hardinge) could well imagine that, as no doubt the publication of those orders would redound to the honour and credit of his gallant Friend. But on principle he felt it his duty to oppose the production of that order, lest he should establish a most inconvenient precedent. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman would not persevere in his Motion. The hon. Gentleman had stated with reference to the affair at Rathcormac, that the military might have dislodged the peasantry on that melancholy occasion without having recourse to fire-arms. He would not enter upon that subject at present; but he would recommend the hon. Gentleman to read the evidence given at the coroner's inquest, and he would find from the evidence of the Officers that every attempt had been made to dislodge the peasantry by the bayonet before recourse was had to the trigger.
Mr. O'Dwyerremembered that one of the officers examined at the inquest, deposed that the peasantry might have been dislodged without firing. He was unable to point out the particular nature of the circular, he wished to have produced: he could not say whether it was a general order, or a private and confidential order. It was possible, however, that all the purposes of his Motion might be answered, if the right hon. and gallant Officer opposite (Sir Henry Hardinge) would state generally that such an order as that referred to, had or had not been issued. If instructions had been given to the troops requiring them for the future to fire with effect, instead of firing over the heads of the peasantry, it would only be humanity and justice to the people of Ireland, to make the fact public.
Mr. Henry Grattancould not have supposed that in any assembly in which there existed a spark of humanity, the notice of such a Motion as that which was then under the consideration of the House, would be received with a sneer, as it was by the Gentlemen opposite, when mentioned a few nights since by the hon. Member for Drogheda; and that the Motion itself could afterwards be treated with
504
the apathy and indifference which had been exhibited towards it that night. What did the order to the military amount to, but this? "In any collision with the people shoot as many as you can." There was an anecdote that in the battle of Fontenoy, when an English cavalry regiment encountered a regiment of the French guards, their first volley laid low 700 men. That was what he would call firing point blank. He supposed that was the practice to be followed in Ireland. At Rathcormac there were seventy-two soldiers, and they were three times ordered to fire; forty-two shots were fired, and eighteen took effect, nine persons being killed, and nine wounded. He would ask if this affair at Rathcormac would have occurred, if there had not taken place the accession to power of individuals who were hateful to the majority of the Irish people? ["No, No!"] What had taken place in his own county (Meath)? A friend of his had been murdered by the Orange banditti—he was run through the body and killed, because he was a Papist, and because the Protestants thought they could now commit any outrage with impunity. The Orangemen paraded the town of Kells after the election, in which they had been defeated—those Orangemen who had been favoured and protected by the right hon. Baronet when he ruled as Secretary in Ireland—and their cry was "Where is the Papist who dare show his face?" Several Catholics came forward and asked what they wanted, and the result was as he had stated. It was absolutely necessary for the Representatives of the people to protect the Irish people against such sanguinary proceedings, to which encouragement had been held forth by the accession of the Tories to power. If the Tories had not come into power, the killing and wounding of eighteen individuals at Rathcormac would never have occurred, for such things were attributable to the impunity which the parties concerned knew they would experience from packed juries, and from a Tory Government in Ireland. Of what use was the order—how could it prevent the effusion of blood, if it were not made public? The people should be at least apprised that if, in future, they ventured to come into collision with the military, they had no chance of escape. Being apprised of this fact, in all probability they would keep out of danger. He thought Government bound to state

505
whether the order had been issued or not, that the people might be put upon their guard, if the order had been given. He would have the fact published, not only in the House, but in every town and parish in Ireland. If the Government went on collecting tithes as hitherto, with the assistance of military and police, they ought to guard the people against the consequences that must result under this order from the mad and foolish conduct of the Administration. It happened in the unfortunate affair at Rathcormac, that the people had no arms. Two men were shot by the troops, and immediately two other men supplied their places who were yet alive to tell their story. Thus were the people murdered! If the Horse Guards issued orders approving the conduct of the military, because they had acted under the direction of clerical Magistrates interested in the collection of tithes, and because they had given those Magistrates satisfaction, the result must be to stamp the conduct of the Government with disgrace. It would be impossible for them to carry on the Government with security to the country, if they proceeded with such violent measures—measures which were better fitted for Russia than for this country. He called upon the honest and independent Gentlemen of England to come forward and protect their Irish fellow-subjects from such sanguinary proceedings. He would recommend the Government to look to the years 1795 and 1796, when orders were issued for disarming in the north by General Lake. In justice to you, Sir, (said the hon. Gentleman more particularly addressing himself to the Speaker) I must mention that at that time there was one man who stood out against those sanguinary orders—a man who bore the name that you now bear—a name that will be kept in everlasting remembrance and admiration by my country. Let it not go forth to the world that the accession of the present Ministry to power, marked by such sanguinary scenes as those which had been enacted at Rathcormac, was to give a sanction to bloodshed. If the orders which had been issued were good, why should they not be disclosed; and if the contrary, why had they not been rescinded? If his hon. friend pressed the question to a division, he should certainly support it.
Sir Charles Dalbiacsaid, that as a general officer on the staff of the army of
506
Great Britain, and included in the London district, he could not refrain from offering a few observations on the subject of the present Motion, but in doing so he should not follow the example of the hon. Gentleman who had preceded him, by going into extraneous matter; on the contrary, he proposed to confine himself to the propriety or impropriety of issuing such an order as had been required. In cases when the military were called out to suppress riots, the assemblies must always understand, he supposed, after the reading of the Riot Act, and the orders of the acting Magistrate to the military to do their duty, that to remain on the spot was to expose themselves to inevitable danger. No military duty was so painful, so critical, so distressing, and so difficult, as that of suppressing disturbances, as the troops must be conscious that they might have to take the lives of their fellow-subjects, and perhaps of dear connexions. But the first duty of a British soldier was obedience, and he contended that obedience to the orders of the civil power was as imperative as obedience to their own officers. He should conceive that from the moment he, as a military officer, received orders to put down riotous proceedings, the whole responsibility was taken off the shoulders of the Magistrates, and placed upon him; and if, by his refusal to act with sufficient energy, evil consequences should ensue, the entire blame would be chargeable upon him. He entertained no doubt that the order referred to, if it had been issued, proceeded on the principle of the expediency of acting with decision, which was by far the most merciful course in such cases. He was satisfied that the order arose from a conviction, founded on experience, that the practice of firing over the heads of the people in cases of riotous assemblages, had been in nine cases out of ten, productive of evil instead of good—of severity, instead of mercy, of destruction to the innocent, instead of punishment to the guilty. Nothing but a high sense of the duty which he owed to the House, would induce him to refer to the circumstance which brought upon him the discharge of a duty, the most painful he had ever had to discharge in the whole course of a long military life—he alluded to the very unpleasant circumstances which occurred at Bristol. If ever there was an occasion when be should wish closely to adhere to

507
the adage de mortuis nil nisi bonum, it was in reference to the transactions at Bristol; but he was relieved from all difficulty upon that head, for he could now declare to the House, after a full knowledge of all the circumstances, that that unfortunate occurrence proceeded exclusively from a mistaken lenity, and from no other cause whatever—a mistaken lenity scandalously and shamefully abused. If the troops on that occasion had only been actively employed in moving about in the riotous assemblage, and showing a determination to put them down, no evil would have ensued, or it at all events would not have exceeded more than some half-dozen broken heads. He need not tell the House what. evil did ensue. The extent of life lost by the sword was never, he believed, correctly ascertained; and then came the law, demanding its victims. As to the loss of property, he could only say that if the 29th of October, 1831, instead of being quiet and still, had been a stormy day like this, the whole city of Bristol would have been in flames. As connected with the present subject, he wished to say a few words on a Motion made last night.
The Speakersaid, that the hon. Member must confine himself to the Motion before the House.
Sir Charles Dalbiacthought the subject to which he was about to allude was closely connected with the present Question, but he had no wish to persist in his observations contrary to the sense of the House.
Mr. Littletonsaid, that if the Motion were persisted in, he should consider it to be his duty to divide with the right hon. Baronet, (Sir H. Hardinge.) His hon. Friend, the Member for Drogheda, had only done justice to the Officer commanding the forces in Ireland, in not imputing to that distinguished individual any blame for the late unfortunate occurrence at Rathcormac. No person could take greater pains to diffuse among the troops under his command just and humane principles of action. He had no means of knowing whether such an order as that referred to existed, but from what fell from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he presumed it did. He was sure, speaking from his own experience, that it was high time some regulation should be adopted on the subject. Most unfortunate results had arisen from the practice of directing the soldiers to fire over the heads of the peo-
508
ple in cases of riot and disturbance. A company of infantry and police were marched upon the ground to preserve the public peace, and it was found necessary to order them to fire. Twenty or thirty men discharged their pieces over the heads of the crowd: the people, finding it was not intended to act with effect, stood their ground and closed in upon the soldiers who then came in contact with the sticks of the country people. [Mr. Sheil.—Where has that been the case.] It was in almost every instance the practice; and the result, he would repeat was, that the peasantry believing that the soldiers did not mean to fire at them, closed in upon the troops—so much so, that the bayonets of the military would actually come in contact with the sticks of the peasantry: and it generally happened that the first fire not being made with effect, the most distressing results afterwards ensued. If an order were given, that some two or three of the soldiers should fire with effect at the leaders of the riot, it would, he conceived, be an act of humanity, and would be the means of saving the lives of many of his Majesty's subjects.
Mr. O'Connellthought that the right hon. Gentleman had adduced the strongest reasons for the production of the Order in question. The right hon. Gentleman said it had been the practice to fire over the heads of the people; if so, it was manifest that the expectation of the first volley not being intended to take effect induced the people to stay, and it should therefore be distinctly shown that the sham-fight practice was now to be abandoned. He did not wish to fight Irish subjects its by-battles, or to take up the question by miserable instalments; but, in reference to the occurrence at Rathcormac, he might observe, that the people were told that it was a trespass to enter an enclosed field for the purpose of distraining, and probably they did not expect that persons committing a trespass would fire on them: hence the assemblage of the people, and the melancholy result that had occurred. He protested against the principle laid down by the gallant Officer opposite (Sir C. Dalbiac). The gallant Member talked of a soldier's duty of obedience to the civil power as being paramount to every other consideration; but he would tell the gallant Officer obedience was no justification of the soldier if he violated the law in consequence of a Magistrate's order. A sol-

509
dier, acting under the directions of a Magistrate, might nevertheless, be guilty of murder if he acted against the law; no order could justify an illegal act. He was sorry to hear a British officer say, that obedience was the first duty of a soldier.
Sir Charles Dalbiacmeant to say, that if a General Officer were placed under the orders of the Commander-in-Chief and the Home Secretary (the highest authority in such cases,) and by them directed to act under the Magistrates; in the event of a refusal to obey the civil power, such officer was responsible to the laws of the country, and exposed to the reprehension of his Sovereign.
Mr. O'Connelldid not mean to say that the hon. and gallant Officer was not bound to obey a legitimate order, but the hon. and gallant Officer conceived that it was his duty to obey, at all events; and that the duty of obedience justified the act on his part.
Sir Charles Dalbiac:Most unquestionably, I say it is. If the Magistrate should give ever so imprudent or capricious an order, if I were not sensible of any impropriety in obeying the order of that Magistrate, it would be my duty to obey that order.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas glad to find it generally admitted that the gallant and distinguished services of Sir Hussey Vivian, the Commander of the Forces in Ireland, were only equalled by his humanity, and he felt that it was of great advantage to the public service, and a guarantee that the military force in Ireland would be directed with temperance and discretion, when it was found that that gallant General had consented to remain in his command of the forces in that country. The real Question now at issue was, whether it were desirable to make a precedent on this occasion, by producing a confidential order from the Commander of the Forces to the officers acting under him in Ireland. The object was to secure the performance of the public service at as small a risk of effusion of blood as possible. If the practice of firing over the heads of the people on occasions of collisions between the military and the people—a practice the existence of which had been admitted by Gentlemen opposite—led to delusion in the first instance, and if in consequence of that delusion, the people were induced to rush upon the troops, and greater loss of life was thereby occa-
510
sioned, might it not be consistent with the best interests of humanity to give a caution on the subject—a caution to the troops who might be called on to act? Might it not be consistent with a regard to humanity for the Commander-in-Chief to specify to the commanding officers under his control, who were responsible for the manner in which the troops acted, in what way it would be best to conduct the delicate and difficult duty imposed upon them, so as to lead to the least possible effusion of blood, yet with the greatest precaution and effect in reference to the preservation of the public peace? But if orders so given were publicly promulgated, and if those who felt disposed to attack the troops knew the precise nature of the orders, the result might be that they would be frustrated, and the precautions taken to secure the public peace and spare the effusion of blood, be thus defeated. He thought it would be infinitely better to leave this matter in the hands of the proper authorities, in the hands of those who could have no possible object in view but the promotion of the public service, and the preservation of the peace with the least hazard to human life. Depend upon it, that was the best course to pursue in reference to the present Question? there could be no suspicion as to the humanity and judgment which dictated the order; but he apprehended that the desire to provide for the security of public tranquillity, and to spare all needless effusion of blood would be defeated, if, in this and similar cases, the publication of confidential orders were insisted on.
Mr. Hume:The right hon. Baronet appears anxious that the officers and soldiers acting under them should be protected; but his feelings of sensibility stop there—he has no regard apparently for the people.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer:I say at once, Sir, that the object of those who issued the order, was not so much to provide for the security of the troops, as to provide for the security of the people. [Mr. Hume dissented.] Positively that was the object of the order, whatever the hon. Member for Middlesex may think to the contrary.
Mr. Humehad no doubt that the right hon. Baronet was correct in his view of the object of the order; but the question was, what was likely to be its effect? Was it right to keep the persons who might be

511
liable to additional punishment and risk under this order, in ignorance of its existence? Granting that the order was necessary or desirable, its publication was no less so. The right hon. Gentleman had made out a case for its publication. The right hon. Gentleman admitted the existence of a practice of firing over the heads of the people, through an unwillingness to cause destruction of life; "but," said the right hon. Gentleman, "this practice led to bad results," and, therefore, he sanctioned the promulgation among the troops, of orders that must produce a different practice in future, without parties being put on their guard and made aware of it. If the order had been issued out of humanity as was alleged, let persons liable to its operation be apprised of it. It was with the utmost surprise he had heard the right hon. Member for Staffordshire take the course he did on the present occasion; and he could not understand from the right hon. Gentleman's inconclusive reasoning, why it was that he thought that or any other order to the troops should not be made known publicly. The Mutiny Bill intrusted his Majesty with the conduct and management of the army; and it contained a clause which, to the best of his recollection, directed all military orders and rules to be laid on the Table of the House. If that were the law,—he admitted it was not the practice—what just objection could be offered to the production and promulgation of the order in question, particularly as it was a new and hitherto unheard of regulation? Was it right that a law by which so many lives might be sacrificed, should be only known to the officers and soldiers, and not to the people? If such was to be the treatment of the people of Ireland at the hands of the present Government, was the right hon. Gentleman prepared to issue a similar order for England and Scotland? Or was there to be one law for Ireland, and another for England? If the right hon. Gentleman refused to allow the publication of the order, he would be acting with great imprudence, contrary to law, and the provisions of the Mutiny Act. The hon. Mover ought to persevere in pressing the Question to a division, in which case he should certainly support him, for the credit of the House, with a view to the public benefit, in furtherance of the cause of humanity, and of the Irish people.
Mr. Charles Grantcould state, with
512
perfect truth, that the gallant Officer at the head of the military in Ireland was not more distinguished for valour and conduct in the field than by his regard for humanity. With respect to the motives which actuated that gallant officer in dictating the order in question he could not entertain the slightest doubt. As to the production of the order, he confessed he felt considerable difficulty, for in such cases much must depend upon the Government; and if the right hon. Baronet thought the production of a confidential paper would form an improper precedent, and that it would be inconvenient, in this particular case, to lay the order before the House, he felt disposed to throw the matter upon the discretion and responsibility of Ministers. He was willing to yield to the just claims of Ministerial discretion and responsibility in this instance, if those claims were pressed; but, notwithstanding, it appeared to him that if the order were dictated by considerations of humanity, which he believed, the humanity would consist in its publication. On the contrary, if it must continue a secret order, it might be thought to be more in the nature of inhumanity. He said this without meaning to cast any imputation on the members of the Government; but it was for them to consider whether in regard to this view it was not expedient to make the order more public than at present, that those individuals who believed up to this time that a collision with the military was more in the nature of a mock fight than a serious combat should be forewarned that there was to be no longer a sort of preliminary or ostensible battle, but that if they exposed themselves by coining in contact with the troops they must expect serious consequences. He trusted that Ministers, after consideration, might be enabled to come to the conclusion, that by giving publicity to the order they would best consult the interests of humanity.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, all he asked from the House was, that they would leave the matter at present in the hands of those who were responsible for it, and he asked this from a sincere conviction that it was not only for the advantage of the troops but for the interests of humanity and conducive to the public peace so to leave it.
Mr. Sheil: The object of issuing this order was said to be to save the spilling

513
of human blood, and anybody who knew the valour and humanity that were combined in the person of Sir Hussey Vivian would not question that proposition; but hon. Gentlemen opposite must allow him to indulge in some scepticism respecting the manner in which the order might be carried into effect. Did it not strike the right hon. Baronet, that according to his own argument it mattered not what order was issued by the Horse Guards, the House of Commons would have no check upon the Commander-in-Chief, provided he wrote upon that order the word "Confidential"? This would effectually prevent the House and the public taking cognizance of it. In the present case he had a right to ask, were the circumstances of such a nature as to justify the House to call for a disclosure? The answer was, that such a disclosure would counteract the benevolent intentions of those who issued the order; he was, however, at a loss to conceive how it could have that effect. He had ventured to ask the right hon. Gentleman (the member for Staffordshire) in what instance was it that the troops had fired over the heads of the people, and that bad consequences had ensued. It was not enough to argue upon an hypothetical case; but they must show him the fact. He was wholly unacquainted with any such transaction. Could any one say, that at Rathcormac the soldiers did not fire point blank upon the people? Was it not a notorious fact that eighteen persons were slain or wounded on the occasion? The right hon. Gentleman, the late President of the Board of Trade, had put the subject in a just point of view. If they really wanted to attain the object they professed to have at heart, let them give publicity to their orders.
Mr. Shaw:The question was, whether the House of Commons would require the orders given by a Commanding Officer to be produced, when they were distinctly informed that they were of a confidential nature? If this were to become the practice it could only lead to one result, namely, that the Commanding Officers would not give their orders in writing, but would take care that they were only verbally communicated. Did the House mean to say, that a Commanding Officer whether of a higher or lower rank, might not give confidential orders to the troops under his command, without their being in every case liable to be afterwards made
514
public? The hon. Member for Middlesex was quite mistaken in supposing that such an order amounted to a law. It was merely a direction from the Commanding Officer to those under his control for their guidance and instruction. The Commanding Officer would bear his share of the responsibility—Government would bear their's. The House ought to be satisfied with this, and that they were not justified in calling for the production of an order which they were informed was of a confidential nature.
Mr. Hardycould not understand why, if an order of the kind had been issued, it should be designated a confidential order. The right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland, might call it a confidential one, but he could not understand why that which would govern the conduct of the military on all future occasions should be so considered. If there were any one thing which it was important to promulgate for the information of the public, it was an order of this nature. It had always been the custom to give the people some warning by firing over their heads, or loading with blank cartridges. Under these circumstances he maintained that the issuing and acting upon such an order without any previous intimation was in opposition to every principle of humanity.
Lord John Russellwished if possible to take some course on the question which would satisfy what he considered the just wishes of a great proportion of the House. He could entertain no doubt when the right hon. Gentleman who first opposed the Motion had told them that the production of the order would be injurious to the public service, that he must feel there were good and satisfactory reasons for his taking upon himself the responsibility of the refusal. On the other hand, he, like his right hon. Friend near him, did feel that it was an order of such a nature that its humanity consisted—almost entirely consisted—in its being known to, and understood by, those whose ignorance of its contents might involve them in a scene of slaughter to which they would not otherwise be exposed. Between these two difficulties he was desirous of offering a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, which he trusted would remove both. It was, whether the Commander-in-Chief, Sir Hussey Vivian, having, as he understood, no objection to

515
give publicity to the order, some order might not be issued, or some regulation established in Ireland, by which this order might be promulgated and made generally known to the public. If this were done, he thought the House would be satisfied, and that the order itself, being of a confidential nature, or of a description which it was not usual to produce, could not fairly be required to be laid before the House.
Sir Henry Hardingebegged, although he might not perhaps be quite regular in doing so, to remind the House that he had resisted the production of the order on the ground of the inconvenience of the precedent, rather than with reference to any question arising out of the order itself. He maintained, that if any Member of that House were at liberty to get up and call for the production of confidential instructions—and the order in question was only an instruction—from the Commander-in-Chief to general and commanding officers of regiments, the discipline of the army would suffer very materially. He had, therefore, broadly stated, that he resisted the Motion on the ground of precedent; that his gallant Friend, Sir Hussey Vivian, was exceedingly anxious that not only this, but that every similar order should be promulgated; but that he was of opinion, the order being endorsed by the Commanding Officer, himself "confidential," that he was not at liberty to produce it in compliance with the Motion of the hon. Member. He should feel the deepest responsibility in doing so. He agreed, however, with the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) and the hon. Member for Inverness-shire, that it might be very possible for the Commander-in-Chief, not only in Ireland, but in England and in Scotland also, to promulgate the substance of the order in such a manner as that the public might be informed of' the course the military were instructed to adopt, in the event of any of those unfortunate and unhappy collisions in which they were sometimes involved with the populace. Under these circumstances he trusted it would be satisfactory to the House to know, that his right hon. Friend near him would communicate with the Commander-in-Chief. and that such an order should be promulgated as would remove any doubts or uncertainty that might exist. He hoped this explanation would be satisfactory, and at the same time he trusted the House would
516
agree with him as to the inconvenience of laying down the precedent now sought to be established.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that after the turn the debate had taken, he apprehended it must occur to every one, that if publicity were the object in view, the mere production of a Parliamentary paper could not attain it. Again he said, leave the matter in the hands of the responsible Government. He believed all proper and necessary notice would be afforded through the channel which had been pointed out while, at the same time, any part of the order which it might be inexpedient for the public to become acquainted with need not be promulgated.
Mr. Humewished to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's meaning was, that the order in question should be cancelled, and another issued by the Commander-in-Chief, applicable to the whole of the United Kingdom? If this were the intention of Government, nothing could be more satisfactory.
Sir Henry Hardingeexplained his meaning to be, that an order would be issued by the Commander-in-Chief which would show to the whole of the United Kingdom what course would be pursued under similar circumstances to those of Rathcormac.
Motion withdrawn.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
Mr. Gisborne,in rising to make the Motion of which he had given notice, begged, in the first instance, to set himself right with the House, by stating that he had since been informed that the object he had in view could be effected by a simple resolution. He therefore simply proposed to move:— "That in all cases in which an election shall be declared void, and the sitting Member unseated on the ground of bribery or treating, and in which it shall not be reported to the House by the Committee, that the petitioners had been guilty of similar practices, it is expedient that the expenses of the petitioners should be borne by the public." He believed not only that it was perfectly competent to the House to carry this object into effect by a specific resolution, but that it was in strict accordance with the practice which had been constantly pursued in similar inquiries, even without any Act of Parliament whatever on the subject. his Motion, in its original shape, proceeded thus: "but that in every case in which a sitting Mem-

517
ber shall be declared, on the ground of bribery or treating, incapable of sitting again in the same Parliament, the expenses of the petitioners shall be borne by the unseated Member." It had, however, occurred to him that the object of the Motion might be effected by the House adopting a resolution that it be an instruction to the Committee in all cases in which bribery and treating were proved against the candidates, to report that the petition, on their parts, was frivolous and vexatious. The ground on which he brought forward the Motion was to afford additional facilities for the prevention of bribery; the fact being that the expense of proving bribery and corruption before the House afforded a positive protection in every case in which a rich man was opposed by a poor man. Bribery could be committed with perfect impunity and security in every case in which a rich and powerful party in a borough were opposed only by less wealthy people. He held that in no case could the public money be better expended than in purifying the Constitution of that House, and that it was its duty to use every possible engine in its power for the detection and punishment of eases of bribery. He did not know what objection could be urged against the Motion; he believed that the amount of expense it would entail upon the public, would be extremely small, that bribery would be greatly diminished, and that it would act as a prevention rather than as a cure. He would put a case in which such a resolution as the present would be very beneficial. They all knew that in many cases in which bribery was committed to a great extent, no man had an interest in bringing it forward, because, where both parties had resorted to the same means of corrupting the voters, the unsuccessful candidate knew he would not benefit himself by unseating the other Member. But why should not the honest, uncorrupted, and independent electors have a ready and un-expensive mode accruing before the House, and showing that the corruption was so general and extensive, that their rights were in fact swamped, and rendered of no avail? He had been informed that the objection to the present Motion which would be urged on the part of the hon. and learned Attorney-General was, that it was not competent to the House to impose these expenses on the public by a simple resolution, and that it ought to be done by
518
a Bill; now he objected to bringing in a Bill, because it would not meet the case of the present Parliament; he wished the alteration to apply to the election petitions already in progress, of which he knew nothing, and with the merits of which he was wholly unacquainted. The present Motion had reference to no particular party or case. He wished it to come into operation at once, though it certainly would not be an ex post facto law, because it was merely an equivalent to a reward on the detection of bribery, imposing no additional punishment on the party involved than that which arose from providing greater facilities for its detection. He merely wished to carry the Motion as a matter of principle, leaving the details to be settled hereafter. It might be objected that the resolution would give rise to frivolous and vexatious proceedings. But it should not be forgotten that in the very first place, the parties must run all the risk of a great outlay of money, and considerable expense—an inconvenience to which they were not likely to expose themselves unnecessarily and without cause. The hon. Gentleman concluded by submitting the Motion.
The Attorney Generalsaid, that his attention had only been recently called to the. subject, and that he had consequently been unable to give it that consideration which he was anxious to bestow on every question, whatever its individual importance might be. As he understood the hon. Gentleman, he had appealed to him whether there was any difficulty in the resolution he proposed. It certainly appeared to him that, with respect to the second part of it, there was very great difficulty. The hon. Gentleman disapproved of the existing law in this respect. He really thought the resolution he proposed would make the matter worse. To fetter the judgment of an election Committee, sworn to decide upon their Oaths according to the evidence, to declare that in certain cases the petition should be considered frivolous and vexatious, whether the Committee thought so or not, did appear to him a very inconvenient and somewhat awkward mode of proceeding to put down bribery and corruption. He had no intention whatever of opposing the spirit of the resolution—he could have none. He was ready to concur with any hon. Member on either side of the House in any measure likely to put a stop to bribery

519
and corruption, or of violence and intimidation at elections. He could assure his hon. Friend that if he would adopt the more legitimate course of introducing some Bill for that purpose, he would give him his best assistance in private, and also by his vote in public, by supporting the measure so far as he conceived it calculated to produce beneficial results. He thought this a very inconvenient mode of introducing the subject. In the first place, he did not know, supposing the House to concur with the hon. Mover attic Resolution, how it could be carried into effect. Undoubtedly, the House had the power of voting a sum of money for this or any other legitimate purpose, and of including it in the Appropriation Bill at the end of the Session, and by that means obtaining the consent of the Lords and of the Crown; but he did not apprehend that a mere resolution of that house would have the effect of a general law, declaring that one whole class of expenses should be paid out of the public purse, without the slightest reference to the individual circumstances or urgency of each particular case. He conceived, that though it was in the power of the House to vote a sum of money for a particular discovery, and to include it in the Appropriation Bill afterwards, it would scarcely be competent to them by some general resolution to award a sum of money to every inventor without reference to the merits of each case, and thus give the resolution the effect of a general law. It would be necessary in every case to adopt a different resolution, and the House would thereby bind itself to determine upon the merits of each. He would conclude by again recommending the hon. Gentleman to adopt the more regular course of introducing a Bill to adapt the regulations he thought necessary to cases of bribery and corruption; and he had no objection to add—adverting to a notice of Amendment he had seen—to cases of violence and intimidation.
Mr. Wynnexpressed his concurrence in the opinion expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down. He considered it decidedly against every rule of practice, and the whole spirit of the law, to withdraw the consideration of every individual case from the authority of the House, and to decide every case that might arise by Act of Parliament. The Grenville Act fixed the payment of costs in certain cases on the
520
sitting Member: a Resolution of the House had power to impose it on others. He thought the Motion, if it were carried, would give rise to an incalculable quantity of frivolous and vexatious objections; and that in almost every case of a contested election, they would have petitions presented complaining of the Return.
Sir John Campbellthought, that some objection might have been urged to the Resolution as originally worded, but he wished the House to observe that, as amended, the Resolution would not come into operation, unless in cases in which it was not reported, that petitioners had been guilty of similar practices. With respect to the course which ought to be pursued for carrying into effect what seemed to be the general feeling of the House, it appeared to him better to lay down a general rule, to apply to all cases without exception, than to pass a specific Resolution, as the hon. and learned Member opposite (the Attorney-General) had suggested, toties quoties, as a case calling for such resolution, should arise. The latter course of proceeding would be liable to the objection, from which the first was free, of opening a door for partiality.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas satisfied, that the House would not, without the fullest and most mature deliberation, affirm a Resolution, pledging the public to pay all the expenses of successful petitioners, who might not themselves be found guilty of bribery, and that without there being any limit or restriction as to those expenses. In the present instance, however, the hon. Member for Derbyshire had given notice of a Motion which the House had met to discuss, but that Motion the hon. Member had chosen to alter, and they were now called on, without having received any notice, to agree to another Motion, which called upon the House to pledge the public to pay the expenses of petitions in all cases where the elections shall be declared void on the ground of bribery, and that without limitation or specification. He hoped that the House would not agree to a Motion of this nature without having received notice of it. He stood there as the guardian of the public funds, and he should be sorry to see that House pledging the public to pay the expenses of election petitioners, without duly considering how much such a proceeding interested hon.

521
Members themselves. The Resolution as it now stood, stated—" That in all cases in which the election shall be declared void, or the sitting Members shall be unseated on the ground of bribery and corruption, and which it shall not be reported to the House by the Committee appointed to try the petition, that the petitioners have been guilty of similar practices, it is expedient that the expenses of the petitioners shall be borne by the public at large." This assumed, that there was no other petitioner but the candidate. But a petition might come from voters. Another view of the case was, that according to the present practice of election Committees, it was not usual to go into the case of the petitioner at all. But the hon. Member by his Motion said, that in case the Member was unseated, and no bribery was reported by the Committee to have taken place on the other side, then the expenses of the petitioner were to fall upon the public. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) said, that it was not sufficient, that the Committee should make no Report. He would say, that the Committee ought specifically to report, that the petitioner was not guilty of bribery or corruption. Ought not the Committee to examine into the question whether the petitioner were guilty of bribery or not. But the hon. Member said, that if no report was made by the Committee of an act of bribery on the part of the petitioner—if the question as to his guilt were not gone into at all, however guilty he might in reality be, still he would be entitled to all his expenses. He felt that he would not be doing his duty if he did not oppose this Motion in its present shape, especially as it pledged the House to a resolution different to the present practice of Committees. It might be right that a petitioner in such a case should be borne out harmless, and without being put to any expense—of that he would at present give no opinion, but he would warn the House against giving a precipitate vote upon this or any other subject, without being exactly aware how far the resolution might carry them. An hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hardy) had given notice of a Bill to regulate and amend the laws relating to bribery at elections. Would it not be advisable to incorporate the present resolution in that measure, and thus afford the House a fair and ample opportunity of considering its expediency?
Mr. Humesaid, that if his hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire were to wait till the matter was settled in the other House, he might wait a long time; at the same time, he acknowledged that he could not exactly see his way through his hon. Friend's Motion. The principle was sufficiently clear, that as the public suffered by bribery, the public ought to pay the expenses; but while this principle was admitted, it ought, for the safety of the public, to be subjected to the strictest rules. Under all the circumstances he recommended his hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion for the present; in so doing, however, he begged to enter his protest against the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman for embodying the resolution in a Bill. He should like to know what security the Commons of England had that any Bill on the subject which might be adopted by them, would pass the other House of Parliament? The adoption of such a course of proceeding would be a mere waste of time.
Mr. Jervisobjected to the principle of making the public pay in the first instance for prosecutions for bribery. He thought the proper course to follow would be to introduce a Bill to subject the party unsuccessful on an election petition to the payment of expenses, unless a report should be made in his favour.
Mr. Baringwas of opinion, that if Election Committees, as at present constituted, did their duty the object which the hon. Mover of the Resolution had in view, would be fully attained. He would put a case which he thought the Resolution would utterly fail in meeting. Suppose a person who had been guilty of bribery and corruption in his own person, and who, therefore, did not wish to petition, were to put forward a man of straw as the petitioner; in that case no bribery could be proved against the petitioner; but if the petition were successful, all the advantage would be in favour of a person who had in reality been guilty of bribery and corruption, and still that person, according to the terms of the Motion, would be entitled to his expenses. With regard to the House of Lords, he did not think it was fairly open to the charge which had been brought against it by the hon. Member for Middlesex. He did not think that it was unwilling to join in any measure to secure the purity of elections, and he need not tell the House that the only law ex-

523
isting on the subject was an Act of Parliament which had received the assent of the three branches of the Legislature.
Mr. Gisborne feeling the force of the objection urged by the right hon. Baronet opposite, arising out of the sudden alteration of the Resolution, would withdraw it for the present.
The Motion was withdrawn.

THE RATHCORMAC INQUEST.
Mr. Feargus O'Connorrose to move for a Copy of the Evidence taken before the Coroner on an Inquest held at Rathcormac, in the County of Cork, upon the bodies of nine Persons who lost their Lives at Gurtroe on the 18th of December last: also a Copy of the finding of the Jury, and a Copy of the Correspondence which took place between the Government and the Military Secretary, and the Magistrates of the County of Cork, relative to the granting of Troops for the collection of Tithes and arrears of Tithes in the Parish of Gurtroe. His present object was not to inculpate the Magistracy, and he should therefore confine the few remarks he should make to the conduct of the military upon that occasion. The hon. Member for Meath had said, that there were nine men killed upon that occasion, and nine wounded. The hon. Member was entirely mistaken as to the numbers. There were nine men killed on whom an inquest was held, and there were two more carried away by their friends, and on whom no inquest was held; seven were mortally wounded, and thirty-five were more or less wounded. In all there were more than seventy shots fired, of which forty-five or forty-six took effect. It was said that the military had endeavoured to intimidate the people before they fired; but if he could get a Court-martial upon the military, which was his object, he should be able to establish a case of gross ignorance of discipline on the part of the Commanding Officer, and of gross and extraordinary brutality on that of the soldiers—
Sir Henry Hardinge,interrupting the hon. Member, begged to put it to him whether it would not be proper to refrain from all exciting topics, and to postpone the present discussion until after the trial of those individuals, against whom charges connected with the affair alluded to had been made.
Sir John Campbellentertained the same opinion, and entreated the hon. and learned
524
Gentleman not to raise a discussion on the Question, in its present state.
Mr. Feargus O'Connorreplied, that having the honour to represent the county of Cork, where the unfortunate transaction took place, and having been counsel for the friends of the victims at the inquest, he conceived that he had a perfect right to bring the subject before the House.
Mr. Shawbegged to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman, that soldiers were amenable to the criminal law of their country, as well as other individuals.
Mr. Humehoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would consent to withdraw the Motion.
Mr. Feargus O'Connorconsidered that the only mode of punishing soldiers for misconduct, was by bringing them to a Court Martial. ["No, no!"] He had no wish to interfere with the ends of justice; and he would, therefore, defer it to the general sense of the House, and withdraw his Motion.
Sir Henry Hardingethought it right, as an imputation had been cast on a gallant officer, to declare that it was his firm belief, that that gallant officer would be found, whenever any investigation into his conduct was made, to have acted in a perfectly correct and proper manner.
The Motion was withdrawn.

DIVISIONS.
Sir Samuel Whalleymoved the following resolution: "That as a number of Members, larger than there is any precedent of, has divided within the present House without inconvenience, it is expedient, with a view to save time, and to relieve the Speaker from an unpleasant duty, that all divisions shall for the future take place within the House." Great inconveniences were occasioned by the present mode of proceeding, among which, loss of time, and loss of seats, were not the least. It was well known, too, that the state of confusion in which the House invariably was after a large division, prevented the transaction of any business in a proper or satisfactory manner. He, therefore, trusted there would be no objection to the adoption of the Motion.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that if means had been adopted by the House for taking down the names of Members in each division, he might, perhaps, agree to the Motion of the hon. Member for Mary-la-

525
bonne; but as the hon. Member's Motion would add to the great difficulty already existing, of ascertaining the names, he would oppose any such Motion as long as the House took no steps towards regularly registering the names of Members voting upon each division.
Mr. Littletonwished to know how it would be possible, supposing the hon. Member's Motion carried, for a House, containing 620 Members to divide, if the minority, consisting of only 20 Members occupied one side of the House, and all the rest of the Members were obliged to go to the other?
Sir Samuel Whalleysaid, the same rule would then apply, as was at present observed, with respect to divisions in Committee, or the Speaker might direct the majority to go into one or both the galleries.
Mr. Prymerecommended the adoption of the suggestion, that the Speaker should be empowered to direct either side to withdraw to the lobby, in case of a division, should it be considered necessary for either party to do so.
Sir George Clerkthought, that less confusion and loss of time would arise from one party withdrawing to the lobby, than from any other course that could be pursued. Much inconvenience would be found to result from the majority passing over to the seats previously occupied by the minority. At present, the arrangement was, that the party which opposed the Speaker's decision on any question, had to go out; thus, it often happened that the majority might be compelled to go into the lobby, if they called for a division.
Sir Samuel Whalleywould not press the Motion after the strong feeling which the House had displayed with respect to it. The object he had in view in bringing it forward, was solely to promote the convenience of the House. If hon. Gentlemen had adopted his views on this point, he had intended to suggest, with regard to taking the divisions, that the Clerk should accompany the Tellers, on taking the divisions, with a printed list, and that he should prick with a pin opposite the name of each member as he voted.
The Motion was withdrawn.

ORANGE LODGES—(IRELAND.)
Mr. Finnwas anxious to put a question to the right hon. Baronet, on a subject
526
seriously affecting the peace of Ireland. He wished to know whether a statement he had seen in the public prints was correct? namely, that his Majesty had received certain addresses from those illegal and unconstitutional bodies—the Orange Societies in Ireland. He had seen it stated, that such petitions had been presented by Members of that House from the Orangemen of Fermanagh, Cork, and Down, and received by his Majesty; and he wished, to know whether it were true that his Majesty had been advised to receive such addresses, coming as they did from bodies existing in defiance of the law; the members of which were known to each other by secret signs, and exclusive in their constitution.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas not aware that the question applied to him, in any way. He recommended the hon. Member to make the inquiry, when the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland, was in his place. He was unable to return the hon. Gentleman any answer.
Subject dropped.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of BUCCLEUGH, from Langholme and Applegarth, Dumfries, and from Smallholm, Roxburghshire,—for additional Accommodation for Members of the Church of Scotland.

NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that not having been in the House yesterday, he could not lay upon the Table the Report of the Committee of the Privy Council on the subject of the cause of the fire which had destroyed the two Houses of Parliament. He now begged leave to lay the Report before their Lordships. In the communication which his Majesty had made to both Houses, his Majesty stated that as soon as the misfortune occurred he had directed arrangements to be made for the temporary accommodation of the Members of both Houses, and that it would be the care of the Lords and Commons themselves to consider what would be the best means of providing for their own permanent accommodation, as that question could be best settled by themselves. The mode in which this matter was to be taken into consideration was by the appointment of Committees of the two Houses. It became his duty therefore, in obedience to the commands of his Majesty, to move "that a Select Committee be appointed to take into consideration, and to report on, the best means of carrying into effect his Majesty's most gracious wishes, with reference to the rebuilding of the two Houses of Parliament." There must, of course, be a communication between the Committee of their Lordships, and that appointed by the other House, and the Measure finally agreed on, would require to be adopted by both Houses of Parliament.
Lord Broughamhad no doubt that it was intended that the temporary accom-
490
modation for their Lordships should be as complete as possible; but he could not avoid noticing the very bad air which they were breathing. The air from the stoves was exceedingly unwholesome. The smell was like that which was experienced in a place newly painted. If this really were the cause, it was not only disagreeable, but positively unwholesome.
The Earl of Rosslynbelieved the House was at present heated by steam. He could not imagine how the unpleasant smell could be occasioned.
Committee appointed.

POOR LAWS (IRELAND).—PROVISION FOR THE CATHOLIC CLERGY.
The Marquess of Westminsterinquired whether it was the intention of the noble Duke to propose any Measure to Parliament with reference to the introduction of a system of poor laws into Ireland? He also wished to know whether the noble Duke meant to propose any provision for the support of the Roman Catholic Clergy of Ireland; and, if so, from what fund such provision was to be taken?
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that a Commission was at present employed in making inquiries with reference to the propriety and feasibility of introducing into Ireland a system of Laws for the relief of the poor in that portion of the Empire. Until that Commission made its Report, of course Government could do nothing on the subject. With respect to the second Question of the noble Marquess, he was not aware that it was intended to make any provision for the Roman Catholic Clergy, and therefore no Question could arise as to the fund out of which such a provision was to come.