Sitting of 11 May 1837

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Millbank Penitentiary.

VOTING FOR PRIVATE BILLS.
Sir S. Whalleyrose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the House to the division which had taken place on the motion of the hon. Member for Shoreham (Sir C. Burrell) on the 9th inst, for an instruction to the Committee on the Brighton Railways. In the majority on that occasion he found the names of several hon. Members whose names also appeared on the subscription-list for one of the lines of Brighton railway for considerable sums, and according to the rules of the House he considered that the votes of those Gentlemen ought not to have been allowed. Last year he had been a shareholder in one of the railways before the House and his vote had been struck out of a division in regard to that railway in consequence. He brought forward the motion purely On public grounds, and would not offer any opinion as to the practice of the House; but, considering the small amount of the majority on the occasion to which his motion alluded, and also disapproving of the motion itself, he thought he had only done his duty in affording the House an opportunity of revising its decision. He would beg to move, "That the resolution respecting the Brighton Railways of the 9th instant, which was carried by a majority of five, be entered on the journals as negatived, in consequence of the following six Members having voted for it, who have subscribed the Parliamentary contract for Stephenson's line, viz. Matthias Attwood, Esq., 4,000 l., Archibald Hastie, Esq., 2,000 l., Joseph Pease, Esq., 20,000 l., Joshua Scholefield, Esq., 8,000 l., William Tooke, Esq., 1,000 l., and Sir Andrew Leith Hay, 5,000 l., who has subscribed the Parliamentary contract for Gibbs's line."
Mr. Peasesaid, that it was extremely

803
painful for him to present himself to the House on a matter purely personal; but he had been injured by the motion which had just been submitted to the House, and he was convinced that, under the circumstances, some indulgence would be shown him. He had never been in any way, directly or indirectly, concerned with any one of the Brighton railways—he had never held shares in any of those undertakings—he had never subscribed the Parliamentary contract for any of them, and had no personal interest in the success of one line more than another. The shares alluded to in the motion were not in his name, but in the name of a relation, and the hon. Member might easily have known that such was the case, as the usual addition of M.P. was not attached to the name on the subscription list, but which would have been the case had it been his (Mr. Pease's) signature. Having stated this much, he would only add further, that he had given a conscientious vote on the occasion to which the motion referred, but he thought he had just cause to complain of want of courtesy on the part of the hon. Mover, for although he had taken tea with him upstairs last night, the hon. Gentleman had not given him any intimation of his intention to bring forward the present motion.
Mr. Hastieconsidered that he had been most uncourteously dealt with, as he had received no notice of the present motion till he had seen it in the votes of the House. Before his election he had purchased twenty shares, but in March of last year, having been returned a Member of that House, he disposed of those hares in the following April, and he had now no connexion with any of the lines of railway to Brighton. Having stated this much, he thought it was unnecessary for him to say more, as the House would see that he had violated no rule, and his vote had been given from a conviction that he was only discharging his duty to the public, and not from any personal or interested motives.
Mr. Tookehad no connexion with, nor any personal interest in, any of the railways to Brighton, or if he could be said to have any private interest in the success or defeat of any of the lines, it would have been in the defeat of Stephenson's line, the very one on the Parliamentary contract of which his name appeared as a subscriber. He had at one time held
804
a share in that undertaking, but had long ago disposed of it, and was now in no way connected with either of the lines. That such was the case might easily have been ascertained, had the hon. mover of the present motion acted with the usual courtesy, and he thought he ought to have made himself acquainted with the facts of the case before placing his (Mr. Tooke's) name, and those of other hon. Gentlemen, on the votes of the House in connexion with such a motion.
Mr. Charles Barclaythought it was a farce to lay down a rule that no person should vote on motions regarding railways or other undertakings, who were shareholders, as Members, though not shareholders, might be actuated by a feeling stronger even than one which was purely personal. It was impossible to find out the actual motives which influenced any one to vote, and it would, in his opinion, be better to leave it to hon. Members themselves to determine on all occasions whether they ought or ought not to vote, and never to call in question the vote of any Member, on the ground of his being a shareholder in any undertaking which might be the subject of a division.
Sir J. Grahamcould not agree with the hon. Member for West Surrey, that the votes of Members should never be questioned, and should the hon. Member bring forward a specific motion, embodying the principle for which he had contended, he (Sir J. Graham) should be prepared to contend by argument against such doctrines, and by his vote to support a contrary motion, for it was his opinion, that whenever a pecuniary interest could be established, the vote should be struck off. In the present case, however, he did think that it would have been only courteous for the hon. Member, who had brought forward the motion, to have given some intimation of his intentions before placing such a personal notice on the votes of the House, and he further considered, that he ought to have made himself better acquainted with the facts of the case, for in three out of the six instances specified in the motion, the facts of his position had been distinctly negatived.
Lord G. Lennoxsaid, that if the hon. Member brought forward his motion solely on public grounds, he should like to know why he had confined himself to railways on one side. Then were the

805
names of hon. Members to be found on the list for Rennie's line, as well as on that of Stephenson's, and the hon. Member's motion ought, if it was brought forward on public grounds, to have embraced both.
Mr. T. Attwoodobserved, that he had seen the names of his colleague, and a near relative of his own, in the motion, and as both were absent, he considered it his duty to state, that he was perfectly persuaded they would be able to give as satisfactory an explanation of their conduct as had been given by other hon. Members. He thought the hon. Member who had brought forward the motion, had acted rashly in not making himself better acquainted with the facts of the case, and that he had been wanting in courtesy in giving no intimation of his intentions to those who were so prominently brought forward in his motion.
Sir C. Burrellthought the hon. Gentleman who had brought forward the motion, ought not to be allowed to withdraw it, and that it ought in justice to the Gentlemen who had been so prominently noticed, to receive a decided negative by the House. The motion had been most improperly brought forward, and it was a case of very great hardship that no notice had been given, as some of those who were deeply interested in the matter were, as he understood, in the country, and had no opportunity of vindicating their conduct.
Captain Alsagersupported the motion, and said that, although some of the hon. Members, whose names appeared in the motion, had denied all connexion with the Brighton railway, yet their names still stood on the subscription list. Now, that subscription list was the one by which the House was to be guided in forming its opinion as to the probability of the undertaking being completed, should the Bill pass the House. It was the guarantee which the House had required for the protection of the public against gambling speculations, and if hon. Members had actually withdrawn their subscriptions, and their names still stood on the contract for large sums, then the list was no longer a bona Jide one, and did not give the security which the House intended it should.
Mr. Peasesaid, his name was not on the list, it was the name of a relation.
Sir S. Whalleysaid, that the hon.
806
Members who had stated that they had withdrawn were still, in point of" law, shareholders, and responsible for the amount opposite their names.
Sir A. L. Hayentered the House, and said, that till the moment he entered the House, he was totally unaware of the motion which had been submitted to its consideration. The vote he had given had no reference to the adoption or rejection of any particular line out of the competing railways, but was given with a view of bringing before the House sufficient evidence to enable the House to decide as to the merits of the rival lines. In regard to his name being on the subscription list, he acknowledged that he was a shareholder, and still continued to be so, but his vote on the occasion alluded to was given conscientiously, and were the same motion before the House, he would again give his vote in its favour.
Sir E. Wilmotthought it only justice to the hon. Member who had last spoken, to state, that as his name had on a former occasion been mentioned in connexion with the Deptford and Dover railway, there was not a tittle of evidence to connect the hon. Gentleman with any improper proceedings in regard to that railway. He, as a Member of the Deptford and Dover Committee, thought he only discharged his duty in making that fact known to the House.
Motion negatived.

POOR-LAW (IRELAND).
Lord John Russell Lord John Russell moved the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Poor-law (Ireland) Bill.
The House went into Committee.
On the 15th Clause,
Mr. Sharman Crawfordproposed an amendment, with a view of making each separate parish or town-land responsible for its own poor.
Viscount Morpethsaid, the proposal of the hon. Member would, if carried into effect, assimilate the practice in Ireland to that of England, and introduce the separate rating of distinct parishes into that country. The circumstances of the two countries being different,—in the one a Poor-law having been in operation, in the other a Poor-law being about to be introduced,—it would be inexpedient to adopt the same system. It was, however, to be recollected, that the English Bill was more favourable to the combined system than

807
to the separate; for it gave the power of forming unions. He hoped that the House would pause before it foisted on Ireland the laws of settlement which had proved a prolific source of dispute, discussion, and litigation in England. He thought that it was but prudent to take a district of fair size and diameter as the representative of the really existing distress. He could not believe that it was desirable to adopt the proposition of the hon. Member; he was of opinion, that if applied to Ireland, which was a new field for the operation of the Poor-laws, its effects would be prejudicial; and therefore he could not consent to it.
Mr. Goulburnthought, that the House should come to a decision as to the practicability of making a Poor-law, which had no provisions for settlement, work well.—Should the House determine that the principle of settlement must be adopted, he was willing to consider the schemes which might be proposed.
Mr. O'Connellwas of opinion, that the Government had excluded settlement from their Bill. Those who wished for settlement should bring forward their views in the form of amendments. If the House could introduce the law of settlement, it would hesitate to do so after its experience of the mischief which it had effected in England. It might make the landlords attend more to their estates, but the advantages which that argument held out were encountered by the fact, that it gave rise to a series of litigation which would ultimately exhaust the land.
Mr. C. Bullerwas of opinion, that there could be no efficient system of Poor-laws without a law of settlement; without a law of settlement, every such system would be a complete delusion. Local settlement and local charges were the prime points of the Poor-law.
Lord John Russellwished that some definite proposition should be brought forward, on which the House might decide. It would be unfair to ask hon. Members to decide on the principle of settlement at once, when they might afterwards find that insuperable objections existed to every scheme of carrying that principle into effect.
Sir James Grahamwas sorry to add to the difficulty in which the House was placed. This, however, was the marrow of this most difficult subject. Mendicancy, it was admitted on all hands, was the great
808
evil of Ireland. It was decided by the Bill, that destitution did not give an absolute claim to relief; and in the 42nd clause, the distribution of relief was left to the discretion of certain authorities. If there must be a settlement, he should prefer the Scotch system; if the system to be adopted were the parochial one, he should prefer the scheme of unions. But the real question was, should destitution, or should it not, constitute a claim for relief?
Mr. S. O'Brienadmitted, that the right hon. Baronet had put the subject on the right ground. He hoped, however, the Government would not permit a law of settlement to be introduced.
Lord John Russellthought, that his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham) had not added to the difficulty of the question, but had facilitated the solution of it. It should be recollected, that if a right to be relieved somewhere were conferred, a right to removal to that particular place would follow. His right hon. Friend, or some other hon. Member might bring forward a distinct proposition to the desired effect.
Mr. Shawwas prepared to move some limitations to the relief which this Act would afford; he wished its operation to be confined to the sick, the infirm, and the aged. If destitution were made the test of just claims to relief, many difficulties would be the consequence, for each person who was destitute would imagine himself possessed of an equal right with others to relief.
Sir Robert Batesonwas aware of the evils which had followed on the law of settlement in England; but he feared that greater evils would ensue if it were not introduced into Ireland. The opinion of the town of Belfast had been alluded to; it would, however, be recollected, that there was a great influx of Irish paupers on their road home from England into that town; and that there was some apprehension lest they should settle there. His wish was to tax the absentees, whereas, without a law of settlement, the taxation for the purposes of a Poor-law would affect the residents only.
Lord John Russellobserved, that the Members of the Government had made up their minds long ago, and, indeed, he had stated so two months ago. He was ready to consider any proposition on the subject then or to-morrow, as might be agreed on. He did not, however, think

809
that the motion of the hon. Member for Dundalk was a fit one for the discussion of the matter. It would be better for him not to press his motion then, and to discuss the law of settlement to-morrow.
Amendment withdrawn.
Mr. O'Connellwished to prefix some preliminary words, to the effect that "the Commissioners who might be appointed to carry the Act into execution, should be styled the Poor-law Commissioners for Ireland, and sit in Dublin."
The Chairmanobserved, that the hon. and learned Member was moving a specific Clause, which must be reserved till the end of the Bill.
Lord Stanleywished to move an amendment, in conformity with that of the hon. Member for Dundalk, for the purpose of bettering the discretion vested in the Commissioners. The Commissioners were to be endowed with the power of declaring districts to be unions, without reference to existing civil or ecclesiastical divisions. He, however, must object to their being empowered to interfere with the limits of property, and he thought that the extent of rate-paying ought to be conterminous with the boundaries of property. A proper centre for unions should be fixed, round which the other places might lie. The boundary of town lands was observed in estates; the same practice was followed in unions. If leave were given to the Commissioners to alter the boundaries, their parallelograms would, no doubt, appear very neat on paper; but the effect of the arrangement would be mischievous, for the property of the same individual might be parcelled out into different unions. He was in favour of the law of settlement; if the right to be conferred were a local one, then there should be a local assessment; if the right were a national one, then should the assessment be national also. He was for the local system, because it would give to every man an immediate interest in keeping down pauperism. He should now move that the words after "declare" should be omitted for the purpose of inserting the words "to unite such and so many town lands or towns for the purpose of making such union as they may think fit."
Lord John Russelladmitted, that there would be a great advantage in adopting the division of town lands. He would not then object to the amendment, reserving always his right to oppose it,
Mr. Lucas Mr. Lucas moved, "That no district to be separately rated under this Act shall exceed, in extent, twenty square miles, unless the population in that extent shall fall short of 6,000 souls." The unions proposed by the Government would be totally unmanageable. They would require paid officers, whereas persons should be induced to undertake voluntarily the office of guardians of the poor. Considering this plan in a financial point of view, he thought it was very desirable in point of economy. The population of Ireland was 8,000,000 of souls; and the average population of an union comprising 400 square miles, would be 100,360 persons. But if, instead of the average of all Ireland, a district was taken where the population was more dense, as in the province of Ulster, the population contained in the district over which the union would extend, would be increased as much as fifty per cent. Take, for instance, the county of Monaghan. An area of 400 square miles in that county, would con-lain 154,000 souls. Another consideration, and a very important one, which suggested itself, was, that if the rating was commensurate with the size of the union, they would remove all incentives to individual exertion in lowering the amount of the rate. If, on the other hand, the union were confined to an area of twenty square miles, and a farmer were able, by his personal exertions and superintendence, to diminish the rate even a halfpenny or a farthing in the pound, he would have a motive to attend to the working of the system and scrutinize its details. The consideration as to voting, was also a very important one. If the right of voting was to be maintained according to the provisions of the Bill, he should show how great a number of voters would be brought together. An area of 400 square miles for an union on the average of Ireland, would contain 26,633 families. He would not, however, take the average of all Ireland, but would go to particular places. He knew, that if this plan were adhered to in certain estates with which he was acquainted, the proportion of 51. voters for such an union would be from 18,000 to 20,000. He wished to show, on the other hand, what would be the scale of voters in an union of the extent which he proposed. On the average in Monaghan, there would be about 1,000 persons who would have a fright to vote, He con-

811
ceived, that that number was quite enough, and that a larger body of voters would be unmanageable. Upon these grounds, without troubling the House at any greater length, he should move his amendment.
Lord John Russellthought, that this was a very inconvenient restriction to be imposed upon the Commissioners. The hon. Gentleman would perceive, that the Bill did not propose any particular limit for the extent of the union, but left that to the discretion of the Commissioners. The hon. Gentleman's proposition would confine the Commissioners, where there was a population of 6,000 persons within the area he suggested, to a space, the limits of which would be less than two miles and a-half from the workhouse, and which would hardly contain a sufficient number of persons fit to form a Board of Guardians. There were forty unions in England, of which the population exceeded 10,000 persons, and they were very much better managed than those unions which had only 3,000 or 4,000 inhabitants. There was another consideration to which he begged to call the attention of the hon. Gentleman, which pointed out the wisdom of leaving a good deal to the discretion of the Commissioners. The Bill proposed, that relief be given in the workhouse. Now, if relief were given in the workhouse only, the business of the guardians would be far more simple, and would require far less attention and time, than was the case in England. The guardians in England had to consider the different rates levied, or to be levied, in the different parishes of the union, the claims of poor and infirm persons, and other matters, which occupied many hours in the day. But if relief were given in the workhouse only, the time of the guardians in Ireland would be very little occupied. If, however, the Committee should come to a different opinion, and say, that relief ought not to be confined to the workhouse, and that out-door relief should be given, then the Commissioners might come to a very different opinion as to the extent of the unions; but in either case, it would be far better to leave the rule to the discretion of the Commissioners. For these reasons, he hoped the Committee would not assent to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, and would leave the point undecided.
Lord Stanleywas inclined, on the whole, to agree with his noble Friend opposite,
812
that it would be better not to confine the Commissioners in the exercise of their discretion. He thought, however, that a district which, according to the proposal made by the Commissioners, would contain about 80,000 persons on the average, would be much too large. But, at the same time, he was not insensible to the advantage which would be gained where the extent of the union was large, from the greater facilities of obtaining efficient and working men as guardians of the poor. The point to hit was this—that the union should extend so far that, from its extreme limits, persons might come without inconvenience to the workhouse for relief, and at the same time so widely, as to obtain with great combination in the management, the highest degree of economy. An area of twenty square miles was, in his opinion, infinitely too small for these purposes. The local management, in these cases, would fall into improper hands. At the same time, if it was the opinion of the House that a law of settlement ought to be introduced into Ireland, he was not prepared to say whether, as regarded the local management, with the view of individualizing the burthen and responsibility, it might not be advisable to subdivide the unions for the purpose of rating. He would give to each individual district a reason to interest itself in the management of the whole union, in a manner analogous to the system prevailing in England.
Lord Clementsquite agreed with the general remarks which had been made by the hon. Member for Monaghan; but he could not concur in his conclusion. In matters of this sort it was best to look to experience, he admitted; but, when one of the Poor-law Commissioners recommended an area of 400 square miles for an union, he turned to see whether there was anything of the kind in England. He had extracted the accounts of the number of square miles in the area of the twelve largest unions which at present existed in England, and he found that not one of them equalled 300 square miles. He thought, therefore, that it was necessary for the House to express some opinion as to the size of the unions in Ireland. He should, therefore, move the following amendment—"Provided always, that in every case where the proposed union exceeds an area of 150 square miles, and the population in such union exceeds 25,000 persons, the Commissioners, at the

813
time of the formation of such union, shall make a special report to one of his Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, forty days before the declaration of such union, which special report shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament after the commencement of every Session."
Mr. Lucasobserved, that he owed every deference to the suggestions which had been made by hon. Members, and if the House had agreed with him as to the propriety of his amendment, he should have proposed that each district should be separately liable for its proportion of the expenses of the workhouse. However, as the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, had indicated a wish to localise the expenditure of each union, he was quite content to withdraw his amendment.
Mr. Lucaswithdrew his amendment. The Chairman put the amendment proposed by Lord Clements.
Mr. Wysewas understood to say, that the House had not yet provided proper machinery to work the Bill. He was afraid, therefore, that they would get into difficulties.
Viscount Howickhoped the noble Lord, the Member for Leitrim, would withdraw the amendment which he had proposed, because there was no good ground for restricting the discretion of the Commissioners. If they were to insert a proviso in the Bill to the effect that these unions should not exceed a definite limit, the Commissioners, under whatever circumstances might arise, would probably meet with great difficulty and opposition in any attempt which they might make, by increasing that limit, to adapt it to the exigencies of a particular case.
Lord Clementswas of opinion, that none of the arguments which he had heard from hon. Members, affected the principle of his proviso. If no limit were assigned, he could not see any thing to prevent the Commissioners from making the unions of far too great an extent to be practically beneficial. For his part, he was not at all desirous to confine the Poor-law Commissioners in the exercise of their power, in any way which could be justly considered harsh or irksome towards them. All he sought, was the establishment of such an arrangement as would be productive of the best practical relief, and he trusted, in this matter, to have the support of the Irish Members, who were now in Committee.
Mr. James Grattancould not concur in opinion with the noble Lord upon this subject. His noble Friend's proposition wag of too expensive a nature. He would, in effect, treble the number of poor establishments. Moreover, in his opinion, if the limits of the unions were narrow, the class of persons who would fill the office of guardians, would not be of the most respectable description. He thought the proposed Poor-law Bill would work exceedingly well; at all events it would put a stop to jobbing—a calamity by which Ireland had been proverbially afflicted.
Mr. P. Thomsonthought, that the question was decided by the observation which had fallen from the hon. Member for Wicklow—namely, that in unions of a limited extent, it would be difficult to find persons properly qualified to act as guardians. It was quite clear, that the Commissioners would make the unions of the size which circumstances would render most desirable; and to their decision he trusted the noble Lord would leave the matter.
Sir J. Grahamdenied that the management of the Poor-law establishments in England had been proved to be good, in proportion to the extent of the unions. He was disposed to think, that the more they concentrated local knowledge, the more they would conduce to the advantage of the paupers generally. By increasing the area, they would increase the difficulty of attendance at the Board of Guardians, particularly of those whose attendance would be most desirable.
Mr. Lennarddiffered from the right hon. Baronet. No matter how extensive the district, no applicant could make his appearance before the Board of Guardians, of whom some member of the board would not possess some knowledge.
Mr. Sergeant Woulfesaid, that they were now about to try an entirely new experiment in Ireland. They were about to introduce into that country, a system which had been hitherto untried in any part of the empire. While they established a system of taxation for the relief of the poor, they acknowledged, on the part of the poor, no right to this relief, except according to the discretion and good will of the persons who laid on the rate. With respect to the Amendment, he believed, that it would be found wise and politic to give to the Commissioners as large powers as they possibly could.

815
There was much less chance of the Commissioners abusing their power by the performance of erroneous acts, than there was of the House now committing serious mistakes, by making legislative restrictions beforehand.
Lord Clementswithdrew his amendment.
The Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
On the 19th Clause (Commissioners may divide unions into electoral districts)
Mr. O'Briensuggested that no electoral district should contain more than 6,000 inhabitants. Such a number would be as many as could be attended to.
Lord Stanleyproposed that these words should be added to the clause:—"that any such union shall be divided in such a manner, that no townland comprised within an union shall be divided." By adopting this rule they would adhere to some certain and recognised boundary in the divisions of unions.
Lord John Russellobjected to the amendment on the ground that the adoption of such a principle would be attended with considerable inconvenience.
The Committee divided on the Clause: —Ayes 69; Noes 47: Majority 22.
The Clause agreed to.
On the 20th Clause,
Mr. Sharman Crawfordmoved as an amendment, that for 3,000 inhabitants there should be at least one guardian.
Lord Morpethsaid, it would be better to leave the matter to the discretion of the Commissioners.
The Committee divided on the amendment:—Ayes 11; Noes 77: Majority 66.

List of the AYES.

Bellew, R. M.

Ruthven, E.

Chapman, L.

Sheil, R. L.

Clements, Viscount

Wyse, T.

Evans, G.

Young, G. G.

Hindley, C.

TELLERS.

Maher, J.

Crawford, S.

O'Conner Don

O'Brien, W. S.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Callaghan, D.

Archdall, M.

Cooper, E. J.

Ball, N.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Baring, F. T.

Damer, G. L. D.

Blake, M. J.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Bodkin, J. J.

Dunbar, G.

Bowes, J.

Duncombe, T.

Bridgeman, H.

Ebrington, Viscount

Brotherton, J.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Browne, R. D.

Finch, G.

Bruen, F.

Fitzsimon, C.

816

Forbes, W.

Parrott, J.

Fox, C.

Perceval, Colonel

Goulburn, H.

Philips, M.

Graham, Sir J.

Ponsonby, W.

Grattan, J.

Ponsonby, J.

Hamilton, G. A.

Price, Sir R.

Hayes, Sir E. S.

Pryme, G.

Howard, R.

Pryse, P.

Howard, P. H.

Pusey, P.

Howick, Viscount

Russell, Lord J.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Scrope, G. P.

Jones, T.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Lennard, T. B.

Smith, V.

Lennox, Lord G.

Stanley, E. J.

Longfield, R.

Stanley, Lord

Lowther, J. H.

Steuart, V.

Lucas, E.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Lynch, A. H.

Tennent, J. E.

Maule, hon. F.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Morpeth, Viscount

Townley, R. G.

Murray, J. A.

Vigors, N. A.

Nagle, Sir R.

West, J.

O'Connell, D.

Westenra, H. R.

O'Connell, J.

Westenra, J. C.

O'Connell, M. J.

Woulfe, Sergeant

O'Connell, M.

Young, J.

O'Ferral, R. M.

TELLERS.

Palmerston, Viscount

Labouchere, H.

Parker, J.

Steuart, R.

The House resumed.

PAYMENT OF RATES.
Lord John Russell Lord John Russell moved for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the payment of Rates and Taxes by parliamentary electors and for the abolition of the stamp duty on the admission of freemen.
Mr. Forbesobjected to the motion.
The House divided:—Ayes 29; Noes 9; Majority 20.

List of the AYES.

Bernal, R.

Morpeth, Viscount

Blake, M. J.

O'Connell, J.

Brotherton, J.

O'Connell, M. J.

Chalmers, P.

O'Connell, M.

Crawford, W. S.

Pryme, G.

Duncombe, T.

Pryse, P.

Ebrington, Viscount

Robinson, G. R.

Gordon, R.

Russell, Lord J.

Hindley, C.

Sheil, R. L.

Jervis, J.

Stanley, E. J.

Labouchere, H.

Woulfe, Sergeant

Lennard, T. B.

Young, G. F.

Lennox, Lord G.

TELLERS.

Lynch, A. H.

Smith, V.

Maule, hon. F.

Baring, F. T.

List of the NOES.

Forster, C. S.

Tennent, J. E.

Goulburn, H.

West, J. B.

Hayes, Sir E. S.

Wood, Colonel T.

Knight, H. G.

TELLERS.

Perceval, Colonel

Graham, Sir J.

Stanley, Lord

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Leave given to bring in the Bill.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lord REDESDALE, from places in Gloucestershire, against the abolition of Church-rates.—By the Earl of BRADFORD, from places in Oxfordshire, against abolition of Church-rates By Viscount MELBOURNE, from various places, in favour of the Ministerial plan for the abolition of Church-rates, the Irish Municipal Reform Bill, and the Irish Tithe Bill.

IMPROVEMENT OF LANDS (IRELAND).
On the motion of the Marquess of Clanricarde, the House went into Committee on the Improvement of Waste Lands (Ireland) Bill.
The Earl of Wicklowwas of opinion that this bill ought to have been introduced by his Majesty's Ministers, and not by individuals. The present bill was similar to one formerly passed, which had never been productive of the slightest benefit to Ireland. There was one part of the bill to which he wished to draw the particular attention of the noble Duke on the cross-bench (Richmond), who had moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the propriety of substituting declarations for oaths. If he looked into this Bill, he would see that it required the administration of oaths to an enormous extent. In the 9th clause the Commissioners were empowered to compel the attendance of persons to give evidence, however great the distance might be. Now, in a bill at present before the other House, and having relation to Ireland, though power was given to compel the attendance of individuals before the Commissioners, it was provided that that power should not extend to those who lived at a greater distance than twenty miles. In that

795
measure also, although power was given to call for papers, yet a special protection was inserted against the production of title deeds of estates, but no such provision was to be found in this bill; and if it were suffered to remain thus, much inconvenience, to say the least of it, would be the consequence.
Lord Fitzgeraldsaid, on referring to the votes of the Other House, it would be found that there was more than one bill which went farther, with reference to local improvements in Ireland, than the present measure. Therefore, if it were convenient, he would propose to his noble Friend to refer this measure to a Select Committee, where it might be thoroughly considered, so as to prevent its provisions from being defeated or rendered useless by other bills.
The House resumed. Bill referred to a Select Committee.

EXECUTION AT GLOUCESTER.
Lord Segravesaid, that in consequence of what had fallen from him, and from the noble Duke on the cross-bench the other night, on the subject of the execution at Gloucester, he understood that the high sheriff supposed that some imputation had been cast on his conduct. But, certainly he could state, that there was no imputation thrown out on the part of the noble Duke, or on his own. He knew the high sheriff very well. He was a most respectable man, and if these indecencies took place at, or rather after, the execution, he was convinced that no man would be more shocked at the circumstance than that gentleman. He believed that the conduct of the executioner was most disgusting. After what occurred on Friday night he wrote to the governor of the county gaol, who, in answer, stated, that the conduct of the executioner was, to say the least of it, marked by great levity, and his impression was, that the man was drunk. If the greatest decorum were not observed On such an occasion, the most brutalizing effects must certainly follow. He had stated his authority for what he had said, and he hoped, that on investigation, other evidence would be adduced to outweigh that which led him to the conclusion at which he had arrived. He feared, however that such would not be the fact.
The Duke of Richmondhad meant to cast no imputation on the sheriff, but he thought it right to call the attention of the Go-
796
vernment to the circumstance. With respect to the recent case of Greenacre, he greatly disapproved of the conduct which was pursued towards that individual. He believed that, on the 27th of April a remonstrance had been made against allowing persons to see him who had not a proper cause. The magistrates of the city of London might at present allow individuals to see persons in that unhappy situation, even though it were contrary to the will of the sheriffs. He thought that a provision should be made to prevent orders being given to visit persons awaiting execution, except they were issued by the Secretary of State or by the sheriffs. Subject dropped.

CHIEF BARON JOY.
The Earl of Rodentook the opportunity of having to present a petition, to call the attention of noble Lords opposite to a subject most deeply interesting to their Lordships, as it certainly had proved to be most painful to the individual who was most nearly connected with the matter. It was, he knew, irregular to allude to words made use of in a former debate; but when their Lordships considered the importance of the subject, he hoped that it would be looked on as a sufficient excuse. The noble Viscount at the head of his Majesty's Government had, on a former evening, made a statement which, when he explained the circumstances, would, he hoped, prove to the noble Viscount that he had been misinformed on the subject, and would draw from him an acknowledgment of the misstatement which he had made. The words, as far as he could remember them, used by the noble Viscount were these:—"With respect to the appointment of sheriffs by the going judge of assize, the Chief Baron deviated from the usual course, and sent in a list of names, which Government found to be very deficient." Such a charge against so inestimable an individual as Chief Baron Joy, appeared to him, who was long acquainted with the Chief Baron, who admired his virtues, and who considered him an ornament to that part of the empire, as a subject that ought to be inquired into, for the purpose of ascertaining the correctness of the statement and affirmation of the noble Viscount. He, therefore, had made an inquiry into the matter, and he had no doubt of the truth of the facts which he was about to state to their Lordships. He believed

797
that the noble Viscount was totally misinformed with respect to the statement which he had made, and it would appear, that Chief Baron Joy did not depart from the course usually pursued on such occasions, and that he did not send in a list which was found by the Government to be deficient. The course pursued in the appointment of sheriffs had prevailed from the time that Sir Robert Peel was Chief Secretary, and the Chief Baron had adhered to it. Chief Baron Joy submitted to the Lord Chancellor a list of three most unexceptionable gentlemen to fill the office of High Sheriff—three gentlemen of the county of Louth. The noble Marquess had stated, that one of these gentlemen, Mr. Fortescue, was unwilling to serve. That, however, formed no good ground for setting him aside, and choosing in his place a person who was not recommended by the judge. He recollected when he himself was compelled to serve, and, therefore, unwillingness afforded no solid ground for exemption. The second gentleman, Mr. Bellingham, had a good ground of excuse, having served before. Then it was Said, that the third gentleman oh the list, Mr. Brabazon, was so young, that it Was impossible that he could be intrusted with so important an office as that of sheriff. Now, he knew that gentleman. He was some five or six-and-twenty years of age, and weighed twenty stone. Either one or the other of these gentlemen ought to have been made to serve, instead of the Government deviating from the regular line of proceeding, and appointing a person who was not recommended by the judge. The statement, therefore, of the noble Viscount, that the list sent in by the Chief Baron was deficient, appeared to him not to be well founded, because one of the two individuals whom he had named might have been made to stand, if Government had exercised its power. The circumstance had caused a strong feeling throughout Ireland; and, therefore, he felt it to be his duty to that House and to the public, to give the noble Viscount an opportunity of correcting his error.
Viscount Melbournesaid, if he had been aware that the noble Earl had meant to introduce the subject, he would have been prepared with the necessary information. He had not the slightest idea of wounding the feelings of the Chief Baron, but he was not aware that he had stated anything
798
but facts. He should be most anxious to make an immediate acknowledgment of error, if he had committed any, but he was not aware that he had. What he had said was, that the Chief Baron had not pursued the course usually adopted by the judges. He believed the practice always was for the judge to inquire of the present sheriff what persons were proper to be recommended to fill the office of sheriff for the next year—not that he was bound by the information which he might receive, for he might still exercise his discretion; but—because it was wise and prudent for him to know who were considered to be the most eligible individuals. This the Chief Baron had not done on the occasion in question. In consequence the Chief Baron had returned three individuals, out of whom it was impossible to select a person to serve the office of sheriff. He had not said that the Government had superseded those three gentlemen because the Chief Baron omitted to ask the opinion of the former sheriff, but because he had returned individuals each of whom had a good excuse, or at least a reason, for being exempted.
The Earl of Wicklowbegged to tell the noble Viscount that he was in error, because the judge had not deviated from the customary rule in such cases, but the Government had thought proper to disregard the recommendation of the judge, and chose to appoint another person of their own selection.
Lord Fitzgeraldwas glad that a conversation on this subject had arisen, because it had afforded the noble Viscount an opportunity of removing from the mind of Baron Joy an impression that the noble Viscount had intended to cast any censure upon him. The subject was certainly one of great importance, considering the nature of the office, and the duties of a sheriff. He could confirm the opinion of his noble Friend that no deviation from the usual practice had taken place, and that it had not been the custom of the judges to prefer the persons pointed out by the former sheriffs. It was clear that the judges could have no discretion if they were to be bound by the return of the former sheriffs. Nothing, however, could be more obvious than that if the Government were ready to release persons from serving the office, the list of the judge could be of little or no use.
Petition laid on the table.

THE ROMISH CLERGY.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, he had to present a petition from a dignitary of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, who wished to appeal to their Lordships against certain severe treatment which he had experienced at the hands of his ecclesiastical superiors. It was the petition of Eugene Mulholland, a native of Ireland, who had been ordained a priest of the Romish Church. In 1818 he went to Rome to prosecute his studies, and received the degree of doctor of divinity there. In 1826 he returned to Ireland, and was appointed to a parish in the county of Louth. In 1833 one of those controversies, which unfortunately were too prevalent in that country, became particularly conspicuous in his neighbourhood, and he was charged by another Roman Catholic clergyman with having connected himself with insurrectionary proceedings. He referred the charge to the dignitaries of his own church, and it appeared to be their opinion that the charge ought to be withdrawn. However the charge was not withdrawn. He then brought an action against the other priest, who had, as he thought, maligned his character, and while that action was pending he was dismissed from his curacy by the dignitaries of his church, and was thereby deprived of the means of obtaining an honest and honourable livelihood. They made him the subject of ecclesiastical censures and privations for having appealed to the law of the land in vindication of his character. The Roman Catholic prelates did not deem that appeal to be an offence against the ecclesiastical canons, but still they dismissed him. He then appealed to Rome, and a document called a rescript was sent out to Dr. Croly, the Roman Catholic Primate of Ireland, requiring him to be reinstated; and ultimately he was ordered to be appointed to an office which was equal to a perpetual curacy in the English Church. Having applied to the vicar apostolic of London for assistance, he received an answer which was remarkable for the peculiar expressions it contained. That personage condemned the course pursued by Dr. Mulholland, in first going to law with a brother clergyman, and afterwards presenting petitions to Parliament on the subject, as a most disgraceful exhibition. Among the subsequent measures which he took for his own justification, he applied to a great champion of public liberty to take up his
800
cause, Mr. Daniel O'Connell. That Gentleman told Dr. Mulholland that it became him to express his regret for the course he had pursued, having caused great scandal to the Catholic Church by the controversy he had created, and by endeavouring to enlist the services of men in Parliament in hostility against the dignitaries of his church. He told Dr. Mulholland, moreover, that the Legislature had no control over the Roman Catholic Church, and that if he had suffered any wrong from another, the criminal law was open to him. Although it was asserted that Parliament had no right to interfere with the Catholic Church, he would remind their Lordships that the College of Maynooth was endowed by a Parliamentary grant, and that the discipline and mode of education there adopted ought to be inquired into, seeing that there was every reason to believe that the institution seemed only intended to fit the students for a degree of submission and degradation that was totally incompatible with the genius of a free country. Could their Lordships doubt, then, that this was a case of oppression, and that many such cases occurred in consequence of Roman Catholic priests refusing to lend themselves to that course of conduct which was now agitating that country? But what was the behaviour of those immaculate right reverends who thus endeavoured to coerce the inferior clergy to further their political views? He held in his hand a letter which had been addressed to a noble Duke near him (the Duke of Wellington) through the public newspapers on the subject of the revenues of the established church, in which after expatiating in a bombastic style on civil and religious freedom, and asserting, that nothing could check its progress, the writer remarked—"Witness your impotent laws against the Catholic Bishops who are assuming their ancient and hereditary title. His Majesty's Bishops may become possessed of all the favours that his Majesty, the fountain of wealth and honour, can give them; but they cannot make that happen which is not to be, or deprive the Catholic Bishops of their rights." The writer concluded by expressing his determination not to pay tithes or any tax in support of the Church of England. So wrote John Tuam, as he signed himself. He would next direct the attention of their Lordships to the language used by some of the Roman Catholic

801
Clergy of the second order who were educated at the College of Maynooth. A priest at an election which took place at Clonmel thus addressed the electors respecting the candidate:—"Haven't we brought him to ye? I hope you'll keep him along with ye. We have brought you a man who will give his best aid and exertions in exterminating, root and branch, that abominable and dreadful nuisance—the church." Hear the sentiments of another person of the same class. They were part of a sermon which he delivered in a Roman Catholic Chapel:—"Who are those that will be saved? Those who possess the franchise and use it for the public good—those who vote for the liberal candidate at the expected election—those who consider the public good, and not their own private interest—those who will support the man who will oppose that church which I may call a nuisance, for it is the cause of all the murders, and massacres, and slaughters, that disgrace the present history of our country. Wo, wo, to the man that betrays his trust!" Such were the sentiments of men who had been educated at the public expense; such were the men whom the Legislature had protected and provided for. The majority of the Roman Catholic Bishops were members of that association in Ireland which had been condemned both in that and the other House of Parliament. The second order of the Roman Catholic priesthood were for the most part, the nominees of those Bishops who compelled them to act with them in the political movements that they deemed advisable to promote. Unless, then, some inquiry were instituted into this state of things, how could they indulge any hope of seeing Ireland tranquillized? He did not intend to make any motion on the subject, but he hoped that an inquiry would be promoted, and if it took place first in another place, perhaps it would be better, because there were many persons in that place who were interested in the question, and who could state their views of it, and would have an opportunity of showing upon what principle the present plan of education at Maynooth should be continued. The prayer of the petition which he now presented to their Lordships was for an inquiry into the case of the petitioner, not merely with regard to his own particular statements, but in reference to the actual condition of the second order of the Roman
802
Catholic Clergy. He hoped the noble Viscount opposite would turn his attention, to the subject, and examine into the state of things at Maynooth, with a view to ascertain whether it was not necessary to take some step to advance Christian piety, but not Popery.
Petition laid on the table.