Sitting of 4 February 1841

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBERS.—John Neilson Gladstone, for Walsall.
Petitions presented. By Mr. Mark Phillips, from the Manchester Dispensary, praying to be made a Corporate body.—By Mr. Brotherton, from Dover, for a Total Repeal of the Corn-laws—By Mr. O'Connell, from Dublin, for a Repeal of the Union.

STANDING ORDERS—RAILWAY BILLS.
On the motion of Mr. H. Hinde, the Standing Order, Number 32, relating to Railways, was read as follows:—
"That all subscription contracts shall contain the Christian and surnames, description, and place of abode, of every subscriber, his signature to the amount of his subscription, with the amount which he has paid up; and the name of the party witnessing such signature, and the date of the same respectively; and that it be proved to the satisfaction of the committee on petitions, that a sum equal lo one-tenth part of the amount subscribed has been deposited with the Court of Exchequer in England, if the work is intended to be done in England, or with the Court of Exchequer either in England or Scotland if such work is intended to be done in Scotland, and with the Court of Chancery in Ireland if such work is intended to be done in Ireland; and that not less than three-fourths in number of the subscribers shall have paid up their shares of such deposit."
The hon. Member then moved, "that the said Standing Order be amended, by leaving out the words 'one tenth,' and inserting the words 'one-twentieth.' He would net detain the House by entering into arguments at any length in support of his motion; but he would merely mention a few facts bearing upon the subject. The House was aware that, previous to the year 1830, of the bills that were passed for making railways, a considerable number was confined chiefly to the purposes of local communication; but after the opening of the railway between Liverpool and Manchester, a great impetus was given to speculations of that nature, and in the following years several bills were introduced into the House to enable capitalists to open railways. In the year 1832 four bills were passed for that purpose, and in the year 1834 five bills were passed for a similar purpose. In the year 1835, twenty-four railway bills passed through that House, including the great lines from London to Birmingham, the Grand Junction, the North Union, and the London and Southampton. In 1836, the num-
262
ber of applications was very large, and the attention of Parliament was particularly directed to the subject in consequence of the Standing Orders having been evaded, and, in fact, proof was laid before the House that evasions had been practised to enable parties to dispense with the Standing Orders. In 1837, the number of Railway Acts was fifteen. He admitted that many of the schemes in these three years, particularly in 1836, were not worthy of the support of Parliament, and were not brought under the consideration of the House in such a way as would enable them to be proceeded with. Out of the large number brought forward, forty-four did pass the House of Commons, and although there was no particular protection, there was not a single one of them which could be called a bubble company, and in proof of it he could state, that of the forty-four, twenty-one were at the present period actually finished, ten were partially opened, nine were in progress, and four not commenced. Two of these four were Irish railways, and of the peculiar circumstances connected with railways in that country, it was unnecessary for him to say any thing. Of the other two, the Deptford pier and railway had never been commenced, and the other, the Thames Haven railway, could not be commenced in consequence of the delay in advancing the Eastern Counties Railway. In August 1836, a Standing Order passed the House, requiring that a longer notice should be given than heretofore, and in July the following year the Standing Order was passed, requiring a deposit of ten per cent, and both these came into operation in 1838. After the passing of these two Standing Orders, there was a remarkable decrease in the number of bills presented to that House. In 1838, only two Acts of Parliament for new railways were passed, in 1839 only one, and in 1840, not a single Act for a new line passed the House. Surely, that looked like putting a stop to them altogether, and it would appear, that in taking steps to prevent fraudulent schemes, they had prevented the carrying on of wholesome plans. Among the bills passed within the last three years, the Edinburgh and Glasgow railway bill had been before Parliament the previous year, and therefore the Standing Orders did not apply to it, and another, the West Derby, had previously been in progress of formation,

263
and that also was exempted. The only bill, therefore, which could be termed one for a totally new line was one for a short line in Devonshire, near Torbay, which was not quite three miles in length, so that, in point of fact, only one bill had passed since the Standing Order to which his motion referred. He did not mean to object to the long notices, although he had, in common with many others, objections to them, but he referred particularly to the order which required the deposit of ten per cent. He did not believe, that the Standing Orders relative to the notices had had the effect of preventing these being given, because, in point of fact, in 1838 there had been thirty-five such notices given, in 1839, twenty-nine, and in 1840, thirty, shewing that these notices had not been much decreased. It might be urged, and not without reason, that the state of the money-market had been one of the great causes of the small number of railway bills brought forward, and no doubt that had operated to a certain extent; but he would remind hon. Members that although British capital had not been invested to a large amount in railways at home, yet large sums had been invested by British capitalists in railways in Germany and France, and particularly that one between Havre and Paris, besides many speculations in the United States. Having disposed of the reasons why so small a number of railway bills had been brought before the House within the last three years, it only remained for him now to meet the objections of hon. Members, who thought it of little importance whether railways should continue to progress or not, and on them he would urge the strong argument that British capital was being absorbed in these undertakings in foreign countries. Some time ago it might have been a question whether every large town should have a connection by railway with the metropolis; but from what had occurred of late years, that was a point on which there could be now little doubt. He would take an instance with which he was familiar—namely, the Great North Road. It was true there was a railway from London to York, but instead of being a benefit to the large towns in a direct line it was the reverse, because in many instances it deviated thirty miles from the direct line. A great number of persons were employed upon these railways, but this
264
employment, far from being a boon to the labouring population, would be a curse if it were to be suddenly withdrawn. Look at the operation of railways at this moment. During the last year, from February 1840 to February 1841, about 600 miles of new railway had been opened in the kingdom. On these 600 miles far more than a moiety of the excavators throughout the kingdom had been employed. It might be asked if he had the means of showing the number now out of employment, and he confessed that he had not. The works, especially the embankments, had been subject to so much dilapidation, from the state of the weather, and from the railways having been opened with undue speed, that on many lines the same number of labourers were employed in repairing them, as had been employed during their formation. But as spring advanced, these would be thrown out of employment, for though there were many railways in progress, with the exception of the Great Western and another, he knew of none that were going on with spirit. These were the chief causes he had to advance in favour of a modification of the Standing Order; but he would point out another inconvenience—namely, the formation of railways without the sanction of Parliament. If persons found generally they could more easily make a bargain with the landowners than by submitting to the restrictions laid upon them by Parliament, depend upon it that plan would be acted on, which would save the expense of an application to Parliament, and would enable the patties to give greater sums to the landowners. These railways were not subject to the Act of last Session, for the Standing Orders, related only to those formed under the sanction of Parliament. He would only further state, that if the House agreed to the proposition he had had the honour to make, they would only place the Standing Older in that House on the same footing as that of the House of Lords. When these new Standing Orders relating to railways were passed, a communication was made to the other House, under the auspices of a noble Lord, then at the head of the Board of Trade, to assimilate the Standing Orders of the two Houses, and he believed there was no other difference between the Houses than that the House of Commons proposed a deposit of ten per cent., and the House of Lords thought this too much,

265
and would assent only to a deposit of live per cent. He thanked the House for the attention they had paid to his statement, and submitted his motion for their decision.
Mr. Laboucheresaid, that although he was certainly prepared to offer every opposition in his power to the motion made by the hon. Gentleman—the hon. Gentleman was quite right in assuming that he did not rest opposition on any wish to discourage the progress of railways in this country, provided they were real and bonâ fide undertakings. He was as much convinced as any man could be that it was his duty to give every encouragement to the development of the railway system, but he was well convinced that the only way by which they could guard against a practical monopoly on the part of the lines already existing would be by lines more or less parallel, and constructed in such a manner as to offer some competition for the benefit of the public. He trusted, therefore, the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied that if he felt it his duty to oppose the motion, he did not do so from any desire to interfere with the progress of the railway system. But he really was at a loss to conceive how it could be believed that any railway undertaking could be carried on, so as to afford a fair and reasonable prospect of remuneration to the subscribers if there were a difficulty in obtaining a deposit of ten per cent on the sum required. It appeared to him, that if there were a difficulty in obtaining a deposit of ten per cent, as a subscriber, he should think he had little chance of obtaining the remaining 90 per cent. This subject had often been before the House. The principle had been considered by two Committees of the House of Commons, who had decided against it, in consequence of those disgraceful gambling transactions which, under the name of railway speculations, had imposed upon the country. It would, indeed, be with great concern that he should see the House relax their rule, which had had the most satisfactory effect in arresting the progress of schemes which were set up for no bonâ fide object, but only to induce inexperienced capitalists to purchase shares and give the advantage of temporary rises in price to the first speculators. The House of Lords had adopted a different principle, and the consequence was, that bills were introduced
266
in that House which subsequently became abandoned, after much loss and inconvenience to parties who were misled by the projectors. To him it appeared impossible that any parties of character and substance could find any difficulty in obtaining a deposit of so small an amount. But the hon. Gentleman said, that the effect of the restriction was lo arrest the progress of railroads in this country, and to send capital abroad to be invested in railway speculations in foreign countries. Now, he thought he found a complete answer to that statement, upon examining the notices of private bills, upon which he found in this Session already fifty-eight notices of plans for new railways. He thought therefore, there need be no apprehension, that parties who had projects calculated to be beneficial to themselves and the public would rind any difficulty in making the deposit required by the present regulation. And he should feel very sorry if the House should alter the determination to which it came after so much deliberation.
Mr. Warburtonwas so far from thinking the existing regulation requiring the deposit of ten per cent., at all excessive, he was convinced that in all bonâ fide schemes no difficulty could be found in conforming to it. Until that was enacted men of straw came before the public with ephemeral and good for nothing speculations, by which people were induced to invest their savings in projects that could never be attended with the least advantage to them or to the public. The hon. Gentleman read an extract from the Committee of the House, appointed in 1837, to the effect, that the only means of checking delusive schemes, was to require that all parties petitioning for a bill should be required to make a deposit. But that Committee had no intention to specify a particular amount of deposit, and he thought that the subsequent Committee very properly fixed the sum at its present amount. With respect to the hon. Member's statement that the effect of the regulation was to reduce the number of railway speculations, the hon. Gentleman had himself given the answer when he said that the state of the money market in the last three years had operated to the discouragement of those schemes. Yet, no less than sixty-eight bills had passed since the enactment of the present Standing

267
Order, and 55,000,000 l. of capital had been invested in carrying them into effect. He had had opportunities of inquiring into the merits of the case, and he was satisfied that the existing regulation was the best that could be devised.
Mr. Brothertonhad been a member of the Committee of which his hon. Friend, the Member for Bridport, was the chairman; and, knowing the number of bubble schemes which were brought forward, he thought the present rule ought not to be relaxed. He wished to state a fact which he thought of considerable importance. The Liverpool and Manchester Railway Company, a year or two ago, obtained an Act for a railway to pass through the borough which he had the honour to represent, and they had contrived to introduce a clause leaving it optional to them whether they should complete the railway or not. The consequences were, that parties who had received notice that the railway would pass through their property were completely tied up from disposing of their land in any way—and the company had the sole power of determining whether the property should be required at any time for the purpose of the railways. He did think that Parliament should take every precaution for having their works vigilantly and vigorously carried into effect.
Mr. O'Connellwished to say a few words on the subject. It seemed to him that the regulation, as it stood at present, was, like many others, highly favourable to the rich, and to great capitalists, and that it went to increase the influence of those who were already possessed of enormous wealth, while it acted injuriously as regarded the smaller capitalist. It had that effect in the country from which he came, where there was but little capital. They felt severely in that country the pressure of the present regulation, and he therefore believed it to be his duty to protest against it. All railways were now a monopoly, and he thought it would be better, in that instance, to relax the rule, as proposed by the hon. Member.
Viscount Howicksaid, that the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down, instead of considering the regulation as it now existed as favourable to large capitalists, ought in his opinion to consider it as likely to operate in an exactly opposite way. Before the regulation had been introduced a great injustice was frequently done to parties having
268
small properties in counties through which it was proposed railways should pass. Schemes for the commencement of railways were brought forward, and which, as they were never carried into effect had no other result than to put resident landlords to the expense of needless litigation. He thought it was the interest of small proprietors, that a check should be put upon those who entered into deceptive schemes, by insisting rigidly on the rule as it now existed. He was persuaded that all Gentlemen connected with landed properly would do well to pause before they countenanced the resolution of the hon. Member. He was not hostile to that particular line of railway, in favour of which it was supposed the hon. Member had made his motion. He was so far from that that he could assure the hon. Member, that no one could be more anxious than he was to see a line of railway carried through that county which he himself had the honour to represent. But he felt that whenever a good line could be made out, the regulation they were now discussing would not offer the slightest difficulty in the way of its being carried into effect. On those grounds he would undoubtedly give his opposition to the motion of the hon. Member.
The Attorney-Generalthought, that they ought to modify the order as it now existed. He did not think that a large percentage should be required before a bill was brought into Parliament. That was the hardship of which he complained, and of which those who were favourable to the line of railway, referred to by the noble Lord, must bitterly complain. The modification which he wished for, was, that they should require a deposit of ten per cent., not before the bill was introduced into the House, but before the works were begun. That was the principle which had been acted on in the case of the Edinburgh and Glasgow railway, and which had been attended with complete success. It would, he thought, be quite sufficient that they should have a certificate from a public functionary before a spade was put in the ground. In that case they would be sure to have a bona fide undertaking that would sufficiently protect the landed interest, and which would not at the same time discourage those useful works.
Mr. Freshfieldcould not see the benefit of changing the present law. If the

269
undertakings were of a bona fide and reasonable character, there was no fear but capital would be employed on them in this country rather than abroad. The Attorney-general said that a ten per centage paid before a spade was put in the ground would offer sufficient protection to the public. He was persuaded, on the contrary, that such regulation would tend to encourage improper speculation, to dealing in shares, to the injury of the public.
Mr. Hodgson Hinde,in reply said, that almost all who had addressed the House were against rescinding the Standing Order. The noble Lord had said, that he considered the standing order as beneficial to the landed interest. Now, he considered, that if there was one standing order more injurious lo the landed interest than another, it was this very order requiring a deposit of ten per cent., for many railroad schemes, after having been brought lo a certain degree of maturity, were not brought under the consideration of Parliament, on account of the inability of the parties to make the deposit required; but these schemes were not on that account abandoned; they were merely postponed to another Session, and thus these schemes were kept hanging over the heads of the land-owners on the proposed line from year to year, in consequence of this standing order, without the decision of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that there were fifty-eight notices for railway bills this Session; now it was not by the number of notices given that they could judge of the effects of the standing order, but by the number of bills brought in, and he would venture to assert, that not more than half a dozen bills would be brought in of all the fifty-eight notices. He felt the sense of the House was against him, but he was desirous of recording his vote, because at another time, when the number of railway labourers thrown out of employment would be considerable, he thought the House would be glad to rescind this Order.
The House divided on the question, "That the words one-tenth" stand part of the said Standing Order: Ayes 144; Noes 15:—Majority 129.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Baines, E.

Ainsworth, P.

Baldwin, C. B.

Arbuthnott, H. H.

Baring, H. B.

Bailey, J. jun.

Basset, J.

270

Bentinck, Lord G.

Hogg, J. W.

Bewes, T.

Hope, hon. C.

Blair, J.

Horsman, E.

Blake, W. J.

Howick, Visct.

Bolling, W.

Hughes, W. B.

Botfield, B.

Hurt, F.

Bradshaw, J.

Hutt, W.

Bridgeman, H.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Broadley, H.

Irton, S.

Brocklehurst, J.

Jackson, Mr. Serjeant

Brodie, W. B.

James, W.

Brotherton, J.

Kelly, F.

Brownrigg, S.

Knatchbull, right hon. Sir E.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Buck, L. W.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Litton, E.

Bulwer, Sir L.

Loch, J.

Busfeild, W.

Lockhart, A. M.

Canning, rt. hn. Sir S.

Lowther, J. H.

Carew, hon. R. S.

Lucas, E.

Chichester, Sir B.

Lushington, C.

Childers, J. W.

Lushington, rt. hn. S.

Chute, W. L. W.

Lygon, hon. General

Clements, Visct.

Mackenzie, T.

Clerk, Sir G.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Clive, E. B.

Maclean, D.

Clive, hon. R. H.

M'Taggart, J.

Cochrane, Sir T. J.

Mahon, Viscount

Colquhoun, J. C.

Maule, hon. F.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Meynell, Captain

Corbally, M. E.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Crawford, W.

Muntz, G. F.

Darby, G.

Oswald, J.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hon. C. T.

Pakington, J. S.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Divett, K.

Patten, J. W.

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Pattison, J.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Perceval, Colonel

Duncombe, T.

Philips, M.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Philpotts, J.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Plumptre, J. P.

Easthope, J.

Powell, Col.

Egerton, W. T.

Praed, W. T.

Ellice, Capt. A.

Pringle, A.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Pryme, G.

Estcourt, T.

Rawdon, Col. J. D.

Ewart, W.

Richards, R.

Fitzalan, Lord

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Fort, J.

Russell, Lord J.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Salwey, Colonel

French, Fitzstephen

Sanford, E. A.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Seymour, Lord

Gladstone, W. E.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Gladstone, J. N.

Shirley, E. J.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Smith, R. V.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Somerset, Lord G.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Stanley, Lord

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Grant, Sir A. C.

Stuart, W. V.

Greene, T.

Strickland, Sir G.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Strutt, E.

Hale, R. B.

Style, Sir C.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Harland, W. C.

Walker, R.

Hill, Lord A, M. C.

Wallace, R.

Hill, Sir R.

White, A.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

White, H.

271

White, S.

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

TELLERS.

Wood, B.

Freshfield, J. W.

Wrightson, W. B.

Warburton, H.

List of the NOES.

Bagge, W.

Ingham, R.

Barnard, E. G.

O'Connell, Dan.

Campbell, Sir J.

Power, J.

Dennistoun, J.

Redington, T. N.

Ellice, E.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Euston, Earl of

Stock, Dr

Feilden, W.

TELLERS.

Ferguson, Colonel

Hinde, H.

Hodgson, R.

Jervis, J.

IDOLATRY IN INDIA.
Sir R. H. Inglissaid, that pursuant to the notice he had given, he wished to put a few questions to his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Control relating to the part alleged to have been taken in certain idolatrous ceremonies, by some of the East-India Company's servants in India. The House was aware that very great anxiety existed in this country, as well as in India, on the connexion of the company with some of the idolatrous ceremonies of the natives. His right hon. Friend had, on a former occasion, when he had put a question to him on this subject, quoted an extract of a despatch from Lord Auckland, the governor, in which it was stated, that the system under the despatch sent out in 1838 was working steadily and safely. Now his first question to his right hon. Friend was, whether he would have any objection to lay before the House a copy of the despatch of which he had read a part? His right hon. Friend had stated, that that document was half-public and half-private, but, such as it was, would he produce it among the other documents to be laid before the House? His next question was whether from any documents, public, or private, he could state to the House that the system under the despatch of 1838 worked well, and whether any substantial relief had been given from the grievances under which any of her Majesty's subjects had laboured under the system which the despatch of 1838 was intended to correct? His next question was, whether any one single measure of the directors or of the General Government of India had been adopted to carry out, as far as the Madras Presidency was concerned, the despatch of 1838, which despatch was itself a carrying out of the despatch sent out by the directors in 1833?—His next question was, whether
272
his right hon. Friend felt himself at liberty to slate to the House that any one grievance under which the Christian soldiers, or the civil servants of the company had laboured with respect to the attendance of the idolatrous ceremonies of the natives had been removed, particularly as related to the Presidency of Madras; and if his right hon. Friend could not give the House any satisfactory statement on that head, as he believed he could not, whether he could give a promise that such measures should be adopted between this and next Session, as should enable him to state by that time that the grievances complained of had been redressed?
Sir J. C. Hobhousebegged, in reply to the questions of his hon. Friend, to say, in the first place, that he had no objection to the production of the extract from the letter of Lord Auckland, which he had read on the 27th of July last. It was true, that that letter was partly private and partly public; but still he had no objection to its production. Before he replied to the other questions put by his hon. Friend he wished to state, that the papers which had been moved for on this subject towards the end of the last Session, and which would give his hon. Friend much more information respecting it than he now seemed to possess, had not been laid on the Table of the House, before the close of the Session. He would take an opportunity, before the House rose that evening, lo move for the production forthwith of the papers moved for last Session, to which would be added other documents which, he trusted, the House and his hon. Friend would find satisfactory. As to the question whether he could take upon himself to say, that anything had been done as to the settlement of this unfortunate question, for so he would call it, he had the pleasure of being able to say, that he considered what had been done in all the presidencies with one exception, to put an end to all connexion between the company's civil or military servants and any of the religious ceremonies of the natives, had been most satisfactory. In Bengal, the pilgrim tax had been abolished at Allahabad, Gya, and Juggernaut, and some of the documents which he should move for would show that in the Presidency of Bombay the civil officers of the company had been removed from any attendance at or connexion with the temples, and with the exception of the Presidency of Madras, there

273
was nothing which could be complained of in carrying out the dispatch of 1838. Since the subject was last mentioned he had seen the instructions sent from the General Government of India lo the Presidency of Madras with respect to carrying out the instructions contained in the directors' despatch of 1838, and from those he had hopes that, the next accounts from Madras would be also satisfactory on that head, for it would appear, that, according to the steps taken by the General Government, Madras would not be found behind hand in carrying out the intentions of the directors in their despatch of 1838. At the same time he felt it due to his noble Friend (Lord Elphinstone) the Governor of Madras, to state his firm belief that the not carrying out the dispatch arose from a misunderstanding of the instructions of the General Government or of the Government at ' home, but the Government had since given instructions on the matter so distinct that there could be no ground for any further mistake with respect to it. He would now say a word as to the attendance of any of the company's civil or military servants at any part of the worship of the Hindoos, or of any of the religious ceremonies of the Mahomedans. On this subject be would refer his hon. Friend to the despatch of 1838, which was a carrying out of that of 1833, in which it was laid down that none of the company's Christian servants, civil or military, should be compelled to attend at any of the Hindoo festivals not consonant with the principles of the Christian religion; nor should any Hindoo troops be required to attend at the religious ceremonies of the Mahomedans or Mahomedans at those of the Hindoos. So that there was to be no compulsory attendance at any religious ceremony in any case, by which pain could be given to the most delicate conscience. Full instructions to this effect had been sent to the Governments of each presidency. His hon. Friend had asked whether those instructions had been acted upon in every case? He could not answer that question, but this he could state, that be had not heard of any violation of that order, and of this he was sure, that if the Court of Directors or the Board of Control were informed of any such violation, they would take such immediate steps as would prevent its recurrence. But let it be understood that there was a great difference between having the company's troops
274
drawn up as a mark of respect to a native prince and the attendance of those troops at the Hindoo temples, or accompanying the procession with their bands. He had heard from a private source, from a private letter, that troops had attended a Hindoo procession under pretence of doing honour to a native prince, but he had heard no official complaint on the subject, or had he heard of any compulsory attendance of any troops in the company's service at any of the religious ceremonies of the natives. He had heard of some disturbance which took place between a native cavalry and an infantry regiment at Madras, but had not heard the cause. He would, however, make inquiries on the subject. In conclusion, he would repeat, that if any violation of the directions of the General Government or of the Home Government should become known, immediate steps would be taken to prevent a recurrence of the offence; and be would lay any papers that related to the subject on the table of the House.
Subject dropped.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS—IRELAND— THE FRANCHISE.
Viscount Morpeth,in rising to move for leave to introduce the bill of which he had given notice, said:—The importance of the question to which the motion I am about to submit refers, and the special interest attached to it as the pivot on which the political struggles of parties have turned, and the fact of it bringing me into something like rivalry with my noble Friend, the Member for North Lancashire, as regards the other Irish Registration Bill, in the way in which rivalry between us only can exist—namely, as to the quality of the measures, certainly not as to the qualifications of their proposers—these circumstances compel me to request that the House will, upon this occasion, honour me both with their attention and indulgence. Whenever this subject has been before us on previous occasions, it has been, as was correctly stated by my noble Friend opposite on a preceding evening, acknowledged, almost on all hands, that there are abuses and imperfections attached to the present system and practice of Registration in Ireland, which both admit of and call for the application of a remedy. As to the precise extent of these abuses, and the comparative degree in which fraud is practised either in this country or Scotland,

275
there may be, and I believe has been, ground for controversy; still, it is generally admitted that there are means and facilities for fraud connected with the present system of Registration in Ireland, and that occasional instances of fraud have taken place, is scarcely denied by any one who has addressed himself to the subject. The points which have been more particularly adverted to in discussion are the system of certificates, and the facilities afforded thereby for the fraudulent personation of either dead or absent parties, and the retention of persons on the register after the qualification, by means of which they had originally been placed, had ceased to exist, without any opportunity for subsequent correction or revision during the whole period for which the register remained in force, which, under the Irish Reform Law, is eight years. These certainly are practices which no man can stand up to defend—which every one who has addressed himself to the subject has, at least, professed himself anxious to correct. It therefore follows, that in any measure which the Government may bring forward, they will be anxious to correct such palpable and obvious abuses as those to which I have referred. The unequal and one-sided system of appeal which is confined to an appeal in favour of the franchise being limited to the complainant, and not granted to the objector, has also formed the subject of complaint. I will first apply myself to appeals with respect to matters of fact, which, under the Irish Reform Act, must of necessity be fully sifted and decided before a tribunal duly and specially constituted for that purpose. I think that where the facts of the case have been gone into and substantiated by the evidence which the Irish Reform Act, and that alone, requires at the time of registration, by the production of title deeds and other documents, and by viva voce evidence, none of which it might be easy, or, indeed, possible to collect and bring again together at another time, at another place, and before another tribunal, it is not consonant with the general objects involved in the Reform Act, nor with the easy acquisition of a great public right to grant any power of appeal arising out of a matter of fact. I think, however, it is fair and proper to give the power of appeal both against and in favour of the franchise—to the objector as well as the claimant on any point of law, and in all matters involving
276
the construction of the Act of Parliament and the legal merits of the case, provided always—and it is an important proviso, and one on which I have uniformly insisted when I addressed myself to this part of the subject—that, in the first place, the franchise be placed on a clear, distinct, and ascertained basis, and not on one, as the present, avowedly is of ambiguous and doubtful interpretation. I will not leave the entire Irish people to a second ordeal before an annual professional tribunal where the points will be adjudicated according to the strict technical interpretations of law. I have thus far indicated the length to which I am prepared to go in common with the noble Lord opposite, and I am sure it cannot be otherwise than pleasing to me to travel in his company as long as I am able. Sir, we are prepared, as he is, utterly to abolish the use of certificates, and to make the register, when it shall have been framed under due precautions, the test of the right of voting at the time of election. We are prepared to allow a periodical revision, and an appeal both ways—to the objector as well as the claimant—if Parliament shall have first consented to place the franchise on a clear and intelligible footing. With regard to the time of this periodical revision, I am content to take the same period as that which has been selected by my noble Friend, namely, that it shall occur once in every year. But while I limit the revision to take place at the interval of one year, I cannot consent to give up the point for which I combatted last year, though, I admit, without success, which is to deprive the Irish voter of that facility and advantage which he now enjoys, of preferring his claim to be registered by the assistant barrister every quarter at the ordinary quarter sessions. This is a privilege and an advantage he has long enjoyed, which has incorporated itself with the habits and customs of his life, and I cannot consent to take away from him that of which he has been so long in possession. When the voter is once placed on the register, I propose he shall be liable to have his title to vote annually called into question at the periodical revision. At the same time, if nothing has occurred which in any manner alters the original qualification in virtue of which he was placed upon the register—if nothing has taken place to disturb that—if every thing remains the same, I am content with the strict and searching investigation which is prescribed by the Reform Act. I do not

277
wish to make his vote subject to any further disturbance. I cannot, then, assent to that part of the scheme of the noble Lord which makes the voter, after his claim has been regularly registered, liable to have that claim called in question every year, which would leave that vote which had been judged good and valid in one year, liable to be called in question the next, and so on to all "recorded time." And it should be borne in mind that this is no improbable or hypothetical case that I am stating. It is one that roust be acknowledged to be most likely to occur in Ireland. Suppose there is an assistant barrister who takes the narrower and more limited view of the franchise: he rejects a claim, and the claimant appeals to the judge who takes the more enlarged and liberal view of the franchise. The judge places the man upon the register; but the same claimant is liable to be called again before the assistant barrister, who makes it a point of duty to exclude him. So likewise with respect to the second appeal of the noble Lord opposite. A man claims before an assistant barrister who takes the enlarged view of the franchise, and his claim is admitted. An appeal is made to the judge whose view of the franchise is limited, and he discards the name. And thus it might happen every year that a claim, after having been placed upon the register by an assistant barrister of more liberal views, might be liable to be thrust out of it by a judge of assize. The noble Lord intimated on Tuesday in the course of his speech that he was willing to lop off some of the toppings of that hydra-headed schedule appended to his bill, so far as regarded the different heading of the claims. I therefore think we shall not quarrel upon this part of the subject. For my own part, I am contented with what the Reform Bill specifics as necessary to be stated by the voter. With respect to the court of appeal, I propose to retain the same provisions which were introduced into the bill brought into this House by my right hon. and learned friend the Attorney-general for Ireland in the course of last Session, and which were also the same as those intended to be applied to England by my noble Friend the Secretary for the colonies. I assent to the weight of those arguments which make against the project of the judges of the land being constituted into a new court of appeal; for I think that such an office must have a tendency to contaminate their most important and solemn functions. Far be it
278
from me, indeed, to say that there would be the actual existence, but it is certain there might be the imputation of an existence of political and party feeling in their decisions, and thus might arise a tendency to lower their high office and station in the public estimation. I propose, therefore, instead of the plan introduced by the noble Lord in his bill, that the new court of appeal shall consist of three barristers, of certain standing in their profession, to be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons. Having mentioned the court of appeal, I am brought, by a natural transition, to speak on the question of the franchise. The noble Lord, in his speech the other night, seemed to intimate that I was, or should be, guilty of some inconsistency in mixing up the question of the franchise with the other parts of the registration code when called upon to amend it. Sir, so far from admitting this, I am sure it will be acknowledged that I have always stated in this House that it would be expedient at any time, and in any point of view, and absolutely essential before we constituted a second court of appeal to put the franchise on a distinct and ascertained basis. I do not think that any honourable Member who has attended to the course and current of events relating to this question—who has marked what has taken place in Ireland—can doubt the propriety and expediency of combining these subjects together. What is the actual state of things? We find, with respect to the qualification for the right to vote—with respect to the effect of the very words which form the elective franchise of the whole people of Ireland, first, that the opinion of the judges is divided; next, that the opinion of the assistant-barristers is divided. Upon leaving the judgment seat and coming within these walls we find that the opinion of the two great political parties in this House is divided. Nay, further, if we are to give credit to the speeches that have been quoted on both sides—to the speech of the Duke of Richmond—to the speech of the Marquess of Lansdowne, quoted against Lord Melbourne—it would seem that the opinions of the framers themselves of the Reform Bill is divided upon this important question. We find, then, that the judges and the barristers; the framers of the law and its ministers; in a word, that all sides and all parties are equally divided, equally confused, and equally perplexed. All this may be amusement to exercise the ingenuity and talents of the learned func-

279
tionaries of the law, but it is fur from being a source of amusement to the voter. Whatever interpretation you assign to the law; whether you take that definition which for brevity I will call the solvent tenancy; or whether you take the beneficial interest as the scope and meaning of the law, each almost alike involves the temptation to, and endless opportunities for, controversy. Some indeed, have said, that the door is opened for perjury and fraud, but without going so far, I will say that an endless field is afforded for confliction of opinion and confliction of testimony. Matters being so, I appeal to all those hon. Members who take a calm, dispassionate view of the question, whether it be or not expedient to endeavour, at least, to put an end to so unseemly a state of things. It appears to me that it matters but little whether the object be effected by one or two bills, but it appears clear that in a measure professing to remedy the evils of the existing state of registration, to leave this great evil untouched would be effecting little or nothing in the way of sound and statesmanlike legislation. If doubt and uncertainty are characteristic of the present state of the franchise, it must follow that the best remedy is to place it upon such a basis as to leave no room for doubt. It would further be advisable that we should find some basis distinct and independent, a ground disconnected with the franchise itself, and that the basis should be one which furnished a countervailing check against the introduction and operation of such matter as has been hitherto complained of. Sir, we think we find such a basis, comprising the different qualities and recommendations I have described in the valuation for the poor-rate, as prescribed in the recent Poor-law Act for Ireland. This shows on the face of it a distinct and definite sum; it was assessed for a purpose altogether distinct from the franchise, and it would appear to be operative as an effectual countervailing check in preventing men from endeavouring to be put improperly upon the register. The desire, far more prevalent in human nature than a desire to get on the register, the desire to spare himself from extra burden, would prevent a man from trying to be assessed to the Poor-rate for more than his property is worth. I am glad that this view of the case, founded, as I think it is, on reason, has been strikingly and forcibly confirmed by those whose authority I would rather be supported by than any other on this
280
subject, because they are men who take moderate views of the questions of the day, and belong to both sides of politics. The hon. Member for Mallow, Sir D. Norreys, expressed himself as follows: on the qualification of voters, May 28, 1840:—
"I rise, Sir, for the purpose of expressing my regret that although the hon. and learned Gentleman has introduced a measure to remove doubts connected with the franchise in Ireland, he will still be leaving that franchise open to dispute, and to be decided by opinion, instead of upon fact. I repeat that I deeply regret that the hon. and learned Gentleman, who has paid greater attention to the business and interests of Ireland than any Solicitor-general I have ever yet seen, has not grappled with this difficulty, and at once attempted effectually to remove it; and I certainly think it is a subject well worthy the attention of the Government, now that Ireland has been regularly valued with reference to the rating under the Poor-law, to consider whether a plan to effect this object might not be formed, taking some standard of rating under the Poor-law upon which a man might claim the exercise of the franchise. According to the bill now brought forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman, proof of value will still be given on oath, and still be met by proof on oath of the contrary. Landlords will still be arrayed against their tenantry, and the tenantry against their landlords, differences which this subject, more than any other, tends to promote. Why not, then, now that the valuation under the Poor-law Act has been taken, adopt some standard of qualification for the franchise, that shall establish it on fact, and render it incapable of being questioned or contradicted? I can only say that I hope some such plan as this may be adopted: and I should be glad to see such a proposition originate with the hon. and learned Gentleman, convinced, as I am, that such a measure would conduce to the welfare of Ireland, by conciliating both landlords and tenants, and rendering votes secure, instead of uncertain and open to every sort of objection, as under the present most vexatious system."
I will also read to the House an extract from the speech of the hon. Member for Monaghan, Mr. Lucas.
"I agree with the hon. Baronet who has just sat down, that the measure now proposed will not remove the evils complained of. I think it will, on the contrary, have the effect of fixing and rendering permanent the evils which at present exist. With respect to the observations that the hon. and learned Gentleman has addressed to the House, as to the mode of ascertaining the franchise in Ireland. I shall feel myself guilty of a dereliction of my duty, if I did not express my concurrence in what has just fallen from the hon. Baronet the Member for Mallow. For my own part, I cannot refrain from saying, that I think a

281
higher franchise for Parliamentary electors would be preferable to a low one; but putting that party consideration out of view, and looking only to the interests of the country at large, I do think that the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposed mode of ascertaining the franchise is one which he will himself, hereafter, have cause to regret; and will remove none (on the contrary, will produce many more) of the evils we have now to complain of."
I omit a few sentences here which do not seem to bear so much upon the point. The hon. Member continues:—
"It would therefore be decidedly better to take some other standard of the value of property which shall confer the elective franchise. The ordnance, or Poor-law valuation, as suggested by the hon. Member for Mallow, might be adopted for this purpose; and even valuations by competent surveyors; though these, I admit, are frequently liable to the objections of uncertainty, and therefore inferior to the other tests, would be preferable to the indefinite criterion now proposed. I must say, therefore, that I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will do better to adopt one of those tests of value; and at all events, I will venture to predict that, when this question shall come before the House, and the principle of this bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman shall have to be determined upon, the good sense of the English Gentlemen in this House will prevent such a measure as the one now proposed, from passing into a law."
Sir, I will not quote the remarks which I offered on that occasion, although I confess I am under a strong temptation to do so, if only for the purpose of showing how little I am liable to the charge of inconsistency in attempting to connect the valuation of the Poor-law with the elective franchise. I then distinctly recorded the opinion how desirable I thought such a connection would he. I presume my noble Friend, in making that charge against me, wished to punish me for the single instance in which I supported him with a vote. I now pass on, Sir, to matter which is far more worthy the attention of this House than anything I may have advanced. I mean. Sir, in a speech made, not upon the question of registration, nor upon the Poor-law, but bearing precisely upon the point we have under discussion—a speech made upon the question of Irish municipal corporations on the 29th of May, 1838, by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, whose absence upon this occasion I much regret. The observations then made by the right hon. Gentleman were distinctly, and I think most strikingly con-
282
clusive upon the point I am endeavouring to urge. Those observations were as follow:—
"I will not consent to any franchise which may produce the uncertainty which has arisen under the act for the constitution of the elective franchise for Members of Parliament. I will not consent to increase the necessity for appointing a committee of inquiry to ascertain how far the carding out of this bill depends on fictitious votes. I will leave it to the committee, however, and I will say, that it is incumbent on Parliament to define what the franchise shall be. I find that the present test is unsatisfactory, and I would depend on no test which involves the mere principle of valuation. I think that that must be a bad principle which holds out the temptation to lake false oaths. That is entirely unsatisfactory; and I must say, that I expect the concurrence of the greater proportion of this House, in the opinion, that whatever franchise is granted, ought to be a bona fide one. We ought to know what is the franchise intended to be given; and it is necessary to adopt such an one as that no temptation shall be held out to commit fraud in respect of it, as well for the sake of the morality as of the prosperity of the people; and I must repeat, that such a franchise must be determined upon as will not even afford the excuse for fraud. For my own part, I conceive, that by far the most effectual franchise is that, which in itself will act as a check upon the constituents, and that which is adopted under the Poor-law is the best which could be determined upon; because the House must agree that persons who are included in the franchise under that law, are prevented from demanding an entail of it, to which they are not entitled, by their power of voting being proportionate only to their rental; and persons who are rated at a rental larger than they actually pay, are at all times desirous of getting their rates lowered, in preference to enjoying any extended right of voting. In that system, then, there is a constant check upon the voters; and, although it is possible that it could not be applied strictly according to the same rule, in this case, yet a corresponding principle might be acted upon."
This extract strikingly confirms the view I have taken, that it would be most desirable to have the criterion of an ascertained amount, and one which supplies a check against attempts to be improperly placed on the register. Sir, I have thus attempted to defend the course pursued by her Majesty's Ministers, on the ground both of reason and authority. But having got thus far, and asking the House to assent to the principle of fixing the franchise on the valuation under the Poor-law, I am led to what is by no means the least difficult part of my undertaking; namely, to

283
state in what mode it shall be applied to the franchise, and at what amount of rating the franchise shall be fixed. I can hardly hope that what I have to propose will be equally acceptable to all parties in this House. I can only hope that a brief and clear statement, such as I can place before this House, will induce the House to believe that the course I am proposing is founded on honest motives, and upon reasonable grounds. Whenever the notion of the Poor-law valuation being applied to the franchise has been broached in this House, it has been apprehended by those who are friendly to a liberal interpretation of the franchise, that it would have the effect of cutting it down. It has been supposed, with any deduction from the gross value, and with the desire that would be inherent in the mind of every person liable to be rated, to have his amount of contribution reduced to the lowest possible sum, that almost any amount of value connected with the Poor-law, would have the practical effect of raising the standard of the elective franchise higher than is required by the Reform Act now in force. When I have before expressed in this House, as I have already intimated, my own opinion that it would be expedient to connect the standard of the elective franchise with the valuation to the rates under the Poor-law, as the most satisfactory and complete assessment of the kind with which we are furnished, I have had at the same time to explain that, in previous years, we were not furnished with sufficient information as to the working and result of the Poor-law, and that, consequently, it would be premature to proceed to final legislation on such a measure. I fear that, even at this day, we are not furnished with as much information as could be wished on a point of so much importance, but such as we could gain we thought it our duty to acquire and collect, and digest as we best could, so far as regarded the leading results. After the close of the last Session, my right hon. and learned Friend near me put himself in communication with the Poor-law commissioners for Ireland, in order to obtain information from them of such a nature as would be most calculated to throw light upon the subject, and also with regard to the working and results of the whole system as applied to different parts of the country, in all the varieties of position. My right hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-General for Ireland, then selected two gentlemen of his
284
own profession, upon whose character and intelligence he could place the fullest reliance, and they were directed to repair to such unions as were pointed out, as containing materials for the fullest and best information, and there upon the spot diligently to inquire into the nature of the valuations, the mode in which they were drawn up, and, where possible, to compare them with the list of registered electors under the Reform Act. In pursuance of these instructions, those Gentlemen visited the following unions;—Balrothery,County Dublin; Longford, Longford; Lurgan, Armagh, Down, and Antrim; Belfast, Down, and Antrim; Parsonstown, King's County; Clonmel, Tipperary; Carrick, Tipperary, Waterford, and Kilkenny; Scariff, Clare; Fermoy, Cork; and Bandon, Cork. It certainly is to be wished that the report was more comprehensive, but from the incomplete state in which these Gentlemen found many of the valuations, it was impossible it could be so, However, the different circumstances which they observed in the various districts they visited, give us reason to think that the results they have obtained afford a fair sample of what may be obtained over the whole surface of Ireland. The report states:—
"We inspected the rate-books and the minute-books of the boards of guardians, and we extracted the various resolutions passed in each union with reference to the valuation. The proceedings with reference to valuation bear some traces of uniformity in all the unions. The general course followed was, to appoint a committee of three or more guardians, to inquire into existing surveys and valuations, and to report whether they were available or sufficient for the purposes of the poor-rate. The committee so appointed in all the unions that we visited, came finally to the resolution that the existing surveys and valuations were insufficient, and that new valuations were necessary. In some unions the number of valuations was two, in others three; in some only one. We found in the unions which we visited that the valuators had generally traversed each district of the union; ascertained, as well as circumstances enabled them, the boundaries of each farm; set an acreable value on the land comprised in it, generally added some small sum for the house, and finally entered in the rate book, ' net annual value ' of the whole tenement, according to the interpretation which, under the influence of the Poor-law commissioners, the guardians and inhabitants of the union, and their own opinion, attributed to that phrase. We found an opinion prevailing in every union which we visited that the valuation under the poor-law would

285
probably influence landlords, and perhaps be adopted by some of them in determining the amount of rent at which they would in future let the farms on their estates. An opinion is also generally prevalent that the valuation will probably at some future time be made the basis of other public assessments. By the operation of the 74th section of the act, the lower the test of value adopted in the union, the less the proportion of the rate which is to be paid by the tenantry, and the greater that of the landlords. A desire exists in every union, that the relative value of the tenements within it should be carefully ascertained, so that each locality of the union and each tenement may bear their fair proportion of the common burden. But, probably from the causes already referred to, the inhabitants generally wish the valuators to adopt a low scale of value. In this desire the majority of the board of guardians in every union we have visited, concurred. And the landlords in general do not appear to be induced, even by the operation of the 47th section, to take any active steps for the purpose of having a high value set upon their estates in the rate-book of the union; and it may be questioned whether any of the landlords feel that they would have a lasting interest in doing so. The impulse towards a low valuation is nearly universal. We made minute inquiries in each union with a view to ascertain what test of value had in fact been adopted. The test of value enjoined by the Poor Relief Act is the rent at which, one year with another, the tenement in its actual state might be reasonably expected to let from year to year, the probable annual average costs of the repairs, insurance, and other expences, if any, necessary to maintain it in its actual stale, and all rates, taxes, and public charges, except tithe, being paid by the tenant. In all the unions, however various the forms of language adopted by the valuators in their evidence, we found that the test of value which had been in fact adopted in valuing a tenement was the rent at which a good landlord ought, in their opinion, to let it. And in applying this test the valuators have almost universally reduced their valuations below the rents even of the most indulgent landlords in Ireland."
Mr. O'Connellinquired the names of the gentlemen from whose report the noble Lord was quoting?
Viscount Morpeth: Mr. Hague and Mr. Vesey. The noble Lord then proceeded to read an extract from that part of the report relating to the rural districts of Belfast, as follows:—
"In our reports from the rural districts of Belfast, it will be found that wherever the valuation of a tenement coincided with the rent actually paid, the tenant could, in fact, if he were quitting the farm, sell his interest or his good-will, at from 10 l. to 15 l. an acre. In
286
nine out of the eleven rural divisions of the union the actual rents exceeded the valuation in proportions varying from 5 to 30 per cent. ' In the division of Castlereagh, it appears that the rent and the valuation are nearly equal. In this division, therefore, the valuators were of opinion that the rents were fair as between landlord and tenant. It is in this division, that the farm of John Orr, the valuator, is situate. Lord Downshire is the landlord.' 'He states that in High-street the valuation is sometimes 10 per cent, under the rate actually paid. He has no doubt that those rents (viz., the rents in High-street) are paid."
I may also observe that in Clonmel, union, the valuators in all cases inquired into the rents, and found them higher than the value which they set upon the tenements. The following are the words of the report; relating to that district:—
"The standard of value adopted by them is nearly the same as that adopted by the other valuators whom I had previously examined. They formed in their own minds a scale of living, and valued the land at what a solvent tenant could afford to pay for the land, after having out of the produce of it maintained himself and family according to the scale laid down. That scale was merely a sufficiency of bread and milk every day for himself and his family, and meat two or three times a week, and comfortable clothing for himself and family."
In our reports from Lurgan, it will be found that even farms, the tenants of which could get 15 l. or 20 l. an acre for their interest, the valuation was still below the rent. 'In making the valuation, he always preserved an interest of 10 l. an English acre to the tenant; of course he was to have his profit besides.' 'Took the 10 l. an English acre as the lowest which the tenant ought to have, under all circumstances.' 'On being asked what he had valued that land at, it appeared that he had valued it only at 26 s. an English acre, although in fact it brought 27 s or 27 s. 6d., and 20 l. an acre as a fine. He adds that he valued some land at 26 s. which was probably let at 27 s. 6d., that land would, if sold, bring more than 20 l. an acre; it would bring from 20 l. to 30 l., and thinks that the purchaser could make his money of the land, if he purchased it at that rate.' He added that he thought the land above referred to, which was let at 27 s. 6d., and which had been valued by him at 20 s. or 21 s., would bring from 42 s. to 45 s., if set up to be let to the highest bidder; 'and he thought it would bring that from a solvent tenant.' But he never took as a test what land would bring if set up to be let at the highest rate that a solvent tenant would pay. 'There is a valuation in the town of Lurgan, which was made under the Paving and Lighting Act, 9 Geo. 4th, c. 82, which was adopted there about ten years ago. The valuation of the union under the Poor-law, when compared

287
with the preceding valuation of the town of Lurgan, appears about one-third lower.'" "The valuator of Longford stated his valuation to be from one-quarter to one-fifth lower than the rent actually paid. The report from Fermoy union shows the rents actually paid to be sometimes double the valuations inscribed in the Poor-rate book. In Parsonstown, the valuation was from one-quarter to one-fifth lower than the rents. In Scariff, the disparity was still greater. 'That a valuation effected on this principle, must in general be lower than the rent, follows from the valuator having adopted a scale of living for the tenant, above the ordinary situation of the peasantry in this country. Accordingly, Mr. Sampson, in his evidence, states, that in almost all the instances (except on the estate of Colonel Wyndham) his valuation was lower than the rent. He mentions one farm which he valued at 26 s. per acre, while the rent paid for it is 35 s. per acre.'—Scariff Report. In Carrick, Bahothery, and Naas, the same fact was prominent. In every union the rents were above the valuation."
Framed as the valuations have been, if a rating at 10 l. in the poor-rate book, combined with the same tenure as is now required by the Reform Act, were made the test of the parliamentary franchise, such a measure would disfranchise a large proportion of those who are now in possession of the right to vote. We compared the rating of the registered electors in each union, in as many instances as the state of the valuations and the books enabled us to make the comparison.

No. of £10 elections whose rating could be ascertained.

No. of the preceding who appeared rated at sums under £10.

No. of ditto who appeared rated at sums under £5.

Balrothery

200

50

17

Lurgan

348

71

6

Parsonstown

220

79

17

Scariff

66

33

20

Longford

167

9

0

I know not whether, from these facts, the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) opposite may claim a triumph as exhibiting a proof that there are 10 l. voters upon the list who ought not to be placed there. Be that as it may, I have thought it right that the House should be in possession of the true and accurate state of the case. The facts and circumstances I have stated go to show that a rated net value of 10 l. would range very far indeed above either the solvent tenant test, or the occupier's profit test; and I think it is also clear that there are
288
instances, and not a few, in which even a rated net value of 5l. would, in fact, raise the standard for the elective franchise higher than is now, under circumstances without any suspicion or allegation of abuse, practically enforced under the Reform Act. I am aware that, if the test of rating by the poor-law valuation were applied to the elective franchise, then there would be in some instances, and to a certain extent, a counter-motive brought into operation for making a person wish to have himself rated higher. But I think that this would operate very feebly in comparison with that which I hold to be the more natural and inherent feeling in the human breast—a feeling which was so well and forcibly expressed in the speech of the right hon. baronet the Member for Tam-worth, to which I have already referred—a feeling which induces persons to seek to incur the smallest possible amount of pecuniary burden coming home to their own purses and pockets; and it will be remembered that the exercise of the elective franchise is an advantage and a privilege which can only be enjoyed occasionally, and at considerable intervals; whilst the pressure of the poor-law-rate upon the purse and pocket of the persons assessed to it is annual and permanent. This, I apprehend, would operate as a great drawback to the desire that might otherwise exist to be rated above the real value for the sake of acquiring the right to vote. When we are called upon to make a large alteration, and a fresh settlement of the elective franchise in Ireland, it can hardly be expected that we should propose to raise the standard. This, I think, must at once be conceded by those who have given any attention whatever to the statements often made in this House, and which have never been impugned, as, indeed, it is impossible they should be, seeing that they have been drawn from parliamentary and authentic documents, of the absolute and the comparative numbers of those who enjoy the franchise in England and in Ireland. I do not wish to enter at any length upon this part of the subject. I am aware that it is the peculiar province of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin to discuss this view of the question. But still I think I should not do justice to the case I have undertaken—the matter being of great importance—if I did not very briefly, and in a very few instances, call the attention of the House to some of the most striking results and contrasts which are to be ob-

289
served between the number of parliamentary electors in Ireland and the other parts of the United Kingdom. The short statement I am about to make is not so conclusive of the point I am now seeking to establish as it would be if I had the most recent data; because, it is well known, that whilst the population of Ireland, within the last few years, has been largely and rapidly increasing, the number of the registered electors has been at least as largely and as sweepingly diminished. In a few days we shall have, in an authentic, and specific form, the number of electors actually upon (he register in Ireland at the present time. Till that authentic information is afforded all that I can do is to refer to the state of the constituency as it appeared from the register at the end of the year 1837, For the amount of the population I must refer to the return of the census of 1831. I will first call the attention of the House to the disparity in the number of electors in counties in England and Ireland, having a population of less than 100,000. It appears, then, that Monmouthshire, having, in 1831, a population of 85,000, has a constituency of 4,347; whilst Carlow, with a population at the same period of 72,391, had, according to the register of 1837, a constituency of only 1,723. Bedfordshire, with a population of 88,424, has a constituency of 4,434, whilst Lowth, with a population of 94,203, has a constituency of only 989. In the counties having a population of between 100,000 and 200,000, I find that Nottinghamshire, with a population of 103,974, has a constituency of 5,760; whilst Kildare, with a population of 108,424, has only a constituency of 1,445. Berkshire, with a population of 114,362, has a constituency of 5,755; whilst Longford, with a population of 112,000, has only a constituency of 1,770. In the counties having a population of between 200,000 and 300,000, I find that Cheshire, with a population of 260,462, has a constituency of 12,811; whilst Roscommon, with a population of 244,000, has only a constituency of 2,061. In the counties having a population of between 300,000 and 500,000, I find that Somerset, with a population of 327,000, has a constituency of 18,415; whilst Tyrone, with a population of 393,000 has only a constituency of 2,862; and Kent, with a population of 379,267, has a constituency of 15,725; whilst Mayo, with a population of 366,328,hasonly a constituency of 2,057. In addition to this, I may
290
refer to a fact, of which I have been credibly informed, to show how the constituencies of Ireland have since dwindled. It has been ascertained at the recent election for Mayo, that the number of electors now actually upon the register in that county does not exceed—I have received two or three accounts somewhat varying in amount—but I believe I may safely say that the actual number of the electors now upon the register does not exceed 600 or 700. These are the constituencies then which my noble Friend and other Members of the House strive to make us believe are so swelled and vamped up by spurious voters. I know not what object either my noble Friend or his supporters can have in seeking still further to contract their numbers. But this I know, that if the noble Lord and his Friends should succeed in bringing the contraction to the point they aim at, they will place the elective franchise in Ireland upon a footing not known or recognised in any other part of the realm. I will not detain the House by any further reference to documents than just to state the disparity in the number of electors in the two counties in the two kingdoms which have a population of upwards of 500,000. It seems that Yorkshire, the county with which I have the honour of being connected, has a population of 891,795, with a constituency of 47,952; whilst Cork, with a population of 660,554, has only a constituency of 4,888. Now, I think that in this state of circumstances—in this state of contrast between the relative positions of the two countries with respect to the number of those who enjoy the elective franchise, it must be admitted, that it would not be expedient to raise, it any degree, the standard of the franchise now subsisting in Ireland. I have already stated my reasons for believing that a very considerable nominal reduction of value—supposing you applied the test of the Poor-law valuation—would practically, and in effect, scarcely reduce the bonâ fide amount of value below what is now prescribed by the Reform Act. Of course it would be hopeless and chimerical in us to attempt to fix upon any precise sum which should act as the precise equivalent for the amount of value now prescribed by the Reform Act. But I think that the Poor-law Act, of which we avail ourselves for testing the reality of the value, will also afford a fair criterion for fixing its amount. The 72d section of the Poor-law Act says,
"Provided always, and be it enacted, that

291
in any case where the net annual value of any property shall not amount to 5l., if the occupier, and his immediate lessor, by any writing under their hands, shall require, and if the guardians of the union, wherein such property is situate shall by a minute of their board agree thereto, such immediate lessor shall be rated instead of such occupier; and such rebate from the rate may be made (not exceeding ten percent.) as the guardians shall by such minute allow; and such minute, until altered as hereinafter provided, shall bind such lessor, his heirs, and assigns, unless the commissioners shall at any time disallow the same or any part thereof, which shall thenceforth, so far as the same shall be disallowed, be of no effect; and such minute shall in no case be altered or rescinded by the guardians until twelve months after the making or last previous alteration thereof, not within six months after the consent of the occupier and lessor to be effected by the alteration shall have been given to such alteration; provided, nevertheless, that the occupier of any property, the immediate lessor of whom shall have been so charged, shall be entitled to be rated, on giving to the board of guardians of the union in which such property is situate, six month's notice, according to the form contained in the 3rd schedule to this Act annexed."
Now, I should propose to fix the standard for the elective franchise at the same amount of value at which the Poor-law Act fixes the liability of the occupier to payment as a matter of necessity at that amount which must be discharged by the occupier himself, and which cannot be shifted upon the owner, or upon any other person. That is to say, if you apply the test of the Poor-law valuation, I would take as the amount of rate requisite to give the elective franchise a rated net value of 5l. I do not disguise from myself, that in the course of time this may lead to some increase in the number of those who enjoy the elective franchise. do not think it would give rise to any sudden or violent increase. I think it would operate very slowly, and that it would only extend the franchise in a degree that would be perfectly proportionate with the increasing wealth and resources of the country. The standard for the franchise, whatever it be, must be fixed and definite, and it must be guarded, as far as it can be guarded, against the possibility of fraud or collision. I do not propose to effect any material alteration in the tenure under which the elective franchise is at present enjoyed. I know that there are some who are for fixing the franchise purely upon rating, without any reference to tenure, making the right of
292
voting entirely independent of the period of the interest which the occupier has in. his holding; and I know that one or two very plausible reasons might be stated in defence of that principle. But I think it would be a novel principle in a constitutional point of view. When I refer to the only antecedent that we have of it, to the 50 l. tenant-at-will clause, in the English Reform Act, I own that the practical working of that clause, as far as it has yet been developed, does not fill me with a wish to introduce a similar principle upon a more extended scale into the constituency of Ireland. It is true, that this innovation would make the occupier, as to his right of voting, entirely independent of his landlord. But, as we now frequently hear, whether justly or not, of the mode in which landlords deal with the tenants who do not coincide with them in political views, I think that opening to them the temptation of voting when they have no right of possession, would expose a far larger and more helpless class to a much more real dependence upon their landlord, and to much more severe risks of retaliation than it would be either prudent or proper to hazard. Much as I value the enlargement and extension of the franchise, I own I set a higher value upon the harmony and good-will of the several classes of society; and while I would discountenance, and do what in me lay, to suppress all unauthorised aggression, all tyrannical oppression of one class upon another, I would not originate any proposition which I think would have the effect of materially heightening and aggravating the dependence of the humbler upon the higher classes. I therefore would propose to annex to the qualification of a tenement rated at the net annual value of 5l., an interest in the holding of not less than fourteen years, being the lowest tenure at present retained in the Irish Reform Act, and within which two denominations of electors are comprised. I have now gone through the main provisions of the measure which I intend to propose to the consideration of the House. There are of course some subordinate plans and arrangements that must necessarily arise out of it; but these are its principal features;—comprising, annual revision upon all new matter; a right of appeal both ways upon all points of law, and the fixing of the franchise upon the Poor-law valuation; which last great alteration, if the House shall be contented to adopt it, will, as it seems to me, go very

293
far to dispense with the necessity for the other two, inasmuch as that, if you have a fixed and ascertained basis, liable to no fraud, leading to no dispute, susceptible of no contradiction, you will scarcely have room or opportunity for revision or appeal. This is the great superiority which I think the amended registration code, as I now propose it, has over that which is tendered to us by the noble Lord. As a system of registration the noble Lord's may appear the more complete in all its parts, especially if his wish be to enthral the voter in the meshes of a tangled and complicated machinery, out of which, in most instances, it may be impossible for him to escape. But with an unsettled and disputed franchise the noble Lord's plan would still carry with it the seeds of endless doubt and conflict, and would support the continued array of antagonist passions and antagonist parties in Ireland, until at length there would be no means by which these evils could be overcome, except by that process—for which I confess the bill seems likewise admirably calculated—the process of checking and smothering the elective franchise altogether. On the other hand, the measure which I now humbly tender to the preference of the House, puts fin end, almost at once, to every litigated or controverted point, appeals to a test that is at once distinctly ascertained and permanently recorded—supplies in itself a countervailing and counteracting check against the introduction of any abuse, and comes down to us recommended by the combined suffrages of the best authorities. That the measure I have now stated will meet with universal acquiescence, of course I cannot be sanguine enough to anticipate; but I cannot divest myself of the hope, that what I now propose, the more it shall be considered, the more it shall be canvassed, will commend itself to the deliberate acquiescence of the most rational men of all parties, and to the general acquiescence of the country. With this hope, and this faith, I move for leave to bring in a bill to amend the law relating to the qualification and registration of Parliamentary voters in Ireland.
Lord Stanley: Under any circumstances I should have followed the example which was set me the other evening, by the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies (Lord John Russell), and upon the motion of the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, to introduce either his bill, as it originally stood for "the registration of Parliamen-
294
tary electors," or as it has been altered within the last eight-and-forty hours, for "the amendment of the law relating to the qualification as well as the registration of Parliamentary voters;" I say, under any circumstances, I should have followed the example set me by the noble Lord the other night, and abstained upon the introduction of this bill from offering either any opposition to it or any lengthened observations upon its contents. But if I should have done so under any circumstances, more especially am I called upon most cautiously to abstain from making any observations when the noble Lord introduces by way of postscript, into a bill professing to have for its object the amendment of the law relating to the registration of voters in Ireland, a clause affecting the qualification of voters, which in effect would amount to nothing short of a new Reform Bill for Ireland. Yes, the noble Lord now wishes us to agree to a new Reform Bill for Ireland, founded upon principles unheard of in England, and never dreamed of by any human being as applied to Scotland. To imagine that the noble Lord can introduce this important postscript into his bill, and that it should not have the effect, whatever his intention may be, of rendering it utterly impossible to carry the measure in the present Session of Parliament, is what I cannot for a moment doubt. Up to the present moment the House has been not only without notice of the nature of the measure which the noble Lord intended to bring forward, but actually without any information beyond that which the noble Lord has himself quoted this evening, upon which it could found any possible criterion by which—I will not say to judge, but even to guess, of the probable result of the measure which the noble Lord has opened to us. Upon what ground is it that the noble Lord founds his proposed alteration of the whole system in Ireland? Upon what ground is it that he proposes to introduce into Ireland so wide a departure from the law of England and of Scotland? Upon the information of two gentlemen, friends, as he states of the right hon. and learned Attorney-general for Ireland, who have been sent privately by the noble Lord to the ten Poor-law unions which have been formed in that country—who bring back their returns from those unions, which the noble Lord reads to us in Parliament from the manuscript as he has received them—which the noble Lord has not even informed us he meant to Jay upon the

295
Table of the House for our guidance; but upon which the noble Lord considers himself justified in calling upon Parliament for the enormous alterations he now proposes to us. It is impossible, listening to the noble Lord when he reads the statements of these Gentlemen, derived as they have been from the various guardians of the ten unions which they visited, in all of which it appears that a different and varying principle of assessment has been observed—it is impossible, I say, to pursue the noble Lord through those statements and ascertain upon what principle it is that this Poor-law valuation, upon which he rests the whole fabric of his measure, has been conducted. But, as well as I could collect, from the statement of the noble Lord, it appears—I hardly know whether I mistook the noble Lord's reading, whether I am to believe the evidence of my own senses, whether I am not labouring under some strange mis-impression as to the noble Lord's meaning and intention; but, as well as I could collect from the noble Lord's statement, I understood him to tell us that these valuations have been founded, as he considers, upon the net value of the property according to the amount of rent, at which a fair and justly dealing landlord might be expected to let it to a tenant. And yet the noble Lord tells us that valuations so founded, giving to the whole of the property the net value, independent of any deductions of 5l. or 10 l., are found to be fifty per cent, and 100 per cent, too high for the persons who actually are registered at this moment as electors having a 10 l. beneficial interest. The noble Lord tells us that at Balrothery there are 200 registered 10 l. voters; 200 men, who in the holdings which they occupy are supposed, under any construction of the existing law, to have, in some shape or other, a beneficial interest of 10 l. a-year arising out of the property on which they live. The noble Lord tells us, that of these 200 registered electors he finds no less than fifty, the whole value of whose property does not exceed 10 l., and not less than seventeen, the whole of whose property, if sold in the market to-morrow, would not produce more than 5l. a-year. Yet every one of these persons are registered as having a clear beneficial interest in their holdings, over and above the rent, of 10 l. Well might the noble Lord think that he was giving me a triumph when he mentioned this fact. I could hardly have believed
296
that the system of fraud under the existing law could, in any instance, have been carried to such an extent as I now learn it has been from the statement of the noble Lord. The noble Lord, says, that the measure he now proposes is a large alteration of the existing system, and that it is a fresh settlement of the franchise in Ireland. There can be no doubt of these two facts. I will not follow the noble Lord through the details into which he has entered upon a topic which he very properly remarked might be considered as the exclusive property of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin—I mean the comparative proportion of representation and population in the various counties of England and Ireland. I should like, however, to know distinctly from the noble Lord, and from her Majesty's Government, whether they now mean to declare that it was the intention of the authors of the Reform Bill, that the qualification for the elective franchise should be based upon population and not upon property. I, as a Member of Lord Grey's Government, always understood that it was distinctly stated by every Member of that Government, that it was upon property only that the qualification was to be based—that the right to vote should depend, not upon the gross amount of the population of any town or county, but upon the number of that population who were in possession of a certain amount of property, which property should enable them to hold such a station of respectability in society as might be expected to permit them to exercise the elective franchise with honesty and independence. I do not think I shall have a denial of this fact from the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies. I will now ask the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, and I entreat him to correct me if wrong, whether this is not the basis of the proposition which he now submits for forming the list of Parliamentary electors in Ireland—namely, that every man who occupies a dwelling which, with the land attached, is rated at 5l. net annual value, shall be entitled to exercise the privileges which are now restricted to persons having 10 l. beneficial interest? [Viscount Morpeth: With fourteen years' possession.] Just so. I am right then in supposing that I heard from the noble Lord, a proposition to deluge the counties of Ireland by infusing into the constituency every man who has a dwelling and land of the net annual value of 5l., and fourteen years'

297
possession. Every man who has a cabin and a couple of acres of land, with fourteen years' possession, is to be placed upon the constituency, for the purpose of creating in Ireland a body of free and independent voters! I hope I rightly understood the noble Lord. I hope I am not misinterpreting him. I hope, from his silence, I have given his statement as he wished it to be understood by this House and by the country. If I satisfy myself, that I have riot misinterpreted, not misunderstood the noble Lord, I will not now prematurely comment upon one single part of the bill which proposes to purify the constituency of Ireland in the manner disclosed to us this evening. I will offer no opposition to the bill being introduced. I earnestly desire to see the bill printed. Till that be done, I leave it, with the explanation of the noble Lord, to tell its own tale, and to make its own way if it can—with the people of England and the people of Ireland.
Viscount Howick,like his noble Friend who had just sat down, proposed to reserve the full statement of his views upon this subject for a subsequent stage of the bill which the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland now sought leave to introduce. But as he was last year placed in the very painful situation of being compelled on more than one occasion with reference to this subject to oppose those Friends with whom, during so long a series of years, he had constantly and regularly acted, he could not deny himself the satisfaction now, in this first moment that the measure was brought forward, of declaring at once, and without the slightest hesitation, that to the principle of so much of the bill as related to the alteration of the qualification of voters in Ireland he should give his most hearty concurrence. He stated last year, when the subject was under the consideration of the House, that he was persuaded—indeed the fact was admitted on both sides—that the existing system of registration in Ireland afforded facilities for fraud, and temptation for perjury. It afforded he repeated facilities for breaking through the provisions of the existing law, which it was hardly possible to expect that the people of Ireland could resist. Such being the case, he did not regret the opinion he then expressed, that he was bound to support any measure which would ensure a more satisfactory administration of the existing law. At the same time, however, he had said that if the law itself as
298
well as the mode of administering it was bad, he would concur in the amendment of the law, but while the franchise continued, what it was he would not be a party to any attempt to obviate the inconveniences arising from it by maintaining a mode of registration which afforded facilities for defeating the intentions of the Act of Parliament. He would not consent to any such course, because he believed that by doing so he should be undermining the sanctity of an oath, the feeling of respect for the law of the land, and the great principles of religion and morality which formed the real strength of every country. He then stated that it was for these reasons that he had supported the bill of the noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire, because he believed, and he still believed, that that bill, with a few alterations, would have ensured the means of applying the law in respect of the franchise in a more satisfactory manner than at present. He believed that it would have established—after some alterations which could easily have been introduced—a fair tribunal before which the right of the voter to be placed on the registry could have been ascertained. Believing this, he would not oppose the measure for any temporary purpose or party convenience, nor even to avoid what was infinitely more painful to him, the separation from Friends with whom he was accustomed to vote. At that time he gave a pledge which he was now there to redeem; he had declared that though he concurred fully with the noble Lord in his desire to establish a tribunal which might fairly adjudicate on the claims of persons applying to be put on the registry, his object in doing so was not to restrict the franchise; on the contrary, he was prepared to concur in any satisfactory measure for amending what he considered to be the extremely defective state of the franchise at present existing in Ireland. The principle on which the recommendations of his noble Friend (Lord Morpeth) was founded, he remembered was originally thrown out by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Lucas), or if it was not, it at all events met with his support. These recommendations seemed to him to rest on the plainest principles of expediency. It might be true that the plan now proposed unheard of in England and undreamt of in Scotland; this he was not prepared to deny; but even though it might be unheard of in England and

299
undreamt of in Scotland, if, as he believed it were, suited to the existing state of society in Ireland, if it were calculated to cure the great evils that now prevailed in that country, he would not be deterred, from any consideration of that kind, from giving it his support; and he would say that he believed it was so adapted to the present state of society in Ireland. With respect to the existing franchise, it was impossible for any man to look around at what was passing before his eyes, and not be convinced that it was wholly inapplicable to that country. What was the meaning which the two great parties in that House attached to the term, beneficial interest, as applicable to holdings in Ireland? It was contended on his side of the House (the Ministerial), and by many able lawyers, that the term beneficial interest meant whatever profit a tenant might make from his holding, including in this definition the produce of his own labour and that of his family. This was justly objected to by the other side of the House, who said that even in Ireland, where wages were so low, a man's labour for a year was worth more than 10 l.; consequently, under such a definition, there could be no holding of land so small as not to convey the right of voting, they therefore contend, that the term beneficial interest implies that the person should be able to underlet his land to a solvent tenant at the yearly rent of 10 l. If that was to be the valuation under the Reform Bill, he begged to ask, what advantage had it conferred on Ireland? It was impossible not to see that the adoption of such a definition as that of the solvent test would narrow and restrict the franchise of that country in a manner wholly inconsistent with the principles of popular liberty. Both these constructions of the existing law that seemed to him to involve consequences clearly contrary to the intentions of its framers. But if this was the case, if both those definitions failed, if they would put an end to those scenes with which they were familiar in election committees of that House, in which parties are brought forward—a land surveyor on the one side swearing that the land was not worth 10 l., and the occupier swearing, on the other, that it was worth that sum—both attaching different meanings to the word, and both justifying thereby, in their own opinions, the oaths they had taken—if, he repeated, they wish to put an end to these abuses, they must be driven to look for a
300
new franchise, and in seeking for that new franchise, what principle is so simple in the existing state of Ireland, so likely to prevent disputes and conflicting swearing, and all the excitement of the present registration—what is so likely to answer all these purposes as to regulate the franchise according to the amount at which land is rated, and make this the test of the value of the holding by which the franchise is to be gained? It appeared to him that such a principle was just and proper; of course it remained for a future stage of the proceeding to consider whether the amount proposed by his noble Friend the Secretary for Ireland, namely 5l. was a proper amount. On that point it was impossible, without further information, to express a definitive opinion; but he would freely state that, as far as his opinion went, he was perfectly prepared to concur in the views taken by his noble Friend. He considered it of extreme importance to the future welfare of Ireland, that they should pass this measure, so that the franchise of Ireland might not be improperly narrowed; and although he considered those statements, which the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had so often repeated last year, of the comparative number of voters in England and Ireland in respect to the population of each country, to be utterly worthless as an argument against establishing an effectual tribunal for deciding on the qualification of the voters, whatever that qualification might be; he was yet of opinion that they were of material importance when they were considering the manner in which the franchise itself should be regulated. He felt too strongly attached to the great principles of popular liberty not to consider it absolutely necessary to fix the franchise in such a manner as that the great body of the people of Ireland might feel that the Gentlemen who represented them in that House did really support the opinions and represent the feelings of the majority. Unhappily it was the misfortune of Ireland, entailed on her by the misgovernment of centuries, that the great bulk of the property in that country was in the hands of persons divided by their strong opinions, and yet stronger prejudices, from the great majority of the population. He regarded that as one of the greatest evils in the present condition of Ireland, but such being its state at the present moment it would be in vain that they had passed Ca-

301
tholic Relief bills—it would be all in vain that they had passed the Reform Bill—if, notwithstanding these measures, the whole political power of that great country was again to be thrown into the hands of a small minority—if that class whose power for the last few years had virtually been put an end to, should again be restored to its former ascendancy. The interval that had elapsed during which Ireland had enjoyed a system of representation which, notwithstanding its imperfections, he might say notwithstanding its gross and glaring defects, still practically secured a community of feeling between the Irish people and their representatives; this interval of freedom, would render perfectly intolerable the restoration now of that ascendancy of a minority which formerly existed. He did not regard the scenes that had taken place during the last two months in that country without great concern and alarm, but be believed that none of the great parties into which that country was divided were free from great and serious blame for the danger which might at present exist in Ireland. He thought that great blame was attachable to the party opposite, who bad been in the habit of holding language and supporting measures which must have been highly distasteful to the great body of the people of Ireland. On the other band, very great blame rested with those who had been accustomed for many months past to represent to the people of Ireland that the British House of Commons, in assenting to several of the stages of a measure which professed for its object the amendment of the tribunal for the registering of electors, had really the intention in seeking to pass that measure to disfranchise the people of Ireland. He thought great and serious responsibility remained with those who represented in this light the act of the majority of the House of Commons adopting a bill, the principal parts of which had at different times been proposed by Ministers themselves. He believed that such a representation of the measure, however unfounded, must have had a most injurious effect on the people of Ireland, who could not be expected to read over and compare together the provisions of long and complicated bills brought into Parliament, and could only judge of the measure from the representations of those in whom they placed confidence. It could not fail to create in them a feeling of soreness
302
and a sense of injustice, the ground on which the foundation of the repeal agitation had been laid. Great blame rested with both these parties, but a still greater blame—he would not shrink even in the presence of the hon. Member himself to declare it—was attributable to the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, for the means he had taken to excite that feeling of dissatisfaction. Entertaining these opinions, he deeply lamented the state of feeling that had been produced; and though be blamed the different parties as accessory in producing it, he was firmly persuaded that if both sides of the House really wished to combat with success the repeal agitation—if they wished to deprive the hon. and learned Member for Dublin of that lever which be well knew how to use with the greatest effect, they must take care in considering this measure so to frame it that the principle of ascendancy could not be restored. He had already, in this first stage of the question, stated more than was his intention to do when he arose. He would not continue further his observations, except once more to repeat that he should not consider himself pledged in any manner to the details which his noble Friend the Secretary for Ireland had sketched out. He entirely concurred in the principle on which the proposed alteration of the franchise was founded. When the bill was printed, be would look into its details, and be anxiously hoped that it would be found to carry into effect the views which he had expressed.
Mr. O'Connellwished, in the first instance, to call the attention of the House to a statement which had been made by the noble Lord on that side of the House, and alluded to by the noble Lord opposite, relating to the registration in the baronry of Balrothery, in the county of Dublin. The statement was, that out of 200 registered voters there were no less than 50, the whole of whose property was not rated at more than 10 l. a-year to the Poor-law. Now he wished to inform the House, that the gentleman who had registered those voters, the chairman of Kilmainham, had, up to the time of his elevation to the Bench, been considered as a rigid Conservative, it had even been stated, that that Gentleman had on one occasion appeared in public wearing the Orange badge. He was not aware whether such was the fact, but there could be no doubt

303
as to his political principles, neither could there be any doubt that that gentleman had extreme opinions as to the value. He considered that the test to be applied, was the solvent tenant test, so that these voters had been registered by a gentleman of Conservative principles, and who adopted the highest test of value, and got under the Poor-law valuation 50 out of 200 of the voters thus registered were rated under 10 l. That showed the House that the Poor-law valuation was not a low rated valuation. He would confess frankly, that this bill of the noble Lord had given him great satisfaction, and he thought he was entitled to say, that if adopted, it would give satisfaction to the people of Ireland. As the other noble Lord had stated, it would take a strong weapon out of his hands. The noble Lord had said, that he had made a wrong use of that weapon, he would not then enter into a discussion with that subject. The noble Lord was of opinion, that last Session the House had intended fairly by Ireland. Now he was of opinion, that the House had intended to oppress Ireland. The noble Lord looked upon the measure of last Session as one intended for the good regulation of the franchise. He looked upon it as a measure having' for its object to extinguish the franchises of the people of Ireland. But there was a way to solve every doubt, an easy way of contradicting him, and showing he was wrong. He would propose the present measure as a test. If the House agreed to the noble Lord's bill, they would be adopting a measure which would give satisfaction to the people of Ireland, which would do away with every pretence for bringing forward against them the false and foul charge of perjury. It would have the advantage of taking away from every body even the temptation to false swearing. But what if they adopted the measures of the noble Lord opposite? Why, that noble Lord had shrank from defining the franchise—he introduced a registration bill, and although he had taken the trouble to construct a most elaborate machine, when he was asked what the machine was to do, he would not tell. If he went to any manufacturing town in the north of England, and proposed the erection of some most elaborate piece of machinery, the first question which would be proposed to him would be, What do you propose your machinery to do? If he said, "I am unde-
304
cided what sort of article it shall be, but lay out your capital on the machine." He thought the noble Lord would be as much laughed at in Yorkshire as he was disrelished in Ireland. But then the excuse was, it would take up too much time of the House—and the noble Lord had not leisure to define the franchise. But it must be defined somehow. Would they send it to the quarter sessions, and have an appeal every year to the judges? to judges who differed on the subject? When he had addressed the House before he had stated, that seven judges were in favour of the question of the solvent tenant test, but that five were the other way, but there had been a change since. The present Chief Baron had joined the five, so that take it as strongly as they would, there were six to six. Mr. Justice Ball had not had the point brought before him, but if he was of the same opinion as he was when at the bar, then the proportion would be exactly altered, there would be seven of his way of thinking, and five the contrary. Was this the condition in which the people of Ireland should be placed? Could any man impute to the present Chief Baron political motives? He knew this of him—that he was not much employed as an advocate, but he made a most excellent judge. They had a similar instance in this country, the present Lord Chancellor was not a first-rate advocate, but he believed it was admitted, that he was a first-rate judge. The powers requisite for an advocate and for a judge were totally different. He thought the Chief Baron of Ireland had delivered a most satisfactory judgment in respect to the franchise. But the noble Lord's bill would put an end to all this, and an end to all discussion as to the politics of judges. Was it not said, that they came into that House with any politics that would make themselves judges? While this system lasted it must be so, the fairest men would be liable to calumny, and calumny against the bench should not be encouraged by any statesmen. That must, however, continue if they followed the noble Lord's (Lord Stanley's) plan, who refused to define what the franchise was. The Chief Baron decided one way, and Mr. Howley, the chairman of Tipperary decided another way. Here were two men, as far as they could be influenced by it, of the same politics, who differed on the subject. Was this a situation to leave the

305
franchise in? Suppose Judge Crampton went the circuit, he would construe it strictly; if the Chief Baron went he would construe it liberally. All this would be avoided by adopting the bill of the Government. "The noble Lord," continued Mr. O'Connell, "talked of the situation of Ireland. Is it right that he should do so. I may be sneered at by some; but I know more of the situation of Ireland than most men, and I avow that there is among the people of Ireland a strong, an overwhelming, a rooted conviction, that they cannot obtain justice in this House. This is my opinion. Is it, then, more prudent for you—for now you have your choice—to show a disposition to do justice, or to act with oppression. The House has now the opportunity of showing its feelings towards Ireland. And I ask you, is it not wise to do us justice? I don't care what prejudice or bigotry may think, and I believe it is from a notion, that it is good for the Protestant that you act oppressively towards us, though you thereby pay but a bad compliment to the Protestant Church when you make it the ally of injustice and oppression. But, taking the situation of Ireland, this feeling is increasing. And are you at liberty to forget that you may want the right arm of the country? You may want it sooner than you suppose. France is now determined not to go to war at present, but has she made her mind up not to go to war when she is prepared? Are you sure she is not now preparing to go to war? Is not the popular sentiment set at nought by erecting forts round Paris, and are not those who have been thought most anxious for liberty straining every nerve to make Paris formidable to the world? Is not your peace an armed peace, as was said on the first evening of the Session? Is not Germany, is not every state in Europe arming? And are you going at such time to weaken England by making an enemy of Ireland? The noble Lord may display his talent, he may display his prejudice—I won't call it his hatred, or his virulence—towards us, he may display his prejudices virulently, but let him remember, that at no time is it wise or honest to make a country disaffected. At the present time it is totally unsafe to make Ireland disaffected. You will want Ireland, I know not how soon, and no doubt you may have her at the slight purchase of justice; and no doubt, also, you may lose her by doing her in-
306
justice. In one of those despatches of the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston), which should be made the study of this House, the noble Lord writes to Mehemet Ali, "Your Highness must know, that nothing is so difficult as to retain possession of a country, the people of which are disaffected." What is true of Syria, is equally true of Ireland. It is true. I therefore call upon the House—you will not divide to-night, you will have time to think—I call upon those of large fortunes, of great possessions, who live in case and luxury—I call upon the wealthy portion of the community to well bethink themselves, that for the secure enjoyment of all these luxuries, they may want the support of Ireland in the day of battle. They cannot have a braver or a stronger—I call upon them to think of these things, and to make their choice between the curse of Ireland and the noble Lord's bill on the one side, and the blessing of Ireland and the bill of the noble Secretary on the other.
Mr. Shawwas not surprised at the hon. and learned Member for Dublin being satisfied with the measure of the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, for it might as well be called a bill to establish universal suffrage, as one to fix the qualification at 5l. He would remind the House, that it was only last year that they passed the Municipal Corporations Bill, which fixed the qualifications of persons residing in the boroughs at double the extent of that which the noble Lord had now proposed for the county constituency. He thought the proposition monstrous.
Mr. Humesaid, that although the hon. and learned Gentleman thought the proposition monstrous, he was more inclined to take the noble Lord's interpretation, which was, that it would give a fait and full representation to the people of Ireland. Was that a monstrous proposition? On the contrary, he thought the proposition a most excellent one, and was quite sure that it would put an end to the discontent and agitation at present existing in Ireland. He would not say more than that he hoped the House of Commons would show to the people of Ireland that they were determined to do them justice.
Sir R. Batesoncould not sit still and leave uncontradicted the misrepresentations that had been made on this subject. He would beg to ask, whether there was any county or parish in the province of Ulster that

307
had petitioned against the noble Lord's (Lord Stanley's) bill. He had just returned from that country, and had attended a meeting representing the intelligence and property of Ulster, equalling in those respects all the other three provinces of Ireland, at which not only the bill was approved of, but all the enormous abuses of the present system exposed. Knowing this to be the case—knowing that all ranks and persuasions in that district were in favour of the bill—he could not sit still without contradicting the misrepresentations that had been made.
Mr. Bellenobserved, that every parish in the county with which he was connected had petitioned against the bill of the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire. He offered his thanks to the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, for the Bill he had that night moved for leave to introducers he believed it would be productive of great good in Ireland. Nothing but a definition of the franchise would effect the object they had in view, which was to tranquilize the minds of the people of Ireland. The noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, was, or pretended to be, sadly afraid of any extension of the suffrage to the people of Ireland; but had he ever expressed the slightest horror at the extermination of the tenantry, which had taken place since 1832, and for political offences, as they were called? For the sake of Ireland and justice, he trusted, that a fair consideration would be afforded to the bill of the noble Secretary for Ireland, without regard to any party triumph. If that were not done, it would create in the minds of the people of Ireland, even in the minds of those who were earnestly in favour of the two countries, an estrangement, a species of insular feeling, because they would be convinced, that they had nothing more to hope for from that House, and then all feeling in favour of the union would be swept away by despair. He trusted the conduct of the House would still allow them to hope.
Mr. J. O'Connellsaid, that as to the respectability of the meeting to which the hon. Baronet, the Member for Londonderry, had alluded, the House, he was afraid, must take the hon. Baronet's own word for it; for, with the exception of his own very respectable name, and the names of a few other equally respectable persons attached to the requisition, the names of the rest were shrouded in mystery. With
308
respect to the bill proposed to be introduced by the noble Secretary, all that the House at present knew of it was its principle. Of that he certainly, as far as it went, approved, and he hoped, by the details of the measure, that that principle would be well worked out; but if hon. Gentlemen opposite thought all those on his side of the House were completely satisfied with the noble Lord's measure, they were very much mistaken; for he, and many hon. Gentlemen around him, could wish that the franchise should be still more extended, and that it should be placed on the footing of the Poor-law rating. He hoped that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) would see the propriety of withdrawing his own bill, and of allowing the bill of the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, to be the measure for redressing the evils which were, on all hands, acknowledged to exist under the present system. Although the noble Lord might not pay much regard to anything that might fall from him, still he would implore the noble Lord to consider his steps, and to avail himself of the golden bridge that was now offered to him, and give up his own, and support the bill which the noble Secretary asked leave to introduce. The noble Lord would act wisely in adopting this suggestion, for he might depend upon it that every step taken in his own bill was but adding immensely to the ranks of the Repealers, and nothing could more certainly insure the triumph of that cause than the success of the noble Lord's own measure. If the noble Lord were really pledged against Repeal to the death, the best means he could take to defeat it was to adopt the bill of the noble Secretary of Ireland. He, however, confessed, that he did not think the noble Lord would do so; for there seemed to be a short-sightedness and a species of mental blindness, as if by the interposition of Providence, ever accompanying the acts of men whose aim it was to prejudice the rights and interests of a whole nation. Such men looked only at the immediate injury they wished to inflict, being quite reckless of the terrible re-action that might come. However, whatever the noble Lord might do, he hoped hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House would give the people of Ireland more than a mere divided support, such as they gave them last year—that they would not allow parliamentary courtesies to do

309
away with the rights of a nation, but that they all, on each and every occasion upon which they were called upon to battle with the noble Lord opposite, give to Ireland their earnest assistance. The people of Ireland did not understand parliamentary forms and the niceties of parliamentary courtesies. He, therefore, hoped that if they really wished to prove to the people of Ireland that there was a disposition in the House of Commons to do them justice, they would give the noble Secretary's bill their support throughout.
Mr. Sergeant Jacksondid not rise for the purpose of offering any opposition to the introduction of the bill by the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, but he had hoped that by this time all those ridiculous and absurd attacks which had heretofore been made upon his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) would have ceased. He was glad to see evidence of a disposition on the part of the noble Secretary to improve the registration system in Ireland. There was no person of any political party that could deny that there were grievous evils existing under that system. So strong and general did this opinion prevail, that the noble Lord had actually been coerced to bring forward this measure. He would not at this stage of the debate enter upon a discussion of the provisions of the bill, but he could not help deprecating the clause which went to establish the 5l. franchise, which was, in other words, taking population instead of property and intelligence as the basis of representation, Before he sat down he wished to allude to an observation which fell from the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, respecting a most hon. Member of the Irish bar, Mr. Blackman. The hon. and learned Member had said, that Mr. Blackman, who was the Chairman of the Registration Court for the county of Dublin, had appeared on the circuit wearing an orange badge on his coat. Now, he (Mr. Sergeant Jackson) knew that there was not a more honourable person at the Irish Bar than Mr. Blackman, and he did not believe that that gentleman ever could have been guilty of so improper an act. He had never heard it said or insinuated that Mr. Blackman was ever guilty of the impropriety or indecency of wearing a badge of any party description on the circuit. It certainly became the hon. and learned Member for Dublin less than anybody else to talk of persons wearing badges,
310
when that hon. and learned Member himself appeared in that House with the repeal button on his coat. With respect to the noble Secretary for Ireland's bill, he was quite ready to examine its provisions, and do what he could to improve it, in order that it might, in case the bill of his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) should be rejected, be passed into a law for the improvement of the system of registration and of the franchise in Ireland.
Mr. O'Connellwished to say, in explanation, that he did not state the rumour of the wearing of a badge by Mr. Blackman in the way of disparaging that Gentleman, he mentioned it only as illustrating a fact. It seemed that the hon. and learned Sergeant was the only person who thought that the wearing of an Orange badge was derogatory to a person filling an official station.
Mr. Villiers Stuartagreed with the hon. and learned Sergeant, that the present system was accompanied with many evils, but it did not follow that the bill proposed by the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire (Lord Stanley) would apply a proper remedy. He could state, from his own knowledge, that in the county of Waterford, in consequence of the trouble and inconvenience to which parties were put by the present system, there was an apathy on the part of the people with regard to the franchise, which, in his view, was fraught with danger to the country. If they were to have a really representative system, they must give the parties an easy way of acquiring their right. If they did not, the people would look to illegitimate sources for obtaining it. Instead of seeking their rights through the Imperial Parliament, they would endeavour to find them by setting up a sort of Parliament in Dublin or elsewhere.
Lord Clementscongratulated the House upon having some substantial measure at length brought forward that would at once settle all disputes arising out of the present defective system respecting the registration and the franchise in Ireland. The valuation upon the Poor-law rating was notoriously exceedingly low, and the noble Lord opposite had availed himself of that fact to raise an objection against the proposition of his noble Friend; but had his noble Friend, instead of mentioning that valuation, quoted the ordnance valuation, the noble Lord opposite could not have jumped to the same conclusion, because

311
it was almost invariably the case that the ordnance valuation was much above the rent. He hoped the noble Lord would not persevere with his bill. He did not wish to inquire whether it were the fault of the noble Lord or no; but any bill emanating from him, no matter what it was, even supposing it carried benefit with it, would be taken with distrust, and must necessarily be taken with distrust, as coming from him. [Laughter.] The noble Lord might laugh, but the fact was so. Why, the noble Lord was the very author of the measure which was now so loudly and universally complained of throughout Ireland. The very uncertain phraseology in which the franchise was expressed, had caused all the injurious effects that were now sought to be remedied. He hoped, therefore, that the noble Lord would act upon his word, and leave the present measure to be dealt with by the House without his interference.
Mr. Wardthought he had had the pleasure of hearing the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) say that he would leave this question with confidence to the judgment of the House of Commons. He was, therefore, anxious to take the first opportunity of expressing his conviction that there would be a very powerful feeling in favour of the system proposed by the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland. The noble Lord opposite must permit him to say (without meaning any discourtesy), that his bill was not an honest bill. It was a dishonest bill; because the noble Lord had avoided the very difficulty upon which all the other inconveniences rested. The noble Lord's bill did not mention the franchise; it did not attempt to define it. The noble Lord proposed nothing, but to throw more difficulties in the way of those who were entitled to exercise the franchise as the law now stood. It was his distinct conviction that the evils of the existing system must be corrected, and that the settlement of the question could be infinitely better effected by the bill of his noble Friend than by the bill of the noble Lord opposite. The remedy which that noble Lord proposed appeared to him to be worse than the disease. It would only lead to a series of embarrassments and persecutions in Ireland of the humbler class of voters by those who were placed above them.
Mr. Littondenied that the bill of the noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire had been received in Ireland with disapprobation. On the contrary, he would
312
assert, from his own knowledge of Ireland, that it was received by all the influential and respectable classes, and by the great mass of intelligence in that country, as a useful measure, and only likely to meet and put an end to the demoralizing system which had long and still existed in that country, arising from the present mode of registration. It was also utterly untrue that the lower classes looked with regret at the passing of this bill. On the contrary, the attempt to get up agitation against the noble Lord's bill it was notorious utterly failed. The petitions in favour of Lord Stanley's bill were most numerous. Those who were for universal suffrage, no doubt, would support the bill now proposed to be introduced. Those who thought that property, intelligence, and character should be nothing, and numbers everything, would of course approve of that clause which gave a 5l. rating, irrespective of any rent. It was nothing short of universal suffrage. Nay, he would rather have universal suffrage, because then they would have it by its right name. But the noble Lord (Lord Morpeth) was desirous of having it by its wrong name—he would call it an illegitimate suffrage.
The O'Connor Doncould not help observing upon one statement that had been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken. That hon. and learned Gentleman had said that all the respectable people of Ireland were in favour of the bill of the noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire. He hoped the hon. and learned Member did not, limit all the respectability of Ireland merely to the circle of his own acquaintance. He confessed that among his acquaintance there was a strong pervading feeling against the bill of the noble Lord. The general feeling throughout Ireland was that the intention of the noble Lord was not to amend the registry but to restrict the franchise. He thought the most beneficial part of the bill of the noble Lord below him (Lord Morpeth) was that which went to define the franchise. At present, for want of that definition, imputations of perjury were made on both sides, and, perhaps, neither party was really guilty of the crime.
Leave given.

RAILWAYS.
Mr. Labouchererose, in pursuance of notice, to move for leave to bring in a bill for the better regulation of railways. He did not feel it necessary to

313
trouble the House with any lengthened observations at this stage of the measure. It was a subject of equal difficulty and importance, and one which must engage the attention of the House at a future period. The bill which he was about to introduce; was to provide increased securities to persons travelling on railways. The House would agree with him after what occurred during the last few months in regard to travelling on railroads, that it was incumbent on her Majesty's Government to consider whether, by any interference, they could prevent the recurrence of those accidents, which had produced so much alarm in the public mind. And if, upon due consideration of the subject, it should appear to them that any arrangement could; be made, which would have a tendency to diminish the chance of those accidents and risks, he felt he should desert his duty if he did not propose to the House to adopt such measures as would lead to that result. Those accidents naturally became the subject of very minute investigation on the part of the railway department, which, by the bill of last Session, was attached to the Board of Trade; and the measure which he now proposed to introduce was founded upon the recommendations of that department, contained in a report, a copy of which he had laid upon the Table of the House a few days ago. That report set forth so much more fully and clearly than he could do the grounds upon which he asked leave to introduce this bill, that he felt it useless to take up the time of the House in detailing the facts and arguments in its support. He would content himself with mentioning the principle and main provision of the bill, just premising that the whole and sole object of the measure was directed exclusively to an attempt to increase the safety of travelling on railways. It was undoubtedly desirable that Government should not attempt any minute interfence with the particular province of the directors of railways, who were, as it were, the natural guardians of the public as well as of their own undertaking; but, upon long consideration, and after consulting with many parties interested in railways, while there were some points on which it would not not be well for Government to interpose, there were others on which it was thought that advantages would result from a limited superintendence. Great exaggeration had prevailed on the subject of accidents, and he had no hesitation in saying, that in his opinion there was no
314
mode of conveyance so little liable to disasters as by railways. It was likely that the alarming nature of such accidents, and the shape in which a knowledge of them reached the public, would produce a strong impression, and it was above all necessary for the interests of the companies themselves, that the public should be satisfied that every means was adopted to diminish danger, and to lessen the chance of the loss of life, or of the injury to persons and property. While he admitted, that the risk was small when compared with the number of passengers conveyed, he rejoiced that even that risk, small as it was, might in every probability be rendered still smaller—he hoped that without any material interference with the directors of companies, travelling by railway might be made still more secure. The difficulty he felt was this:—though he acknowledged that the interference of Government ought to be restricted to narrow bounds, and that it ought not to be permitted without great caution, yet, if the department with which he was connected were to have efficient control (and if it were not efficient, it would better to have no control), it was absolutely necessary that the bill should be of a general nature, and that the Board of Trade should take upon itself the discretion and responsibility of applying it. Some hon. Members might feel alarmed at seeing, that by the bill a large power was asked; but after having again and again considered the subject, he could not see how the measure could be limited without crippling its efficacy by inconvenient details. A report of the officers of the railway department was now upon the Table, from which he would take the liberty of reading one or two extracts. The following passage related to the general principle of Government interference:—
"With regard to the nature and extent of these powers, the proper distinction appears to us to be, that the Government should not attempt to interfere in questions of an experimental nature, which are still subjects of discussion, and admit of a fair difference of opinion among practical men; nor should it attempt to regulate matters of detail, so as to take the management of the railways out of the hands of the parties immediately responsible, viz, the directors and their officers."
The commissioners next proceeded to state the points on which it was thought Government interference would be beneficial:—
"On the other hand, the Government

315
should have the power of enforcing, whenever it is found necessary, the observance of all pie-cautions and regulations which are approved by experience, and are obviously conducive to to the public safety. For instance, upon such points as the comparative advantages of six and four-wheeled engines, the best construction and mode of laying down rails, the best form and construction of wheels, axles, &c, and other points of a similar nature, upon which the practice of the best conducted railways differs, and the opinion of the most eminent engineers is by no means decided, it would be premature for the Government to interfere until experience has solved the questions which may still be fairly considered as doubtful. But with regard to other points, such as the propriety of introducing upon every railway such arrangements respecting time-tables and signals, as experience has shown to be necessary for preventing collision, of establishing a proper and uniform code of regulations for engine-drivers, guards, and other servants placed in a responsible situation, and for maintaining strict discipline; and generally of introducing upon all railways, whatever has been adopted, and proved to be conducive to safety, by the practice of those which are considered to be the best conducted; no difference of opinion can exist, and if the principle of Government supervision be admitted at all, it cannot find a more legitimate field for its exercise."
With respect to the point of time tables, he might mention, that on the test lines the trains are worked by time tables; and to shew how proper it was that such should be the case, he might add, that on several railways where such a precaution was neglected, the most frightful accidents had occurred. He thought that a measure of this kind might safely be entrusted to a Government board, in order to enforce a principle which all who had investigated the subject, admitted to be essential to the public safety. He did not like to multiply instances, but he would notice one other. On most of the railways, a particular signal had been adopted to indicate danger—it was a red light; but on some lines danger was indicated by a light of a different colour: and an engine driver who had quitted a line on which a red light was used, and came upon a line where a blue light was used, might easily be confounded between the two, and the most disastrous consequences might be the result. This was another case in which power might safely be entrusted to a Government board to enforce one general and uniform regulation. It was utterly impossible that all such instances should be specified in a bill, but in asking the House
316
to entrust such extensive powers to the Board of Trade he most readily acknowledged that they ought to be exercised with the utmost caution, and with as little interference as possible with the management of the directors of the different companies. Where the Board of Trade was satisfied that some general regulation was required, it ought to be enforced by some central authority. There was another point to which he attached great importance, viz., that all engine-drivers ought to be licensed. It was very anomalous that a license should be required for the driver of a vehicle in a public street, and yet that any man, however ignorant or incompetent, might be made an engine driver, and thus be entrusted with the lives and safety of hundreds of his fellow-creatures. He proposed, therefore, that a licensing system should be established, and that no man be permitted to drive an engine who had not previously obtained a license. A register would be kept of licensed engine-drivers, and in case of misconduct, he would be liable to be deprived of his license. He apprehended that this would operate as an important check on the employment of unfit persons, and thus lessen the chance of danger to the public. At present, men who had been turned off one railway sometimes got employment upon others, and fatal results had been the consequence. The report on the Table contained also various suggestions as to the obtaining of statistical information by the interference of Government; but recollecting that last Session the House pronounced an adverse opinion, on the ground that it was instituting an inquisitorial power, it was not his intention to include any such provision in the bill. All he desired was, that the House would duly consider the measure when brought before it, with a view to render it efficient for the public, safety, with as little interference as possible with the proper province of the directors. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by submitting his motion to the House.
Colonel Sibthorphad always considered all railways public frauds and private robberies, by gambling speculators. The capital, at present, embarked in these undertakings was not less than sixty-four or sixty-five millions, and by the last returns there were not fewer than 108 railways. On these, the accidents had been much more numerous than appeared from the papers on the Table. Hardly one accident in ten came before the public, and

317
the directors did their utmost to prevent publicity. Innkeepers and other most respectable classes of persons had been ruined or thrown out of employment, and on his way to town he had made inquiries and found that not a single Member of Parliament had travelled post; while the post-boy, to whom he gave 5s., declared that it was the first he had received in as many weeks. He looked with the utmost jealousy at every measure emanating from the present Ministers; and when he found that a new system of licensing was to be established, he wished to know, as the budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was likely to be a melancholy one, how many pounds or pence of the deficiency in the revenue he expected to make up by this new experiment? He hoped that, if this bill were passed, a clause would be introduced to compel the proprietors of railways to pay the parties whom they deprived of their properly the sums they had promised to allow by way of compensation. He pronounced it as his decided opinion, that these nefarious schemes would ere long appear before the public in their true light—that all the railway companies would be bankrupt, and that the old and happy mode of travelling on turnpike roads in chaises, carriages, and stages, would be restored.
Mr. Ewartthought that the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade had drawn a most judicious distinction in wishing to centralise, for the sake of information, without needless interference with the directors of the various companies. Last year, he had doubled the policy of any interposition on the part of Government, but he now acknowledged the fitness of it, in the way and to the extent proposed. With regard to the danger of travelling on railways, if the gallant Colonel, who was so much alarmed, would read such an orthodox publication as the Quarterly Review, he would see that the accidents by railway were fewer than by any other mode of travelling. He (Mr. Ewart), would now say what had been a while ago observed by the hon. and gallant Colonel, that facts were stubborn things. He (Mr. Ewart) was for giving such powers as would render the acts of the railway commissioners not abortive of but productive of some good effect. His right hon. Friend had alluded to the system of licenses. He hoped that it would be found to succeed, but he had
318
some doubt as to whether the system of licensing was necessary. They all knew that the system of stage-coaches was admirably conducted—to be sure, the number of accidents that occurred on them was more numerous than that which took place on railways, but yet they were admirably conducted, and that without licenses, He, then, had his doubts to whether licenses were so indispensably necessary. There was another recommendation of the commissioners, respecting the information that should be given in cases of serious accident or injury being sustained by persons. Now, there were occasions where information was desirable to the public in cases of accident, even where they were not attended with serious injury. He also acquiesced, though he confessed he had something to do with railroads, in the suggestion that the commissioners should get notice before a railway was opened, so that it might be seen that no danger was likely to be incurred on these lines by the public. Those powers were demanded by the public, and to them no reasonable railway company could refuse to assent. It was also required that acts of interference be sub-milted to Parliament before being adopted. Without that he thought that there might be some danger of too great an extension of the powers of the commissioners. It was worthy of remark, that those railways were least liable to accidents which had been longest in use. On the Liverpool and Manchester, for instance, accidents were very rare, and the same remark would apply to the London and Birmingham line. On the Grand Junction, half a million of persons had been conveyed in half a-year without the occurrence of the slightest casualty. In this country, all great undertakings owed their success to the absence of interference and the freedom of competition, and the French were beginning to find and to admit the truth of the axiom. He believed, that if the measure to be introduced were confined to regulation, without unnecessary interference, it would be received as a boon by the public, and would not be unwelcome to the directors of railways.
Lord Stanleyexpressed his entire concurrence with the observations which had fallen from the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Ewart), and he hoped that the gallant Colonel (Colonel Sibthorp) would derive some consolation from the fact, that

319
in proportion to the experience of the different companies had been the diminution of danger. This fact had been illustrated, as the hon. Member for Wigan had remarked, in an extraordinary manner by the Liverpool and Manchester railway, upon which not a single accident to life or limb had happened within the last twelvemonth. Other railways would, bye and bye, arrive at similar security, and in the meantime it was extremely important that Government should exercise a control, especially over those undertakings which were comparatively in their infancy, No proposition in the report on the Table was more valuable than the suggestion that care should be taken that railways were not opened before they were in a state fit for traffic; for every company was naturally anxious as soon as possible to obtain some return for their capital. He had been told that one railway had been opened, notwithstanding a positive report from the commissioners against its fitness. This was an evil it was most important to avoid. All railroads must be more or less partial monopolies in the hands of the directors, and a vigilant control on the part of Government was, therefore, the more necessary. He understood that the bill was to be founded mainly on the report of the commissioners, and he should, therefore, be the more ready to concur in its provisions. As he was upon his legs, he would put a question to the President of the Board of Trade, or to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on a matter which he had already mentioned privately: it regarded the directions given by the Post-office respecting letters carried by the railway mails. Some nights since he had been unexpectedly summoned to town from Southampton, and he arrived at Basingstoke by the train which reached that station at two in the morning. After the train had been detained some time, he inquired the reason of the delay, and was informed that it was a general order from the Post-office, that the train should not start until after the arrival of the Exeter and Andover cross mails. The snow was on the ground, and the train was consequently kept waiting at Basingstoke for an hour and a quarter, without any sufficient or apparent reason. By this circumstance, not only inconvenience but great danger might have been incurred; and he wished to know whether it was consistent with the orders of the
320
Post-office, that the train should thus have been stopped? Under the old system a mail coach might be detained, and it might afterwards proceed along the road as usual, avoiding the coaches or carts it might meet; but the case was widely different on a railway, where irregularity and derangement of system might be attended with imminent risk. This was a circumstance within his own knowledge; and what he wished to learn was, whether there was any objection on the other side to state what were the general orders of the Post-office as to the detention of trains for the cross mails, supposing they had not arrived at the station at the appointed time? If any orders for detention had been given, the sooner they were rescinded the better.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerbelieved, that the directions of the Post-office were very general, and that much was necessarily left to the discretion of the railroad companies. The mail was engaged by Government at a very large expense, but they had nothing to do with the passengers conveyed by the same train. He was very sorry that the noble Lord had been detained for an hour and a quarter in the cold, but he did not apprehend that the delay arose out of any order issued by the Post-office. If the mail train were not able to keep its time, the passengers conveyed by the company must be contented to suffer from the delay. As to danger, in the instance in question, he apprehended that there was none, as there was no train either behind or before that in which the noble Lord was seated.
Lord Stanleyhad not mentioned the case on account of any personal inconvenience to which he had been exposed, but because he thought such delays might be dangerous at some time, although not so in the present instance. After the lapse of an hour and a quarter, the train had been obliged to start without the cross mails. He confessed, that he was by no means satisfied with the reply of the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Plumptresaid, that a strong feeling pervaded the country that it was quite unnecessary to use the railways on the Lord's day. It was necessary that the engine drivers should be men of the most unexceptionable character; and how could such be obtained, if they continued at their work day by day, without any opportunity for rest or for religious instruc-

321
tion on the seventh day? The travelling on the Lord's day shut the door against many persons who could not conscientiously absent themselves from their religious duty, and rendered it impossible for the Wesleyans in particular to obtain situations. He believed, too, that many accidents had happened on the Lord's day. Wherever railways were established in Scotland, the directors never thought of running the trains on the Lord's day; no inconvenience was found there from the stoppage; and any necessity that might have existed for travelling on that day\by other modes of conveyance had been done away with in consequence of the additional speed now acquired.
Mr. Warburtonwished to press upon the consideration of the House the effect which the shutting up of the railways on a Sunday, when every other mode of public conveyance had ceased, would have upon the middle and lower classes; there was no other mode except the railway, by which these persons could travel cheaply, so that in case it should be necessary for a person of moderate fortune to travel from one place to another on a Sunday, the hon. Member's plan would absolutely cut off every mode of conveyance from those who could not afford to post. Where were they to end if they once began this interference? There were boys tending sheep on a Sunday. It was necessary; and there always were certain things, which, as well in profane times as in modern and Christian countries, were admitted to be done on festival days. The necessary consequence of putting away all other means of communication by which parties could travel cheaply was, that they must not cut off the opportunity now afforded to persons travelling by the railroads.
Leave given.
Bill brought in, and read a first time.

REGISTRATION OF ELECTORS (ENGLAND.)
Lord J. Russellrose for the purpose of asking leave to bring in a bill for the Registration of Parliamentary Electors in England. He had brought in a bill for this purpose in the last Session and he did not think that there was any essential alteration in the present bill. He proposed, in the first place, to alter the system by which there was a great body of revising barristers in England. Many of these gentlemen, as it was well
322
known, had little experience, and the consequence was, that in many cases there were conflicting decisions, so that under the present state of the law a vote might be allowed by one barrister in the first year, it might be disallowed by another barrister in the next year, and perhaps, the same voter, for the same qualification might be again put on in the third. Such a system was exceedingly vexatious, and gave rise to serious evils. His learned Friend, the Attorney General, and himself, had, in a former year, thought it better to have a permanent body. His hon. Friend the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warburton) had afterwards brought forward a plan, which was adopted by the Government, and which was engrafted on the bill introduced last year, but which did not pass that House. He proposed, as he did in the bill of last year, that there should be fifteen revising barristers, to be named in the first instance by the Speaker out of a list of forty-five to be returned to him by the judges, but that afterwards the nomination of persons to fill the vacancies caused by death or resignation should rest entirely with the Speaker; and he proposed in the present bill that the office should be held till death or resignation, or until displaced by an address of both Houses of Parliament; for if they were a permanent body, he thought it desirable that they should be made as independent as possible. He proposed also to establish a court of appeal, to be composed of three barristers, to whom questions of law should be referred. He then proposed, instead of a revision founded upon the facts taking place each year, that after the first decision of the revising barrister should have taken place, the elector should be placed in the situation of an established voter, and should not be liable to removal from the register upon the same facts. He found, by the speech of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley), in introducing his measure for Ireland, that he was opposed to any such provision. It was a matter for discussion in the committee, and any opinion to which the House might come, he should be willing to adopt. Still he hoped that the House would not leave the county electors to be longer placed in their present situation; that they would not allow a non-resident elector to be called upon year after year to submit to precisely the same examination of facts, till in some year, either in consequence of

323
a press of business elsewhere, not being able to appear before the court, or from being willing to incur this continued annoyance for the sake of his vote he should absent himself, he should find, that his vote was struck off, although he at that very time had a perfectly good right to be registered. He would not longer detain the House, but would simply move for leave to bring in the bill.
Mr. Liddellwould be glad to see the noble Lord's bill, the leading provisions of which he for one would certainly support. It was necessary that the county voter should have protection from the present vexatious and harassing system; and that he should not, after his right had been allowed, be obliged to appear, year after year, before the revising barrister, perhaps to have the decision in favour of his franchise reversed, and certainly always experiencing and keeping up vexation. He wished, however, to ask one question of the noble Lord: he would like to know whether, in the present bill, there would be any clause for the purpose of preventing at contested elections the fraudulent personation of electors? That seemed to be the proper opportunity of introducing some more stringent enactment to prevent that which was not only an audacious violation of the law, but also a gross breach of the privileges of that House. It was a common practice, especially in sea-port towns, to represent electors who were absent from the borough and could not vote, and he believed that it would be a great improvement in the law, and by no means a grievous infringement of the liberty of the subject, if, upon the oath of any respectable individual in the polling booth, it should be sworn that the person tendering his vote was not the party he represented himself to be, the returning officer should have the power of handing over such party to custody till proofs should be given whether he was the person registered or not. There was a very recent instance of these practices, for he found in the address of the new Member for Walsall, thanking the electors for their support, that "the Leagueites polled nine dead men, three of whom were considered decided Conservatives," at the manifest risk of disturbing the repose in their graves of the three Conservatives, whose representatives were found voting for the Liberal. He hoped that the noble Lord would take notice of this great evil; but
324
if the noble Lord did not, he should feel it his duty to endeavour to frame a clause to meet it.
Leave given, bill brought in and read a first time.

SOUTH AUSTRALIA.
Lord John Russell,in rising to move for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the acts relating to South Australia, said he felt some difficulty as to how far it would be proper to make any statement to the House, because, though he had formed his own opinion upon those acts, he wished that the committee should investigate the whole matter, without being previously bound in any manner by any statement. What it was necessary he should state was, that they could not longer allow the colony to remain in its present state, and that it was necessary either that he should bring a measure before the House, or that a committee should be appointed to investigate the subject. As the colony of South Australia was founded by Act of Parliament, and as it was founded in consequence of discussions in that House, he thought it far better, instead of bringing forward a measure on the responsibility of Government, to appoint a committee that should have power to examine the whole subject. The colony of South Australia was founded in a peculiar manner, and upon a peculiar principle; it was founded upon the principle which he confessed he considered not a little objectionable—the principle of dividing the authority between the Crown on the one hand, and, on the other hand, of certain commissioners, having some connection with the Crown, yet so remote as to induce persons holding office in the colony, and the inhabitants themselves, to consider themselves not under the Crown, but under the board of commissioners. The first governor of the colony, who was a most respectable man, and whom he had since had pleasure in recommending to her Majesty as the governor of another colony, was unable to control the different persons. In his very first despatch after his arrival he said, that the colony was in a state of disorganisation, that no one holding office thought himself bound to keep his office in order, or to pay any obedience to any one; and with regard to the finances at the beginning of 1839, it was impossible to obtain an account of the three first quarters. In the year 1839 matters proceeded under the government

325
of Colonel Gawler, with more apparent prosperity, but by means which must ultimately tend to produce great distress. The expenditure was not based upon the amount of revenue actually accruing in the colony, or to be derived from any vote of Parliament, but upon certain speculations as to the future amount to be derived from the sale of lands. In the last quarter of 1839 the expense was 34,000 l., and the average expenditure was 140,000 l. a year: whilst the real and bonâ fide revenue of the colony, derived from the duties and the taxes, amounted to about 20,000 l. Therefore, with a revenue of 20,000 l., the governor of South Australia was expending 140,000 l. There were no doubt considerable sales of land, but although money might be borrowed from the land-fund to meet the ordinary expenses of the colony, yet it was necessary that such sums should be repaid within a certain time, and that a portion should be devoted to the purpose of emigration in the course of the year. The commissioners who had been appointed for the management of the colony were a numerous body, but only one, Colonel Torrens, received any salary. As soon as he bad been appointed to his present office, he changed this system, and appointed the same persons as superintended the colonial land and emigration fund to take charge of the colony. After they had proceeded for some time, it was necessary that some sums for improvement should be paid out, but it was found that the colony was getting into a state of bankruptcy, and that the commissioners were without the means of paying a large bill which had been drawn by the governor, and had become due. The commissioners represented the matter to the Colonial office, and also the obligations they were under, as well for the bills drawn as for sums due for taking up ships for emigration. His right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whom the subject was mentioned, immediately saw that the inhabitants of the colony might be driven to the utmost distress by the sudden stoppage of the credit of the colony, and in conjunction with him, his right hon. Friend stated publicly that he would propose to Parliament a vote to reimburse the commissioners, if they could raise a fund to pay these liabilities. The parties, however, to whom application for money was made, seeing the state of the colony, declined to advance any money, especially as they had considerable doubt as to the mode in which the subject would
326
be dealt with by Parliament, for he had stated last year that it was his intention to bring the matter before Parliament. His own impression certainly was, that it would be necessary to alter all the acts relating to the colony. He would not now say what general provisions ought to be made, but some must be determined on, and he was certain that the committee would say that the present system was so inconvenient, that it so far fettered property on the one hand, and encouraged expense on the other, that it ought to be changed. He would therefore simply move for the appointment of a committee to consider the Acts relating to South Australia.
Viscount Mahondid not intend to oppose the motion, but wished to call the attention of the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies to the fact, that South Australia was not the only colony in that quarter of the globe which stood in need of investigation. There was great dissatisfaction existing in the other Australian colonies, and as an instance of it he would just refer to a meeting that was held in Van Diemen's Land on the 29th of April, 1840, and attended by all the principal settlers in the colony, at which a resolution to the following effect was unanimously agreed to:—
"That, apprehending the most disastrous consequences, and the total stagnation of agriculture and commerce (it being impossible that the earth can be tilled to yield even sufficient for our own consumption, and still less for that of the inhabitants of New South Wales, and the surrounding colonies, whose dependence upon us last year proved their sole relief from famine), his Excellency be called upon to suspend the orders from home for the abolition of assignment."
A petition was accordingly prepared and presented to Sir John Franklin, in which the system of convict labour was spoken of as not free from abuses but as conspicuous for "good uses;" as "not only in proportion as a punishment, but as a means whereby the prisoner is habituated to honest conduct, and taught to look forward with some degree of hope and confidence to the expiration of that period when his labour becomes his own, instead of being removed altogether, as it is proposed, from the habitations of man, and prepared for freedom by being wholly debarred from society." Shortly afterwards Sir John Franklin gave an answer, in which he regretted that he was debarred by positive instructions from home from even a tem-

327
porary continuation of the assignment system of the colony; but he took that opportunity to protest against the conclusion's relative to the moral effects of that system on the character of the colonists as stated in the report of the Transportation Committee, and in other publications.
"I wish," he said, "to record my conviction, that families may emigrate to this colony with as little danger of moral contamination as they would be exposed to in any of her Majesty's dominions."
He had been lately in communication with a most respectable gentleman, a clergyman, who had resided for a considerable period in Van Diemen's Land, and who had recently returned, and who was strongly impressed with the belief that it might be practicable to repress the evils and abuses of convict labour without abolishing the system itself, and that it might be made most conducive, not only to the advantage of the colony, but to what should be their main object—the benefit and reformation of the criminal. On the 22nd of last month that gentleman wrote to him, saying,
"I can, if necessary, produce several influential and highly respectable individuals of the colony now in this country, to give testimony in favour of the advantages of assignment."
He (Lord Mahon) believed the recent measures of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had been founded on very incorrect information, and greatly out-went the necessity of the case. They would probably be the cause of ruin to the colony. He thought that colony had been dealt with by the noble Lord from most praiseworthy motives, but in a hasty and erroneous manner, and that the noble Lord him elf was not satisfied with his own decisions on the subject. For, in the Minute on the subject of transportation which was drawn up by the noble Lord, and was dated January 2, 1839, it was expressly stated, that the noble Lord had adopted the change of system, "with much diffidence and hesitation." All he (Lord Mahon) asked for was further inquiry—an opportunity of examining those witnesses from Van Diemen's Land, who were now in this country and anxious to state the facts they had observed. It was, indeed, a subject of greater doubt and difficulty than some persons in that House would imagine.
Lord Stanleymust say, that the cases
328
were very rare indeed in which persons holding the situation of the noble Lord were warranted in leaving the duties of their office, and delegating them over to a committee of the House of Commons, who were wholly unable to determine all the circumstances of colonial management. He did not say, that circumstances had not arisen, and that they might not again arise, which would justify such a course. He did not say, that in the present instance the peculiar foundation of the colony, and the former interference of Parliament, might not be a good ground for the proposal of the noble Lord. But he concluded that the committee was not merely to collect evidence and facts, because all the evidence and all the facts were already in the possession of the noble Lord, and he could lay them before the committee. The committee, he presumed, were to express an opinion upon the present state of the colony, and upon the course that ought to be pursued; and he earnestly hoped that it was not the noble Lord's intention to fling down the subject loose before the committee, to lay the documents before them, and leave them to find their road to a conclusion; but he hoped that the noble Lord, or some one deputed by him, would state to the committee that opinion which the noble Lord had not thought it prudent to give to the House, and that he would be prepared to recommend a plan, subject to any revision or modification that the committee might suggest.
Lord John Russellagreed with the noble Lord with respect to the general principle, that it would not be for the public advantage that the affairs of a colony should be delivered over to the decision of a Select Committee of that House; but he begged to state at the same time that he did think that this colony formed a case by itself, from the fact that it was established, not by the Crown, but by an Act of Parliament, on the opinions and projects of individual Members of Parliament, and also of other persons not Members of Parliament. The Government, indeed, supported the measure, but the bill having received the sanction of Parliament, he conceived that a committee might be rightly appointed to see what had been the operation of the bill, and what had been the result of the clauses that were then settled. It was his intention that his hon. Friend the Under Secretary

329
for the Colonies should state to the committee the branches of the subject to which the committee should attend, and the general views taken by the Government; and he thought, then, that, in bringing in a bill the House would be prepared to follow the general subject. With regard to the observations of his noble Friend the Member for Hertford, which he had addressed to the House on the subject of transportation, they did not relate to the matter then before them, but to another subject, the assignment of convicts. He did not think that Van Diemen's Land was an improper place for transportation, or that the use of convict labour was objectionable; but the system of assignment, as he had seen it described by General Bourke, and as he had seen it described by the witnesses; who were examined before the Committee on Transportation, appeared to him as nearly as possible a system of slavery, and liable to most of the abuses of slavery.
Mr. Humewas satisfied with what the noble Lord had stated with respect to South Australia. It only proved that the government of the colonies in Downing-street must necessarily fail. Parties were tempted to go out to the colonies; they took out with them much property, that gave them a stake, and yet it was in a few colonies only that they were enabled to exercise their property; and he believed that the noble Lord would find, that the best means of promoting the prosperity of the colonies would be, by enabling them to govern themselves.
Motion agreed to.
Committee to be nominated hereafter.

MINUTES.
NEW PEER.—Lord Holland took, his Seat for the first time, on acceding to the Peerage on the Demise of his Father.

SIR R. STOPFORD.—VOTE OF THANKS.
The Earl of Mintorose, in pursuance of the notice which he had given, to move the thanks of the House to Admiral Sir Robert Stopford, G.C.B., and the officers and men employed under his command in the late operations on the coast of Syria. In doing so, he should detain their Lordships for a very few moments, because he felt that it was really unnecessary that he should enter into any details with reference to events with which their Lordships must be perfectly familiar. It was true, that, on many former occasions, the British fleet had been called into action against more formidable enemies, and had been engaged in more sanguinary contests; but he was sure their Lordships would admit that throughout the whole course of these operations on the coast of Syria, abundant proofs were given of the skill, of the bravery, of the resources, of that originality of enterprise, and of character, which had always distinguished the British navy. But there was one very peculiar circumstance connected with these operations which he wished particularly to press on their Lordships' attention. He alluded to the singular rapidity with which, and the very short space of time in which, those many brave and gallant enterprises, all of which ended in the most complete success, were effected. On the 9th of September, after receiving the refusal of the Pacha to accede to the terms proposed by the Sultan, Sir Robert Stopford appeared before Beyrout; and, without the loss of a single day, nay, he might say, without the loss of a single hour, he launched Commodore Napier on that career of victory and success, which he so unremittingly continued to pursue throughout the whole of the campaign. On the 9th of September, Commodore Napier landed at Djouni, a bold and able operation in the midst of superior forces; and on the 3rd of November, the contest was concluded by the reduction of the fortress of Acre. In those few weeks, the mountaineers had been armed and organized, and every gar-
250
rison, every magazine, and every town, in short, the whole extent of coast from Tripoli to Jaffa had been reduced by one or other of the detachments of our fleet. Commodore Napier had twice marched on shore against the forces of Soliman and of Ibrahim which he routed and dispersed and in the interval between these two actions had proceeded to Sidon, which he entered by storm at the head of a mixed force of British, Austrians, and Turks, amounting to scarcely 1,000 men, and from which he returned, bringing in his train, nearly 3,000 prisoners. He had felt it necessary to dwell on the rapidity with which these conquests were effected, because in this contest, time was every thing. It was not only most important to the efficacy of our operations, but, if the contest had been protracted to another campaign, it might have been attended with disastrous consequences to the peace of Europe. As a further proof of the promptitude which characterized the whole of these transactions, he Legged leave to refer to Sir Robert Stopford's despatch of the 31st of October. He there stated, that he had just received instructions from Government to reduce the fortress of Acre, an undertaking which had already engaged his attention. That resolution was taken on the 29th of September. On the 31st of October, he wrote that all the arrangements were completed, and that he was prepared. In fact, the expedition sailed on that day, and in three days from the date of his letter, the fortress had fallen before British valour. The Admiral was most ably and gallantly seconded in all his operations by Admiral Bandeira, who commanded the Austrian squadron, in which the spirit and gallantry of the Archduke Frederick was eminently conspicuous. In Commodore Napier's account of the attack on Sidon, he spoke in the very highest terms of the conduct of the Archduke; and at Acre he landed during the night along with the marines of his ship, in order to to secure the entrance of the town and fortress, a resolution highly creditable to the spirit and activity of this young Prince. To Admiral Walker much praise was due. His services had eminently contributed to the success of her Majesty's arms. He was in every action—had gallantly maintained that reputation in the British navy—which had obtained for him the high post which he now so ably filled, as commander of the Turkish fleet. He felt that it was quite

251
unnecessary for him to add one word more, in order to induce their Lordships to concur in the vote of thanks which it would be his duty to conclude by proposing. He would only repeat, that throughout the whole of these operations British valour and skill were most conspicuous; more especially in the last achievement, the attack on the fortress of Acre, where the precision and accuracy of the British fire proved that we had added a new element of strength and power to the British navy. From what had been done on this occasion by British skill and valour, their Lordships might judge what the British navy, if called upon, was able to effect; and showed that the talents and bravery of the officers and sailors of Britain had not in any degree deteriorated. He hoped their Lordships and the country would receive this as an earnest of what they might expect, should, unfortunately, the fleet be brought into any more formidable collision. In his opinion, the gallant conduct and consummate skill manifested by our officers and sailors had given the best answer to all those cavils and complaints of the degeneracy and decay of the British fleet which had been made in many quarters during the past year. On that head he would not add another word. All must feel that the brave men in the fleet had given a much better answer to the calumny than any which he could offer. The noble Earl then moved
"The thanks of the House to Admiral Sir R. Stopford, G.C.B., for the operations conducted by him on the coast of Syria, particularly for the decisive attack on the fortress of Acre on the 3d of November 1840; to Commodore Sir C. Napier, K.C.B., and the several captains and officers of the fleet employed on the coast of Syria; and that the House highly approves of the services of the seamen and Royal marines employed on the occasion. Also, that the thanks of the House be given to Major-General Sir C. Smith and the Royal Artillery and Engineers serving under his command on the coast of Syria; to Rear-Admiral Baron Bandeira and the naval force under his command, for their valuable assistance and cooperation during the proceedings on the coast of Syria; and to Sir B. Walker, commander of the navy of his Highness the Sultan; and that the Lord Chancellor be directed to signify the same to Admiral Sir Robert Stopford."
Lord Colchesterheartily concurred in the tribute of praise which the noble Earl had bestowed on the navy in moving this vote of thanks. Great as must be the satisfaction of the noble Earl, that these
252
events had taken place while he was at the head of the Admiralty, that satisfaction must be much increased by the reflection, that one of the officers commanding a ship employed in the late operations on the coast of Syria was a son of the noble Earl. The noble Earl had so fully described the series of operations which had taken place, that he would not trouble their Lordships by going over the same ground. He would only say, that he entirely concurred in all that had fallen from the noble Earl, as to the activity and dauntless courage displayed by Sir C. Napier, and in the tribute of praise which the noble Earl bad given to the officers and seamen employed, more especially for the gallantry which they had shown in the attack on the fortress of Acre. The noble Lord had alluded to a supposed complaint, that the navy of England had degenerated. He was not aware that any such charge had been brought against the officers and seamen employed in the naval service. Charges had certainly been made against the civil administration of the navy, which this was not the proper opportunity to discuss; but he had never heard of any charge of degeneracy made against the navy itself. He would take that opportunity to offer his tribute of praise to Sir Robert Stopford, and with that view he would advert for a few moments to the previous services of that gallant officer. Were he to go through the whole of those services, he would have to recount to their Lordships the naval history of this country for nearly sixty years past. Sir Robert Stopford had begun his career with the victory of Rodney, in whose fleet he had served. He had on many previous occasions received the thanks of that House for his gallant services. On the 1st of June, 1794, Sir R. Stopford commanded one of the frigates attached to Lord Howe's fleet. He then received the thanks of the House as one of the captains engaged on that memorable occasion. In 1806 he commanded a line of battle ship, under Admiral Duckworth, in the action off St. Domingo, and received the thanks of Parliament as one of the captains who had fought under that gallant commander. Again he had received thanks for his conduct in the expedition to Copenhagen; and, in 1812, by name, for his services in the capture of the island of Java, this last expedition being one of so much importance, that the Governor-general of India left his government to accompany it in person. In 1830, after having held the

253
command at Portsmouth, full of years and honours, he might have expected to retire from active service, being then nearly seventy years of age, but his country required his services, and now, for four years, he had commanded in the Mediterranean—an employment which, from the political state of the countries bordering on that sea was one of the most arduous nature. In the hostilities of last year his former skill and talent had been brought into action, and he had given new proof of the ability and judgment that had ever characterised him, by the lute glorious operation before Acre, that fortress, which had been deemed impregnable, having been, in the course of a few hours, reduced to ruins by the skill and courage of the British fleet under his command, and the question of the Levant, which had so nearly disturbed the peace of Europe, been in consequence settled. Those services, in his opinion, demanded the warmest thanks of the House. Thanks were all that this House could bestow; but he did trust, that while honors and decorations were liberally bestowed on other officers who had been employed in the capture of Acre, their gallant commander, who had not yet received any mark of her Majesty's approbation, would not ultimately be neglected, but that the name of the conqueror of Acre might be soon enrolled in this House—as it would at all events be hereafter in the annals of his country—with those of the victors of Algiers, of Bhurtpore, and of Ghisnee. He had thought it right, as a member of the naval profession, thus briefly to state his sentiments.
The Duke of Wellingtonexpressed his cordial approbation of the services performed by the navy in the Mediterranean, which well deserved the thanks of the House. He was sorry that the noble Earl had adverted to any supposed complaints or cavils with respect to the degeneracy of the naval service. For his own part he had never heard any such charge made in that House. The noble Earl had also adverted lo the time when these operations had taken place, and he could not avoid expressing his regret that the noble Earl had made the remark on this occasion. That was a matter entirely irrelevant to the present question, for all they had to do was to record their thanks for the services that had been performed by those who were engaged in this glorious expedition. He had had a little experience in services of this nature, and he thought it
254
his duty to warn their Lordships on this occasion, that they must not always expect that ships, however well commanded, or however gallant their seamen might be, were capable of commonly engaging successfully with stone walls. He had no recollection, in all his experience, except the recent instance on the coast of Syria, of any fort being taken by ships, excepting two or three years ago, when the fort of St. Jean d'Ulloa was captured by the French fleet. That was, he thought, the single instance that he recollected; though he believed that something of the sort had occurred at the siege of Havannah, in 1763. The present achievement he considered one of the greatest deeds of modern times. That was his opinion, and he gave the highest credit to those who had performed such a service. It was altogether a most skilful proceeding, he was greatly surprised at the small number of men that were lost on board the fleet; and on inquiring how it happened, he discovered that it was because the vessels were moored within one-third of the ordinary distance. The guns of the fortress were intended to strike objects at a greater distance, and the consequence was, that the shot went over the ships that were anchored at one-third of the usual distance. By that means they sustained not more than 1–10th of the loss which they would otherwise have experienced. Not less than 500 pieces of ordnance were directed against the walls; and the precision with which the fire was kept up, the position of the vessels, and lastly the blowing up of the large magazine, all aided in achieving this great victory in so short a time. He had thought it right to say thus much, because he wished to warn their Lordships against supposing that such deeds as this could be effected every day. He would repeat, that this was a singular instance, in the achievement of which great skill was undoubtedly manifested, but which was also connected with peculiar circumstances which they could not hope always to occur. It must not therefore be expected as a matter of course, that all such attempts in future must necessarily succeed.
The Earl of Hardwickesaid, their Lordships must feel, after the very lucid statements which had been made to them by the noble Lord, and by the noble Duke, that it would be perfectly absurd for him to enter into any further statements, and

255
take up any more of their time; but be could not help expressing how perfectly he concurred in the opinions which had been given, and how satisfied he was that at no period had the British navy exhibited an act of greater bravery and skill. Taking it altogether, no affair had been more rapidly or more ably conceived and executed than the siege of Acre; and he perfectly concurred with the noble Lord in stating, that any man who thought the navy was in any way degenerated—that any man who at any time was so unfortunate as to have thought so—must on this occasion feel perfectly satisfied that all his conceptions had been mistaken.
Lord Hillbegged to express his perfect concurrence in the approbation which had been bestowed on that part of the service which at all times, and on every opportunity, had been distinguished for its valour and good conduct. It also gave him pleasure to find included in the vote of thanks, his gallant friend Sir Charles Smith, and the officers of the engineers.
The Earl of Mintobegged to assure the noble Duke, that in attempts against fortresses by ships of war, he was fully sensible, from conversation with able men (and he never met with an able man who was not a sensible one), of the great disadvantages under which ships must always labour when brought to operate against walls and fortresses. He thought, however, that we might trust to the prudence and discretion of our officers so to govern their love of enterprise as not to undertake any attack of this description without a fair prospect of success—such a fair prospect of success as the gallant Admiral felt he had before him when he went to Acre. Of late years, a great and remarkable improvement had taken place in gunnery. The practice before Acre was one of the greatest examples of this; in it the fire was such as it was almost impossible to withstand with any degree of steadiness. This he considered was a new power acquired to the navy of late years, and one which rendered an attack on stone walls and fortresses a much less dangerous undertaking than it might have been in the days of more random firing. The attack on Algiers had been made under much greater disadvantages than the recent one on Acre, owing to the great improvements in gunnery since that time. Knowing that the noble Duke only meant to give a
256
caution against rash enterprises, he did not believe that the noble Duke meant to give his great authority to a statement that the power of ships of war was never to be ventured against batteries on shore.
The Duke of Wellingtondid not mean to say that ships of war should never do such a thing. He stated a fact.
Resolutions unanimously agreed to.

TRIAL OF THE EARL OF CARDIGAN.
The Earl of Shaftesburybrought up the third report from the "committee appointed to inspect the journals upon former trials of peers in criminal cases, and to consider the proper methods of proceeding, in order to bring James Thomas, Earl of Cardigan, to a speedy trial, and to report to the House what they shall think proper thereupon," &c. It referred first to the accommodation that can be provided on the occasion of the said trial, viz.:—

In the body of the House

300

In the gallery on the right-hand side of the House

60

In the gallery on the left-hand side of the House

60

420

In the present gallery at the west end of the House

120

In the new gallery in front of the same (to be reserved for the tickets issued to the Royal Family, Peeresses, the wives of the eldest sons of Peers, and Peers' daughters)

64

184

Seats below the bar

36

640

It next laid down regulations for the distribution of tickets of admission, and concluded with recommending that the following orders be made by the House, viz.:—
"That none be covered at the said trial but the Lords.
"That the Serjeant-at-Arms be within the House to make proclamations, which are to be made in the Queen's name, for keeping silence."
These recommendations were put, and adopted by their Lordships.

CHURCH-RATES.
Lord Broughamsaid he had a petition to present from the in-

257
habitants of the town of Leicester, or rather from the members of the Society of the Friends of Religious Liberty in public meeting assembled. This meeting, as he understood, was held upon the 23rd of last month; it was most numerously and respectably attended, and the meeting unanimously came to the resolution of addressing their Lordships by petition. Although the petition was only signed by the respectable chairman, the Mayor of Leicester, and, therefore, according to the forms of their Lordships' House, could only be received as the petition of the individual signing it, nevertheless it expressed the unanimous feelings and sentiments of the numerous and respectable body that was assembled on the occasion. The petitioners stated that they considered the levying of Church-rates in England to be a grievous wrong indicted upon a large portion of her Majesty's subjects, who were heavily and unequally burdened, inasmuch as that, whilst they felt bound to provide for the maintenance of their own religious worship, they were at the same time, in opposition to their own sincere and honest conviction, compelled to contribute towards the support of a Church from which they derived no spiritual consolation. The petitioners also complained, as a great aggravation of the infliction upon them of the payment of Church-rates, of the grievance arising from the expensive and burdensome proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Courts; and the petitioners stated that an inhabitant of the town of Leicester, Mr. William Baines, an individual of great respectability, had, from conscientious motives, refused to pay a church-rate that was sought to be exacted from him; that he had, in consequence, been cast into prison, and that in prison he still remained, because he refused to pay a rate which he conscientiously believed he was not bound to pay. The petitioners then prayed their Lordships to take such steps as would tend to the relief of the subject from this burden, and which would also tend to the immediate liberation of Mr. Baines, and thus put an end to the strifes and feuds that distracted the country upon this subject, and impeded so greatly the advancement of religion. He understood that the town of Leicester contained about 60,000 inhabitants, and that the annual amount of Church-rates was 330 l. He understood, also, that two-fifths of the rate, or about
258
130 l., were paid by persons who conscientiously dissented from the Established Church; and for this paltry sum a large portion of the inhabitants of that great and populous town were brought into a perpetual state of strife and animosity. He held in his hand a letter from a most respectable magistrate of the town of Leicester, in which he stated that the enforcement of the Church-rates, in Leicester, had become the most disagreeable part of his duty; that it destroyed respect for the law, on the part of a great portion of the people, and engendered the most hostile feelings towards the Established Church. He entreated their Lordships to take the prayer of this petition, and the subject matter generally, into their consideration, and not to run away with the idea that any change that might take place in the constitution of the Ecclesiastical Courts, or in the reformation of their proceedings, however much it might relieve or mitigate the evil complained of, would reconcile people to the great grievance of exacting these rates from persons who conscientiously dissented from the Established Church. Mr. Baines had been incarcerated for the sum of 2l 5s.; he had been some months in prison for the non-payment of this sum, and was now burdened with costs to the amount of 125 l. As far as costs were concerned, no doubt the evil might be lessened, as by the measure which his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) last year brought forward, and which he hoped his noble and learned Friend would slate his intention again to bring forward, no doubt the amount of costs would be diminished; still, of necessity, the costs must be very much greater than the demand, when proceedings were taken for so insignificant a sum as 2l. He took the liberty of stating, at the end of last Session, when a bill was passed in consequence of similar circumstances that occurred at Chelmsford in the case of Mr. Thorogood, that the great interest that had been excited over the country by the confinement of Mr. Thorogood, and in favour of his liberation, would never have been excited, had it not been known that a grievance existed with which was connected his incarceration. He would say nothing upon the present occasion about the individual referred to in the petition, or about the Ecclesiastical Courts, as he merely wished to call attention to the grievance of which the peti-

259
tioners complained. He hoped her Majesty's Ministers would be able to state to their Lordships that it was their intention again to take up this subject. It was now three years since a bill had been loudly called for by hundreds and thousands of petitions. That bill had been dropped in the other House of Parliament. He would now fain hope that her Majesty's Ministers would be able to answer in the affirmative, whether there was any intention of renewing their former measure, and if not, whether it was intended to propose any other measure calculated to effect the same purpose?
Viscount Melbournesaid, it was not in his power to say, that there was any such intention.
Lord Brougham: That answer only applies to this particular moment?
Viscount Melbournesaid, that he was unable now to state, that any such intention existed.
Lord Broughamwas sorry to say, that he must take the answer of the noble Viscount to be a negative to his whole question. He was sure, that his noble and learned Friend would not answer him negatively with respect to the Ecclesiastical courts.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, it was his intention to introduce a measure on the subject as early as possible.
Petition laid on the Table.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL.
Lord Broughamsaid, he thought a misunderstanding had gone abroad respecting the course of proceedings in a very important judicature in this country—the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. He thought it right, in consequence of something which passed in another place, that their Lordships should have an opportunity of seeing whether there had been any neglect of duty on the part of the said judges who constituted that court. It had been said, that they had not sufficiently complied with the Act of Parliament in holding the sittings which ought to be held in the exercise of their jurisdiction. No personal complaint whatever had been made against these judges. It was only said, that by the constitution of the court their meetings were accidental, that it depended upon the chance of the case whether meetings were held or not, and that parties were brought down again and again, and much
260
needless expense was incurred. One would naturally suppose, from such statements, that such delays happened very frequently. Upon inquiry he found, that there were only two, or at the utmost three, instances during the last three years. The proper way of ascertaining the truth was, to move for a return of the days of sitting. It had been said, that the court had only sat eighteen days during the year 1840. The fact was, that it had only sat eighteen days during that portion of the year 1840, which elapsed previous to the close of last Session, that is to say, the month of August. But there were five months of the year 1840, after that return was made, and when they came to look at the whole attendance, instead of eighteen it amounted to thirty days. The learned judges were called upon by the Act to make arrangements so as to enable the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to sit as often as the state of business required. They should ascertain how often, in point of fact, the Judicial Privy Council had held its sittings. He would commence with the year 1834, and take every year down to 1840 inclusive. He would also take in the number of appeals which had been heard during that time, and the number which were now received to be heard. If these returns, when brought before their Lordships, should show, that there ought to have been a greater number of sittings in respect to the amount of business, and, that there had been a greater number of causes set down than ought, in the ordinary course of business, to have stood for hearing without being so despatched, no doubt it would then be the duty of the learned judges to attend more closely to the provisions of the Act than they had attended. If, on the other hand, it should appear, that they had sat, one year with another, as often as was required, and that there was no more arrear of business in that court than existed in any other court, much more if it should turn out, there was a less arrear, then he trusted the observation made would not be repeated. The noble Lord then moved for an account of the number of days that the Privy Council had sat during the seven years ending 1840, and of causes and appeals.
Returns ordered.
Adjourned.