Sitting of 5 March 1844

MINUTES.
BILLS. Private.—1o. Liverpool Docks; Kingston-upon-Hull Docks; London Gas.
2o. Northern Coal Mining Company; Yarmouth and Norwich Railway; Leeds and Bradford Railway; Guildford Junction Railway; Furness Railway.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Royd Mill, Wilsden, against Factories Bill.—By Mr. Muntz, from Merchants and others (2), complaining of Conveyance of Goods by Railway.—From Pollockshaws, respecting Burdens on Land.—From Dunbar, and Glasgow, respecting Schoolmasters (Scotland).—By Mr. S. Crawford, from Kettering, and by Dr. Bowring, from Liverpool, Aberdeen, and Cranbrook, for Withholding the Supplies.—From Bally-sax School, complaining of Board of Charitable Bequests.—By Mr. Ewart, from Lambeth, complaining of the Water Works Company.—By Mr. Wallace, from John Lamb, complaining of Sheriff-substitute of Stirlingshire.—By Lord Rendlesham, from Haddington, and 100 places, against Alteration of the Corn Laws.—By Mr. T.

581
Duncombe, from Finsbury (18), for Reduction of Duty on Tobacco.—From Edinburgh, for Repeal of Duty on Paper.—From Patington, and Tailsworth, for Alteration of Poor Law.—By Mr. M. Gibson, from W. T. Wilson, respecting Medical Relief under the Poor Law BilL—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from Gravesend, respecting Voting under the Poor Law Bill.—From a Society at Carlisle, for Freedom of Opinion.—From Samuel Gordon, complaining of Injuries.—By Mr. Tuffnell, from Marylebone, for Enquiry into the Metropolitan Police Force.

PARLIAMENTARY AGENTS—STANDING ORDERS.
Sir William Heathcotehad a petition to present relating to private business, on which it was desirable to have the opinions of Members, and also the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair. It related to the Committee on Petitions, of which he had the honour to be chairman, and complained that the Petitioner had not been heard by his Agent. The Parliamentary Agent did appear before the Committee but he not being acquainted with the case, the petitioner desired to be heard through his solicitor. He, however, was of opinion, and the Committee agreed with him, that a solicitor not being entered as a Parliamentary agent, as every solicitor had power to be if he pleased, was not a person contemplated by the Standing Order, and the Committee refused to hear him. The petitioner was of opinion that he was injured there by. He had promised the petitioner to obtain a consideration of his case, and said he was sure, that if he had done wrong the House would overturn his decision. He could not, however, as at present advised, say that he was wrong. The Standing Order provided, that parties should be heard by themselves or their Agents and Witnesses. It had been held that a Counsel could not be heard, not being a Parliamentary Agent, and on the same ground the Committee decided that a solicitor could not be heard, unless he complied with the form of the Speaker's order, and enrolled himself as a Parliamentary Agent. The hon. Baronet brought up the petition, which was from Sir Robert Harland, stating that his solicitors were not allowed to be heard in support of his Petition before the Select Committee on Petitions for Private Bills, on the ground that they were not Parliamentary Agents, and praying that his Petition may be referred back to the Committee, and his Solicitor permitted to be heard.
Sir G. Greyobserved, that this was a new point. His first impression was that the refusal to hear a person not being a Parliamentary Agent was right, but he was not sufficiently conversant with the con-
582
struction of the Standing Orders to call upon the House to acquiesce in that view, unless some gentleman of more experience would state what the practice was, with a view to some general rule being laid down.
Lord C. Somersetsaid he came to a different conclusion from the hon. Baronet, but thought it quite right that the question should be considered. His impression was, that if die Standing Orders intended to prevent any person from appearing as an agent, except a Parliamentary Agent, the word "Parliamentary" would have been added. He did not see the desirableness of forcing every person who appeared before a Committee to employ a Parliamentary Agent. In a number of cases the parties might, without incurring the expense of a Parliamentary Agent, employ a solicitor; and he was of opinion, that an "Agent" was any person duly authorised, and representing the party, and that the only person excluded would be a retained Counsel.
Mr. Aglionbywas sure the House would be happy to have the advantage of the Speaker's opinion, and if the right hon. Gentleman had not formed any decided opinion, he would suggest that it might be well to adjourn the question, in order that inquiry might be made as to the practice; but so far as his experience as a Chairman of Committees on Private Bills extended, he was not aware of a single instance in which the term "Agent" had not been construed "Parliamentary Agent." No doubt, solicitors from the country often attended before Committees, and if they offered a suggestion it would be attended to; but they would not be allowed to advocate the case if any objections were made, or appearing as agent for the party. The noble Lord was mistaken in supposing that either hardship or expense would arise from the necessity of employing Parliamentary Agents; they were better acquainted with the forms of proceeding than a country solicitor could be; and he was persuaded that both time and money would be saved by the employment of Parliamentary Agents.
Mr. Struttsaid, he had referred to the petition, and found that his authority as Chairman of a Committee had been quoted as having allowed some solicitor to appear before the Committee on the Lancaster and Carlisle Railway Bill. He could only say, that there had been no decision to that effect, either by him or the Com-

583
mittee; and that if any solicitor had appeared, it was without any knowledge on their part, that he was not a Parliamentary Agent.
The Speakersaid, if the House was desirous of hearing his opinion, he was quite ready to state it. In his construction of the Standing Order, he agreed with the hon. Member for Derby. During the time that he had the honour of being Chairman of the Committee on Petitions, an "Agent" had always been considered to be a "Parliamentary Agent;" and he was aware of a case in which a person had applied to be heard as an Agent other than a Parliamentary Agent and had been refused. If the House thought it desirable to adjourn the question, in order to ascertain what was the practice, perhaps it would be well to take that course; but if his opinion was asked, he said decidedly, that "Agent" meant "Parliamentary Agent."
Mr. Estcourtthought the object of the Standing Order was to limit the attendance of Parliamentary Agents. If there were a new edition of the Standing Order, it might be as well to insert the word "Parliamentary;" but he saw no necessity, after the opinion which had been expressed from the Chair, to adjourn the question.
Lord G. Somersetmaintained, that as a Parliamentary Agent might not understand a particular case, and a country solicitor would, the party was under the necessity of employing both, and was thus put to additional expense.
The Speakersaid, it ought to be understood that the Parliamentary Agent was responsible to the House for the Fees, and therefore the House recognised the necessity of employing him. Under these circumstances, he apprehended that no person ought to appear before the House by an Agent except by a Parliamentary Agent.
Subject at an end.
Petition laid on the Table.

LATE SITTINGS.
Mr W. Williamsrose to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice—namely, that no Motion, if opposed, shall be brought on and discussed in the House after midnight. In bringing forward such a Motion, he disclaimed all intention of interfering with those party discussions which were often prolonged to very unseasonable hours. He wished to confine his Motion to the practical business of the House, feeling convinced that every hon. Member who was in the habit of at-
584
tending to the business of the House would admit, that the practice of bringing forward important business at a very late hour of the night, was not only most inconvenient to the House, but highly detrimental to the interests of the public. The system pursued in transacting the business of the House was in many respects most objectionable, and great alterations would have to be made before the business could be conducted in a manner beneficial to the interests of the country; but perhaps there was no part of the system which required amendment more than that which related to the late hours at which important business was often proceeded with. Referring to the proceedings of the last Session of Parliament, he found that the House sat 119 nights, and that its sittings after midnight amounted altogether to 105½ hours, being nearly one hour of sitting after midnight for each sitting of the House. He had often seen the necessity for some regulation to guide their proceedings with regard to business of importance brought on after midnight. He had often seen Bills of the utmost importance forced on the consideration of the House at one and two o'clock, and sometimes later, in defiance of every remonstrance against them; and he had also seen millions of the public money voted away at the same unseasonable hour, without any consideration for the interests of the country. At the unseasonable hours of one and two o'clock in the morning, he had seen Gentlemen come down to the House to vote on questions affecting the liberty, the property, and the lives of the people. They came from their balls, from the theatres, the opera, and from their parties, and voted on questions upon which they had no knowledge whatever. Such a state of things ought to be corrected, and he knew of no other means of effecting that correction except by limiting the time of business to something like reasonable hours. He had no objection to the discussions affecting the two great parties in the House being continued after midnight, or even to their being carried on till daylight peeped in at the windows, but he had decided objections to really important business being proceeded with at those unseasonable hours. Nature intended that men, instead of wasting their health and strength at these untimely hours, should refresh themselves in the night with sleep. He readily bore testimony to the constant attendance of both the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) and the right hon. Baronet at the head of

585
the Government; they were found in their places at the earliest, as well as the latest hours, and they had given proofs of a physical strength which very much astonished him. He thought they ought to pay a little more attention to their comfort and to their health. They might be able at present to attend to their duties in this House at these unseasonable hours; but if they persevered in doing so, the time must come when their strength would fail them. If by their late sittings they in any way advanced the interests of the country, then it would, no doubt, be highly creditable and commendable for them to devote those late hours to the transaction of public business; but the very reverse was the case. Laws of the greatest public importance were passed whilst most Members on both sides of the House were fast asleep, and while others were so bewildered with drowsiness as hardly to be conscious of what was going on. The noble Lord the Member for London once said, that one effect of the Reform Bill would be, that Members, instead of coming down to the House at midnight to vote upon questions of which they knew nothing, would come down at proper hours and in a state of perfect sobriety and vote on questions which they did understand. The Reform Bill, however, had not fulfilled the prophecy of the noble Lord in this respect. What were the consequences of legislating at these unseasonable hours? How many defects did they not every now and then discover in the Acts passed by the House? Year after year a large portion of the time of the House was consumed in passing Bills, sometimes to amend Acts of a former Session, and sometimes to amend Acts even of the same Session. If Members had only consented to take those Bills into consideration at proper hours, such blunders would not have taken place; but, as it was, they passed Bills which were not intelligible to themselves, and which even the Judges could not understand. Not another country in Europe legislated in a similar manner. In France, Belgium, Holland—in all the states of Germany which possessed a legislative assembly—in the United States of America, and in all the civilised countries of the world which had a popular legislature, a different course was adopted from that pursued by this House of Commons; and not one of them passed their laws at the unseasonable hours at which the British Legislature did. In former and better days a different course was pursued, and business
586
was proceeded with at proper hours. So late as 1702 the House used to meet about mid-day; and in 1714 there was a Standing Order of the House against proceeding with any order of the day after mid-day. He did not mean to say that they could conveniently meet at the present time at that early hour; but he thought that if they commenced business only one hour earlier than they now did, they would do away with the necessity of continuing their sittings to so late an hour as they now did. Towards the close of the last Session the House met at twelve o'clock of the day, and continued to sit till one or two o'clock in the morning; and he had seen business proceeded with at these hours when the whole Members of the Government who were present, and when every Member except the hon. Member for Salford and the Speaker, and the Gentlemen who had Bills to manage were fast asleep. It was at these hours that jobs and bad laws were smuggled through the House. Having seen the evil effects of the system, he begged leave to suggest what he thought would remedy them. He would suggest that they should assimilate the laws of the United Kingdom by making the laws for England, Scotland, and Ireland the same. Every reflecting Statesman would admit, that for our Legislature to pass different laws for the three divisions of the Kingdom was an unwise and injudicious mode of legislating. If the laws of Scotland had been assimilated to those of England at the time of the Union, and if the laws of Ireland had also been assimilated to those of England at the period of the Union, he felt convinced that they would have been enabled to govern the United Kingdom under one law. The hon. Member for Cork, the Representative of all Ireland, had often stated that the great grievance of Ireland was, that the same laws were not given to that country which were given to England. In his opinion, nothing could be more judicious than to make the law for England and for Ireland precisely the same. He had no hesitation in saying that at least one-fourth of the time of the present Session would be consumed in the discussion of two questions—the grievances of Ireland and the Corn Laws. It was evident that the grievances of Ireland must be set at rest, otherwise that country would prove a curse instead of a benefit to England. The present Corn Law could not stand; it must fall; and why should not Ministers meet those two important points at once and

587
settle them? The public wished to sec these questions settled, and as they would be forced on the attention of Government, he thought they ought to take them up and settle them at once. By doing so they would save at least a fourth of the time of the Session. He would also recommend Government to bring in such Bills as they intended should pass at an earlier period of the Session, and to discontinue the practice of bringing in a great number of Bills which were never intended to be passed into laws. A great deal of the time of the House had hitherto been expended in the discussion of such Bills, which he thought might easily be saved. There was another point to which he begged to call the attention of Government. Since he had the honour of sitting in that House, he had invariably found that from four to five months were wasted by all manner of idle debates, and on questions in which the people felt no interest. Take, for instance, the Session of 1840, when hon. Gentlemen on the other side consumed pretty nearly the whole of the Session, so far as regarded the public interests, in the discussion of the most worthless motions, yet not altogether worthless to them, for their object was to get hold of place, power, and pelf, and they succeeded. A change of Ministry took place, and though hon. Gentlemen opposite had no doubt derived considerable advantage from the change, the country had gained no advantage whatever. He would just point out the amount of business done at various periods during the last Session. The Session commenced on the 3rd February. In the months of February, March, April, and May, only twenty-six Bills passed that House. In June, ten Bills passed; in July, twenty Bills; but in August, during the first three weeks of that month, forty-four Bills were passed, and sent to the other House of Parliament. It would thus appear that nearly half of the whole number of the Bills passed during the Session were passed in the last three weeks of it. No man could defend such a system. The House of Lords, while the present party were in power, made no scruple of passing the Bills sent up to them at the end of the Session; but every one might recollect that when the late Government pursued a similar course, a certain legal Lord in the other House used to take a review of those Bills, and toss them under the Table in bundles, on the ground that sufficient time had not been afforded for the consideration of them. He hoped that
588
he had stated enough to show that great advantages would result from legislating for the people at proper hours, and he would therefore beg to move "That no motion, if opposed, shall be brought on and discussed in this House after midnight."
The Chancellor of the Exchequercould hardly believe, that the hon. Gentleman was serious; at all events the hon. Gentleman had stated no grounds to justify the House in assenting to it. The hon. Member deprecated the late sittings of the House, because the health of Her Majesty's Government might be seriously affected by their protracted attendance on the debates. On behalf of the Government he begged to tender his best thanks to the hon. Gentleman for the friendly anxiety he had shown upon this subject; but he must take leave to obesrve, that if there was one circumstance which, from long Parliamentary experience he could say, was more prejudicial than another to that health which the hon. Member was desirous to preserve, it was not so much the sitting to discuss matters at a late hour of the night, as being compelled to hear long speeches whether at a late or an early hour, which had no material reference to the business in hand. When an hon. Gentleman got up to discuss the question, whether new and opposed motions should be brought on after midnight, and treated them with dissertations on the Corn Laws, Irish affairs, and a variety of other irrelevant topics, he must fairly admit, although at that early hour—before the ordinary hour of refreshment—it did produce a state of weariness and fatigue greater than a more serious attention to the future real business of the day. If the House did do business at late hours of the night, it was owing to the very circumstance that the earlier parts of the evening were not so profitably occupied as they might be; and if they were to cut themselves off from the only resource which remained of doing business in cases of necessity, even at late hours, there would be no opportunity left of transacting public business at all. The hon. Gentleman had adopted rather an extraordinary mode of proving their inattention to business in that House, when he said, that in the course of the first three months of last Session only twenty-six bills had been passed, while towards the end of the Session, they passed a considerably greater number. The object was, that Bills should be well digested considered, and discussed: and if they were

589
disposed of hastily at the beginning of the Session, there would be no opportunity of learning the sentiments of their constituents and the public in regard to them. It was, therefore, in this view alone a matter of some importance that it was competent to hon. Members to discuss matters brought forward more satisfactorily, by postponing the ultimate passing of Bills till a late period of the Session. If the hon. Member would take the trouble of looking through the Votes of the House he could find, that the subjects which occupied the House in debate after twelve o'clock where those commenced before that hour, and continued in order that a decision might be come to without the necessity of an adjourned debate. Speaking generally, he would find that after twelve o'clock all business not previously discussed, and which Members were desirous of discussing, was put off to meet the general convenience. There might undoubtedly be occasions when great public interests required that measures should be introduced at any hour, however late, and he did not think that the House, acting on the principle of doing what was most for the benefit of the community, would consent by a specific resolution, to debar themselves from entering upon their consideration. Upon the whole, therefore, he must say, as long as they had the good fortune of having among them the hon. Member for Salford, who exercised his functions with an amenity of manner and an intelligent consideration for the business of the country which entitled him to the highest praise, the hon. Member for Coventry might be quite satisfied to leave the matter to his discretion and good sense.
Mr. Brothertonsupposed his hon. Friend, seeing that little success had attended his Motion when introduced by him on former occasions, had now come forward with his powerful aid, in the hope of having a larger majority, and he hoped such would be the case. He certainly supported the Motion with considerable pleasure, because he felt, if it were adopted, it would be exceedingly useful. If they were to adjourn at an earlier period it would facilitate the business of the House, and conduce to the health and comfort of Members, while in no way could it operate prejudicially to the public interests. He was reminded on this occasion of a Message sent down to that House by Queen Elizabeth, recommending the Members of that House not to consume so much time in making long speeches and Motions; and if a similar message should
590
come down from our beloved Queen he should be very happy to join in voting an Address of Thanks to Her Majesty. He was sure that the speeches of hon. Gentlemen might be very much curtailed. He was not favourable to bringing forward any useless motions, he wished as much as possible to get on with the business, and he conceived that the efforts he had made with reference to the adjournment of the House had had the effect, not of retarding, but facilitating the public business. They often praised the wisdom of their ancestors, and certainly they had the wisdom to legislate in the day-time. Why should not we follow their example? There was one mode of accomplishing the end in view which he had no objection to append to the Motion of his hon. Friend. It was well known that the House could not adjourn till four o'clock in the afternoon. Their ancestors assembling at seven or eight o'clock in the morning were determined the House should not continue to sit after four o'clock P.M., unless forty Members were present, and a rule was made, that unless that number were present at that hour the House should stand adjourned. In order to keep within the clear rule, he would suggest that after midnight the House should not continue to sit unless 80 Members were present, and that would be a good security. At the same time he honestly confessed, that he thought it perfectly hopeless to expect to pass a resolution like that of his hon. Friend in that House; but he did feel gratified at the general concurrence which prevailed that they should as nearly as possible adjourn at twelve o'clock. Although he had not succeeded to the extent of his wishes, yet he rejoiced in the general opinion which had now gained so much ground, that, unless engaged in business of very particular importance, no obstruction would be made to adjournment at that hour. He certainly wished to see this Motion carried; but if it was not, while he had the honour of a seat in that House, he should always endeavour to press upon it the importance of adjourning at or before midnight.
The House divided.—Ayes 16; Noes 146: Majority 130.

List of the AYES.

Aldam, W.

Ewart, W.

Bowring, Dr.

Fielder, J.

Byng, rt. hn. G. S.

Hill, Lord M.

Collett, J.

James, W.

Crawford, W. S.

Morris, D.

Dennistoun, J.

Morrison, J.

591

Scholefield, J.

Trelawney, J. S.

TELLERS.

Wawn, J. T.

Williams, W.

Yorke, H. R.

Brotherton, J.

List of the NOES.

Ainsworth, P.

Greenall, P.

Allix, J. P.

Greene, T.

Antrobus, E.

Halford, H.

Arkwright, G.

Hamilton, W. J.

Ashley, Lord

Hanmer, Sir J.

Astell, W.

Hardinge, rt.hn. Sir H.

Baillie, Col.

Hardy, J.

Barclay, D.

Hastie, A.

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Hawes, B.

Beckett, W.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Bernal, R.

Hodgson, F.

Boldero, H. G.

Hodgson, R.

Borthwick, P.

Hope, hon. C.

Botfield, B.

Hornby, J.

Bradshaw, J.

Houldsworth, T.

Bramston, T. W.

Hughes, W. B.

Brownrigg, J. S.

Hussey, T.

Bruce, Lord E.

Hutt, W.

Buck, L. W.

Irving, J.

Buller, E.

Jocelyn, Visct.

Bunbury, T.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Johnstone, H.

Charteris, hon. F.

Langstone, J. H.

Chute, W. L. W.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Clerk, Sir G.

Lemon, Sir C.

Clive, Visct.

Lincoln, Earl of

Clive, hon. R. H.

McGeachy, F. A.

Cochrane, A.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Copeland, Mr. Ald.

McNeill, D.

Corry, rt. hn. H.

Mahon, Visct.

Craig, W. G.

Mangles, R. D.

Cripps, W.

Manners, Lord J.

Damer, hon. Col.

Majoribanks, S.

Darby, G.

Marsham, Visct.

Davies, D. A. S.

Marton, G.

Dickinson, F. H.

Mildmay, H. St. J.

D'Israeli

Miles, W.

Douglas, Sir H.

Morgan, O.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Mundy, E. M.

Duncan, G.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Duncannon, Visct.

O'Brien, A. S.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Pakington, J. S.

Ebrington, Visct.

Palmer, G.

Eliot, Lord

Patten, J. W.

Escott, B.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Peel, J.

Evans, W.

Pennant, hon. Col.

Fellowes, E.

Plumptre, J. P.

Forster, M.

Pringle, A.

Fuller, A. E.

Rashleigh, W.

Gardner, J. D.

Rendlesham, Lord

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Repton, G. W. J.

Gladstone,rt.hn.W.E.

Richards, R.

Glynne, S. R.

Rous, hon. Capt.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Russell, J. D. W.

Gore, M.

Scarlett, hon. R.

Gore, hon. R.

Shirley, E. J.

Goring, C.

Shirley, E, P.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Smith, A.

Graham, rt, hn. Sir J.

Smith, J. A.

592

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

Warburton, H.

Smythe, hon. G.

Ward, H. G.

Smollett, A.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Somerset, Lord G.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Stanley, Lord

Wood, Col. T.

Stuart, H.

Worsley, Lord

Strutt, E.

Wortley, hn. J. S.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Wrighton, W. B.

Thornely, T.

Wyndham, Col. C.

Towneley, J.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Trotter, J.

Tufnell, H.

TELLERS.

Wall, C. B.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Baring, H.

THE METROPOLITAN POLICE.
Mr. Tufnell,having presented a Petition very numerously signed, from the parish of Marylebone, complaining of the heavy burthen to which that parish is subjected for the maintenance of the New Police, and praying for inquiry, proceeded to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice, for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the cost of the Metropolitan Police Force, and the manner in which the sums levied as Police Rate, are assessed on the different parishes within the Metropolitan Police District. The hon. Member proceeded to state that the additional burthen to which many of the metropolitan parishes had been subjected under the New Police Act was contrary to the understanding upon which that Act had been passed, and was unaccompanied by any corresponding advantage. It was proper that he should state in the outset, that in bringing forward this Motion it was not his intention to make any charge against the efficiency or the conduct of the New Police Force. It could not, however, be denied that an impression had gone abroad, that in many instances great negligence, and, in some cases, unfairness, had been evinced by Magistrates in dealing with those cases in which policemen were charged with violating their duty. It was generally considered that when a person who was paid to preserve the peace violated it, the crime was greater in him than in another person, and that his punishment should be more severe; but it was felt that great negligence had been exhibited by Magistrates when instances of infringement of duty, accompanied by gross insult, had been brought before them. Those, however, were matters into which he had no desire to enter, neither was it his intention to complain of the central system by which the Police Force was conducted; but he objected, and the petitioners objected, that the understanding upon which

593
the New Police Act was passed had not been carried out. It could not be denied, that the system of watch and police that existed previous to 1829, in many of the metropolitan parishes, was most inefficient; and, to remedy the evil, the Committee of 1828 recommended the adoption of the central system, but on the understanding that the change should not entail any additional expense on the parishes; and they further stated in their report that as the protection afforded by the Police was local, the charge ought to be local also, and so far as the system contributed to local protection, he agreed it ought to be maintained by a local charge; but, instead of that, a uniform rate of assessment on all the metropolitan parishes had been imposed, without reference to their wants; and the consequence was, that a greatly increased expense had been entailed on many parishes, without any compensating benefit. The right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) in introducing the Bill of 1829, founded on the Report to which he had referred, had distinctly stated, "that with regard to the tax to be imposed under that Bill, it would be less than the old watch rate." But so far from that being the case, it would be found that in many of the parishes most favourable to the operation of the law, the rate, as compared with the old watch-rate, had been doubled, while the number of Police had been decreased, and no additional security given to person or property. In the parish of Marylebone the sum levied under the old watch-rate had been on the average of ten years 9,500 l., and the number of men employed had been 256. The rate levied in the same parish for the New Police was 20,000 l., and the number of men employed 211. In this parish nothing like a corresponding advantage had been given; for the Police in Marylebone, under the old system, was justly considered a model as regarded its efficiency for the protection of life and property, and there was no proof of any abuse in its management. Mr. Moreton Dyer and Sir R. Birnie, in their evidence before the Committee of 1828, had borne valuable testimony in favour of that efficiency; and he was borne out in the assertion that in that particular parish, and in dealing with a subject of this kind, it was more satisfactory to adduce instances than to deal in general remarks. Though the expense to the parishioners had been doubled, no additional security to life or property had been afforded by the
594
substitution of the New Police for the old Parochial system. He held that the New Police Tax should be regulated fairly, according to the requirements of the several parishes. They were bound, in altering any system of local government, to respect local rights, and to take care that no additional burthens were imposed, without the consent of the several parishes which would be affected by the change. That course had been adopted in reference to the New Poor Law, for under that Act every parish bore only its fair proportion of the general expense, and gave its consent to the imposition of the rate by its representatives; but under the New Police Act, the expense had been increased year after year, till in some parishes it had been doubled, without any reference to the wants or feelings of the parishioners. Another objection was, that the great burthen of the police-rate fell upon those who were least able to bear it. It was true, that since the introduction of the system two Committees had been appointed to inquire into and report upon its operation, and he admitted that the decisions of both those Committees had been favourable to the system. But he contended that that important feature of the case—the unequal pressure of the tax—had not been brought forward. The City had refused, and he thought very wisely, to come within the central system in regard to the Police, and had established an improved system of their own. He understood that under the system as conducted by Mr. Harvey, the City Commissioner, the total cost for each man employed, from superintendent to private constable, was 76 l. per head. While in the parish of Marylebone the cost per head for each man employed, superintendent to private constable, was 112 l. per head. Another point he had to complain of, and which he proposed should be investigated by the Committee, was the unequal rate of assessment in various parishes. If the Act which made the nett annual value the rateable value had been in general operation, the mischief in this respect would have been avoided; but that system had been in a great measure inoperative, in consequence of the want of power to enforce it. He repeated, that he had no fault to find with the conduct of the Police Commissioners, or to allege that property and person were not protected under the new system. All he required was, that the condition under which the act had been originally brought in, and the system

595
introduced should be conformed to. He would submit the Motion in the terms he had stated.
Mr. M. Suttonshould not feel it his duty to trouble the House in stating his reasons for opposing the Motion. But before going further he must express the satisfaction he felt, that the hon. Member, in bringing forward his Motion, had disclaimed all intention of casting any imputation on the conduct of the Commissioners or the Police, at the same time he might be allowed to say, that it would have been as well if the hon. Member had abstained from making charges against the Police Magistrates, which they were not there to answer. With regard to the first branch of the proposed inquiry—the cost of the Police Force—the hon. Member must be aware that an annual return was laid before the House, containing the whole of the information upon that point which any Committee of Inquiry could hope to obtain. The hon. Member could not, therefore, found his Motion on the ignorance of this House—neither had he supported it by any charge or accusation against the force itself. If the hon. Member had taken that course, he (Mr. M. Sutton) should have been prepared to show that those charges and accusations were not founded in fact. With regard to the question of cost, the hon. Gentleman might have referred to the report of the Committee of 1834, which, after a most lengthened investigation, had come to the most satisfactory conclusions on that point. He apprehended that the petition which had been presented by the hon. Member from the parishioners of Marylebone (who, on that occasion, appeared to have preferred entrusting the hon. Member with the duty, rather than either of their own Members), was substantially the same as one of which he (Mr. M. Sutton) held a copy in his hand. And he found it therein stated, that before the passing of the Act of 1829, the parish of Marylebone had a local act of their own, which was sufficient to secure property and person; and that since the introduction of the New Police system, the cost of watching the parish had been doubled, while the number of persons appointed to watch had been decreased. But the whole principle of the New Police Act went on the supposition (which was a correct one) that the efficiency of a Police Force was not in its providing a sufficient watch within the limits of any particular parish or borough alone, but in its power of providing for the security of
596
person and property equally in the neighbouring localities. And he held that the security of person and property in Marylebone was maintained, not by the number of men employed there to preserve the peace alone, but more so by the means adopted to prevent outrages against person and property in the other metropolitan boroughs. But, in regard to the cost, if the hon. Gentleman took the cost of the Police Force in Marylebone, and divided the gross sum by the number of Police officers commonly on duty, no doubt his calculation of 112 l. per head was correct. But the hon. Member should recollect that the number of policemen might, and would be, if necessary, increased at any moment. If the authorities of Marylebone parish applied for an increase, it would be granted; and, without any application from the parish itself; if the Superintendent of the Force were to report that more policemen were required, they would be at once sent: and this was a fair point of consideration in calculating the amount of the expense as the hon. Gentleman had done. It was true the hon. Gentleman had referred to the speech of the right hon. Baronet, and had stated, as had also the petitioners, that the expense of the New Police had increased in Marylebone, and was gradually increasing. But was the hon. Gentleman aware, that since the establishment of the Force, there had been an increase of 43,785 new houses in the borough, forming 785 new streets, roads, and squares; and an increase of 110 additional miles in distance, to be watched? Surely the hon. Member could not suppose that that increase of property could be watched at the same cost as the old watch, which had so much less to take care of. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the Committee of 1828, and had grounded his Motion on the Report of that Committee; but he had not referred to the subsequent Committee of 1834, which had been appointed to investigate the subject. That Committee had been first appointed in 1832, but the inquiry was so stringently gone into, that it was thought necessary to re-appoint it in 1834, and no man could have read the Report of that Committee without seeing that no single ground of complaint had escaped them; and he was quite sure that no Member of that Committee would concur in the present Motion. He did not deny the assertion that the Marylebone police, as it existed previous to 1829, was efficient, and that it was superior to any other Police of the time in the metropolis. He did not deny,

597
that so far as the parish of Marylebone was concerned, that Police was sufficient for all the purposes of watching, and for securing person and property; but though that was the case at a period when all the other parts of the metropolis were most inefficiently watched, it was by no means certain that a similar system of Police would be equally efficient now. Thousands of thieves, driven out of Marylebone, could formerly find a refuge in other parts of London, but now he apprehended the superior efficiency of the metropolitan system of Police in other districts, would make Marylebone rather an uncomfortable locality to reside in if the old watch still existed there. The hon. Member was not correct in saying that the question of assessment had not been considered by the Committee. If the hon. Member would refer to the Report of the Committee of 1834, he would find the subject had been considered and reported upon. The only ground which the hon. Member could have for moving for a Committee, was the alleged inequality between the assessment of Marylebone and that of other parishes. Now, he submitted that that could be in reality no ground for the institution of a Committee of this House, for the only thing required, if such was the case, was an application by the parish of Marylebone to the Magistrates, who had the power of remedying the grievance.
Mr. Brothertoncould give no opinion as to the inequality of the assessment, but he could as to its injustice. He objected to the country at large paying one-fourth share of the expenses of the Metropolitan Police force; and he hoped that a Committee would be appointed, and an opportunity given for a recommendation to the effect, that the country should be relieved of all the expense of the Metropolitan Police Force.
Mr. Tufnellwould not press his Motion, but he hoped that some measure would be taken to remove the objections of which he had complained. With respect to the observation of the hon. Member for Salford, he would remind him that the country at large owed much to the Metropolitan Police Force.
Motion withdrawn.

DIVISION OF PARISHES (SCOTLAND).
The Lord Advocatemoved for leave to bring in a Bill "to Facilitate the Disjoining or Dividing of Extensive or Populous Parishes, and the Erecting of New Parishes,
598
in Scotland." The general object he had in view in proposing to introduce the Bill was to remove certain defects in the existing law relating to the Division of Parishes in Scotland. As the law stood at present, extensive parishes might be divided by the authority of the Court, but not unless a large majority of the heritors consented. The consent of a majority of three-fourths of the heritors was required. This appeared to him to be rather unreasonable, as it was in the power of one-fourth of the heritors of a Parish to prevent its division. He proposed, therefore, to allow the proceedings for the division of a Parish to go on upon the assent of a clear majority of heritors. There was another detect in the law as at present existing, inasmuch as no power was given for the division of a Parish, unless it was too large in territorial extent. He proposed to make the extent of population also a ground for dismemberment. By the existing law, also, there was no power given to the Court of erecting separate parishes, even when the expense of building the Church and endowing the clergyman was provided for by private individuals, unless by the consent of the heritors. Now as it did not appear that there was in cases of this kind any interference with the civil rights of the heritors, in having parishes subdivided and established merely with a view to religious purposes, and when the funds were provided by private persons, he proposed to give to the Court the power of constituting parishes, quoad spiritualia in the cases in which the endowments had been made by private individuals. The Court, would, however, always hear reasonable objections to propositions of the kind. These were the leading features of the Measure, which he would at once move for leave to bring in.
Leave given.
House adjourned at a quarter before seven o'clock.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—Received the Royal Assent.—Actions for Penalties on Gaming Discontinuing; Offences at Sea; Metropolis Improvements.
Private.—1a. Lascar di's Naturalization; Spartali's Naturalization; Schuster's Naturalization.
Received the Royal Assent.—Sang's Naturalization.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Lord Chancellor, from Samuel Gray, for Inquiry.—From Denbigh, against Union of Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.—By the Earl of Yarborough, Lord Brougham, and the Earl of Devon, from Kilburn, and 11 places, against Alteration of the Corn Laws.—From Pockley, and 38 places, for Agricultural Protection.

TENURE OF LAND (IRELAND) COMMISSION.
The Marquess of Clanricarderose to put some questions to his noble Friend (the Earl of Devon) on the subject of what was generally known as the Landlord and Tenant Commission in Ireland, at the head of which his noble Friend was placed. He did not think that it would be necessary for him to make any Motion on the subject. He was anxious to know to what point the labours of the Commissioners were really directed. On the first occasion when his noble Friend addressed the House on the subject, he understood that the object of the Commission was to obtain information into all the existing relations between Landlord and Tenant. But he did not hear how far it was intended to institute any inquiry into the law as it affected the Tenure of Land. Since that time, a circular letter had appeared in the papers from the Secretary of the Commission in which it was stated, that although the Commissioners had no power to adjudicate upon questions between landlord and tenants, still, that with respect to any matter of contract between landlord and tenant, the Commissioners were ready to hear any particular cases, so far as they might tend to illustrate the practical effects produced under the operation of the existing law as regarded the whole subject. It was with reference to that point that he

571
meant to submit a particular question. Since the time to which he alluded another question had been asked, in answer to which, his noble Friend was represented to have said that he was directing his attention, even while necessarily detained in this country, to an examination of the information which was already before both Houses of Parliament as to the Laws affecting the connection of Landlord and Tenant in Ireland. His noble Friend was further represented to have said, for he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) was not present at the time, that it was proper to adopt that course, because it was necessary that the Commissioners should make themselves thoroughly acquainted with all the circumstances connected with the subject, and with the nature of the existing law, with reference to an alteration of which the responsibility of making suggestions might devolve on them. Now, their Lordships would see that the two answers were different; that they related to two different points;—not unconnected with each other indeed—both points of great importance, and involving matters demanding extensive consideration, and questions of considerable difficulty; but still the one differing from the other. He was much surprised that his noble Friend should have made such a statement; for he hardly knew how his noble Friend could hope to proceed satisfactorily through so extensive and varied a field of inquiry all at once. He must say—and he said it with all respect for the ability of the noble Earl and his Colleagues—that he should regret if they proceeded to a digest of the laws, or to recommend alteration of the laws on the subject of Real Property in Ireland, because it was a subject of great importance, and required the greatest legal knowledge. He might be told that nothing seriously affecting property would be attempted by the Commission. In that case, the Commission was, on the other hand, a delusion on the people; for there had been created in the public mind the most extraordinary and pernicious notions of what the Commission was to do and undo. A great cry had been raised in England as well as in Ireland respecting Fixity of Tenure, and he thought the appointment of this Commission had tended to keep up this cry. It was supposed, that they would proceed in such a manner as must necessarily lead to the reduction of rents. Why, every thinking man, every man of sense, must know, that if the landlord were to give up all
572
claim to rent, and the tenants in possession were to have the land in fee, there would be no diminution of the general misery, and certainly no increase of the national wealth. The Commission had no power to alter the Law of Real Property; and when hopes were held out that by their intervention, the most extraordinary and the most beneficial effects must be produced, it was nothing but a mockery and a delusion. He conceived that the appointment of the Commission was worse than useless; and be thought so, because it kept alive in Ireland the erroneous notion that its labours would have the effect of immediately lowering rents, and that the most beneficial effects must speedily follow. He could imagine nothing more perfectly false or illusory. The appointment of the Commission had also propagated and kept up the idea that exorbitant rents, exacted by the landlords, rendered such a proceeding necessary. To those who were well acquainted with the subject, it was unnecessary to say, that a grosser error could scarcely be imagined. The consequence was, that the newspapers were filled with paragraphs of a most mischievous tendency. In illustration of this he might mention, that early last winter a paragraphs originated in a local Irish paper, and went the round of all the other papers, to the effect, that a noble Lord, a Friend of his, had lowered his rents 10 l. per cent., and the cry was, "Dear me, this arises from the Commission; see what good it has done!" A fortnight after another paragraph appeared, in which the writer expressed his deep regret at finding that the former report was wholly unfounded; and all parties combined in lamenting the circumstance. Why, one would have thought that to be consistent they ought to have rejoiced at it—they ought to have pointed at it as a proof that there was no necessity to lower the rents. Those who knew the noble Lord to whom he alluded—and he had that honour—knew that a better man or a more excellent landlord did not exist, or one that was further from endeavouring to exact exorbitant rents. But, unquestionably this Commission had had the effect of keeping up the notion in Ireland, that many of the ills of that country were to be traced to the grasping conduct of the landlords—that their labours would lower the rents, which was a delusion—and that, if the rents were lowered, the whole mass of the people would become prosperous. But the greatest objection

573
perhaps, which he had to this Commission was, that it was pleaded in bar of all other measures for the improvement of Ireland. There never was a better opportunity than the present for the Imperial Parliament to turn its attention to Ireland, with the view of affording employment to the great mass of the population. Never was there a moment at which the Government could raise money for that purpose with more advantage than at the present time; and therefore he regretted exceedingly, that instead of adopting really beneficial measures, Ministers had contented themselves with the appointment of a Commission which was more calculated to do mischief than to effect good. One question he wished to ask his noble Friend was, whether the Commissioners contemplated any alteration of the laws which would affect leases or covenants between landlords and tenants entered into previous to the Commission? Another question was, whether the Commissioners intended to make a report upon the proportion which rent bears to the value of land in different parts of Ireland? It was exceedingly difficult to pronounce an opinion upon the question of rent; at the same time, as an Irish landlord, he should be glad if something were said upon that subject, because an opinion prevailed too generally that Irish landlords received exorbitant and disproportioned rents. Such an opinion had arisen from misapprehension with respect to various surveys and valuations which had been made in Ireland for particular purposes, and which, therefore, ought not to be taken as any authority for forming an opinion upon the question of rents, or the rate at which farms should be let. Another question which he should ask his noble Friend was, whether the Commissioners intended to report the whole of the evidence which might be offered? It was, of course, very easy to get up a case when one side only was heard. He was quite sure, however, that his noble Friend and his brother Commissioners would closely examine every case which might be brought before them; not with any view of determining upon the conduct of individuals, but entirely with the view of seeing how the present law permitted or enabled Oppression to be practised, or how grievances might be best redressed. But still that was a matter which, in a country like Ireland, ought to be dealt with with extreme delicacy; for, if landlords made statements against tenants and tenants against land-
574
lords, and those statements were to be published, the Commission might go on to an interminable length of time without being able to come to any generally satisfactory conclusion. The greatest objection which he had to the Commission was, that it was pleaded in bar to every practical measure for improvement in Ireland, everything must wait until it was seen what the Commission said, but there never could be a better opportunity than the present for introducing these improvements. In that country there was a great population steeped in poverty and idleness—a state of things disgraceful, not to the landlords, but to the Imperial Government. There never was a better opportunity for the Imperial Government—and here he disclaimed all party allusions, he meant not to speak particularly of the present Government,—there never was a moment more advantageous for the Imperial Government to turn its attention to Ireland with a view of finding employment for a great mass of its population—employment or emigration. Of the deplorable condition of the vast mass of population there was ample evidence before their Lordships already, and they needed no more. At the present moment British capitalists did not know what to do with their money; but if Government would encourage them they would readily make advances for the purpose of improving Ireland, and there never was a time at which money could be obtained so easily for that purpose. At this time the greatest efforts ought to be made for the improvement of Ireland. Therefore it was that he regarded this Commission as a barrier to improvement. Besides that, it had given rise to exaggerated notions, which he wished to see dispelled. In some places in Ireland people thought the Commission would settle the question of rents; in others it was supposed that disputes about property would be settled. The questions he had to put were—firstly, whether the Commission contemplated an alteration of the law so as to effect leases and covenants entered into previous to the issuing of the Commission? Secondly, whether they contemplated a report as to the proportion of rent to the value of land? and, thirdly, whether they proposed to report the whole evidence taken before the Commission?
The Earl of Devonsaid, he felt quite assured that their Lordships would not expect him to answer the first two questions which had been put by the noble

575
Marquess, who, upon reconsideration, would himself see that it would be unbecoming to do so in the present stage of a Commission which had been issued just about three months. The Commissioners were still busily engaged in pursuing their inquiry, and their Lordships must see that it would not be proper for him, standing alone in that House, to state what the intentions of the Commissioners were with respect to any particular part of the subject upon which they would hereafter have to report. He was ready, however, to give all possible information as to what they were doing in carrying out the instructions given to them, which he was enabled to do by means of certain documents which he held in his hand, and which had been in general circulation in Ireland for some time, so that, in fact, there could be little or no difficulty in ascertaining what course the Commissioners were pursuing. His noble Friend had spoken of the difficulty of the Commission in such a way as to make it appear to be a matter of greater difficulty than it really was. His noble Friend seemed to apprehend that it would become in some way, or that he had stated so, the duty of the Commission to investigate and revise the whole Law of Real Property in Ireland; and his noble Friend thought that he (the Earl of Devon) and his Colleagues were not the most competent persons to deal with such a subject. Why, the Commissioners had nothing to do with the general Law of Real Property; nor did they intend to take it in hand. The Commission entrusted to them was, to inquire "into the state of the Law and Practice in respect to the Occupation of Land in Ireland, and in respect also to the burthens of County Cess and other charges which fall respectively on the landlord and occupying tenant and for reporting as to the amendment, if any; of the existing laws, which, having due regard to the just rights of property, may be calculated to encourage the cultivation of the soil, to extend a better system of agriculture, and to improve the relation between landlord and tenant in that part of our United Kingdom. And further to report to us in writing, under your hands and seals, your observations as to what you shall find touching or concerning the premises upon the said inquiry; and also your opinions as to the amendment, if any, of the existing laws, which, having due regard to the just rights of property, may be calculated to encourage the cultivation of
576
the soil, to extend a better system of agriculture, and to improve the relation between landlord and tenant in Ireland." That was certainly a field wide enough; but it was narrow compared with the investigation of the whole Law of Real Property in Ireland. His noble Friend thought also that the Commission was to inquire into the state of the labouring and peasant part of Ireland, as he called it. It was really the business of the Commission to inquire into the manner of holding lands, a subject particularly affecting tenant farmers, and therefore necessarily involving the classes immediately below them; but that was not the primary object of the Commission. According to the terms of the Commission, the Commissioners were directed to inquire into the laws affecting the temporary occupation of land, and also into the nature of the burthens on land, and the manner in which they were respectively borne by landlords and tenants. He might have been understood by the noble Marquess, perhaps, to convey the notion that the latter was the only object of the Commission; but what he meant was, that it was one part of the duty, and certainly not the whole. The following course the Commissioners had taken was in order to obtain the best information possible:—In the first place, immediately on their arrival in Dublin, he, as Chairman of the Board had caused the following circular letter to be sent to all the Boards of Guardians throughout Ireland, who were mostly landlords or occupying tenants, to each of the Protestant bishops, and to every Roman Catholic bishop,
"Land Commission-office, Castle,
Dublin, 184.
"I trouble you with this letter on the part of the Commissioners acting tinder the Queen's Commission of which a copy is herewith sent.
"It is very much our wish to obtain the best evidence upon all parts of the subject into which we are directed to inquire.
"We are desirous, therefore, of obtaining the co-operation of in this respect, and we request that you will do us the favour to point out such individuals as you may think it most desirable for us to examine, and will also point out to us any other sources from which you think that evidence of an authentic nature may be derived.
"If you can give your attention to this matter, and will comply with the request which we now make, you may render material assistance towards attaining the object of our Commission, viz:—a full and fair investigation

577
of all circumstances connected with the tenure and occupation of land in Ireland.
"I have the honour to be, &c.
"Any communication may be addressed to the secretary at this office."
These circulars were answered in the very best spirit from all quarters, some pointing out many, and others but a few, persons competent to become witnesses. A great many representations were made to the Commissioners of cases of individual hardship; and those persons who took great interest in the grievances of the people had communicated with the Commissioners, and in a very good spirit, undertaking to furnish information. A great mass of papers was therefore collected together, and the Commissioners found that the number of witnesses suggested was so large that a selection must be made; and they therefore issued another circular letter to their former correspondents soliciting them to point out the persons who ought to be selected, being those who could be examined with the greatest convenience to themselves and advantage to the objects of the Commission. To the persons who had referred cases of hardship or dispute to the Commissioners a letter was sent reminding them that the Commission had no authority to settle differences between individuals.
"Land Commission Office, Dublin Castle,
"I am directed by the Commissioners to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of
"I am further instructed to remind you that they are not invested with any authority to settle differences which have arisen between individuals.
"Their duty is to make inquiry into the state of the law and the practice in Ireland, with respect to the occupation of land, and with respect to the burthens that affect the owners and occupiers of land respectively; and to consider whether some amendments may not be properly made in the existing laws which may tend to encourage the cultivation of the soil, to extend a better system of agriculture, and to improve the relation between landlord and tenant.
"So far as the investigation of particular cases may tend to assist them towards forming just conclusions upon the matters pointed out by the Commission for inquiry, it will be their duty to enter upon such investigation, although they have no power to make any adjudication as to the rights or claims of individuals.
"Your case will be fully considered, and if it shall appear to the Commissioners that their duty under the Commission requires a further inquiry into it, I shall be instructed to communicate again with you, and to point out the
578
time and place at which an examination of witnesses upon oath may take place.
"I remain, your obedient servant,
"—, Secretary."
That had become necessary to counteract an impression that the Commissioners were sitting to settle grievances; at the same time, they felt they should not do their duty, but would be shutting the door too close if they told persons who imagined they had grievances to state that they were not to be heard. Their duty was to obtain all the information they could, in order to enable them to come to just conclusions upon the matters upon which they were expected to report. There was no more likely way to get an accurate view of the extent to which any of those complaints might be considered to be founded in justice, than by hearing the statements of parties on both sides; and experience had already shown that the number of real cases of grievance had fallen far short of the number which had been so busily bruited about in various ways. The Commission had also issued another circular letter in which the real objects of the Commission were pointed out, in order to disabuse the minds of those who fancied that it had other objects in view with which it could not interfere.
"Land Commission Office, Dublin Castle.
"I am directed to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the in answer to the communication addressed to you on the part of the Commissioners on the which will have informed you of the nature of their inquiries, and the assistance they expect from
"The Commissioners desire particularly to point out to you that their duty is to make inquiry into the state of the law, and the practice in Ireland with respect to the occupation of land, and with respect to the burthens that affect the owners and occupiers of land respectively; and to consider whether some amendments may not be properly made in the existing laws, which may tend to encourage the cultivation of tile soil, to extend a better system of agriculture, and to improve the relation between landlord and tenant.
"So far as the investigation of particular cases may tend to assist them towards just conclusions upon matters pointed out by the Commission for inquiry, it will be their duty to enter upon such investigation, although they have no power to make any adjudication as to the rights or claims of individuals, or to settle any differences which may have arisen between them.
"As the number of witnesses named to the Commissioners from different parts of Ireland is so great, as to render it impossible for them

579
to examine all, within any reasonable limit as to time; and, as it is the intention of the Commissioners to append to their report to Her Majesty, as is usual in such cases, the whole of the evidence taken on oath before them; they must therefore request your further assistance towards the selection of those whose evidence can be given with most convenience to the parties themselves, and with the greatest advantage to the several objects of the inquiry.
"I shall have the honour to apprize you as soon as possible of the particular day on which the Commissioners hope to visit your neighbourhood.
"I have the honour to be
Your obedient Servant,
"—,Secretary."
No doubt the task of the Commissioners was a difficult one; but they were anxious to perform it properly, to obtain substantial information, and to avoid stirring up angry feelings between disputants. They made their inquiries with as much forbearance towards individuals as they could; but if they were to offer their opinion at any time with respect to particular grievances, they must be permitted to investigate individual cases. He believed that his four Colleagues were as anxious to perform their duty, and would perform it as ably and as honestly, as any four men that could be found; and he had great confidence in the result of their labours. His noble Friend had said that this Commission stood in the way of other measures of improvement for Ireland. How could that Commission prevent any Member of that House or of the other House of Parliament from proposing any measure of relief for the population of Ireland? There was nothing in the tendency of the Commission to interrupt such a proceeding. He thought the Commissioners would be able to point out beneficial alterations in the law affecting Landlord and Tenant, so as to remove present grounds of complaint and dispute. He had every reason to believe, that with the assistance of the four Gentlemen with whom he was associated, such a report would be produced as would be found most useful in the work of legislation. They would give the whole subject their full attention, and in doing so they would not fail to point out where in the present law was oppressive or ruinous in its practice; nor would they hesitate to state their honest convictions with regard to individual cases of hardship and real grievance. Upon the question of rents, also, they would be equally explicit and sincere, but at present, of course, he could not be expected to offer any opinion what-
580
ever. He knew there had been a great deal of exaggeration abroad on this subject, but the best possible way to remove all misapprehension was to collect authentic information from witnesses upon oath, and then lay the evidence before Parliament and the public, in order that the real state of the case might be made known. He thought that the information which the Commission would be able to elicit would be very useful, and could not fail to lead to the most beneficial results.
The Marquess of Clanricardewished to know whether the reports of the cases which might come under the cognizance of the Commission would be made upon oath? [The Earl of Devon answered in the affirmative.] He knew that when the Commission was first appointed a cry was raised, that though it was instituted for the purpose of inquiring into the relation between Landlord and Tenant, it consisted of five landlords. He (the Marquess of Clanricarde) knew that cry to be without foundation in effect, yet if it were desired that the proceedings of the Commission should have weight out of doors, it might have been advantageous to have had both landlords and tenants upon it. When the term "peasant" was applied in Ireland, it properly comprised the occupiers of land; so that, he took it, an inquiry into the condition of the land, and into the relations between Landlord and Tenant, as far as the land was concerned, meant an inquiry into the condition of the peasantry of the country. He regretted his noble Friend had not thought it consistent with his duty to answer the first question which he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) had put to him.
Subject dropped. House adjourned.