Sitting of 6 August 1850

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Crime and Outrage Act (Ireland) Continuance (No 2); London Bridge Approaches Fund; Holyhead Harbour; Law Fund Duties (Ireland).
Reported.—Canterbury Settlement Lands; Turnpike Acts Continuance.
3a National Gallery (Edinburgh); Sheep and Cattle Contagious Disorders Prevention Continuance.

CRIME AND OUTRAGE ACT (IRELAND) CONTINUANCE (No. 2).
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to be made to Motion [2nd August]—
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to continue, for a time to be limited, an Act of the eleventh year of Her present Majesty, for the better prevention of Crime and Outrage in certain parts of Ireland;' and which Amendment was to leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, 'the distressed people of Ireland have borne unexampled sufferings, produced by famine, and by evictions from the soil, with praiseworthy submission to the Laws; and it is the opinion of this House, that it is not just to renew and continue measures of coercion subversive of the constitutional rights of the Irish People as British Subjects, whilst the redress of acknowledged grievances connected with the Laws which regulate the relations of Landlord and Tenant, recommended to the consideration of Parliament in Her Majesty's Speech, has been neglected or postponed'—instead thereof."
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. MOOREsaid, he must oppose the Motion, although he had originally given it his support when it was brought under their notice. Although agrarian outrages and crimes had formerly been deplorably prevalent, no one could deny that they had lately very much decreased in consequence of the improved feeling of the population. He had seen those who were the foremost to protest against the remedy, the first to hail the cure; and, above all, he had seen the bloody, and capricious, and sanguinary ebullitions of unhallowed vengeance give place to a calm and mighty protest against the injustice from which they had sprung. The most exasperated, the most perverse, even the most guilty of the people of Ireland, had acquiesced in the justice of that wise sentence which proclaimed that murder under no circumstances, under no provocations, should dare to assume the seat

867
of justice; and they now demanded in return that those legal murders which had hitherto obtained impunity, not in the bosom of a guilty populace, but in the dark recesses of a conniving law, should no longer be permitted to defile the land. And what was the answer to that appeal? It was this—that, no matter how blameless might be the demeanour of the people, no matter how offensive might be the conduct of the landlords, that House was determined to legislate for the landlords, and against the people. [Expressions of dissent.] Hon. Gentlemen dissented, but what was the state of the case? What was the great social scandal of Ireland at the present day, which affrighted the mind of every passing traveller, and filled the whole land with wailing and desolation? Was it the assassination of the rich by the hands of the poor? Was it the landlord or the agent slain on the highway by the arm of the vindictive peasant? They heard of none of these things, but, on the other hand, smouldering hamlets and roofless villages; evicted families cowering round their desolated hearths; others, hunted from that last retreat, dying by the wayside; children, with scarce a vestige of humanity, crowded in festering throngs within the walls of the poorhouse, or shivering in cold, and hunger, and nakedness in the rain outside—all, in fact, that met the eye from end of the country to the other, denoted a ruthless and exterminating war against a meek, forbearing, and unresisting peasantry, such as eye had never seen, nor ear heard, in the whole history of human wrong and human endurance. And was it to be credited that, as a remedy for such a state of things as this, they were now called upon to forge fresh fetters for unresisting poverty, fresh weapons for overbearing power, measures of prevention lest the hapless worm should turn, measures of enforcement lest the armed heel should not tread sufficiently heavy or sufficiently sure? He thought that amidst the scenes that were enacted in Ireland, to intrude three such measures as were now in progress through the House upon the gloomy stage, to enforce the strong and restrain the feeble, where strength was already rampant, and feebleness had almost sunk into collapse, was a scandal upon our legislation, and almost justified the calumnious imputation which had been alleged against our laws—that they were enacted against the many "by and for a particular few." The arguments alleged in support
868
of this Bill were three. First, his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland said, that its provisions were directed against wrongdoers only. To this proposition he gave his entire assent. But he replied, in the words of the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government on another occasion—"This is the argument put forward by despotic Governments." Of course this Bill was intended for wrongdoers alone. The same might be said, and said truly, of the torture, the knout, and the wheel. The objects of despotic and constitutional Governments were pretty much the same—it was upon the means that they essentially differed. It was the means, and not the object, which they were then debating; and he conceived no more indisputable axiom of constitutional government than that every arbitrary enactment which was not absolutely necessary was absolutely injurious. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin said, that this was a measure of prevention; and he added the somewhat musty proverb, that "Prevention was better than cure." He was sorry to hear an hon. and learned Member of his talents and character put forward an argument so unworthy of him; for he thought the House would agree with him that, whatever necessity might occasionally exist for arbitrary measures for the purpose of repression, the enactment of such laws for the mere prevention of possible and anticipated dangers was not only unworthy of a free Government, but one of the worst and basest expedients of despotic power. As for the argument of the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government—that, because this measure had been successful in repressing outrage, they should persevere in a remedy which they had found so efficacious—it was about as reasonable as if a physician who had relieved a patient suffering from violent inflammation by copious bleeding, were still to persist in bleeding on, after the inflammation had subsided into atrophy and decline. In fact, the Government had no case. They frankly avowed it, and begged of the House to excuse the trifling deficiency. He, for one, must decline making that concession. He voted for this Bill on a former occasion, because he thought there was a full, complete, and imperative case for interference. He now voted against it in the same spirit, because there was no case, and worse than no case.
COLONEL RAWDONcould not refuse to

869
continue the Act if the responsible Government of the country considered it necessary to secure peace and order, and more particularly knowing how temperately it had been administered, and to what satisfactory results it had led. It was true that the state of things had changed since the Act was passed; but could any one who was at all familiar with Ireland venture to predict that the evil which had called it into existence might not again arise? He, for one, could not, and therefore he felt that he should not be doing his duty if he refused to continue a power in the hands of Government which could only be directed against the criminally disposed part of the Irish community, though he could not help regretting that the Bill for its continuance had first originated in the other House of Parliament, which had so peremptorily rejected the measure introduced by the Government for the extension of the franchise of Ireland.
MR. SCULLYsaid, it was his determination to oppose the Bill, and expressed some surprise that the hon. and gallant Member who last addressed them supported the Bill, because it was demanded by the Government. The state of things which called for this Act no longer existed, and he, for one, would be no party to its continuance, when the only reason that could be urged in its favour, was simply that Government wished it, though he was quite prepared to support a measure for the prevention of crime and outrage in Ireland of a remedial character. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland, when he originally proposed the measure, said it should be limited and partial in its character, and that it should he accompanied by remedial measures. The Session had now endurd for a long period, but no remedial measures had been proposed. The Irish people were disappointed; they received nothing hut coercive measures. The land question was undecided, and the Franchise Bill had been a failure, and would not give satisfaction to the people. The Church question still remained unsettled. Ireland was in a perfect state of tranquillity, crime had almost entirely diminished, the Judges at the assizes stated the fact in their grand-jury charges, and there was nothing to justify the continuance of this measure. He felt a pride in stating that in one division of the county which he represented (Tipperary), there had not been one capital conviction for the last four assizes. In no part of Ireland
870
were there any of those murders and outrages which formed the justification of the measure of 1847. In fact, the characteristic feature of Ireland at present was not crime but distress. In the nine months previous to April last, there had been no fewer than 225 deaths from starvation. In place of coercive measures, it was the duty of the Government to introduce measures of practical relief—measures to employ the poor and to relieve the farmers from the grievances of which they complain. An agitation had sprung up respecting the land question, which was supported not only by the Roman Catholic priesthood, but by clergymen of all denominations in Ireland. The Government might depend upon it that, if they did not take this question into their consideration, a solution of it might be forced upon them which they would grievously regret.
MR. TORRENS M'CULLAGH: I am not surprised, that so few upon this side of the House should have been found ready to defend, in discussion, the measure which the Government now asks leave to bring in. With the exception of what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for the city of Armagh, not a word has been offered in justification of the course we are called on to sanction, by any one who is connected with Ireland, and who in this House is reckoned among the friends of popular rights. My hon. and gallant Friend has volunteered, however, his support of Her Majesty's Government, when support was never more needed. For whatever the numbers upon the division may be, there never was surely a measure so stringent in character, and of such wide applicability, for which so little by way of reason or argument has been advanced by its authors. Yet I must say that the statements and the admissions made by the hon. and gallant Member, so far from justifying the conclusion to which he has come, seem to me to warrant exactly the opposite inference, and to furnish grounds, if any were wanting, for coming to a different conclusion. He has told us that the agrarian oppressions and hardships the people endure, have been, and are, unparalleled. He admits that their long-suffering and forbearance have been, and are, unexampled. He confesses that Parliament has not hitherto done anything which might palliate this terrible wrong and misery; and therefore he says we should lose no time in passing this harsh and repressive Bill. The country is perfectly tranquil, and that is the

871
reason, for want of a better, why we should pass a law of an exceptional character, to quell non-existent disturbance. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland attempted to make no case to justify the present proposal. I say so not as meaning thereby to insinuate any species of reproach. I can understand and appreciate the undisguised reluctance with which one so circumstanced as my right hon. Friend lends the weight of his name and experience to wholesale charges and accusations against the people of his own country. And when in a case like the present, matter of imputation is wanting, I honour the feeling which leads him to refrain from hinting that which he could not openly assert, and recurring to times of unhappily worse repute, in order thereby to darken the fame of the present. I would that others had been equally forbearing, and that the deeds of a former period had not been referred to when an impeachment was to be brought against this. But fresh materials were scanty, and the temptation was therefore great. I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin was unable, as it would seem, to resist it. Not content with citing the deplorable fate of Mr. Mauleverer, and with stating that case, as I shall show, in the spirit and tone of an advocate, rather than in that which befits a legislative judge, the hon. and learned Gentleman sought to excite still further the indignation and disgust of the House by connecting therewith, as though in a natural course of retrospective suggestion, another terrible case of lawless vengeance in the self-same locality. Passing rapidly over all that in fact and fairness ought to have been distinguished, he told us that in the devoted district where Cross-maglen is situated, another victim, the late Mr. Powell, had fallen by the hand of an agrarian assassin. But he forgot to mention that between the one deplorable event and the other, a period of not less than nine years had intervened. And it was only in answer to an interruptive question that my hon. and learned Friend admitted the fact to be so. Now, Sir, I say that it is alike unworthy and unwise to rummage the records of by-gone guilt and misery in order to eke out the short reckoning of present sin and shame. I say it is not our duty to dig at the foot of the gallows for the remains of well-nigh forgotten crime. And I humbly trust that this House, for its own sake, as well as for that of a
872
libelled and suffering people, will not be swayed in the judgment to which it may come on the merits of this most uncalled-for Bill by any reference that has been made to stale and irrelevant topics like those I have named. But, as they have been dragged into discussion, I too have a word to say regarding them. The hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin dwelt with much emphasis upon many details of the narrative he undertook to give respecting the fate of Mr. Mauleverer. He told you, in confutation of statements which had appeared in the public journals, that not a single ejectment had been executed under the orders of that unfortunate gentleman; and he took care to say "executed" in italics. But why was the cardinal fact omitted, that in the space of the twelve months preceding, no fewer than 321 processes or civil bill suits in ejectment had been brought by the ill-fated Mr. Mauleverer against persons who occupied portions of the property under his management? It happens, moreover, that in the county of Armagh, and more especially in its mountainous and impoverished districts, resort to ejectment, as a means of enforcing rent, has long been but too common. The evidence of Mr. Tickell, who fills the office of assistant barrister in that county, given before the Devon Commission, attests this sad truth. According to him, the number of ejectments brought at the quarter-sessions in that county alone during the years 1839–1845, were 1,953. It was during that period that Mr. Powell came by his untimely death. God forbid that I should say that those by whose hand he fell, perpetrated what, in any sense, ought to be termed a "natural crime!" That ominous phrase did not fall from any opponent of the present coercive Bill. I have never consciously uttered, and I earnestly hope I never shall, one word that by any construction could be wrested from its intended meaning into a palliation of deeds of vengeance. Did no higher consideration govern me, I should feel bound by that sympathy which I so deeply feel for the wrongs and oppressions of the people, not to allow anything to escape my lips which could by possibility be supposed to sanction crimes against life or property. I fully believe that those who would do so are not the true friends of the people, but that, on the contrary, they are evil advisers, who would lead them to their own undoing and destruction. But, on the other hand, I would with confidence put it

873
to every English Member who hears me, whether he can realise easily the state of panic, of pain, and of passion, into which a whole community of poor and unfriended men may be thrown, when the fate of each and all of them seems to depend upon the capricious and all-powerful will of a single man? And what if, in addition to all the fears and animosities arising out of the letting and occupation of land among a neglected and rackrented tenantry, there be added the withering suspicion of sectarian antipathy, and of a desire to abuse the power that property confers, to purposes of proselytism? I say not that, in the case of Mr. Powell, such imputations were just, but I say that they were prevalent. And I further say, that being so, it is not surprising that the vindication of the law by the condemnation and public execution of the person accused of being his murderer, instead of producing a salutary effect by way of example, tended to create, on the contrary, feelings of new exasperation and aversion between the owners and occupiers of the soil; for how was that condemnation obtained? If my recollection of the circumstances of that frightful case does not very much deceive me, the person who was accused of the crime alluded to was a Roman Catholic. His name, I think, was Hughes. He was first tried by a mixed jury, who disagreed as to his guilt. At the next assizes he was again put upon his trial; but upon the second occasion the jury was exclusively composed of the religious denomination to which in Ireland the dominant class belong. By that jury he was found guilty. He died upon the scaffold protesting his innocence. It is not for me to hazard any opinion as to the justice of the verdict. He is gone to his account, and no man now can lift the veil that hangs over that miserable tragedy. But, guilty or innocent, I say that he had not a fair trial; because, in a country like Ireland, no trial can, under such circumstances, deserve to be called fair, when the jury is packed with the members of the favoured creed, while the accused professes the faith of the down-trodden race. I think the House will concur with me in opinion that the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin would have done better had he refrained from alluding to this case. With regard to this Continuance Bill, I can but repeat what has already been said by my hon. Friends around me, and admitted, indeed, by every one who has spoken, that the country
874
never was so tranquil, and that outrage never was so rare. Every grand jury lately assembled—every Judge who has recently, addressed them—has borne the same testimony. In the words of Baron Lefroy, when opening the assizes of Westmeath, not three weeks ago, "a new day of peace and loyalty seemed to have dawned upon the land." Is this a time for the renewal of coercion? It has been said that we owe our present tranquillity to the application of this law. I asked a friend of mine the other day, who has had peculiar opportunities of knowing, to what extent this Act has been really put in force. He told me, to a very limited extent. How then, I asked, can its efficacy have been so great, that we must now continue it? His answer was, "It is useful as a threat." Sir, I must protest against the system of governing Ireland by threats. We have been told that, during the present Session, there has not been time to deal with remedial measures on the subject of agrarian grievances. But how does it happen that time never seems to be wanting for measures of agrarian coercion? Of the Bills that have come down from the Lords, this, though the last, is not the least. We have broken the neck of one of those birds of prey which lately alit upon your table; to-morrow we shall have to deal with another; and the question to-night will be, what must we do with a third? That which is now before us cannot be classed with these, for it is a Government Bill; but fearing, as I cannot but fear, that in Ireland all will be looked on alike; and fearing, as I cannot but fear, that the provisions of all may be most widely abused, I cannot agree to give my vote for leave to have it brought in.
MAJOR BLACKALLsaid, he had never heard a speech in that House more calculated to excite angry feelings, or to draw attention from the real subject before them, than the speech which the hon. and learned Gentleman had just delivered. The hon. and learned Gentleman had altogether mistaken the character of the Bill. It would not give additional powers to the landlord. He was also mistaken in supposing that it was not in operation in Ireland at the present moment. It was in operation in the county which he (Major Blackall) had the honour to represent, and he defied any one to deny that its operation had contributed to the peace of that county; and yet he had never heard any one say that it had interfered in the slightest degree with the

875
rights and liberties of any one. Believing, then, that if the powers given by this Bill were exercised with the same prudence and discretion with which they had hitherto been exercised, the happiest results would follow, he should give his cordial support to the Bill.
COLONEL CAULFEILDsaid, he was glad to find that by the 18th clause, accessories after the fact of a murder were punishable to the same extent as the principal, even were he not overtaken. He should not have wished to have supported the Bill as it came from the House of Lords, but with the amendments which had been introduced by the Government, he would give it his support.
MR. R. M. FOXsaid, that, although he might be willing to give the present Lord Lieutenant the powers conferred by this Bill, he was not willing to give them to those who might come after him, who would not only deprive the people of their constitutional liberties, but would raise their food to a starvation price. In the next Session of Parliament, he would move, as an amendment to the first important Government measure, that the landlord and tenant question in Ireland was of paramount importance, and should be first taken into consideration.
LORD C. HAMILTONhoped that nothing would induce the House to believe that the moral, high-minded, and well-meaning people of Ireland looked with the slightest jealousy upon restrictions like those contained in the present Bill. On the contrary, they rejoiced in the tendency of such a measure to check the career of evil-doers, and to enable the peaceable and well-disposed to exercise their industry in peace. He regarded it as the grossest libel on the people of Ireland to represent them as so addicted to the commission of crime, or the protection of criminals, that any measure of restraint or repression must be odious to them. He thought the Government deserved great censure for having allowed the whole Session to pass without the introduction of a measure to correct the maladministration of the poorlaws.
MR. E. B. ROCHEsaid, he was one of those who from the commencement objected to the introduction of this Bill. He was fully alive to the great amount of crime which existed at the time the Bill was brought in, but he then said the existing law was sufficient, and that all they had to do was as they did in 1831, to issue
876
special commissions. By applying the law as it stood, they did put down crime in Ireland. He said then that it was an unconstitutional law, and that they did not require it. Events had proved that opinion, and the same objection therefore applied much more strongly now. The argument for the Bill was, "True there is no crime in Ireland, and therefore give us this Bill that there may be no crime;" one of the most extraordinary arguments in favour of an unconstitutional law he ever heard. It was admitted on all hands that the great cause of crime in Ireland was the unsatisfactory relations of landlord and tenant. Surely, then, they had a right to say they would not agree to this Bill till they put these relations in a sound and satisfactory state. He must say that when at the latter end of the Session they had withdrawn measures for the amelioration of Ireland, it was unfair in the Government to bring in a measure of coercion without making out any case for it, and when many Irish Members were absent. Without this Bill there was law strong enough to put down crime, but the people of Ireland were tranquil; every Judge who had gone the circuit had congratulated them on the absence of crime, and therefore he trusted that even now the Government would consent to withdraw the Bill.
MR. STAFFORDsaid, that there was one person who must be considered as being highly complimented by the whole course of this discussion; he meant the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; for, with all the ingenuity of the hon. Members who opposed this Bill, they had not been able to point to one instance in which he had used the large powers with which he had been intrusted in an unconstitutional manner. He maintained that the long and the short of the question was a vote of confidence or no confidence in the Government. The Government came forward and said, "We require such and such powers to enable us to conduct the Government of Ireland till next Session of Parliament." If hon. Members considered the Government of Ireland entitled to their confidence, there never was an occasion on which they might with greater propriety yield to their convictions than this. If, on the contrary, they thought the Government undeserving of their confidence, they ought not to have waited till the eleventh hour of the Session before bringing its conduct under the notice of the House. Attention had been called to the Irish

877
Church—to the state of landlord and tenant—and to the Irish Poor Law. He must own his regret that the Government had not pushed on the Landlord and Tenant Bill, and thought the explanation of the noble Lord at the head of the Government on this head was unsatisfactory. As to the Irish Church, when a Motion was brought forward regarding it, hon. Gentlemen opposite mustered so thinly that the House was counted out. It was in the power of any hon. Member to bring forward a Motion for the amendment of the poor-law, but it had not been done. No one, however, had found courage enough to blame the administration of the Earl of Clarendon, for all parties concurred in eulogising the wise and conciliatory policy of that noble Lord. On a former occasion he opposed a similar Bill to this, not because he disapproved of its powers, but because he thought it was for the interest of the country that the then existing Government should be thrown out; and he was ready to admit, that if those who approved this Bill felt the same towards the present Executive, they were justified in their opposition. But, on the other hand, if they were not ready to take upon themselves the government of the country, or could point out a party ready to do it for them, they were bound to pass this Bill, because the Ministry had declared that they could not carry on the Government of Ireland without the powers of this Bill. For his own part, he knew no man to whom he would more readily intrust the extensive powers of the Bill than the Earl of Clarendon; and, as he was not prepared to undertake the responsibilities of the Government, he should give the Bill his hearty support.
MR. P. SCROPEsaid, it was rather a strange thing that the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House, justified his vote because he had confidence in Her Majesty's Government, seeing that he generally voted against them. The hon. Gentleman voted against another Coercion Bill, because he had no confidence in the then Government, so that the hon. Member had been consistent. He agreed in the compliments paid to the Earl of Clarendon; but it must be recollected that those extra constitutional powers might be vested in other hands. The fact was, hon. Gentlemen opposite supported the Bill, because those powers were to be exercised against Ireland, and to coerce the Irish people. They seemed to have a notion in
878
that House that the Government of Ireland was to be conducted on a different principle from that of England. No such Bill had ever been introduced for England. But it had been said that there had been a repression of crime during the existence of this Bill. Why, that was an argument that would justify their continuing such a Bill for over. His opposition to the Bill was the same as that declared by the present First Minister of the Crown in 1846, when he opposed the Coercion Bill then proposed, because there had been no case proved—no amount of crime proved to exist—which could justify the introduction of such a measure. It had been said, on the other side, that the measure ought not to be characterised as one giving extra powers to the landlord: but it strengthened the power of the Government for giving effect to the decrees of the landlords, whereby large districts were depopulated. What would history say of the conduct of a set of landlords who seized the opportunity of a famine visitation to eject their miserable tenants from their holdings, and of a Government who gave the landlords facilities for effecting this object? He opposed the introduction of this Bill, because it was unaccompanied by any remedial measures.
SIR D. NORREYSsupported the Bill, on the ground that the coercive powers had operated as a preventive of crime. Without saying that those powers were absolutely necessary now, he would ask who could take upon himself to say that they would not be so soon? In the transition state in which Ireland now was, it was better that these powers should be continued, than have a constant renewal of these discussions. He was convinced that to make the law felt, was the only way to ensure its observance in Ireland. He regarded the cry about the landlord and tenant question, as one of the popular delusions which were constantly prevalent in that country. As the Government asked for a renewal of this Bill, he would give it with confidence; nor did he fear its being abused by any other Government or any other Lord Lieutenant.
COLONEL CHATTERTONconfessed he was greatly surprised that any Member from the sister country could for a moment offer any opposition to the re-enactment of this measure. He considered it one of vast importance to Ireland. It had, in a great measure, restored tranquillity to that distracted country. It had restored

879
confidence to the minds of the well-conducted, by punishing the disturbers of the public peace; therefore he, knowing well its value, would hope that Her Majesty's Government would use every exertion to have it carried through the House before the close of the Session, and it should have his warm and decided support.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 81; Noes 28: Majority 53.
Main Question again proposed.
MR. HUMEcontended that if the people of England were treated like those of Ireland, they would resist by force such an attempt to deprive them of their rights. The Government had made out no case for this Bill; in fact, there was no case to make out. On the former occasion he had thought it right to arm the Government with these powers. Nothing had been done since to give the people the civil rights enjoyed by the people of this country; on that ground he thought the representatives of Ireland fully justified in resisting this measure by every means which the forms of the House would allow. Sound policy alone would dictate to the Government some attempt at conciliation. This was the interest of England as well as Ireland; for in the absence of good government large and costly bodies of troops were necessary to keep the people of Ireland quiet. He should give every assistance to hon. Members who thought fit to avail themselves of all the forms of the House in opposing this measure.
MR. REYNOLDStendered his thanks to the hon. Member for Montrose, on his own behalf and on that of his constituents, for his manly, generous, and frank declaration, which was, to him, consolatory and refreshing. He looked upon this Bill as a brand, a stain, and an insult on the Irish people. The right hon. Secretary for Ireland acknowledged that the country was tranquil, and yet he, because of his office, advocated this arbitrary measure. The Government asked for this Bill as a child asked for a toy—to play with during the recess; but, as the fable of the bull and the frogs had it, "what is sport to you, is death to us." Would they dare to propose such a Bill for England or Scotland. They would not. He felt that on his return to Dublin his constituents would naturally ask him why he supported a Government which thus treated Ireland; and he confessed the question would be a difficult one to answer. He was determined to oppose
880
the introduction of this Bill, and would even record factious votes to put down this wanton infringement of the rights of the Irish people. If he had any influence with the noble Lord at the head of the Government, he would ask him not to tarnish his high character by agreeing to any measure of coercion towards the Irish people. He thought that Irish Members had some claim on the noble Lord, for on a late occasion, when an attempt was made to oust the Ministry on the question of their foreign policy, the noble Lord owed his success to the support he received from Irish Members, for it would be found that the noble Lord's majority of 46, included 58 independent Irish Members. [Laughter.] He very well understood the meaning of that laugh; but he was not so unacquainted with the rules of arithmetic that he did not know that 58 could not be included in 46. He meant no such thing, but he meant this—that 58 Irish Members had voted in the majority with the noble Lord, and if they had voted the other way, it would have made a difference of 116 against the noble Lord. And what would have been the consequence? In all probability they would have seen the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon changing over to the Ministerial side, supported by a number of—he would not say "loose fish," but of those who, from their talents and position, could assist in forming a piebald Administration. He could tell the noble Lord that, during the recess, the Irish Members would get up a little constitutional agitation, and he would advise that the first pledge exacted from a candidate in case of there being an opportunity afforded should be, that he would not give his support to any Ministry who would introduce such a Bill as that they were now discussing. This might appear an empty threat, but he would remind the noble Lord that when parties on both sides were so nicely balanced, 80 Irish votes might at any time disturb his or any other Administration.
MR. MOORE, with reference to the remark of the hon. Member for North Northamptonshire, that he had voted against a Coercion Bill on a former occasion because he bore a grudge to a particular Minister, and wished to drive him from office, said, he could not conceive that motives more abominable could possibly be avowed. He would say, moreover, that as long as Ireland was legislated for by such men as this, and upon principles such as these—

881
as long as she was legislated for, not according to the interests of the country, but the exigencies of a particular party—as long as Ireland was made the battlefield of faction, and ruled with reference to the support or defeat of Ministers, so long would she have bitter cause to complain of the spirit of their legislation, and to agitate, however vainly, for legislation at home.
SIR J. GRAHAMsaid, as the hour was approaching at which the House would probably adjourn, he wished to ask whether at the adjourned sitting they would proceed with the Orders of the Day, or with Notices of Motion?
LORD J. RUSSELLthought it desirable that the House, after discussing this question for two days, should finish the debate before they adjourned. He was desirous that the Orders of the Day should have preference at the adjourned sitting; but if hon. Members who had notices on the paper insisted on their right, there was nothing to prevent their bringing them on.
MR. HUMEasked the noble Lord at the head of the Government when he would be prepared to go on with the discussion respecting the Ionian Islands, because it was essential that some statement should be made respecting the conduct of Sir Henry Ward?
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, that he would give an opportunity of bringing the subject before the House on Friday or Monday.
MR. HUMEwished to know when he might have an opportunity of submitting his Motion as to the propriety of laying the evidence which was taken before the Ceylon Committee on the table of the House?
LORD J. RUSSELLhoped the hon. Gentleman would reconsider his view on the subject. The evidence was very voluminous, and it being doubtful whether it should be reported to the House, the Committee decided that it ought not. It appeared to him that the best course to take was to inform the Governor of Ceylon of the evidence which had been taken, and in the next Session of Parliament he would be prepared to support a Motion for the production of the evidence. But he did not think it fair to circulate the evidence where the parties concerned were at a great distance, and before they could ascertain whether the charges were true or false.
MR. S. CRAWFORDwished to say a few words on the question really before
882
the House. He begged to express his gratitude for the speech of the hon. Member for Montrose, because it showed that there were some English Members who desired to maintain the rights and liberties of Irishmen. It had been said that the Amendment was tantamount to a vote of want of confidence. Well, without meaning offence to Her Majesty's Government, he for one would say that he had no confidence in their policy for Ireland.
SIR J. WALMSLEYsaid, that when the measure on which the present Bill was founded was introduced in 1847, it was sustained by an array of figures and statistics which induced a large number of the Members of the House, and especially the English Members, to vote in favour of it. A large number of Irish Members also were induced to vote for the Bill for the same reason. He believed that there were thirty or thirty-five Irish Members voting in favour of the Bill, and only four against it. That showed that the Irish Members were anxious and desirous that every measure necessary for preventing crime in Ireland should be introduced and carried. But on the introduction of the Bill in the present Session, the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland made out no case for the measure before the House. On the contrary, it appeared to him he showed as plainly as words could show, there was no absolute necessity for the Bill. Neither had the noble Lord at the head of the Government made out any case in its favour. On the contrary, all that he could say in its favour was that it was a measure of precaution. It had been said that this question was a want of confidence in Her Majesty's Government. He could not concur in that view of the case. If he did, he should not follow the course he was about to do on the present occasion. He felt convinced that Her Majesty's Government would deal fairly, justly, and honestly towards Ireland, but they had a long series of misrule to contend with. He would, therefore, put it to the Government not to go on coercing the people of Ireland, for they had now arrived at a period in the history of both countries when Ireland must be governed by love, and not by fear. They never could rule Ireland by fear. He would therefore urge the Government to withdraw the Bill. This was not a vote of want of confidence in the Government, but this measure showed a want of confidence in the people of Ireland, and on that

883
ground also he would recommend its withdrawal. But if it was persevered in, he, as far as he was able, would oppose its further progress in that House.
COLONEL THOMPSONsaid, he so entirely concurred in what had been said by the hon. Member for Bolton, that it was very little he should add. He was strongly impressed with the necessity of creating a real and substantial union between England and Ireland. Times were coming which would call for everything in the shape of union which this United Kingdom, as it was called, could effect. Statesmanship was like seamanship. The best of seamen might go to the bottom; but if he was to keep afloat, it must be by watching the signs of the times, and taking early precautions against danger. So it behoved the statesman who saw the dangers approaching, to guard against them by a timely union of heart and mind, between England and Ireland. He hoped he had done something towards promoting that end, by impressing the necessity for such a course.
MR. R. M. FOX MR. R. M. FOX moved the adjourment of the debate.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the debate be now adjourned."
The House divided:—Ayes 24; Noes 85: Majority 61.
Main Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 84; Noes 24: Majority 60.

List of the AYES.

Anson, hon. Col.

Fortescue, C.

Arkwright, G.

Freestun, Col.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Frewen, C. H.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Fuller, A. E.

Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Bernal, R.

Greene, T.

Blackall, S. W.

Grey, R. W.

Booth, Sir R. G.

Gwyn, H.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Hamilton, G. A.

Bowles, Adm.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Brotherton, J.

Hatchell, J.

Brown, W.

Hawes, B.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Henley, J. W.

Carter, J. B.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Chaplin, W. J.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Chatterton, Col.

Howard, Lord E.

Cockburn, A. J. E.

Jones, Capt.

Corry, rt. hon. H. L.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Craig, Sir W. G.

Lewis, G. C.

Cubitt, W.

Locke, J.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Lockhart, A. E.

Dick, Q.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Dickson, S.

Matheson, Col.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Duncan, G.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Dunne, Col.

Mullings, J. R.

FitzPatrick, rt. hn. J. W.

Napier, J.

884

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Stafford, A.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Nugent, Sir P.

Stuart, H.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Thornely, T.

Parker, J.

Townley, R. G.

Patten, J. W.

Tufnell, rt. hon. H.

Prime, R.

Wall, C. B.

Rawdon, Col.

Watkins, Col. L.

Rich, H.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Romilly, Sir J.

Wilson, J.

Russell, Lord J.

Wilson, M.

Scrope, G. P.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

TELLERS.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Hayter, W. G.

Spooner, R.

Bellew, R. M.

List of the NOES.

Cobden, R.

Pilkington, J.

Crawford, W. S.

Power, Dr.

Devereux, J. T.

Reynolds, J.

Fox, R. M.

Salwey, Col.

Fox, W. J.

Scholefield, W.

Grace, O. D. J.

Scully, F.

Greene, J.

Stuart, Lord D.

Higgins, G. G. O.

Tenison, E. K.

Hume, J.

Thompson, Col.

Kershaw, J.

Walmsley, Sir J.

M'Cullagh, W. T.

O'Brien, Sir T.

TELLERS.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Roche, E. B.

Perfect, R.

Moore, G. H.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir William Somerville, Lord John Russell, and Sir George Grey.

ROMAN CATHOLIC PRELATES IN THE COLONIES.
SIR R. H. INGLISrose to put a question to his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies, in reference to some late despatches of his noble Friend who was at the head of that department. A certain foreign Potentate had appointed to a certain office certain persons in certain parts of Her Majesty's dominions. The question he wished to ask his hon. Friend was, whether Her Majesty's Ministers had advised Her Majesty to continue to recognise the precedence which such appointment gave other parties, whose orders had been conferred with Her Majesty's sanction?
MR. HAWEShad read over the notice which the hon. Baronet had put upon the paper, with some care, in order to divine, if he could, the direction which this question would take, and he certainly was not quite prepared for the direction which it had taken. The despatches that were laid upon the table contained all the information that it was in his power to give. A circular had been issued from the Colonial Office to the Governors of the different

885
colonies, to the effect that Roman Catholic prelates in the colonies might use the titles belonging to their ecclesiastical dignities, and that those titles would be acknowledged. As to the question of precedence, the question was altogether different. The acknowledgment of the title did not necessarily establish the order of precedence—that was regulated by other rules, and those rules had not been departed from.

THE EXHIBITION OF 1851.
COLONEL SIBTHORProse to put one or two questions to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There was a report that 14,000 l. had already been advanced from the Treasury to the Commissioners for the Exhibition that was to be held next year. He wished to know if this were so, and if not, he wished to ask the First Minister of the Crown whether he was disposed to pledge himself that he would not propose, or sanction the proposal, either directly or indirectly, the issue of any sum of money, as well as the Chancellor of the Exchequer pledge himself not to issue or advance any public money for the purpose of carrying on the works for the proposed Exhibition of 1851 without the sanction of Parliament.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, with reference to the statement made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that 14,000 l. had already been advanced, it was utterly and entirely a mistake.
COLONEL SIBTHORPdid not say it had been advanced. He said there was a rumour to that effect.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERcould at any rate give it a complete and unqualified contradiction. As to any pledge, he must decline coming under any promise in the way proposed.
COLONEL SIBTHORP: And the noble Lord?
LORD J. RUSSELL: No, I must decline.

POSTAL COMMUNICATION BETWEEN LONDON AND DUBLIN.
MR. REYNOLDSrose to call attention to the great public inconvenience caused by the present mode of transmitting the mails between Dublin and London. At present, the mails left daily between Dublin and London. One left Kingstown at 12 o'clock in the morning, and the other at half-past 7 in the evening. It was to
886
the latter that he wished to call attention. The time was seventeen and a half hours, and he thought it possible that the transmission might take place in fourteen and a half hours, being a saving of three hours. In support of that assertion, he might state that the mail which left Euston-square station at 5 o'clock in the afternoon reached Kingstown Harbour at 6 o'clock the following morning, being a period of thirteen hours. If that could be done between London and Dublin, he did not see why it should not be done between Dublin and London. He had felt it to be his duty to bring the matter under the consideration of the noble Lord at the head of the Post Office department; but although he (Mr. Reynolds) succeeded in proving that a substantial grievance existed, and the noble Lord expressed his willingness to apply a remedy, it appeared that the noble Lord worked with such imperfect machinery that he was unable to control it. He would now show the manner in which the time occupied between Dublin and London was taken up. The departure took place at half-past seven o'clock, and five hours forty minutes were allowed for crossing between Holyhead and Dublin. Twenty minutes were allowed for landing the mails, making six hours as the time occupied in crossing the Channel. There was a margin allowed at Holyhead for irregularities in the arrival of the packets; and the mail did not start from that point till two o'clock in the morning. The train arrived at Chester at forty minutes past four o'clock, where the mails were detained one hour and fifty minutes. The train again started at half-past six o'clock, and arrived at London at one o'clock. This was equal to seventeen hours London time. He was prepared to propose a plan by which the mail would arrive at a quarter past ten in the morning, thus enabling a delivery of Irish letters to take place at twelve o'clock, and not at half-past four or five o'clock, as at present. From Kingstown the departure should be at five minutes past seven (equal to half-past seven English time); five and a half hours should be allowed for crossing; twenty minutes allowed for the landing at Holyhead. The train should start at twenty minutes past one o'clock, and it would be due at Chester at four o'clock. On arriving at that point, there ought to be no delay; but the mail should proceed to Blisworth, and then to London, where the arrival would be at a quarter past ten

887
o'clock. This would enable letters to be answered the same evening by the nine o'clock express train. He understood that the cause of the detention at Chester was for the accommodation of Liverpool and the northern parts of England. He would do as much as any man to serve a neighbour, but he could not go so far as to sacrifice the correspondence with Ireland for the sake of accommodating the people of Liverpool, and of the north of England. The delay at Chester would be removed were the Government to incur the expense of a special train between that town and Blisworth; and he thought that ought to be done. He should conclude by moving for a copy "of any Regulations which may have been made by the Postmaster General relating to the Transmission of the Mails between London and Dublin."
MR. CORNEWALL LEWISsaid, that the present arrangements had been adopted upon the most mature and impartial consideration of the best mode of balancing different conveniences and inconveniences. There could be no question that the facilitation of communication between London and Dublin was a very important object; but, on the other hand, the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman would involve considerable expenditure. The Postmaster General, however, would, he was sure, continue to pay the closest attention to the subject, and be ready to adopt any practicable improvement.
MR. FRENCHexpressed a hope that the improvement would be brought into effect at the earliest possible moment, for the present arrangements were most embarrassing to Irish correspondents.
MR. COWPERsaid, that even if the mails were transmitted more rapidly from Dublin to London, it would be impossible to deliver them any sooner than at present, except by an entire reconstruction of the sorting arrangements. The letters from Dublin were delivered at the same time with letters from the north of England and Scotland.
MAJOR BLACKALLsaid, it would be a very great convenience to have an intermediate mail from Dublin, enabling persons who had received letters from London by the five o'clock mail from that city to despatch the business to which they referred and return an answer accordingly, without having a whole day's delay intervene.
MR. O. STANLEYconcurred in the
888
statement that the present arrangements with reference to Chester were most inconvenient.
MR. STAFFORDsaid, it was absurdly incongruous on the part of a Government which had only the other day justified the withdrawal of the Lord Lieutenant from Dublin on the specific ground of having established a more rapid communication between the two capitals, to permit the subordinates of the Post Office actually to impede that communication by their bungling arrangements.
COLONEL CHATTERTONsaid, if the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor had just cause of complaint at the great public inconvenience caused by the present mode of transmitting Her Majesty's mails between Dublin and London, how much more legitimate cause of complaint had they in the south of Ireland? After the arrival of the mails in Dublin, they were uselessly detained for four or five hours in the post-office there; and he almost doubted if his assertion would gain credence in the House, when he said a passenger coming from Holyhead in the same boat that conveyed the mails could actually reach the south of Ireland thirteen hours before the letters. He need not say any more to impress the House with the conviction that an alteration of such an evil was necessary.
Motion agreed to.

MEDICAL CHARITIES (IRELAND) BILL.
House in Committee.
Clause 10.
MR. G. A. HAMILTON MR. G. A. HAMILTON moved, that the appointment of officers should be committed to the managing committee of the dispensary district, subject to the control of the guardians. He objected to the power given to the Commissioners by the clause as it stood, to determine absolutely the salaries and qualifications of medical officers; and he considered that the appointments ought to be open to all duly qualified medical men.
Amendment proposed, p. 4, 1. 19, to leave out the words "with such qualifications and salaries as the said Commissioners shall determine," in order to insert the words "duly qualified by law," instead thereof.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 36; Noes 15: Majority 21.
Clause agreed to; as was Clause 11.
Clause 12.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONurged upon the right hon. Secretary for Ireland the expediency of striking out for the present all the clauses relating to infirmaries, and leaving the Bill a Bill relating to dispensaries alone. The subject of infirmaries was a very large and important one. They possessed property by bequest and otherwise; and it was not right they should be handed, as the Bill proposed, to the complete authority of the Commissioners. The profession was of opinion that the infirmaries should be exempted. If the Government would not consent to this, he would move an Amendment, that the governors of infirmaries should, if they thought proper, claim exemption.
SIR W. SOMERVILLEmust resist the Amendment.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONwas anxious to protect the practitioners in Ireland, who were generally men of very high merit, from the power of the Commissioners, who might, under the clause, determine the important question of medical qualifications arbitrarily. He considered all the medical offices should be open to all medical men who were at present qualified by law.
Amendment proposed, page 5, lines 14 and 15, to leave out the words "from and after the passing of this Act," in order to insert the words "is, or," instead thereof.
SIR W. SOMERVILLEsaid, he had no objection to introduce some proviso which would meet the case of institutions haying property, and which he would introduce on the report. He could not consent to mutilate the measure by confining it to dispensaries, nor to make its operation conditional on the consent of the governors of other institutions. Such an exemption would prevent the complete arrangement; that was contemplated, and interfere with the establishment of district hospitals. He believed also, that the abuses of the infirmaries were as great as those of the dispensaries.
MR. STAFFORD, looking at the magnitude of the changes proposed, could not but wish that the Bill might be postponed till next Session. They were dividing on most important questions with less than fifty Members present, including very few Irish Members, and nothing was more easy than for the Government to over-ride whatever objections might be made.
Question put, "That the words pro-
890
posed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 8: Majority 27.
SIR R. FERGUSONsaid, there were four lines in brackets in the clause, which exempted the Dublin hospitals from the operation of the Bill. He saw no reason for exempting these hospitals, in one of which the medical appointments were regularly sold. He moved that the words constituting this exemption should be omitted.
MR. REYNOLDSsaid, that every one in Dublin would testify that these hospitals were well conducted, and were of universal benefit to the people, without distinction of creed. If their management was handed over to this new board, it would neutralise many of the benefits now conferred by those institutions. The people of Dublin had the most unbounded confidence in the managers, which would not be the case if any change were made.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONopposed the Amendment.
SIR R. FERGUSONsaid, these hospitals did not differ from any other county hospital. The Meath Hospital was the hospital for the county of Dublin. The system of bargain and sale which prevailed in some of these institutions, loudly called for a change in the management.
SIR W. SOMERVILLEsaid, the Meath hospital was one of the most celebrated schools of medicine in Europe. On bringing up the report, he would insert a proviso, giving an option to these hospitals to come under the operation of the Act, if they thought it desirable.
SIR R. FERGUSONwithdrew his Amendment.
Clause agreed to; as were Clauses 13 to 34 inclusive.
Clause 35.
MR. REYNOLDSthen moved the Amendment of which he had given notice. As he was informed, the apothecaries of Ireland were 2,000 in number, of whom one-half were surgeons or physicians. It was apprehended that these gentlemen would be excluded from holding any appointment under medical charities unless some such words as he proposed were inserted. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland would perhaps say, that the apothecaries would obtain a status, under these words, to which they were not entitled; but up to a very recent period a clause or words were always intro-

891
duced, preserving the rights of the apothecaries. He was afraid that the rights of the apothecaries were going to be sacrificed to the magnates of the medical profession in Dublin.
Amendment proposed, page 15, line 35, after the word "hospital," to insert the words "and that the words medical officer and medical practitioner shall be construed to extend to and to include any legally qualified physician, surgeon, or apothecary."
SIR W. SOMERVILLEdid not think that any such addition as was now proposed was ever introduced into the interpretation clause of such Bills, as that which they were now considering; and if he consented to insert the words he would be taking upon himself to decide a question which had been long a matter of dispute in the medical profession.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes23; Noes 46: Majority 23.
House resumed.
Bill, as amended, to be considered on Thursday, and to be printed.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. BRIGHTsubmitted, that the Bill was not in order as it then stood before the House. The Bill, as it originally stood, was entitled a "Landlord and Tenant Bill," its object being to improve the relations between these bodies. At present it was proposed to call it "An Act to Prevent the taking away of Crops to avoid the Payment of Rent." There was only one clause retained in the Bill as it came down from the House of Lords, with part of another clause, to which, however, was tacked a long proviso. The Bill was in point of fact one for the creation of new criminal offences, and could not with any degree of justice be classed under the title of a Landlord and Tenant Bill, which was the character it pretended to on leaving the Lords. What he asked was, if this objection was not fatal to the Bill? and if not, he would proceed to state further reasons why the Bill should not be entertained.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, the objection was not fatal to the Bill. If the Bill had ori-
892
ginated in that House, the case would be different; but as the Bill came from the Lords, no objection could be taken to an alteration even in the title of the Bill.
MR. BRIGHTwould then address himself to some points of the Bill, and conclude his observations by moving that the House do not go into Committee upon the Bill. The measure then before the House was one for making more stringent the law of distress in its mode of operation, and extending that law to a class of property under circumstances in which it did not at present apply. The law of distress was altogether, in this country as well as in Ireland, very questionable; and on that ground he was fortified in his belief that they would not be acting wisely to make that law more stringent than at present. It might be observed by hon. Members that the Devon Commission received a very considerable amount of evidence which went against the law of distress in Ireland, showing it to be a harsh and severe law, and that it was a law not alone harsh and cruel to the tenant, but often not beneficial or satisfactory to the landlord. That being the case, and knowing that the law of distress was based upon a very questionable principle, conferring on a particular class of property the right of recovery not extended to other classes, he should declare himself opposed to the proposition now before the House, namely, to add new stringency to that power in the case of Ireland, particularly in the present condition of that country. It was well known that for some time past there had been a sort of servile war between the landlord and tenant classes of Ireland. He believed the landlords there were, in a great number of cases, oppressing and coercing the tenantry; and that the tenantry were endeavouring to avoid, by fraudulent means, the payment of their rents. In fact, there raged a sort of social anarchy, arising from causes heretofore discussed in that House, but which anarchy, or the cause of which, the present Bill was not calculated to remove. The hon. Member for the University of Dublin was a member of the Devon Commission, and would, he doubted not, bear him (Mr. Bright) out in saying that abundant evidence was laid before that Commission to show that the law of distress was so unpopular that in cases where property was distrained for rent, it was next to impossible to find a sale for it. Like goods seized for tithes, or church rates, in this country, it was almost im-

893
possible to find a free market and ready sale for it; and almost invariably the property had to be sold below its value. Now, coming to the Bill before them, the House would see that, after its enactment, no person would be allowed to cut crops between sunset on Saturday and sunrise on Monday. That was a sort of sabbatical observance that might be turned to a very harsh use. [Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL: No, no!] The hon. Gentleman who cried "No," must be more ignorant of the state of Ireland than he (Mr. Bright) believed him to be. The hon. Member should surely be aware that on estates in Ireland—where the landlords were absent, and even at home—the management was entrusted to the agents, and by them to the bailiffs and drivers; and he therefore contended that this Bill would be made use of in endless cases for purposes of oppression. The Bill provided that not only should not crops be cut between sunset on Saturday and sunrise on Monday; but even not between sunset and sunrise on the other days of the week, where the intention was supposed to be fraudulent, with a view to avoid the payment of rent. Every hon. Member from Ireland knew how the tenants were beset by parties who drove their cattle, and distrained on all possible occasions: and therefore it should be clear to them that a law adding fresh stringency to such a power should be regarded as most oppressive. When he was in Ireland last autumn, he happened to see in an office where was managed the affairs of one of the largest estates in the county of Limerick, a pile of papers drawn up and printed, and requiring only to be filled up with the name of the agent, commissioning the driver and bailiff to seize the cattle in payment of the rent due to the landlord. He saw hundreds of those forms, which showed that the whole management was carried on under a system of extracting rent, not by any free payment of the tenant, but by driving and impounding the cattle in lieu of the rent. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not know whether these cries, proceeding from hon. Gentlemen opposite, were intended for or against his position, but he asserted that where property had sunk into that condition, Parliament was not to look to the proprietor with a view of increasing his powers to extract his rent, but to the cause that produced that anarchy, with a view to remedy it. This Bill would enable the landlords to seize and impound the carts and horses and waggons removing, about to
894
remove, or preparing to remove, those crops, no matter to whom belonging, and though not even on the land on which the particular landlord might not be empowered to make a distraint. He did not believe the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland had read through the provisions of the Bill: neither did he believe the House would consent to enact the measure. This measure made that which hitherto was—if he might use the expression—only a civil wrong, in future a criminal offence. The non-payment of rent or taking away of property in this country, or in Ireland, had not been heretofore made a crime in the way that stealing was a crime, or felony: but by this Bill they were going to change the nature of the offence, and they were going to enact that the non-payment of rent in Ireland was a misdemeanour, punishable with twelve months' imprisonment and hard labour. This Bill, introduced by the hon. Member for the University of Dublin, showed to what desperate and cruel lengths Gentlemen of otherwise mild tempers and dispositions could go, in attaching twelve months' imprisonment and hard labour to an act that heretofore the laws of England did not recognise as an offence. He put it to the law officers of the Crown to say, if this Bill would not bring about the changes to which he had referred, and if it would not affect their notions as to law, and the principles on which law was based? When the Crown failed to obtain revenue, when payment of duties was evaded, penalties were attached and modes of recovery pointed out; but in no case was the offence made a misdemeanour, and followed by a punishment unjust and savage. There was a proviso introduced into the Bill which appeared to him not alone unjust, but also most absurd. It was to the effect, that any cart or waggon seized under the provisions of the Bill, not the property of the owner of the crop which was being removed, such cart or waggon should not be restored until the owner proved to the magistrate that it was not known to him (the owner) the purpose for which they were about to be used. Now, he wished to know from the hon. Gentleman opposite how he could call on a man to prove a negative, when it was for the prosecutor to prove him guilty? Thus the principles of law and justice were reversed. On these grounds the Bill was so objectionable, that he would oppose its proceedings that night, and also join with those hon. Gentlemen who took the same

895
view as himself in opposing its further progress at every single step. He understood these clauses were recommended by no less eminent an authority than the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. But that was nothing to him (Mr. Bright); for there had been known Lord Lieutenants, both before and since the union of both countries, who recommended a great amount of legislation most pernicious; and, therefore, such high authority went for nothing with him. He certainly should like to see the Lord Lieutenant urging on Government the necessity of passing measures of justice to the whole people of Ireland, but not such measures as the present, and that which occupied the attention of the House at an earlier stage of that day's proceedings, particularly as there was no necessity for them, and as they outraged all sense of law and justice. At the commencement of the Session, the Government brought in a Bill for the purpose of settling the long-pending question of the relative rights of landlord and tenant in Ireland; and he might appeal even to the hon. Member for the University of Dublin, whether, in the present condition of Ireland, it was not the duty of Government to legislate between them? The Government had brought in a Bill of many clauses, five-sixths of which were understood to be protective of the interests of the tenant, with three or four clauses strengthening the right of the landlord. The Government found they could not carry the Bill this Session. It had, consequently, been put off from time to time, and was, he believed, fixed for second reading on Thursday next. It certainly was odd that the right hon. Secretary for Ireland should have allowed the Bill to lie on the table, whilst the Marquess of Westmeath, in the House of Lords, was getting on with his clauses. How, he wished to know, had these Bills been passed by the House of Lords? Why, about five noble Lords sat—two on the Ministerial side, and three on the Opposition—who would not divide; and in that way the measures came down to the House of Commons, and hon. Gentlemen were expected to legislate on them. [An Hon. MEMBER: No!] The hon. Gentleman said "No:" it might not be so as regarded the present Bill, but, generally speaking, it was so, and he could not help saying that such legislation would be disgraceful to any country in the world. He asserted such legislation was wrong in principle; because it gave more stringent
896
powers to the Irish landlords, which powers all the world admitted were already sufficiently stringent, and had also been greatly abused. It was also wrong with regard to the temper that at present existed between the landlords and tenants of Ireland; it would only add fuel to the flame now raging, and would, in fact, give to the people, who were calling for "bread," nothing better than "stones" for their appeasement. The tenantry asked to be given a right in the land which they worked and toiled upon; and that House responding, came forward with a measure having only two such clauses as every tenant in Ireland would consider not alone not favourable, but more or less hostile to his interests. It was, then, because he conceived it would be disastrous to confer additional powers on the landlord class, that he objected to this measure. It was also brought forward at an unfavourable period—the fag-end of the Session, when not more than forty Members might attend for its discussion, and in the absence of very many who felt an interest in it. Therefore, conceiving it of too important a nature to be settled in that way, he begged to move that the House go into Committee on the Bill that day three months.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. S. CRAWFORDseconded the Amendment.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, it was necessary after the speech of the hon. Member for Manchester, that he should make a few remarks. It was true, as stated by the hon. Member, that many of the witnesses before the Devon Commission had recommended the total abolition of distress; but it was also true that the Commissioners having given the subject their fullest and most anxious consideration, had come to the conclusion that it would neither be consistent with the rights of property, nor with the interests of the tenants themselves, that distress for rent should be abolished. They, however, recommended certain modifications in the law. They had recommended that distress of growing crops, though it was now the law in England, should be done away with

897
in Ireland, and that certain notices should in all cases of distress he given, in order that the tenant might know how much rent was due, and have the opportunity of paying it before the sale of his goods. But the abolition of distress of growing crops had been followed by consequences which the Commissioners did not foresee. The House was aware that no civil process of law could be executed at night, or on Sunday. Fraudulent and dishonest tenants, therefore, by cutting and carrying their crops at night, or on Sunday, could escape distress altogether. This, however, was manifestly a fraud and act of dishonesty. It had been followed by very injurious consequences to the tenants themselves, and in some instances fatal collisions had taken place. The Bill was intended to prevent and punish this fraud. It was necessary in every case that a fraudulent intent should be proved, and a jury were to determine on it. He would be quite ready in Committee to show that it was not the case that any new principle of law was introduced in this Bill, and the law in England at the present moment was far more stringent as regards the punishment for carrying away distress.
MR. LENNARDconsidered the cutting of crops on Sundays to evade the rent to be a downright species of felony, and one of the most dishonest practices that ever prevailed in any civilised country. He hoped that the Government would take care that the Bill passed during the present Session.
MR. TORRENS M'CULLAGHdenied that it was a general practice to remove crops in the way alleged by the supporters of this Bill. The tenantry of Ireland did not deserve the imputations which had been so lavishly heaped upon them; and he could not but believe that there had been some great moral constraint pressing upon the mind of the right hon. Baronet the Irish Secretary when he consented to the second reading of the measure. He (Mr. M'Cullagh) condemned the mode in which this Bill had been introduced and proceeded with. The last time it was discussed it was long after midnight; and he believed there was no formal advantage of which its promoters would not avail themselves in order to have it passed into law. Why was it not brought in sooner in the Session, if the necessity for it was so great as had been represented? Its framers had placed it in the hands of a Peer (the Marquess of Westmeath), the very last that
898
he should have thought likely to be intrusted with such a measure. He was not one who was accustomed to make strong remarks relative to the Members of the Upper House; but be should have thought that the Government, or Gentlemen opposite, would have chosen as the person to introduce this measure into the House of Lords some man whose antecedents, whose character for sobriety of judgment, and whose consistency of conduct, in public life, were such as to win esteem.
MR. DICKSONrose to order. The hon. and learned Gentleman, he presumed, had no right thus to refer to what took place in the other House of Parliament.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman was not out of order if he referred to what was found in the Votes of the House of Lords.
MR. TORRENS M'CULLAGHheld in his hand a copy of the Bill as it was printed by order of the House of Lords, and he found the name of the Marquess of Westmeath on the back of it. The measure originally brought in by the Government to amend the relations subsisting between landlord and tenant in Ireland had not been proceeded with, but its most stringent clauses were imported into, and now formed the whole of, the present measure; and he must repeat that Ministers could only have given their sanction to the second reading under some extraordinary feeling of constraint, or some overpowering sense of its necessity. Then, if that were so, why did they not adopt at once the responsibility of carrying it through Parliament? The hon. Member for Manchester had pointed out the difference between a civil wrong and a criminal offence; and he would only add to his statement, that, anciently, by the common law, nothing could be distrained that partook of the quality of the soil. It was only after 1688 that this principle was disturbed, and the right of distraint over growing crops was recognised by statute. This right, first established in England, was subsequently extended to Ireland; but the power was abused so universally and so notoriously that the Devon Commission, of which the sponsor for this Bill in that House (Mr. G. A. Hamilton), was a member, reported that it should be abrogated. Nobody proposed to take the power of distraint over growing crops from the landlords of England; but the Devon Commissioners reported that it was necessary to divest the landlords of Ireland in that re-

899
spect of a statutable remedy which experience had shown to be liable in that country to great abuse. But, much as he approved of the proposal to abolish the powers of distraining growing crops, he would rather run the risk of the greatest abuse of that law, than support the Bill now before the House. They would not attempt such a measure for England; and they wronged the people of Ireland, when they imposed upon them a yoke greater than they themselves were willing to bear. He would appeal to the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland whether this was not an attempt to repeal by a sidewind the remedial and conciliatory Act of 1846, which had been passed at the instance of Lord Besborough? If the Bill should go into Committee, he would move an Amendment to do away with its criminal character, and leave to the parties a civil remedy only, and thereby efface from the measure its worst features. Had the proposition been confined to prohibiting, under penalties, the carrying away of crops on Sunday, he should not have felt so much opposed to it; but this was a law against the tenant cutting his crop any day in the week after a certain hour. Such an enactment would subject every tenant in Ireland to the malice of any scoundrel who might for the basest purposes inform against him. And then, before whom were the accused to be arraigned? Before the magistrates sitting at sessions; that was to say, before their own landlords. The crime was to consist in the intent of the accused; and this was to be proved to the satisfaction of two persons interested—if not directly, at least by sympathy of class—in his conviction. Circumstantial evidence, coloured by prejudice and passion, or the reckless swearing of some miserable dependant, would, of necessity, be the only proof. And what was to be the punishment? Twelve months' imprisonment with hard labour! A more tyrannical procedure could not be devised, even against the serfs of Russia.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that the hon. Member for Manchester possessed as little knowledge of the law upon this subject as he did of the facts to which it related; and he was surprised that the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk should have adopted the authority of that hon. Gentleman upon this subject. The real question for the House to decide was, whether the existing law was in so satisfactory a state
900
as not to require any alteration. In his opinion the law as it at present stood aiforded no remedy to the landlord. He would ask whether the Government would allow the law to remain in that state? Was there, in fact, to be no such thing as the recovery of rent in Ireland? No Irish landlord would ask for more power than was absolutely necessary. He had lived among the Irish people for years, and his family had done so before him for centuries; he was, in fact, one of them; and he would fearlessly say, that that man would speak falsely who should assert that the landlords of Ireland required unnecessary powers over their tenantry. The oppressions exercised by the landlords of Ireland over their tenants were not to be compared in severity with the hardships endured by the factory labourers of England under their exacting taskmasters.
MR. C. ANSTEYopposed the Bill. He considered the hon. Member for Dundalk quite correct both in his law and in his facts. The principle of the measure was simply this, that if a tenant, however conscientiously, presumed to differ from his landlord as to the extent of his liabilities towards him, as to whether, perhaps, he owed him any rent at all, the landlord was to be in a position to remove the settlement of the question from a civil into a criminal court, and to subject the unfortunate tenant to fine and imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a twelvemonth, leaving the tenant who would not submit to this tyranny no other alternative than a resort to agrarian justice. As to fraudulent removals, they were sufficiently provided against by the existing law. It was said that the Bill was merely to prevent tenants from moving their crops by night; why, the unhappy men were so engaged during the day, in the employment, perhaps, of the very landlord who was oppressing them, that they had only the night in which to attend to their own concerns. There were two principles which ought to govern any law upon this subject: one was that nothing should be done to prevent the tenant selling his own produce at the time he pleased himself; and the other was, that a distress should be levied at such a time as to avoid the probability of a disturbance of the public peace. Both those principles the present Bill violated. There was no provision in it to make the existing law more effectual than it was at present. It was a piece of landlord legislation, and, however accept-

901
able it might be to the class represented by the hon. and gallant Colonel, it would be scouted by every man who wished to maintain peace and tranquillity in Ireland. He deprecated the idea of discussing a Bill of this nature in a House with not fifty Members present, and at the fag end of the Session; and, in order to get rid of the measure, he should conclude by moving that the debate be adjourned.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."
MR. ALCOCKhoped this Bill would not become law, for he considered that it would be very detrimental to the interests of Ireland. Nothing, he believed, would tend more to the advantage of that country than the introduction of English farmers, of English enterprise, and of English capital; but if an English farmer who settled in Ireland attempted to reap his crops by night, he might, under this Bill, be committed to prison, tried, and sentenced to hard labour. He knew an English farmer who went to Ireland two years ago, and who occupied 1,000 acres of land in the county of Gal way, who would be precluded by this measure from working after sunset or before sunrise. A large portion of the land in Ireland was subject not only to" rent, but to rent-charge. Although, therefore, a tenant might have paid his rent, the rent-charge might be due, and, if the tenant proceeded to reap his crops within the prohibited time, he might be informed against, fined, and punished with hard labour.
MR. HENLEYthought it was unfortunate that the law of Ireland was not the same as in England. ["Hear, hear!"] The English farmer was liable to punishment for the offence here. He knew the hon. Gentleman was a magistrate for Surrey, and he had no doubt similar complaints had been made to the hon. Member as to himself (Mr. Henley) of tenants taking away goods to prevent their being distrained for rent. The law, however, gave power to the landlord to follow them for thirty days; and if he did not then recover them, he could proceed against the tenant, who would be liable to six months' imprisonment. He could not see why this was not extended to Ireland; for he believed the only remedy at present was, to bring an action for double the amount of rent, thus making it a simple debt.
SIR W. SOMERVILLEthought the subject had been discussed with more warmth than was called for. All the Gen-
902
tlemen who had addressed the House had admitted that frauds had taken place in consequence of the farmers carrying off the crops to avoid the payment of rent. It was not denied that it was desirable that there should be some provision in the, law to meet such cases. He had said, on a former occasion, and he then repeated, that all he wanted was a minimum punishment which would put a stop to a state of things which all must condemn. He did not think this question had anything to do with the relations of landlord and tenant. It was clear they must adopt some steps to put a stop to this practice, and he considered the object of the present Bill was merely to put down these frauds. An hon. Gentleman said that this was a landlord's alarm; but he (Sir W. Somerville) considered such a statement to be a calumny on the tenantry of Ireland. The system did not merely demoralise those who were parties to carrying off the crops, but when they were taken away, they were taken to the houses of other farmers, who, against their will, were obliged to take them in. He was sure the great body of the farmers of Ireland would be glad to see an end put to the practice. When they got into Committee they could calmly consider whether some means might not be adopted to put; an end to these frauds.
MR. MOOREdid not object to the objects of the Bill, but to the means proposed for carrying them out. If such a conspiracy as had been referred to existed among any large body of the tenantry in Ireland, to remove the crops in order to defraud their landlords, he contended that it was the duty of the Government to have brought forward a Bill on this subject at an earlier period of the Session. If a Bill of this kind were brought forward upon their responsibility, he would willingly consent to any reasonable measure for repressing so monstrous an evil. But the real fact was that Irish landlords, pressed by the necessity of the times, had laid their heads together in another place, and had devised this Bill to facilitate the collection of their rents: and he strongly objected to such a mode of legislation, as establishing a most dangerous precedent.
MR. S. CRAWFORDconcurred with the right hon. Secretary for Ireland in wishing to prevent frauds; but he would not endeavour to do so by a one-sided Bill, which would prevent frauds on the part of the tenants, while it left the frauds practised by landlords unrestrained. He con

903
sidered it a fraud on the tenant that, when he had made improvement on the soil, an enormous rent should be demanded from him which he was unable to pay, and that the landlord should then take posession of the produce of his tenant's capital and labour.
MR. P. SCROPEhoped the House would bear in mind the cheers with which the observations of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire had been received, that the law of England should be applied to Ireland on the subject of landlord and tenant. If they acted on that principle, to which they had by their cheers almost pledged themselves, they would remove various objectionable parts of the Bill. Should they go into Committee, he trusted they would content themselves with putting the law affecting Ireland on the same footing as the law of England. He had a great objection to legislating on the subject at this period of the Session. There were provisions in the Bill so offensive and insulting to the tenantry of Ireland, that it was impossible the House could assent to them. The grievances of the Irish tenantry were innumerable. One of the worst of those grievances would be aggravated by the Bill, inasmuch as, having to pay rents on a range of prices which had been materially changed by the legislation of that House, and calculated on the supposition of successful potato crops, tenants, if they did not pay their rents to the last farthing, would find that by the Bill power was given the landlord to prevent them from selling their produce as they saw fit, and from carrying away their crops for the purpose of sale. They would find also that any informer might bring evidence against them to show that in the removal of their crops they were acting in a fraudulent manner. The effect of such legislation would be to encourage landlords to maintain extravagant rents, and keep alive that unfortunate state of feeling between landlord and tenant which it was so desirable to alter. The depopulation of Ireland had been proceeding rapidly; no fewer than 100,000 families had disappeared within the last year or two. Tenants ought to be protected from harsh and cruel evictions. The common law was said to be sufficient to prevent these; but an Act was passed not long ago to provide an effectual check. It was notoriously a dead letter. The right hon. Secretary for Ireland received many accounts of evictions from the constabulary; and it might be asked why those returns
904
were not produced? The effect which such evictions had in forcing numbers of the Irish population to come to this country, showed to what an extent the people of England felt on this subject. The Bill would tend still further to encourage evictions and promote the depopulation of Ireland. A just measure would give advantages to tenants as well as to landlords.
MR. R. M. FOXobserved, that the Bill made every man to whom another paid rent a landlord under its provisions; so that not only a landlord in the proper sense, but every agent or driver, could prevent a man from digging a potato in his garden. One of the clauses would prevent a man from removing any of his chattels, and vehicles might be seized as if they were the property of the man whose house they were leaving. The provisions of the Bill were of so arbitrary a character that he could not, under any circumstances, give them his support. If the question of adjournment were negatived, he would be prepared to present his views in detail.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 22; Noes 46: Majority 24.
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. REYNOLDSthen moved that the House do adjourn. The House ought to adjourn in order that the subject might be more fully discussed. In Manchester the ratepayers paid 28,000 l. in one year for outdoor relief to Irish paupers. [Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL: Question!] He was glad the hon. Member for Kerry, who was fond of interrupting him, was before him on this occasion; the last time he interrupted him he was behind him. [Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL:No!] On the last occasion the hon. Member was behind him. [Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL: That is not true.] The hon. Member stated that what he (Mr. Reynolds) said was not true. [Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL: I never interrupted the hon. Member sitting behind him.] He would call upon the hon. Member not to interrupt him any more. [Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL: Question, then.] Mr. Speaker would be the judge whether he was speaking to the question, not the hon. Member. What he (Mr. Reynolds) said might be unpalatable to certain persons who imagined themselves landlords, but were not landlords, either in the present or the future tense; and they appeared the most turbulent portion of

905
the Irish landlords in the House. [Dr. NICHOLL rose to order. The hon. Member did not address his observations to the question.] He should be very sorry to be considered disorderly in the mind of a Gentleman who took a reasonable view of the subject, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman was such an one; but there ought to be some latitude allowed. It was not just to the people of Ireland, after all the arguments brought against this Bill, to force it into Committee at half-past one in the morning—["Half-past twelve"]—well, half-past twelve. It might be inconvenient to him to remain in London during the entire of this month, but he would do so if he could be instrumental in defeating this Bill, which he considered an unjust attack upon his countrymen. He would proceed to call the attention of the House to the preamble.
MR. SPEAKERmust remind the right hon. Member that he was going again into the merits of the Bill, and not discussing the question of adjournment.
MR. REYNOLDSwished to show reasons why the House should adjourn. He would not trespass further than by repeating what he had already stated, that he should offer all the opposition in his power to this Bill, and expressing his regret that the Government should give their sanction to a one-sided Bill like this. He would not go again into the merits of the Bill; but he hoped the House would adjourn.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
MR. M. J. O'CONNELLbegged to say, that he remembered the occasion to which the right hon. Member referred when he accused me of interrupting him behind his back. He did not do so. He should be particularly careful in his conduct towards a person after the cessation of a previous friendly intercourse. The whole subject before the House had been debated, and Gentlemen, instead of going into Committee to proceed with the Bill, made the same statements over and over again.
MR. C. ANSTEYwas surprised at the lecture which the hon. Member for Kerry had bestowed upon the opponents of the Bill; because the history of Parliament could show no person who had more distinguished himself than the hon. Member by Motions of adjournment, for the purpose of obstructing Sir Robert Peel's Administration. [Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL: Never.] Oh, yes! He remembered the
906
hon. Member's conduct with regard to the Arms Bill. Now, he (Mr. Anstey) acknowledged that he wanted to defeat the present Bill. For that object he had moved the adjournment of the debate; for that object he supported the present Motion; and for that object, when the present Motion should be disposed of, he would repeat the Motion he had already made. The Government had abandoned their remedial measures for Ireland on the ground that there was not time to consider them; but they found time to press this penal measure.
MR. BROTHERTONthought that something ought to be done for the prevention of irregular debates. In the present temper of the House, it was perhaps advisable to consent to the adjournment of the discussion.
LORD C. HAMILTONcomplained of the numerous speeches against time which had been made by the opponents of the Bill, and in particular of the painful effort of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk. He protested in the face of the country against such a disgraceful abuse of a privilege. Those who had been guilty of it showed little regard for the dignity of the House, to say nothing of their own character. The House ought, if possible, to visit with some censure the efforts made to impede the progress of public business. [Mr. ANSTEY: Oh, oh!] He was aware that the hon. and learned Member was unable to comprehend anything about the dignity of the House, and he dared to say that the hon. and learned Member, in his cups with his companions, would rejoice in what he had done. It was not to be expected, however, that the hon. and learned Member should be able to understand or appreciate the dignity of that House. He was only capable of turning it into ridicule.
MR. C. ANSTEYwished to take the opinion of the Chair upon the language of the noble Lord. The noble Lord had spoken of him as a person incapable of comprehending what appertained to the dignity of the House, and said that when in his cups with his companions he would turn it into ridicule. He wished to know whether that was Parliamentary language,; and, if it were not, he hoped Mr. Speaker would visit the noble Lord with censure.
LORD C. HAMILTONdisclaimed having used the words imputed to him. He; had said that he dared say the hon. and learned Member would do as described.
MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord says he did not use the words, which must be satisfactory to the hon. and learned Member. The words are certainly not Parliamentary.
LORD C. HAMILTONsaid, the conduct of the opponents of the Bill in making such frivolous and vexatious speeches on the subject of adjournment was highly reprehensible. It was too bad that the progress of wholesome and salutary legislation should be impeded by such practices. It was all very well to talk about the rights of a minority, but it should not be forgotten that the majorities also had rights which ought to be respected. The conduct of the hon. and learned Member who was pursuing a course so factious and mischievous to defeat a Bill which would be so beneficial in Ireland, and the object of which was simply to prevent the illegal carrying away of crops, was like that of a vicious boy who might place a plank upon a railway line to overturn a train.
MR. BRIGHTwould remind the noble Lord that during the debate on the Franchise Bill he had himself divided the House no less than eight times on questions which the House had uniformly decided to be frivolous and vexatious. He (Mr. Bright) had observed, during the evening, that no lawyer had spoken in favour of the Bill; and on that ground he thought an adjournment necessary. Of the law officers of the Crown, only the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland was present, and he had preserved a profound silence. They ought not to go into Committee on the Bill till they had the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, and knew whether the principal Members of the Government supported it. Till they had that opinion they were entitled to move the adjournment of the House with the view of obtaining an adjournment of the debate. And no imputation of factious opposition should prevent him from supporting such a Motion. He was astonished at the conduct of the Government, who had not the manliness to support the Bill, though there was no doubt it was suggested by the Lord Lieutenant.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONthought it impossible to go into Committee at such an hour, and in the then temper of the House, with the prospect of making any progress; and, therefore, the House had only to consider whether they would adjourn the debate, or go into Committee pro formâ, in order to allow the opponents of
908
the Bill to give notice of any changes they might think it expedient to make. He did not feel that any justification was necessary for the conduct pursued by himself and his hon. Friends. It was said that a practice prevailed which no one could justify of abstracting that which was to secure the landlord the payment of his rent. If that practice did exist, it was a fraud and injustice, and should be prevented. It really was no advantage to the tenants to permit them to practice fraud, for it could not lead to good, and if a tenant began by defrauding his landlord of half a year's rent, he could not expect to be continued on his land, and he (Viscount Palmerston) held that they did the tenant good by preventing his expulsion. As to the principle of the Bill, therefore, he thought that, as a measure to prevent such fraudulent practices, it deserved the consideration of the House. He did not, however, pledge himself to the details of the Bill, and' suggested that hon. Gentlemen on both sides should come to an understanding respecting it. As to the two proposals before the House, it was "an even toss-up" between them.
MR. NAPIERwould, as a lawyer, remind the hon. Member for Manchester, who had taunted the lawyers with not having expressed any opinion on the question under discussion, that both in England and Scotland the case of the fraudulent removal of crops liable to distress for rent was, by law, punishable as a criminal offence. He would ask the hon. Member for Manchester what remedy he proposed to give the landlord against these frauds? If the landlord turned off the tenant, he was denounced as an exterminator, and his murderers would find some in that House to palliate their crime. He was to be denied the power of distraining for rent, and thus no remedy would be left to him against these frauds and robberies. This fraudulent removal of crops was no new thing. He had just received a letter stating that in one part of Ireland they had commenced putting it in practice already, and that if something was not done, "blood would be shed." If hon. Gentlemen opposite wished to take the responsibility of that blood, let them do so; but he would seek to promote the passing of the Bill by every fair means in his power.
MR. HAWESthought he had perceived that the suggestion which had been thrown out by the hon. Member for Oxfordshire during the discussion—namely, that the

909
law should be assimilated in England and Ireland—was received with general approbation by many of those who were carrying on the opposition to this Bill. Why not go into Committee pro formâ then, in order that any alteration which the hon. Member for the University of Dublin might wish to suggest might be printed for discussion hereafter?
MR. G. A. HAMILTONappealed to hon. Gentlemen opposite to adopt those proposals. Surely no hon. Gentleman could approve of fraud and injustice. The law existed in England, and no one complained of it. Let the House go into Committee pro formâ, that the hon. Member for Oxfordshire might bring forward his Amendments.
MR. TORRENS M'CULLAGHthought that if they were colonists or British subjects in foreign countries, they would, no doubt, get justice from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinsale, and the noble Viscount the Foreign Secretary, but had not a chance of being treated as Englishmen, because they were mere Irish. The hon. Member for Oxfordshire had censured the Bill because it did not assimilate the law of Ireland to the law of England; and the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin coolly asked them to go into Committee for that very reason. A tenant who committed a fraud in England was committed to prison in default of payment of the sum defrauded, but they should not confound such a just law with the provisions of that Bill.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that as the ground of the debate was now entirely changed—the proposal that seemed now to be most in favour being simply the assimilation of the law in Ireland to the English and Scotch law on the subject in dispute—he wished it to be understood that those who continued to refuse the application of a remedy for a state of things under which there was evidence of the existence of an organised system of fraud and violence, were, in so doing, pursuing a course which was nothing short of justifying, if not supporting, a violation of the laws of property in Ireland.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONthen said, as it was impossible the debate could lead to any result, it would be better that it should be adjourned.
MR. REYNOLDSwould withdraw his Motion for the adjournment of the House.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
Debate adjourned till To-morrow.
MR. M. J. O'CONNELLwished to say, in reference to an accusation that had been made against him in the course of the debate, that when the Irish Arms Bill was before the House he had followed the system now complained of, of repeatedly moving adjournments for the purpose of obstructing the Bill, that he had not taken that course, and in support of his statement he could refer to Hansard.
The House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Westminster Temporary Bridge; Duke of Cambridge's Annuity.
2a County Court Extension Act Amendment; Fees (Court of Common Pleas) (No. 2); Poor Relief.
Reported.—Cruelty to Animals (Scotland); Borough Gaols; Excise Sugar and Licences; Commons Inclosure (No. 2).
3a Borough Bridges; Public Libraries and Museums; Small Tenements Rating; Administration of Justice in Court of Chancery Acts Continuance.

CARRICK-ON-SHANNON UNION—REPORT FROM THE SELECT COMMITTEE.
LORD BEAUMONT LORD BEAUMONT laid upon the table the Report of the Select Committee appointed to inquire into a petition of the Board of Guardians of the Union of Carrick-on-Shannon, with Minutes of Evidence, and an Appendix. The noble Lord said, that though the report was the report of the Committee, it contained a good deal which, in his opinion, was not borne out by the evidence—particularly some very severe observations and remarks upon certain officers of the union. A difference of opinion had existed in the Committee on these portions of the report, nor were they in the draft of the report which he as chairman had originally drawn up and submitted to the Committee. Having, however, been added to the draft of the report by the majority, the whole must now be accepted by the House as the report of the Committee. He wished to add, that from what he had seen in this and other Committees, he believed it would be advisable and useful to adopt the practice of the other House, of enabling Committees to report their Minutes of proceedings; and at the commencement of the next Session he should introduce this subject to their Lordships' consideration.
LORD WHARNCLIFFEsupported the Motion, and suggested that in future the Committees of their Lordships' House should be allowed a discretion whether to examine witnesses on oath or otherwise, as they might think proper.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEdeclined to give any opinion on the merits of this report; but he entirely concurred in the suggestion thrown out by his noble Friend (Lord Beaumont). The practice of the House of Commons would be found extremely advisable, in order to facilitate a perfect comprehension of the subject.

839
The Motions and Amendments made were recorded, and they ought to he published; and as he was aware of no objection to such a practice, he should be prepared, unless good reasons were shown to the contrary, to give his support to any proposition for introducing a more systematic mode of representing the inquiries conducted by Select Committees. He felt greater doubt as to the suggestion of his noble Friend on the cross bench, for he had heard and found that greater importance was attached by the country at large to the inquiries of the House of Lords than to those of the other House, owing to their being conducted upon oath. He must, therefore, reserve his opinion upon that subject.
LORD MONTEAGLEthought that great reforms might be introduced into the proceedings before their Committees; but this was the first time in which he had ever heard the report of any Select Committee disavowed by its own chairman. As his noble Friend (Lord Beaumont) had taken upon himself to condemn the Committee, he (Lord Monteagle) should inform the House upon what grounds he believed this course had been taken. The Committee was appointed in opposition to the wishes of the Government. They sat laboriously on that Committee; for some days at the commencement the Members of Her Majesty's Government attended the Committee, but afterwards desisted. At the close of the labours of the Committee, the Committee had again the benefit of their attendance, and was rejoiced but surprised to find that it commanded the presence of three Members of the Cabinet. The report, which Lord Beaumont now disavowed was carried on a division by a majority of two to one, and the three Members of the Cabinet, along with Lord Beaumont, were in the minority. He should not have said one word about the non-attendance of Ministers at one time, and their attendance at another, had it not been necessary to sustain the conclusions of the Committee against the observations of Lord Beaumont.
The EARL of MINTO, as one of the Members of that Committee alluded to by the noble Lord, begged to state that he had attended during a great portion of the time that Committee was sitting, and that he had taken a part in all the proceedings, and had heard all the evidence relating to those matters on which he dissented from
840
the majority of the Committee. He entirely concurred in the remarks of his noble Friend the Chairman of the Committee, and he hoped their Lordships would attend rather to the evidence than to the report.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, that it was no wonder that his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) should not be quite correct in his description of the occurrences before this Committee, when he was incorrect in his recollection of what he (Lord Beaumont) had said only three minutes ago. He had laid this report on the table as the report of the Committee, and had not disavowed it as the act of that body. His noble Friend was also quite wrong in accusing him of having thrown a slur upon the report, merely because three Members of the Cabinet had voted against it. He had stated distinctly that though he had differed from some portions, he agreed with other portions of the report. His noble Friend was also wrong in stating that there had only been one division on the report. A division took place at a very early period of the inquiry, as to whether one part of the question ought to be gone into. He thought that it ought not; but his objection was overruled. He then thought that it was their duty to get the best evidence possible on the point. He did all that he could to obtain that evidence, and to preserve the strictest impartiality. A report was afterwards submitted to the Committee, which contained his opinion, founded on the evidence taken before it, but which avoided giving any opinion on those charges against the officers of the union, which were certainly brought, but not proved, by several witnesses. He was ashamed to say that contradiction on contradiction took place among the witnesses examined. False swearing must have been practised to a great extent on one side or the other. There were often the most gross contradictions in the evidence of the same witness. He had, therefore, wholly discarded all such evidence, and formed his opinion on that evidence alone which appeared to him to be unimpeachable. The daring spirit of his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) went far beyond his (Lord Beaumont's), and at last his noble Friend carried so many Amendments, that he thought the tone and general purport of the report so much changed, that he (Lord Beaumont) declined going the lengths his noble Friend had gone, and

841
protected against the additions to the original draft of the report.
Report to be printed.

THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD BROUGHAM: My Lords, I have already stated to your Lordships, that having heard that a violent attack—and slanderous as it is violent—has been made on the judicial proceedings of this House, I felt that it would be my duty to bring that attack under your notice. I should not have mentioned the subject to your Lordships before I read the articles in question, had I not had implicit confidence in the accuracy of the three noble friends who had read them and given me a description of their contents. I have since read the publication to which they referred me, and I now find that the description of it given to me falls considerably short of the truth, and that a more unjustifiable, and I will even add, a more indecent attack on any court of justice, I have never seen in the whole course of my experience. I beg, my Lords, to preface what I am now going to urge with the proposition that it is one thing to comment even with levity, violence, and scurrility on the proceedings of this House in its political, ministerial, or legislative capacity, and that it is another thing so to comment on its proceedings when it sits in its capacity as a high court of justice. My Lords, whatever brings the administration of justice into contempt with the people, is an injury to the Government, and a serious evil to the administration of justice itself. And surely, my Lords, it cannot be said that the evil is diminished by the consideration that the court assailed and to be brought into public contempt is the House of Lords, the high court of appeal from all the other tribunals of the country. Such an assault upon the administration of justice in the Court of Queen's Bench, in the Court of Common Pleas, in the Court of Exchequer, or in the Court of Chancery, would be considered a high contempt, and would subject those who perpetrated such an offence to severe and condign punishment. That Court which sits in judgment over the Court of Queen's Bench, the Court of Common Pleas, the Court of Exchequer, and the Court of Chancery, ought to receive the same protection which those courts have by their own intrinsic power: they have undoubtedly the power, which they occasionally exercise, of committing to prison and
842
of finding all who are wilfully guilty of contempt. Having said thus much, my Lords, I now proceed to mention that I have been sitting for the last six or seven weeks in the administration of justice in your appellate jurisdiction, assisted occasionally by other Peers, not law Lords; but of law Lords, I was the only one who has been able to attend. I undertook—I voluntarily undertook—this duty. The ignorance of the party who put this in the newspaper—in some respects the mere ignorance, but in others the ignorance combined with falsehood and malignity—is inconceivable. That person says, that this has only taken place since my noble and learned Friend on the woolsack accepted the Great Seal. Why, it took place long before. I was sitting as the only law Lord during the whole time that the Great Seal was in commission; but on hearing that there were heavy arrears of causes in his own court, when my noble and learned Friend accepted the Great Seal, and that none of the appeals entered last Session had been disposed of this Session by this House, I felt it to be my bounden duty to aid your Lordships in your judicial capacity in getting rid of the arrears before you, and also to relieve the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack. I sat, my Lords, as a law Lord in your judicial business. I have heard causes of as difficult and of as heavy a description as ever came before you. I heard two cases, each of which lasted four days, during sittings continued from ten o'clock in the morning till five in the afternoon—I say till five in the afternoon, at which hour your Lordships meet in your political capacity. For it is a very important thing to the parties, if you rise in appeals at four o'clock. What is the consequence of your Lordships adjourning at four o'clock till ten the next morning, when by sitting for half an hour or an hour longer you can finish the case at that hearing? Why, if you adjourn till the next day, all the counsel in the case, it may be four, five, six, or seven in number, have to he refreshed over again, all the fees of the House are to be paid over again, and all the expense of the solicitors' bills is to be incurred, amounting, it maybe, to 200 l. or 300 l. I save all this, my Lords, by sitting half an hour or three-quarters of an hour longer every day. Now, to all the causes which I have heard I have given the most laborious and deliberate attention; and my sincere belief is that the learned counsel in those cases will admit that I also gave

843
them a most patient and impartial attention. Contrary to the course taken by other Judges in this House, I never once stopped a cause on the mere showing of the appellant, although I may have occasionally felt that the decree of the court below was right, and that there was no change whatever for the appellant; for I have always held, that in a court of last resort, where the most serious injury might be done—an injury only to be set right in the case of a slip or miscarriage by an Act of Parliament—it is better to hear both sides out, and to allow the appellant to have his reply. I have sat as many as five or six days in the week, having sat on Wednesdays and Saturdays for three weeks, contrary to the uniform practice of the House; but my great object was to cut down the arrears, so as to get rid of them before we parted for the holydays. My Lords, I have succeeded in that object. I heard last Saturday the last of the causes in arrear—all, save one, which by some accident dropped from the paper—but even that cause, which turns on the interpretation of a will, stands for hearing to-morrow. I have thus succeeded in disposing of the causes in arrear, and arrears at present there are positively none. I have left no hearing, and, what is more, I have left no decision in arrear. I have moved your Lordships to give judgment in every cause which I have heard. This I consider to be of great importance. I hope that my noble and learned Friend on the woolsack will forgive me if, with my experience in this court, which is much longer than any which he can have had at present, although I hope that his experience will yet extend far beyond mine—I hope, I say, that my noble and learned Friend will forgive me if I urge on him that the very worst thing that a Judge can do is to fall into the perilous habit of postponing judgment for too long an interval between the time of hearing and that of decision. Hearing arguments day after day when you do not intend to give your judgment till six months afterwards, not only gives you the habit of not applying your mind closely to the arguments; but the practice has also this other bad effect, that when you prepare your judgment in the long vacation, and pronounce it some time before Christmas, you are then exceedingly apt to forget circumstances of material importance in the case, the effect of the argument is effaced from your mind, and the parties find, that though they have in-
844
curred the expense and trouble of having had the points in dispute argued by counsel, you (the Judge) would have been just as competent to decide them if you had read all the papers, seen all the notes, and heard no counsel whatever. I therefore recommend to my noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, after hearing counsel, to let as little time as possible elapse before he gives his judgment. I have given judgment, my Lords, in all the cases save one which I have heard during the present Session. I will add one word more. Four of the cases I have heard have been in reversal, all the others in affirmance of the decrees of the courts below. But in every case, whether in reversal or whether in affirmance, with one exception where the putting off the judgment would have been the affectation of seeing difficulty and doubt where difficulty and doubt there were none, I have postponed my judgment for two or three days, and sometimes for a week, in order to afford ample time thoroughly to consider the arguments in conjunction with my own notes of the case, and to consult statutes, authorities, and text-books; and I will venture to say that even in cases where I have been under the necessity of reversing the decision of the court below, the united opinion of the profession, not excluding those members of the bar against whose arguments I decided, is in favour of the judgments which I have delivered. It does not become me in my judicial capacity to say what opinion the bar have of the satisfactory or unsatisfactory conduct of the judicial business of this House during these six or seven weeks; but I am confident that the decisions which I then gave will be found to produce satisfaction. I am now, my Lords, about to show you what the attack is of which I complain. I will not read to you the ribaldry of the article at length, nor notice the general attacks on my character, which I assure you that I despise. First of all, it is said that such a thing has never been heard of as a single law Lord, who is not a Judge, sitting by himself to hear appeals, whilst the Chancellor was at Lincoln's Inn; never, until the appointment of my noble and learned Friend to the high office of Lord Chancellor. Never heard of? Why, it has been heard of not only this Session, whilst the Lords Commissioners were sitting at Westminster, but it was heard of so long back as the Session of 1835, when I sat and heard my noble and learned Friend, now on the woolsack, then at the

845
bar, arguing one case for seventeen hours. I admit that I did not on that occasion sit at the centre of the table during the whole time, because an Irish demagogue, who chose to fix a quarrel on me for my official and Ministerial conduct, threatened the Government of the day with his high displeasure in case it allowed me to appear to decide the cases in the House of Lords. So my noble Friend behind me (the Earl of Shaftesbury), at the instigation of the Government, acted on, to its own disgrace, by the Irish demagogue, was compelled to come down, and to sit at the table, and to appear to decide the cases which came before us. I was meanwhile sitting in my place as a Peer, with my desk before me, and the only result of that compulsory movement was that the counsel were compelled to turn, with their necks awry, to address me, who was sitting on this side of the House—and I hope that my noble and learned Friend on the woolsack is not stiil suffering from the twist in the neck which he got upon that occasion. I nevertheless still continued to decide causes, although my noble Friend, Lord Shaftesbury, came down to preside at the table, until the end of that long, very long, Session. It is then said that only Judges should sit here, and that till the time of the present Lord Chancellor that was always the practice. Not so, my Lords; for during the last time my noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) held the Great Seal, my noble and learned Friends, Lord Cottenham and Lord Campbell, and myself, had sate, in turn, three times every week, and had decided long causes, sometimes in conjunction and sometimes separately. This, my Lords, is the absolute and gross ignorance which presides over this newspaper attack. But this is not the worst part of its offence. I stated to your Lordships the patience with which I listened to every case which came before me; and I challenge all who were present, be they peers, suitors, advocates, or solicitors, to deny the patience with which I went through every case, and the deliberation with which all our proceedings were regulated. There is this passage—"The number of cases knocked off in the Lords"—as if some one had bragged of the precipitate haste with which cases had been decided—I need scarcely tell your Lordships that I never used so vulgar and low-bred an expression:—
"The number of cases 'knocked off' in the Lords has been considerable; but whether they have been gravely and attentively heard, maturely
846
considered, and satisfactorily disposed of, is a question which will not be agreeably answered on inquiry amongst the able men who, for six weeks past, have been pleading at the bar of the House of Lords."
And then comes more stupid ribaldry as to the haste with which causes had been knocked off, and as to my motives in sitting as Judge in the House of Lords. There is only one other part of this trash with which I will trouble your Lordships, and it is this:—
"His (the Lord Chancellor's) bar warned the Lord Chancellor that the arrangement he had made for Lord Brougham transacting the appellate business of the Lords for the remainder of the Session would not work well, and it has not."
Here, my Lords, is a fact stated on which I gladly join issue with this slanderer. "The bar remonstrated against my sitting here as Judge." Whether my transacting the appellate business of the House of Lords worked well, or not, is not for me to decide; I will leave that to the profession and the public; but I assert that this is not only not true, but that there is not a shadow of truth for the assertion that the bar remonstrated against my acting as a Judge. I say that no remonstrance was made against me—I say that no objection was offered to me by the bar, and I further add that a noble and learned Friend of mine asked the Lord Chancellor to come down to the House, as he was acquainted with the facts of a particular case which was to come before us, but that he thought it was not a reasonable request—but that has nothing to do with the case now before us. In short, this paragraph is, from beginning to end, a gross departure from truth. I say that no Court can suffer such false libellous slanders on its proceedings to pass unnoticed, and, for this reason—a Court which permits such slanders is supposed to admit their truth. If I could not have laid my finger on this article, if I could not have brought it in this manner to the world that my sitting to assist your Lordships in your judicial capacity this Session had been met by a remonstrance from the bar, no remonstrance, even from the bar, would prevent me at any time from performing that which I felt to be my duty to this House and to the country; but, my Lords, I should regret indeed if now, for the first time, and after a long professional career, and after twenty years of judicial experience, I had afforded grounds for any such remonstrance betokening on the part of the bar, a want

847
of confidence in my learning and my honour.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I regret exceedingly the attack which has been made on my noble and learned Friend; for, beyond a doubt, he has rendered great and good service to the country this Session by disposing of the appeals. When I bad the honour of receiving the Great Seal, there was a great arrear of cases in this House, and also in the Court of Chancery, arising not only from the unfortunate illness of my noble and learned Friend, Lord Cottenham, but added to in a very great degree by the unfortunate illness which happened at the same time to that extremely valuable Judge the Vice-Chancellor of England, and the illness of Vice-Chancellor Wigram. The illness of those two learned personages contributed largely to that arrear, because the causes proposed to be heard, and those which had been partially heard before them, could not be heard by any other Judge in Chancery save the Lord Chancellor. Therefore, having to hear and decide not only the causes which came before the Court of Chancery in its ordinary practice, and of which there was a considerable arrear; but the causes which bad been so partly heard by those two learned Judges, of necessity the arrears continued and increased; and, with my attention divided—sometimes having to preside in your Lordships' House, and sometimes in the Court of Chancery, no effort of mine could keep them down; and I hope I need not assure your Lordships that I should have been most willing to use every effort to serve the public by decreasing this arrear, or to concur in any arrangement by which that object might have been effected, and the accumulation of further arrears prevented. But though I sought no assistance, my noble and learned Friend, in his zeal for the public service, was good enough to undertake to hear and decide upon the appeals in this House, and so leave me more at liberty to deal with the business of the Court of Chancery. With regard to the feeling of the bar, I have had but little communication with them; but from what I know, I believe there is not the slightest foundation for saying that any remonstrance had ever been made by the bar against that arrangement. If there had, and I had been informed of it, I should immediately have communicated with my noble and learned Friend, and have asked your Lordships to consider what course it became you to pursue, in order to dispose
848
of the arrears under such circumstances. I believe generally that the profession is desirous that the person who holds the Great Seal should preside over the judicial business in this House. But be that as it may, in reference to the arrangement in question, I have bad communication with but one member of the bar since I heard of this attack upon my noble and learned Friend—that person is one who attends very much in your Lordships' House, and is engaged in most of the appeals that come before you—and from that learned person I learned that the manner in which my noble and learned Friend has discharged the duty he had undertaken, and the judgments he has pronounced, had given great satisfaction to him, and he believed to every one of his learned brethren of the profession, as well as to your Lordships and the public. I believe that the attacks to which my noble and learned Friend has called your attention, originated in some private and malicious motives. Undoubtedly they were not directed to the advantage of the public, and not dictated by the conviction that they were true. It is quite true, as my noble and learned Friend has said, that the most patient attention and deliberation have been given by my noble and learned Friend to every case which has come before him, and that be has been mainly instrumental in bringing to a conclusion and giving judgment on the part of your Lordships in several causes of vast importance; and I have now learned with no less astonishment than gratification, that he has been able to pronounce judgment in all cases before your Lordships. I regret the attacks which have been made upon my noble and learned Friend; but I can hardly think that so far as my noble and learned Friend was individually concerned, they are at all worthy of his notice. And with regard to the House of Lords in its judicial capacity, this House, my Lords, stands far too high for it to be supposed for a moment that by such means the confidence of the public in it can be in the least degree diminished. My noble and learned Friend has presided in your Lordships House, and in Courts of Law and Equity, too long for attacks of this nature to be of the slightest importance to him personally; but that circumstance by no means lessens their indecency and impropriety; and if they are repeated, it may perhaps be incumbent on your Lordships to take notice of them, because in that case, if they are allowed to pass unnoticed, they may obtain credence; but

849
isolated attacks, such as that to which the noble and learned Lord has called attention, pass off innocuously, and are not worth notice. My noble and learned Friend has done good service in the duty he has undertaken, and so successfully performed, and I think he is entitled to the gratitude of the public and of your Lordships for having placed the House of Lords in the position that no arrears of causes will remain undecided at the close of the Session. I can only say further, that I hope next Session I shall be able to discharge the duty as satisfactorily as my noble and learned Friend has done.
The DUKE of WELLINGTON: My Lords, having been a Member of various Administrations for many years now past, and having been often sensible of the great inconvenience resulting from the accumulation of arrears in the bearing and decision of judicial appeals before this House, I cannot but be sensible of the great obligations which the House is under to my noble and learned Friend, for the great activity which he has displayed, and for the great pains which he has taken in presiding over, in hearing, and in deciding on the existing appeals, and in keeping that branch of our judicial business in such a state as will enable us to bring it to a conclusion at the end of the present Session. My Lords, I concur in the feeling of disapprobation of these foul libels on the administration of justice in this House, which has been so well expressed by the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack; for observe, my Lords, these foul libels are attacks on the administration of justice in this House, and not on the administration of justice by my noble and learned Friend. I implore him not to discontinue his exertions in the public cause from any feeling of resentment at such attacks. This House is fully sensible of the great services which he has already rendered it, and feels the utmost confidence in the advice which he offers to it for the formation of its decisions—for I beg to remind you that all my noble and learned Friend does is to give you his advice; it is for you to decide upon it. I am much mistaken if there be not many noble Lords in this House fully capable of discerning whether that advice is right or wrong. I hope that my noble and learned Friend will not be deterred by attacks like these from continuing his attendance at our judicial proceedings.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEen-
850
tirely concurred in the sense of obligation which the House owed to all the noble and learned Lords, and especially to his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham), for the time, talents, and exertions which they devoted to the sustainment of the impartiality, dignity, and character of the judgments of the House. Unacquainted as he was with the article which had caused his noble and learned Friend such pain, and with the merits of the various causes which he had decided this Session, he felt still a deep conviction that the judgments pronounced before the Members of that House, who, as the noble Duke had well observed, were competent enough to discover any errors in their proceedings, must, until those errors were pointed out, he assumed to be correct, and must command the attention and respect of the public. He was sure that the conduct of his noble and learned Friend enjoyed the full confidence of the public, for whoso benefit, as well as that of the House, the noble and learned Lord had devoted so much time and attention.

SMALL TENEMENTS RATING BILL.
On Motion that this Bill he now read 3a,
The EARL of HARDWICKE The EARL of HARDWICKE moved, that it be read a third time that day six months. He believed that the Bill was characterised by great hardship and partiality, and that it would lead to a positive confiscation of a large amount of property. Not only would the landlords of this property lose their rents, but they would have to pay the rates also. A similar Bill had been passed for Liverpool in 1831, the effect of which was to increase the rates in the course of three years from 1s. 9d. to 2s. 6d. in the pound. At the expiration of that period the Bill was repealed, and the rates fell to 1s. 6d. Their Lordships should profit by this experience, and reject the present measure.
LORD PORTMAN, as chairman of the Committee that had sat upon the subject of parochial assessments, thought it right to state that the unanimous opinion of that Committee was that some such Bill as the present ought to pass, inasmuch as the greater part of the occupiers under the present circumstances escaped the payment of rates, and the landlords pocketted the difference.
Amendment withdrawn; Original Motion agreed to.
Bill read 3a, and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for consideration of the Commons' Amendments, and Reasons, read.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, in conformity with the notice which he had given, he rose to call their Lordships' attention to the Amendments which had been made in the other House of Parliament in this Bill, which had undergone a very full discussion in this House, the result of which was, that their Lordships had made very material alterations in this Bill. Some of these alterations had been struck out, others had been retained; and with these changes it had been sent up from the other House. He wished generally to call their attention to the different Amendments which had been made in the measure, leaving it to their Lordships to take any one of them in detail, and to found upon it any Motion that might seem desirable. He would shortly state the character of the Amendments which the other House had agreed to, as adopted by their Lordships, and then to those which that House had thought fit to make, but which the other House had not adopted, but had on their side amended, and again submitted for their Lordships' consideration. It was his intention to submit a Motion to the House to agree to these Amendments of the Commons. The Amendments which the other House had agreed to were but few, but they were of some importance. They had agreed to the Amendment suggested by their Lordships, the adoption of which would be attended with the very useful effect of excluding any fraudulent occupiers from the possession of the franchise; and they agreed with that House to regard actual occupancy, either as tenant or owner, as an essential qualification. They had also agreed with another important Amendment which had been adopted by that House unanimously, and which certainly met with his own entire concurrence—to omit the clause by which joint occupiers were to have the right of voting. They had also agreed with the Amendment which inserted certain words in a clause by which a net value was required to qualify a person for voting, so as to prevent the custom of faggot voting, and securing that the person voting should be bonâ fide in possession of the amount of property which was legitimately required. They had also agreed to the Amendment with regard to
852
the alteration of the dates in the Bill. The House of Commons, however, on the consideration of the whole of the subject, dissented from the conclusions their Lordships had come to on two important points. The first was as to the proposed qualification of voters; and the other was, the self-acting principle of registration. The House of Commons, in sending up the Bill, had adopted a certain rate of voting, with which their Lordships did not agree, but required a greatly increased amount of rating of an occupancy. The House of Commons had sent up a Bill with the sum of 8l. rating for a qualification; but, after a great deal of discussion in that House, and after various suggestions had been made, their Lordships were pleased to alter this enactment, and make provision that the occupancy should be rated to the enormous amount of 15 l. The Commons had now sent up the measure again amended; and he now entreated that House to reconsider this subject, with the view of coming to an agreement. The sum of 8l. was in the Bill as it was originally sent up, and 15 l. was substituted by their Lordships. The House of Commons, anxious to maintain, if possible, a good understanding and agreement between that House and themselves, said that while they could not acquiesce in that large increase in the value to confer the right of voting, they had abstained from sending the Bill back with the amount which they had originally decided upon, and had altered their original proposal, by substituting 12 l. for 8l. This change was agreed to by a large majority of the other House, and the adoption of it would have the effect of giving no more than 10 voters for every 100 male adults in the population of Ireland; while in England, Wales, and Scotland, the right of voting, taken on the average, was possessed by 28 out of every 100 male adults; and in Scotland, where the proportion of voters was the lowest, the proportion was 25 to the 100. He could hardly believe that noble Lords were prepared to pass such a sentence on Ireland, as to say that 10 in the 100 of the adult male population of the country was too large a proportion of the population of that country to be entrusted with the elective franchise. If they looked at the recent election for Mayo, they would find a striking instance of the evils of the present system. Such a state of things loudly called for a proportionate increase in the number of voters. He knew that he had

853
been accused of showing too great a willingness to adopt their Lordships' sentiments upon this subject, in not having pressed them to a decision upon the proposition of the House of Commons for an 8l. franchise; and he knew that he might also be accused that night of showing too great pertinacity in asking and urging their Lordships not to adopt so high a rate of qualification as 15 l. He was indifferent to both those accusations; but he wished to see a Bill pass which should put an end to this subject, which should not leave a cause for ferment in that country; and which should not exclude any class of persons from the right of voting who were qualified by situation and numbers to exercise that privilege. He was far from asking their Lordships to forego that right, which they unquestionably and constitutionally possessed, of modifying and altering the vote of the other House of Parliament. He was not one of those who would, under any circumstances, wish to see their Lordships reduced to act the part of a mere puppet in the constitution of the country, whose duty it was merely to register in due form the decisions of any other body; but while he thought they had an unquestionable right to exercise their own opinion upon these subjects, and to canvass them in the spirit of free inquiry, he did earnestly conjure their Lordships that that privilege which they respected in themselves, and for themselves, they would liberally concede to others; and if they were satisfied, as he thought they must be, that it was by representative government alone that any part of this united kingdom could remain happy and contented, he did trust that, in regulating the amount of the franchise in Ireland, they would not so contrive it as to leave out of it, and alongside of it, excluded from the margin which they prescribed, any body of occupiers so large and so situated, by nullifying the effects of that franchise by making it not effectually and not really a representation of the opinions of the people of that country. Even if those opinions should not, in their Lordships' apprehension, be always exercised in accordance with the rule of right, yet they should recollect that they were never more sacred than when they were exercised in a constitutional manner, and when the people were not driven to express them in modes which were unconstitutional, and in a course which was attended with danger and mischief to the public safety. He thought he was not asking their Lordships
854
to grant too great a boon in calling upon them to give to Ireland an increased franchise. He asked them to grant it, if not to the same extent as in England and Scotland, at least in a greatly increased proportion to the present constituency. He therefore earnestly recommended the House to agree to this Amendment of the Commons. There was another Amendment which was also the subject of much discussion in that House, fie meant the Amendment by which that House set aside the self-acting principle of registration, and had substituted for it a system of individual claim and application, which could not he made without subjecting the voter to all that interference and dictation which had to an extraordinary degree marked and distinguished the progress of elections in Ireland. The House must be well aware of the authority exercised over the voters in Ireland. There was the authority of the landlord—there was the authority of the priests—and there was the authority of persons who were known by the name of agitators. All these influences, he believed, would be materially diminished if the Bill passed with the alteration made by their Lordships. If, however, persons were called upon to claim the right of voting before they possessed it, it would be found that there were no persons who would exercise the franchise unless under the control of the landlords and the priests. They might depend upon it the adoption of the course proposed by the Commons was that best calculated to give an honest, independent, and intelligent constituency. He trusted their Lordships would reconsider this part of the subject, and adopt the clause as it originally stood, by which the guardians of the poor, and the clerks of the peace, were bound to place duly qualified voters on the register. The other Amendments of the Commons wore not of a character to call for observation from him. The noble Marquess concluded with moving that the Commons' Amendments to the Lords' Amendments be agreed to.
LORD STANLEYhad no intention of reopening at any length the discussion which had already taken place upon the two important Amendments last alluded to by the noble Marquess. He confessed, however, that he had heard with some surprise the statement of the noble Marquess, that the House of Commons had acceded to several material Amendments which had been made by their Lordships in this Bill; and, certainly, when the noble Marquess

855
enumerated them, it did not appear that they were of a very material or important character, when he was obliged to enlist in his enumeration the Amendment with regard to the alterations of the dates, which was rendered absolutely necessary, unless they had intended to make the Bill complete nonsense, because, the Bill reaching that House in July, it was made to come into operation by the House of Commons on the 1st of June; therefore the House of Commons would not have been very consistent if they had opposed the alteration. Then again they were told that they had adopted another Amendment, the obvious intention of which was to make a bonâ fide occupation necessary for the franchise. There was another Amendment of great importance, which had been introduced by the noble Marquess, namely, the getting rid of the joint occupancy qualification; but as this had been carried at the instigation of Her Majesty's Government, no credit should be taken for its adoption elsewhere.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: No, you proposed it.
LORD STANLEYhad certainly given notice to that effect, but he had been asked by the noble Marquess across the table why he (Lord Stanley) had put it down on the list of Amendments which he had given notice of proposing, as the noble Marquess intended to move it himself; whereupon he (Lord Stanley) replied that as other Amendments were consequent upon its adoption he had inserted it in his list. One of the Amendments was necessary, as it had direct reference to the joint occupiers. The Committee, therefore, inserted words to give effect to it. But to the two points which were of real importance in the Bill, the Commons had altogether disagreed. The House of Commons had disagreed to the Amendments with reference to the amount of the franchise, and with respect to the clause which related to what had been called the self-acting system of registration which their Lordships had struck out. Their Lordships had had very long discussions on both those subjects, and notwithstanding the resistance of Her Majesty's Ministers, their Lordships had expressed very strong opinions in favour of the Amendments which had been proposed, and had carried them by considerable majorities. On that occasion a noble Friend of his on the cross-bench had expressed a hope that they did not demand either a 12 l. or a 15 l. franchise, with a wish to make it a ground of compensation
856
or bargain with the House of Commons, hut that they would, to the best of their judgment, agree to the lowest amount of qualification which they could adopt with safety for the working of the Bill, and for the sake of the representative system of both Great Britain and Ireland. So far from thinking the Amendment which be had proposed gave too high a qualification, he was directly of the contrary opinion. So far from thinking that their Lordships, by assenting to a 15 l. qualification had gone too far, he was of opinion that it was a dangerously low one. It was not the qualification of the person who was rated and paid on a 15 l. holding, but the occupier, however abject his condition, however ignorant, not possessed of any property, who was in possession of a tenement assessed at 15 l. a year. This qualification would probably include persons who were in possessed of three or four acres of land, on which they lived, and in the town populations much less. The mere occupancy of a house as a tenant at will, as their Lordships' Amendment stood, would confer on this class of persons the right of voting. The noble Marquess said, and he fully concurred with him, that the representative system should be a bonâ fide representative system, and it was upon that the country rested its welfare and character, and upon which the safety of the constitution depended. But he was anxious that these representatives should be not merely representatives of numbers of interests, but of the intelligence, and property of the country. He believed that they would make the constituencies of Ireland more the exponents of the opinions and interests of that country if they regarded them, not with respect to mere numbers, but to other qualifications; but he feared the Government were making the constituency of Ireland merely representative of numbers, without reference to property, or at all events they were so framing their constituency, that numbers would overbalance that portion which possessed property. This was not a question of principle, but of degree. It had happened, in consequence of the emigration or removal of many, and of the dispensations of Providence, that the constituency of Ireland had become very low. They had been told by the noble Marquess to look at the recent election for the county of Mayo, and to the very small number of voters who had polled there. He (Lord Stanley) would ask the House to refer to what had taken place at that recent election as a specimen of what they might

857
expect if they adopted any such plan as that which now stood in the Bill, It was stated that the number of electors was very small, not exceeding 300—and not more than 230 polled at the last election. He must, however, say that the number which were actually prevented voting—which would be made the subject of inquiry elsewhere—was very considerable, for the most extraordinary steps had been taken to prevent these persons exercising their rights. The election for Mayo was attended with as disgraceful proceedings as had ever taken place, and ought to be a warning to the noble Marquess and his Colleagues. No question of foreign or home policy—no question of protection or free trade—no question involving a difference on English or Irish interests, was involved in it; but the landlords, the owners of the soil in the county, both Whig and Tory, were almost unanimous in favour of one of the candidates; but the election was carried against the landlords by the most unscrupulous, unwarrantable, and unconstitutional intimidation of a portion of the Catholic priests, that ever disgraced a country calling itself civilised. The mode of carrying on the election was a slander and scandal on the representative system. The Gentleman who was returned did not represent the owners and occupiers of that county, but was the representative of Bishop M'Hale and his subordinate clergy. When they saw in the county of Mayo the immense power of the Catholic priests, and the unscrupulous manner in which they exercised that power, their Lordships must be doubly cautious in introducing a new experiment for the franchise, never to adopt such a scheme as was calculated to make the electors the mere tools of the Catholic clergy. This, he repeated, was a question not of principle, but of degree. He, and those who acted with him, admitted that it was desirable to extend the franchise—to extend it as far as could be safely done, namely, with a proper combination of numbers with intelligence and property. The limitation must necessarily be arbitrary. The limitation which he proposed might he acted upon for a period, and if, in due course of experience, they found this 15 l. franchise worked well, then would be the time to consider whether they could not safely and advantageously go down to 12 l.; but if they fixed it at 12 l. now, the House should remember that, however ruinous the constitution of the franchise to be
858
established—however dangerous and anarchical the character of the constituency to be created under it might prove, they could not follow the example set them in a neighbouring county, namely, having granted the franchise, they could not withdraw it, but must continue it. This was a point which should be carefully and deliberately considered by the House. Noble Lords should recollect, if they followed a step for concession it was irretrievable, and therefore there must be great danger in taking that step. The Bill as it stood proposed to grant a franchise infinitely lower than any which now existed in England, Scotland, or even Ireland itself. He did not think the noble Marquess was very correct in his calculation of the proportion of electors in England and Scotland to the adult population. This measure would not give so large a proportion to England and Wales as it gave to Ireland; for a much lower qualification was required to qualify for a vote than in Great Britain. Then, in Mayo, how could they give anything like a probable guess at the number of persons qualified, when compared, as the noble Marquess did, with the electors of England or Scotland? He had that morning referred to a return which bad recently been laid before Parliament, which stated that there were in Mayo 52,000 tenements, each of which, on an average, was occupied by seven or eight inhabitants; and of these tenements 40.000 were estimated as being rated under 5l. The fact was, that the population of Mayo were a population of paupers; and because the persons possessed of property there were small in proportion to the population, the Government argued that, in the creation of a constituency, their Lordships ought to look to numbers only, and not to property at all, and that the representative of Mayo, who was to form an integral part of the representation of the three kingdoms, should be the representative of a population of paupers. For his part, however, be would not, and he could not, accede to a proposition which placed the franchise in Ireland in the hands of a pauper constituency. He believed that it was not safe to go lower than a 15 l. franchise; and, notwithstanding there had been a considerable majority of the House of Commons in favour of a 12 l. franchise, as he had no doubt there would have been in favour of a still lower franchise, if Her Majesty's Government had proposed it, he trusted that if their Lordships were to exercise an

859
independent judgment at all—if they were to entertain any respect for their own decisions—they would maintain their own opinion, and support the amount of 15 l. as the lowest that could safely be adopted. The noble Marquess had said that the House of Commons had made a great concession to their Lordships in allowing 12 l. to be substituted for 8l. as the amount at which a person should he rated to give him the franchise. The House of Commons had certainly adopted the advice given to them by Her Majesty's Government; and it must be borne in mind that the noble Marquess, when the Bill was in their Lordships' House, finding that the general feeling was, that an 8l. franchise was much too low, declared his intention to vote against it. When it was about to be proposed that the franchise should be 8l., the noble Marquess interposed and desired that the question should not be put, using the extraordinary expression, that if the question was as to the insertion of 8l., he should vote against an 8l. franchise. He (Lord Stanley) was convinced, therefore, that the noble Marquess, so far from making any concession to the majority against him, was satisfied in his own mind that an 8l. franchise was not safe, and that, in his own deliberate judgment, he preferred a 12 l. franchise. The question was not between 8l. and 15 l., but between 12 l. and 15 l.; and the decision of their Lordships was, as he hoped it would be again, that a 15 l. franchise was as low as was safe. Perhaps it would be convenient if he were now to say a few words on the other Amendment relating to the subject of compulsory registration. To that system there were two grave objections, and he had not heard either objection answered. In the first place, it was argued that a great number of persons, who wished to avoid altogether the turmoil of an election, and to cultivate their own land in peace and quiet, would be exposed to the solicitations of the landlord on the one hand, and of the priest on the other, from which there was only one mode of escape; and that was, by the occupier not paying his rates. Now, as an Irish landlord, he must be forgiven for saying that there was already a peculiar reluctance on the part of the occupier to the payment of his rates, and that no additional inducement was necessary. Then, again, a system of compulsory registration acted on one side only. It put the occupiers on the register, but left the freeholders,
860
whom, without reference to political party, he might call the conservative interest of Ireland, to make a claim before they could be placed upon it. This, too was proposed at a time when so much apathy prevailed, and when the duty, as it was called, of registering, was so much neglected. He knew that there was some difference of opinion between himself and some noble Lords who were extremely well acquainted with the state of Ireland, as to what would be the practical operation of this part of the measure. Not thinking, however, that the House of Commons had shown any temper or disposition to concede, he could not waive his strong opinion that the system was an objectionable one, for the sake of making a concession to the House of Commons. If the other House of Parliament had fairly and frankly taken the franchise which their Lordships had deemed the lowest which could safely be proposed, he thought it questionable whether it would not have been desirable for their Lordships, acting in a spirit of mutual concession and goodwill, to try, in deference to the opinion of the House of Commons, this new experiment of a system of compulsory registration. If their Lordships, by adhering to their own views, should cause the loss of the Bill for the present Session, much as he desired to see the question settled—much as he desired to see an end put to the repeated discussion and agitation of the measure—though in Ireland, he believed, it caused but little agitation—["Hear, hear!"]—he would rather encounter the inconvenience which attended the renewal of such discussions, and the recurrence of such agitation, than give his assent to a measure which was destructive of the representative system in Ireland. He moved, therefore, that their Lordships do insist on the Amendment made by this House in page 2, line 5.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEthought it was only by enlarging the constituency that a representation of the sense and intelligence of the country could be secured; for the destruction of the 40 s. freeholders threw the 10 l. householders into the hands of the agitators. The substitution of a 15 l. franchise would exclude 48,000 persons from the constituency of Ireland; and as the property thus unrepresented would chiefly belong to the rural gentry, the consequence of adopting 15 l. as the qualification would he to throw the representation of the counties into the

861
hands of the shopkeepers in the country towns. The proper system was one which was based on the representation of the mass of the people, The noble Lord who had just spoken referred to the Mayo election in terms which were quite unwarranted. The noble Lord observed that no public principle was involved in the contest. He (the Marquess of Clanricarde) was not there to contradict the noble Lord; but he had seen letters stating in strong terms that votes would be given to the Gentleman returned on grounds involving the question of protection or free trade. He believed that public principles were a great deal canvassed at that election. He protested against the course taken by the noble Lord, in drawing from what might have occurred in a particular case a general conclusion on which to found legislation with reference to the whole of Ireland. The very proceedings which the noble Lord reprobated would not have taken place in an enlarged constituency. With respect to the self-acting registration, the latter proposition had never been brought forward. He was surprised to hear the noble Lord argue, or rather déraisonner, with respect to its probable effects. Instead of producing agitation to coerce electors, the result would be the opposite; for it was manifest that when it was optional for a man to register, his political opinions would be from the first made the subject of inquiry on the part of his landlord, and under such circumstances he was made a party man whether he would or not. The noble Marquess concluded by urging their Lordships to agree to the Amendments of the Commons.
The House then divided on Lord Stanley's Motion to insist on the Lords' Amendment:—Content, Present 62; Proxies 53; Total 115: Not Content, Present 56; Proxies 70; Total 126: Majority 11.

List of the CONTENTS.

DUKE.

Desart

Buckingham

Glengall

MARQUESSES

Hardwicke

Drogheda

Jersey

Ely

Kinnoull

Exeter

Longford

Salisbury

Lonsdale

EARLS.

Lucan

Abergavenny

Macclesfield

Abingdon

Mansfield

Beauchamp

Malmesbury

Chesterfield

Mountcashell

Cardigan

Nelson

862

Orkney

BARONS.

Orford

Abinger

Powis

Brougham

Romney

Boston

Rosse

Clonbrock

Roden

Colchester

Stanhope

Crofton

Sheffield

De Lisle

Talbot

De Ros

Verulam

Downes

Warwick

Forester

Wilton

Grantley

Winchelsea

Lyndhurst

Rayleigh

VISCOUNTS.

Redesdale

Gage

Sandys

Hill

Skelmersdale

Middleton

Southampton

Strangford

Stanley

Templemore

BISHOP.

Tenterden

Bath and Wells

Wynford

Proxies.

DUKES.

Ranfurly

Athol

Rosslyn

Newcastle

Sinclair

Manchester

Seafield

Marlborough

Sherburne

MARQUESSES.

Tankerville

Ailsa

VISCOUNTS.

Hertford

Beresford

Londonderry

Doneraile

Waterford

Hawarden

EARLS.

Lorton

Aylesford

O'Niel

Beverley

Sidmouth

Buckinghamshire

BISHOPS.

Cathcart

Carlisle

Caledon

Exeter

Crawford

BARONS.

Dartmouth

Bexley

Dunraven

Bagot

Digby

Clinton

Delawarr

De Saumarez

Eldon

Gray

Falmouth

Kilmain

Guildford

Middleton

Harewood

Polworth

Leven

Rodney

Northwick

Sondes

Onslow

Walsingham

Powlett

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

Lord Chancellor

Carlisle

DUKES.

Chichester

Bedford

Clarendon

Buccleuch

Devon

Leinster

Durham

Norfolk

Effingham

MARQUESSES.

Fingall

Anglesey

Gosford

Breadalbane

Granville

Clanricarde

Grey

Donegal

Minto

Lansdowne

Morley

Westminster

St. Germans

Winchester

Scarborough

EARLS.

Strafford

Besborough

Suffolk

Bruce

Waldegrave

Bathurst

Wicklow

863

Uxbridge

Cremorne

VISCOUNTS.

De Tabley

Canning

Dufferin

Ponsonby

Eddisbury

BISHOP.

Elphinstone

Norwich

Erskine

BARONS.

Foley

Ashburton

Milford

Beaumont

Monteagle

Byron

Overstone

Camoys

Portman

Carrington

Say and Sele

Colborne

Wharncliffe

Proxies.

ARCHBISHOP.

VISCOUNTS.

Archbishop of York

Bolingbroke

DUKES.

Falkland

Hamilton

Hardinge

Devonshire

Lismore

Leeds

Mazarene

Somerset

Sidney

Sutherland

BISHOPS.

MARQUESSES.

Hereford

Bristol

Ripon

Camden

St. Asaph

Normanby

Worcester

Northampton

BARONS.

Sligo

Blantyre

EARLS.

Campbell

Charlemont

Cowley

Cork

Carew

Cottenham

Churchill

Craven

Cloncurry

Cornwallis

Dacre

Derby

Denman

Ducie

Godolphin

Errol

Heytesbury

Essex

Howard de Walden

Fitzhardinge

Howden

Gainsborough

Keane

Haddington

Monson

Harrowby

Montfort

Home

Rivers

Howe

Rossmore

Kenmare

Stanley of Alderley

Kingston

Stafford

Meath

Stourton

Oxford

Sudeley

Radnor

Suffield

Ripon

Vaux

Roseberry

Vernon

Sefton

Wodehouse

Shrewsbury

Amendment not insisted on; and the Commons Amendment agreed to.
The EARL of DESARTthen moved that their Lordships should disagree to that Amendment of the Commons which provided for compulsory registration. He could not consent to expose the voters to the persecution to which they would be sure to he subjected if so pernicious a system were adopted. The Commons had in this matter made a concession to popular clamour, but they had not acted prudently in so doing. Concession never disarmed agitation. It rather infused fresh vigour into it.
LORD STANLEY: If I could bring myself to believe that there is any—the least—likelihood that the result of another division would be that a different conclusion from that which has been just adopted would be arrived at, I most assuredly would not hesitate to advise my noble Friend to divide the House on his Amendment, for I entirely concur with him that the principle of a compulsory registration is liable to many and most serious objections. I believe that it will be found to be most dangerous and mischievous in that country where it is now about to be introduced for the first time—in Ireland; and I am certain that it would be attended with prejudicial results even in England. With these feelings I should not scruple to advise my noble Friend to press his Motion to a division, if I could bring myself to hope that the result of a division would be favourable to our common views; but, so far as I am able to collect the opinions of noble Lords present, there does not appear to be any probability that the numbers would not be pretty much the same as on the last division. On the last division, a majority of your Lordships here present in favour of insisting on your own Amendments was overborne and outbalanced by a majority of proxies, and as, on the principle that litera scripta manet, that same majority still remains to carry the Government to victory—a majority, let me observe, that cannot be influenced by any arguments, however powerful, by any appeals, however eloquent—I feel it would be only a waste of your Lordships' time if we were to proceed to a second division. If the division were to depend on the votes of noble Lords now present, we should have no apprehension of the result; but as the Government will no doubt have again recourse to the proxy system—a system most convenient in itself, and which the present Government has found more convenient than any preceding Government—I must suggest to my noble Friend that it would be a wanton waste of time to divide again. With respect to certain observations which I made some time ago on another division similarly obtained, I must take leave to remak that it is an error to represent me as having stated that it would be desirable to deprive your Lordships of the privilege of voting by proxy. I never said so; but this I did say, and I repeat it, that there never was any Government which has been so much indebted for their majorities as the present Government to

865
that means of voting; and I do not hesitate to assert that, however convenient or necessary it may on some occasions be, it is not a satisfactory mode of proceeding for a Government systematically to pursue, that of reversing the opinions of present majorities by having recourse to the votes of noble Lords who have no opportunity of taking part in the debates.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEobserved that he would not say one word to influence the noble Lord from whatever course might appear most desirable to himself. The noble Lord was at liberty to take whatever course he pleased with respect to dividing; but if they went to a division, he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) would most assuredly call for proxies, for nothing could be fairer or more legitimate. The proxy system might or might not be convenient; but of this he was persuaded, that there was no noble Lord in their Lordships' House who would more willingly have recourse to it, if it suited his own purpose, or had more frequently resorted to it, than the noble Lord opposite.
LORD STANLEY: I beg to say I never call proxies when I am in a minority of the Lords present.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEcontinued to observe that if there had ever been a question in which it was fair and legitimate to use proxies, that question was the present one. It was a question which had been before the public for three months, which had been agitated most zealously in that and the other House, and in respect of which it was perfectly well known what the Amendments intended to be proposed would be. If the noble Lord thought that he would gain a single vote by dividing, he would of course divide.
The EARL of DESARTsaid, that he should accede to the recommendation of his noble Friend, and consent to withdraw the Motion. It was with deep regret that he had to assent to the Amendments of the other House. He greatly regretted that their Lordships had ever given their assent to the principle of the Bill, believing, as he did, that the measure was uncalled for and injurious.
House adjourned till To-morrow.