begged to ask the noble Lord a question. There were now before the House four Bills touching Ireland. One might be considered as already disposed of, namely, that which was to provide for the immediate relief of the poor in Ireland. It had gone through Committee, and might be considered as having passed that House. Then there was a Bill to render valid certain acts of the Government in Ireland; and there were, besides, the Poor Law Bill, and the Bill which had been laid the previous day on the Table of the House, authorizing the lending of money to the owners of land in Ireland for the improvement of their properties. He had not given notice of his question, but he had no doubt the noble Lord would be disposed to answer it immediately, or, if not, to-morrow. What he wished to know was, whether the noble Lord could inform the House of the order in which the last two Bills would be considered, namely, the Poor Law Bill, and the Bill for lending money to Irish proprietors; whether the noble Lord was prepared to insure the passing of the Poor Law Bill by making it go through its stages pari passu with the Bill for sanctioning loans to landlords in Ireland; or whether he intended to proceed with the one separately from the other?

had to state in answer, that it was his intention that those two Bills should proceed together. He did not say, as to a particular day, that the one might not stand for Committee before the other; but he should wish them to be read a third time so that they might be sent to the other House of Parliament as nearly as possible at the same time. He had further to inform the hon. and learned Gentleman, that he himself considered that the Bill for granting loans of money to be applied in improving estates, ought not to pass without the Poor Law Bill. On the other hand, he considered that the Poor Law Bill alone, without some such measure as that for lending money to improve estates, might probably fail of its objects, and be a burden without any equivalent advantage.

requested the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) to state whether, before he proceeded with the permanent Irish Poor Law Bill, he would be prepared to inform the House what was to be the constitution of the new Poor Law Board. The Poor Law Bill proposed to place great powers in the hands of that Board, and it was but reasonable that the House should know how it was to be formed before they were called upon to confer those powers. Perhaps the noble Lord would have the goodness to say, whether the Bill for the establishment of the new Board would soon be brought in?

replied, that there was a Bill in preparation, which, in the heavy pressure of business, had not yet been sufficiently considered. But that Bill he should likewise propose to move very soon. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that the constitution of the Board ought to be settled at the same time as the Bill for amending the law in regard to the relief of the poor.

said, that large sums of money had been taken by the landlords of Ireland under Mr. Labouchere's letter, for the purpose of employing the people in drainage operations, and preventing them wasting their energies in what were considered useless public works. He, for one, had done so, and he knew several others who had done the same; but their arrangements had been completely stopped, in consequence of the Board of Works not sending down drainage surveyors to them. He wished to ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland, if he could explain to the House, and to the numerous landlords who were awaiting the appointment of those officers to have their works commenced, the reason of the delay which had taken place in appointing the different surveyors? [MR. LABOUCHERE: Have the works been sanctioned?] The works could not be properly and legally sanctioned, until the surveyors went down and reported to Government; and that was what the landlords complained of, that they were not sanctioned, and that they did not know, therefore, whether they would be able to go on with their works or not.

said, he could not answer the question, unless he were acquainted with the particular facts; but he might state generally, that he was quite aware the Board of Works had been obliged to delay much longer than they wished the conducting of the previous examinations, which were necessary before sanctioning the works, as his hon. Friend had stated. The cause of the delay was this, namely, the very great difficulty which was experienced in getting competent surveyors. Whether this was the cause of the delay in this particular instance, he could not say; but he knew it was so in some instances. He assured the hon. Member and the House, that the Board of Works were in all cases anxious that every facility should be given for the commencement of the drainage operations in Ireland.

said, it was very important that there should be as little delay as possible, as, unless the drainage operations were commenced immediately, they would interfere with the putting of the crops into the earth.

rose to move the Resolution of which he had given notice, on the subject of landlords and tenants' rights in Ireland. He said, that the questions had been repeatedly raised in that House—What were the causes of the miserable condition of the population of Ireland? and, who were the parties responsible for that misery? These questions did not appear to have been either answered or understood in that House. He therefore desired to call the attention of the House to certain facts which, he trusted, would show how far the evils of Ireland were the result of the nature of the relationship between landlord and tenant, and how far the landed proprietors were responsible for those evils. If ever there was a time when it was necessary to make that inquiry, it was the present moment, when the people of Ireland were starving; when so much money had been paid by this country for their relief, and when so much more was wanted; when, at the same time, they found Irish landlords stating that the poor rates could not be paid, and attempting to throw off their responsibility when it was suggested to subject them to a proper poor law. It had given him great pain to see resolutions, signed by a leading Peer of Ireland (Lord Monteagle), in which the proposition for extending, even to the limited degree which the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) proposed, to give outdoor relief to the poor of the country, was strongly reprobated; and still more, when he saw even the moderate proposal of appointing relieving officers was reprobated. It gave him the deepest pain to see those resolutions, and made him feel that there was a disposition in the landlords of Ireland to throw off the responsibility which ought to be imposed upon them. He therefore thought it quite right and proper that there should be an inquiry how far the evils of Ireland were owing to the mismanagement of the landed proprietors, in order that they might be made to undergo their proper responsibility. With respect to the present proprietors, he did not impute to them the origin of those evils; but he said that, although they did not originate those evils, they were responsible for the continuance of them. He did not think them equally blameable, but he maintained that they were equally responsible, because the person who inherited property inherited the responsibilities which attached to it; and if the former landed proprietors were the originators of those evils, it was right that the present proprietors should be responsible for the remedies. The first allegation in his resolution was—

"That it appears from the reports of various committees and commissions, that the system generally adopted in times past in the letting and management of landed property in Ireland, has been one of the main causes of the present distressed state of that country, and the disordered state of its social relations."

The evidences of the truth of this proposition were so numerous in the various reports of committees and commissions, that his only difficuly was in making a selection. He should bring before the House only a few references to the evidence by which his allegation was supported, and he should do so as briefly as possible. The Land Commissioners referred to the confiscations and plantations, and showed the effects produced in Ireland. They said—

"The confiscations led in many instances to the possession of large tracts, by individuals whose more extensive estates in England made them regardless and neglectful of their properties in Ireland."

They referred to the penal laws, the 40s. freehold franchise, and their effects; and they concluded these references with this remark:—

"Whatever difference of opinion may be put forward or entertained on other points, the testimony given is unfortunately too uniform in representing the unimproved state of extensive districts, the want of employment, and the consequent poverty and hardships under which a large portion of the agricultural population continually labour."

Again, the Committee of 1830, after referring to the multiplied evils produced by the bad management of land, concluded thus:—

"Your Committee conceive it is the imperative duty of individuals, of the Government, and of the Legislature, to consider what means can be devised to diminish this mass of suffering, and, at the same time, to secure for the country a better economic condition, promoting a better management of estates, and regulating the arrangements between landlord and tenant on rational and useful principles."

He begged to refer to another important evidence upon the subject of the misconduct of Irish landlords—namely, Mr. Leslie Foster. In his examination by the Committee of the Lords, in 1825, he was asked—

"Is it or is it not the practice of Irish landlords to build, repair, or drain?—They hardly ever do any of these things. Is this not one of the leading causes of the misery of the occupiers?—I think that the misery of the occupying Irish tenantry results from so many circumstances in the conduct of the landlords, that I should very inadequately express what I think if I were to select that one circumstance as one of much importance. It is a cause, so far as it operates; but I can hardly imagine a change in the system of immediate landlords extending merely to such particulars. Any view of their interests or their duties that would lead them to build and repair houses, would lead to so many more important duties, that I can scarcely contemplate that insulated correction."

Again, Mr. Bicheno, in his evidence before the Committee of 1830, said—

"The distress which exists in Ireland appears to me to be the consequence of the bad relation between landlord and tenant. The landlords of England, and the landlords, I believe, of every other country, find it their interest to cultivate a good understanding with their tenantry; their consequence is derived from this good understanding; and that is done by the landlord treating the tenant with generosity when he is in distress, and by doing acts of kindness to him. I conceive that it is by this means the landlords of England uphold their consequence and dignity; but in Ireland there is no such feeling; all the landlord looks to there is the improvement of his income, and the quantity of rent he can abstract."

These were strong proofs that the evils of Ireland had been produced by the mismanagement and injudicious conduct of Irish landed proprietors. What had been the consequence of the nature of the mode of letting land? In the first place, he found that the system of middlemen had been introduced by the landed proprietors. The landed proprietors complained of the consequences of having middlemen; but the fact was, that they had been wilfully introduced by the former proprietors with the intention of these middlemen subletting to poor tenants. If evil had been the consequence, the landed proprietors of the present day, although not the authors of the system, must take the consequence of it. The result of this system had been, the great subdivision of land; and then the subsequent system of consolidation which had been partially introduced, had aggravated the sufferings of the people by the clearing of lands. Then, again, the poor people were obliged to take land for their potato crop, on which they were dependent. The consequence of all these practices had been the increase of population, the non-improvement of the country, the non-employment of the people, low wages, which could not support men, bad houses, the people relying upon potatoes as their only food, and general disorder. Hence the people were "badly housed, badly fed, badly clothed, badly paid for their labour," and always close on the borders of starvation. It was a remarkable fact, too, that while the people of Ireland were nearly starving, the average exports of corn to this country were 2,500,000 quarters. Even in this melancholy season of starvation, it appeared from the Government returns, that in the first eleven months of 1846 the exports of grain to this country were 1,776,000 quarters. But the fact was, that the farmers were obliged to send off their corn to Liverpool and Scotland in order to get money to pay their rents. The quantity of produce which had been imported into Ireland by the Government, amounted to 180,000 quarters; but the Government could not stop the export of provisions to this country. Rent to the amount of 13,000,000l. was drawn from the people of Ireland, and yet all these things occurred. The rents were not returned to the people in the shape of profitable employment—the rents were collected, and the people left starving. The great principle of legislation hitherto with regard to landlord and tenant, was to give extreme power to the landlord for the collection of his rent. He begged to read an extract which he had taken from Mr. Nimmo's evidence before the Committee of the House of Lords. Being asked about the effect of severe distress, he answered—

"I conceive the principal cause of the distresses and unfortunate situation of the peasantry of Ireland, has arisen from the management of land, which could be carried on upon these (bad) principles only by keeping that power in existence."

The same witness referred to the extraordinary powers of distress given by law, as the means of inducing landlords to accept insolvent tenants, and said—

"In conducting public works for Government in the counties of Cork and Kerry, he had the greatest difficulty to obtain the application of the money intended for the employment of the poor to their own uses, because the power of the landlord was so excessive that the peasant had no means of resisting that power."

He added—

"With all the exertions I could make, I cannot but say that frequently, upon paying the persons employed in this way, we have had the drivers alongside of them to receive the money in the one hand as fast as we put it into the other."

Mr. Nimmo also stated it to be a very general practice for the landlords only to give receipts on account of rent, and the tenant, therefore, never knew what claims might be against him. He (Mr. Crawford) begged next to quote an opinion from a higher quarter respecting the effects of the existing law as regarded landlord and tenant. The Marquess of Westmeath said that—

"He thought the misery of the occupying tenants arose in a great measure from the defective state of the law between landlord and tenant."

Another witness, Mr. Wilson, said—

"I have known tenants distrained, and their stock, in three or four instances, impounded by five several claimants within the course of ten or fifteen days."

The monster grievance under which Ireland laboured, was the uncertainty of tenure, and, consequently, the uncertainty of obtaining remuneration for the capital and labour which they might expend upon the land. As bearing upon this point, he begged leave to quote a passage from the Landlord and Tenant Commissioners' Report:—

"In the years 1835 and 1836, and again in 1843, Bills were presented to the House of Commons, of which the object was to secure for tenants compensation for any outlay which they might make of a permanent nature on their farms. We earnestly hope that the Legislature will be disposed to entertain a Bill of this nature, and to pass it into a law with as little delay as is consistent with a full discussion of its principles and details. We are convinced, that in the present state of feeling in Ireland, no single measure can be better calculated to allay discontent, and to promote substantial improvement throughout the country."

The advantages which resulted from giving the tenant security for his capital and labour, were explained in the evidence of several influential gentlemen who were examined before the Landlord and Tenant Commission, and amongst others by Mr. Andrews, agent to the Marquess of Londonderry, and Mr. Hancock, the agent of Lord Lurgan. The latter witness alluded to the influence which tenant security had on the reclamation of land by poor tenants on Lord Lurgan's estate. He stated that those poor persons went on the waste land, trusting to the tenant right, and by their labour brought it into cultivation, thus bettering their own condition, and adding to the permanent improvement of the country. The cause usually assigned for the horrible condition of the population of Ireland, was the number of small holdings in that country; but, in his opinion, that was a fallacy. He would, for the purpose of comparison, select two counties of Ireland, one in the south and the other in the north, and nearly equal in size as regarded the number of acres, namely, Limerick and Down. The contrast furnished by these two counties was pregnant with instruction. The number of holdings in Down, of from one to five acres, was 13,753; whilst in Limerick the number was, of holdings of the same extent, 6,841. The number of holdings in Down, of from five to fifteen acres, was 11,991, and the number in Limerick was 6,840. The number of holdings from fifteen to thirty acres in Down was 3,865; in Limerick it was 3,700. The number of holdings above thirty acres in Down was 1,508; in Limerick it was 2,346. Those figures demonstrated that the acknowledged social inferiority of Limerick, as compared with Down, did not arise from the subdivision of land. The returns lately presented to the House relative to the presentments at baronial sessions in the various counties of Ireland, showed that in Limerick presentments had been made to the amount of 186,000l., whilst in Down the presentments had not exceeded 2,917l. Nothing could illustrate more forcibly the superior social condition of Down. To what was that attributable? Simply to the land in Down being held under the head landlord, with the security called tenant right. The people there felt perfectly confident that by the custom of the country they could never be dispossessed of their land without ample remuneration for every improvement they had made; and they also felt confident that they never would be dispossessed of it under any circumstances as long as they paid a fair rent; and the landlords of Down did not demand more than a fair rent. That was the happy condition of the county of Down. The landed proprietors of Down did their duty by improving the condition of the people, and giving their tenants a lien upon the land, and that was the cause of the prosperity of that county. By pursuing the same course in other parts of Ireland, they would be rendered equally prosperous. An opinion prevailed generally that it was desirable to do away with small holdings in Ireland; but if those views should be carried into effect, how would the labourer be able to emerge from his original station to a higher place in society? In Down a young man began as a labourer, and having, by industry and prudence, saved money enough to enable him to go upon a farm, he selected one of from five to fifty acres-few farms exceeded the latter number in extent—according to his means, in perfect security that, whatever capital and labour he might expend upon it, would not be lost to himself or his family. The nature of the tenant-right in Downshire was this—the tenant was secure that the landlord could not dispossess him of the land, without paying him the full value of what he might put into it. The tenant had also the power of selling his tenant-right in the event of his finding his landlord a solvent tenant to succeed him. It was not his intention to advocate one class of small holdings which prevailed to a great extent in Ireland—that of cottier tenants under middlemen. Under that system the occupying tenant had no security for his expenditure; the middleman was unable to give security, and the landlord could give none, on account of the middleman standing between him and the occupier. In the present condition of Ireland, the only mode in which the tenant could obtain security, was by passing a law to enable him to obtain the value of labour and capital expended upon the land from the person, be he who he might, who stood over him in the relation of landlord. The enactment of such a law would give the greatest possible impulse to improvement. It would also be necessary to abolish the system of joint-tenancy. It was impossible for the ingenuity of man to devise a system better calculated to impede improvement than that of joint-tenancy. By whom, then, was it contrived? By the landlords. They contrived that system for the very purpose of securing their rents, and giving themselves the least possible trouble. Most of the evils which afflicted Ireland—the want of employment—the absence of all attempts at improvement—might be traced to that unfortunate, and he might say wicked, system, adopted with respect to the letting and management of land in that country. It mattered not what Acts might be passed with respect to Ireland; they would be useless if tenant-right should not be established by law throughout the country. A poor law without it would be unavailing; but establish tenant-right concurrently with the enactment of a poor law, and the two measures would co-operate as a stimulus to improvement, and would prevent the confiscation of property which was now going on. The confiscation of landed property was to be apprehended, not from a poor law, but from the distressed condition of the country, which was the consequence of the present vicious system with respect to the letting of land. The best way to prevent confiscation, was to enable the people to better their condition. Observations were frequently made in that House upon the conduct of absentee landlords; but he must in justice state that the estates of many of the absentee landlords exhibited a greater prosperity than those of a large number of the resident landlords. The evidence given before the Poor Law Commissioners would be found to confirm his statement upon that point. It was not his intention to utter a single word that could be offensive to the present body of Irish landlords. The great majority of them were most humane men, and anxious to discharge their duty. At the same time, he could not but hold them mainly responsible for the present condition of the country. Very recently an Irish proprietor had stated in that House, that rates would not be paid in Ireland. When that declaration reached Ireland, who could tell what effect it might have upon the people? The people might suppose that they would be justified in not paying the rates. He wished to hear the Irish landlords say that they would pay the rates for those who were not able to pay them themselves. He challenged the Irish proprietors to show that he was not justified in casting upon them much responsibility on account of the present condition of the people. He thought they were responsible for the delinquencies of their predecessors, and, as an Irish proprietor, he was willing to take his share of the blame. He hoped that the noble Lord at the head of the Government would give an assurance of his intention to bring in a Bill for the amendment of the law of landlord and tenant in Ireland on the particular points to which he had adverted. On a former occasion he had brought in Bills for effecting that object, and a Bill for the same purpose had been introduced by the late Government. He hoped that the question would not die in the hands of the present Government, but that they would introduce a measure which would really promote the great objects which had been brought under the consideration of the House in the report of the Land Tenure Commission. If such a law were enacted and honestly carried out, it would do more to stimulate employment and improve the condition of the people, than any other measure which Parliament could adopt. The hon. Member concluded by moving—

"That it appears to this House, from the Reports of various Committees and Commissions, that the system generally adopted in times past in the letting and management of Landed Property in Ireland, has been one of the main causes of the present distressed state of that Country, and the disordered state of its social relations; and that no measures can be effectual in producing a demand for labour, or improving the condition of the people, which shall not include such an amendment of the Laws of Landlord and Tenant as shall give to the improving tenant in occupation a sufficient permanency of tenure, or else establish the tenant's right to claim by law full compensation for all benefits created by the expenditure of his labour and capital on the premises in his occupation."

, in seconding the Motion, said, he should not touch on the points so ably dwelt upon by his hon. Friend. He must give it as his strong opinion, that all the Government measures would be, if not neutralized, greatly lessened in value, unless the landlords were induced to give leases. In order to induce the landlords to do so, he thought it would be necessary to sever the elective franchise from tenure; because, while the landlords had the power of creating votes, they dreaded their being used against their views. He thought local taxation should be levied exclusively on those landlords who were unwilling to grant leases of twenty or thirty years. He wished, on this point, to state the opinion of a foreigner who had observed the condition of Ireland, and wrote on it as well as any other writer—he meant M. De Beaumont. That intelligent foreigner said to him, some time back, "so long as Ireland is left without leases, every other measure would be comparatively of little value."

Allusion had been made to the protest of Irish proprietors against the extension of out-door relief in Ireland. He did not hesitate to say, that he had signed the document to which he alluded; because, when he saw a large portion of the property of the country not liable to the support of the poor, it was his opinion, that, in common equity, those who were ostensibly landed proprietors should not be made responsible for the whole burden. It was not the Irish landlords who were to be blamed solely for the present state of many parts of that country; for although there were several English landlords possessing property in Ireland, who had acted in the most handsome manner, and had protected their tenantry, it was beyond doubt that they could not be of the same benefit to the poor on their estates as good resident landlords. He was convinced that no measure of this or of any Government could be of advantage to the country till measures had been also taken to make the absentee and neglectful proprietors take that care of their property which society had a right to expect from them, and to make estates held under the Court of Chancery, as well as those belonging to persons living in England or on the Continent, equally responsible. It was owing to absentee landlords, and to their absent or neglectful agents, that the Labour-rate Act and the Government letter had been totally nullified; and he believed that the numerous class of small proprietors, who invested their money in land to make the most of it, were more mischievous than the landlords of great estates.

wished to call the attention of the House to the operation of the resolutions of his hon. Friend. Representing, as he did, a large and important county, where the system of tenant-right had been fully carried out, and had created the greatest possible confidence between the landlord and tenant, where the greatest improvement was daily going on, and where there was comparative freedom from distress, he was desirous of stating the reasons why he did not support those resolutions. In the first place, he had to observe, that hon. Gentlemen, as he thought, were accustomed to look on Ireland very much as if it were a county, and to consider that the measure which was applicable to a part must be applicable to the whole of Ireland. It was, however, impossible that any system of laws could take effect which was applied to the whole country. An Irishman, to hear them speak, would fancy they looked on him as the denizen of a mere province or of a shire, instead of being the inhabitant of this empire. If hon. Members went more to Ireland, they would easily see how much various parts of it differed. He was sure, then, if those resolutions were carried out, they would prove a very great affliction to the landlords in the south. In the north the system of tenant-right existed already, and there he could bear testimony to the success of it. But he would prefer seeing it introduced in other parts by the gradual exertions of the landlords, rather than by a resolution of the House; and he was afraid he could not support any proposition to make the system imperative by law on landlords differently situated from those in the north of Ireland.

agreed with the noble Lord in his opinion, that it would not be desirable to make the system universal by legal enactment; and objecting as he did to general resolutions, which did not possess the force of law, but had sufficient influence, as the opinion of the House, to disturb the present order of things, and to excite hopes which could not be easily gratified, he was bound to oppose the resolutions of the hon. Member for Rochdale, whilst he gave him every credit for the best intentions, and for his knowledge of the subject. The course adopted by the noble Viscount who had just spoken, and the noble Viscount's father, on their estates, had been, he believed, to recognise tenant-right only in those tenants who had made considerable improvements in the land; and considering it merely as the custom of the country, he should deprecate more than language could describe, the idea of its being made the law of the land. The great use of it seemed to consist in the effect it had in bringing about a good understanding between the landlord and the tenant, as to the improvement of the land; but as he was satisfied the intervention of the law would be pernicious to the tenant, and destructive to the landlord, he would resist the present resolution.

said, he would detain the House for a very few moments; and if he did not enter at large into the subject brought forward by the hon. Member for Rochdale, he trusted the hon. Member would not attribute it to any insensibility on his part to the great importance of the question, or to any disrespect to him, who was, he admitted, a most excellent Irish landlord, and who had devoted so much time and pains to this subject, as fully to entitle him to the attention of the House. The hon. Member had on a former occasion submitted his views to the House on this very question in the form of a Bill; and if he had taken the same course on the present occasion, he certainly should have made no objection on the part of the Government, without of course pledging it to the principle, to have had the Bill laid on the Table; on the contrary, he should have been glad if the views of the hon. Member had been brought forward in the shape of a Bill. He could not, however, help suspecting that if the hon. Member had altered his course, he had been deterred from pursuing it by the difficulties which surrounded it, and had brought forward those general resolutions instead. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Donegal in disliking abstract and general resolutions; and he thought this particular subject and the present state of Ireland peculiarly unfitted for them. He would just observe on the very vague words and general expressions of the resolution. In the first place, it did not point out any distinct plan; it put two alternatives. The hon. Member called on the House of Commons to assert that it was right to take one of two courses—either to give to the improving tenant in occupation a sufficient permanency of tenure, or else to establish the tenant's right to claim by law full compensation for all benefits created on the land by his expenditure of labour or capital. Now these were two very distinct things—and it was very objectionable for the House to state its concurrence in them, without stating also which of these courses it would prefer. Again, the words in themselves were vague and uncertain. The hon. Member made use of the phrase, "sufficient permanency of tenure." What vague words these were, and what very different ideas would be attached to them in different parts of Ireland with respect to the intentions of the House! For this reason alone he objected to dealing with a question of such importance in this manner. As to the question itself, he readily admitted that it required the most deliberate care and attention of the House. His noble Friend at the head of the Government had already stated that it was the intention of Government to prepare a measure for the improvement of the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland at a period of the Session sufficiently early to enable the House to consider it in the fullest and most careful manner. He thought, therefore, it would not be right to state his opinions on the subject on the present occasion. All he should say was, that if the House interfered with the question—and its interference might certainly be exercised in the present condition of Ireland—they must take special care to do nothing to shake those rights of property which in Ireland, as in every other country, were the cornerstone of civilization and improvement; but he believed it might be right and practicable to interfere in a way which would place the condition of the tenantry in Ireland in a more secure state with respect to their landlords than they were at present. He agreed with the hon. Member for Rochdale in thinking that if they could do so, they would accomplish an object of the utmost importance. He thought a well-timed and carefully-devised Bill on this subject, would be a fit and suitable accompaniment to the other measures which had been laid before the House, and had received or were about to receive their attention. With these views, he did not think it necessary to trouble the House with any further remarks, except to state that when the Government measure was before the House, he would explain his views at greater length; and he would conclude by moving the previous question.

seconded the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. In the west of Ireland, it was usual to allow the tenant, for improvements in draining and fencing, by a proportionate abatement of the rent; but with respect to tenant-right itself, he considered it had been most mischievous and unfair to the landlords, and still more so to the tenants themselves. The incoming tenant paid so much for the present interest in the farm, that he was left without money, and consequently could not till the land properly, and thus the landlord got a bad tenant, while the sum paid on entering the land was so great—amounting sometimes to twenty years' purchase—that it ought to buy the fee-simple of the land.

did not think it necessary to offer any observations to the House, as public opinion in Ireland was unanimous in favour of tenant-right. His object in rising was to ask the Government, if they had a measure on the subject in view, when it would be placed on the Table of the House? The people of Ireland would not consider any legislation complete without it.

replied that it was impossible to state the exact time, as that must depend on circumstances, when there were so many matters to be got through that Session; but he hoped to be able to lay it on the Table before Easter.

spoke in reply, and explained that the reason why he had adopted the form of a resolution on the present occasion, in preference to a Bill was, that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had led him to believe that a Bill on the subject would be introduced early in the Session. That had not been done, and he had observed much disappointment in Ireland in consequence. The same promise had been repeated; but as they had an uncertain prospect of the time of its performance, he would on a future day ask leave to introduce a Bill on the subject. Seeing the opinion of the House, he would not press his resolution, and would ask leave to withdraw it.

then moved for leave to bring in a Bill further to amend the Acts to facilitate the Inclosure and Improvement of Commons, by providing that all waste or common lands, allotted by virtue of these Acts, shall be held as freehold, and shall be allotted as such, without reference to the tenure of the ancient lands in respect of which such allotments shall be made. The Commons Inclosure Act, 8 and 9 Vict., cap. 118, gave power to inclose common land, and convert it into freehold allotments; but in the northern parts of England, that statute was comparatively inoperative, under the terms of the 94th section, in consequence of the nature of the tenure in these districts. The Act rendered the expense of a private Bill unnecessary, and saved the difference between 15l. and 600l. to the applicants in all other parts of the country; but the 94th clause prevented its application to the north of England. To amend that clause was the object of his Bill. At present commons inclosure commissioners were precluded from exercising any control over the agreements between the landlords and the allottees in copyhold tenures; it was to remedy this that he brought in the measure. He did not desire to defraud the landlord of a single right; and he therefore proposed that the commissioners should have the discretionary power of awarding due compensation upon the conversion of copyhold into freehold allotments, in commonage inclosures.

moved for leave to bring in a Bill for better securing the payment of Irish rates. He wished to secure the payment of the rates now payable, according to law, by tenant and landlord. He proposed they should be levied on the landlord's rents, as the rates now were, according to the 6 and 7 Vic, which made the landlord liable for the rates of a certain class of tenantry, and that in case of any rates of absentees or others not being paid, there should be power vested in the Courts of Chancery or Exchequer to appoint receivers on the estates till the rates were paid.

, in making the Motion of which he had given notice, for the production of certain papers, begged to say that his object was to ascertain the nature and the purport of the communication made to the Board of Works by Mr. Inspector Wynn, and to have an inquiry instituted into the truth or falsehood of the statements he had seen fit to transmit to that department respecting the conduct of his hon. Colleague and himself (Mr. C. O'Brien). He also wanted to have it explained why it was that a report made by that person to the Board of Works, in obedience to a letter dated the 4th of December, 1846, and addressed to him from that office, had been suppressed; and by whose authority, or with whose connivance, this most unfair proceeding was allowed to take place. He thought that it was essential that this inquiry should be instituted, not alone for the sake of his hon. Friend and himself, who had been charged most wantonly, most falsely, and most maliciously, by a public functionary, with a crime at the contemplation of which humanity shuddered, but for the sake of the honour and dignity of the House of Commons; for the satisfaction of the public whom they represented; and for the purification, if it might be, and efficiency of the Board of Works. That board was entrusted with vast powers and large discretion; and it would be fatal to its utility that it should lose the confidence, or even be compromised in the opinion of the people, as it certainly would be if it should appear that it had in the smallest degree abetted or countenanced, or sought to shield a subordinate who had the audacity to accuse his Friend and himself of so base a crime as suggesting the assassination of even the most insignificant of human beings that ever crawled on the earth. He felt it the more necessary to press for this inquiry from the circumstance—and a circumstance it was which had much astonished himself and many other Members of the House—of two Ministers of the Crown having seen fit to step out of their way to heap praises upon one who had been guilty of making a false and libellous statement, for which, if he had made it openly, he might have been signally punished by the law of the land; but which that person never would have dared to make at all, if he had not flattered himself with the belief either that his letter would have been suppressed, or that he would have been sheltered from the consequences of his calumny. The hon. Gentleman then moved for the production of the following papers:—

"Copy of a letter dated December 4, 1846, from the Board of Works, addressed to Captain Wynn, directing an investigation of charges contained in the annexed letter from George Westropp to the said board, imputing partiality and misconduet to the Liscannor Relief Committee;"

and a variety of other returns.

had not the least objection to the production of those papers, as far as he was concerned, with one exception. There would be much difficulty in making out the return with respect to the men struck off the works, their names, and places of abode. As he was informed, 9,700 men had been struck off, and it would form rather a long list to give all the particulars the hon. Member desired in each case. In assenting to those returns, he had to repeat what he stated on a former occasion, that he had directed the Board of Works to be informed that if there were any papers which they thought necessary to be laid before the House in reference to this case, he would move for their production.

thought the return to which the right hon. Gentleman objected, most essential. It could be proved that the charge against him and his Colleague of instigating the people to assassinate Captain Wynn, was an utter falsehood, as several most respectable persons were ready to come forward who could prove that there was not the slightest danger to Captain Wynn, or to the officer of the Board of Works. The reason why he had incurred that gentleman's malignity was, because he wished to carry out the letter of the Irish Government at the presentment sessions which Captain Wynn attended. It had been proposed at the sessions to apply certain sums to public works, under the letter; but Captain Wynn objected to it, and the Board of Works refused to ratify them. Captain Wynn had been personal to him on that occasion, and was forced to make an apology for his conduct. It was strange to him that the Board of Works should have put on the records of that House a letter which would have been a fit subject for the Court of Queen's Bench; and he thought it should not have been placed on the books of the House.

sincerely regretted that any question of a personal nature should have been mixed up in a discussion, which was of itself sufficiently unpleasant. But after what had fallen from the hon. Member, he felt bound to say a word or two to the House; and first he would refer to the circumstance of the Board of Works having refused to sanction some presentments made by the sessions at Corofin, under what what was called Mr. Labouchere's letter. He would just state that the nature of the works which the hon. Member proposed, was to employ the people in the ordinary cultivation of their farms, or of their landlords' fields, without giving any security to the Government for repayment. He had no hesitation in saying that if the Board or the Government had sanctioned such a presentment, they would have deserved the greatest censure. He would not, however, argue that point with the hon. Gentleman now, but would observe, that the letter in question was not the law of the land, but in effect the exertion of a discretionary power by the Lord Lieutenant, beyond the law; and in acting upon the letter, they were bound to proceed with the greatest caution. This would give the House some notion of the difficulties under which they were placed in administering the law when presentments came up for great sums, and they had only the alternative of sanctioning them for the purpose of relieving destitution and giving employment, or knowing that the people must starve. With respect to the conduct of Captain Wynn, he had stated when the matter was before the House some nights ago, that having heard the conduct of that public servant openly attacked, he thought he should be wanting in his duty if he did not declare that, to the best of his belief, and the belief of those who had opportunities of observing his conduct—he meant the officers of the Board of Works—that in the discharge of his duty in that country Captain Wynn had set an example of earnestness and perseverance, grappling with difficulties almost unheard of, that entitled him to the confidence of the House and the country. He thought that no Government which did not defend its servants could expect to be well served, or to have the attachment of those who served it; and no consideration, whilst he had the honour of holding an office under the Crown, or a seat in that House, should prevent him from defending a public servant when he was attacked, whether that attack came from political friend or foe. It was a duty to the public servants and to the Crown, and to the best of his abilities he would always discharge it. With respect to the complaint made as to the appearance of certain letters in the blue book, containing statements which had been controverted, and had given offence, it was impossible to prevent papers laid on the Table from containing statements of this kind; and with matters of public concernment personal transactions naturally became mixed up. Government would afford to the utmost of their power all the information that was calculated to throw light on these transactions; every paper that might be moved for for that purpose should be cheerfully given by the Government. He might repeat his regret that any discussions of a personal nature had found their way into the deliberations of the House on those subjects; but he must, at the same time, say that he thought it his duty to defend Captain Wynn from any general charge of not having performed his duty most faithfully and ably in Clare. He would read a single sentence from a letter by Captain Gamble, which would show the good that had been effected by the steps taken at his instance:—

"By the revision of the committee lists required by Captain Wynn, the numbers were greatly reduced—in one parish from 1,200 to 700."

Captain Gamble further stated—

"Every one, almost without exception, high and low, throws himself helplessly on the Government, demanding present support, and provision for the future, in tilling the land and supplying seed."

He did not know whether Captain Wynn was, in any instance hurried beyond the calmness and temper with which it was always desirable that public duties should be performed; but he would venture to say that, placed in the most trying circumstances, he believed no public servant ever more honestly or faithfully discharged his duty.

recommended that the latter part of the returns, calling for a list of men employed on the public works in Clare, and struck off by Captain Wynn, should not be pressed, as a list containing 7,000 or 8,000 names would take three months to prepare.

thought, that as the hon. Member for Clare had been charged with inciting a mob to assassination, every opportunity ought to be accorded to him to disprove the accusation. If he were guilty of such conduct, he was unfit to hold a seat in that House, or in any other house. If, on the other hand, Captain Wynn was unable to prove the charge, he was an unfit person to be employed by the Government. The matter could not stop there; the House was bound to accede to the production of the returns required by the hon. Member. The hon. Member was in a critical position, and his explanation now or at a future time ought to be listened to.

, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill for regulating the proceedings of the Commissioners of Railways, and for amending the law relating to railways, said, it would be in the recollection of the House, that, towards the close of last Session of Parliament, a Bill was prepared, and on the recommendation of a Committee, passed that House with general acquiescence, for the purpose of constituting a new Board for the superintendence of railways. By that Bill, the powers formerly possessed by the Railway Department of the Board of Trade were transferred to new Commissioners; but it was understood that early in the present Session Her Majesty's Government would be prepared with a measure to regulate the proceedings of the Commissioners, and to make new regulations concerning the management and law of railways. In accordance with that understanding, he was now prepared shortly to state the substance of the measure which Her Majesty's Government intended to propose to Parliament. He would not trespass on the attention of the House by going into any preliminary matter as to the necessity or expediency of further legislation on railways, because he conceived that to be admitted with general acquiescence by the passing of the Bill of last Session. But what he had to propose might naturally be divided into two parts: first, that which related to proceedings preliminary to bringing in Bills into that House; and second, that which related to the regulation of railways which had actually received the sanction of the Legislature. He ought first to state that he did not intend to carry the plan wholly into effect by a Bill only, but partly by a Bill, and partly by alterations in the Standing Orders. He proposed that wherever new duties were imposed on the Commissioners of Railways, they should be mentioned in the Bill; but whenever the functions of that or the other House of Parliament were interfered with, that should take place, not under the Bill, but under the Standing Orders of either House. He thought that desirable, because by this means they would not part with any portion of their jurisdiction, but each House would regulate its own proceedings by its Standing Orders; and if it should see fit in future to repeal any part of this measure, it might resume the power formerly bestowed. He thought it most convenient that he should proceed by order of time; and, first, was the survey made by the railway company themselves preparatory to bringing in the Bill. And here he must refer to an anomaly which had often excited observation. Before a Bill could be brought into the House, they required certain plans and sections to be deposited, which could only be made by means of an entry on the land; and yet they gave to the parties whom they required to make this service, no right of entry for this purpose. This could not be done at present, in case of opposition on the part of the landlord or occupier, without a violation of the law. So long as no particular evil arose from this state of things, it might perhaps not receive the attention of the Legislature; but they knew that latterly evils had arisen, and conflicts had ensued, which had afterwards in certain cases been brought to adjudication before courts of law. He thought therefore, under these circumstances, it would not be right, in proposing a measure for the regulation of railways, to omit some remedy for this state of things by course of law. One difficulty connected with the question arose upon the point of entering upon lands. If the power of entering upon lands was to be facilitated, it was necessary to give a cheap and easy method of recovering for any damages that might be sustained by such entry; for if the promoters of a railway were to be empowered to enter, it was manifestly unjust to drive the landowner to the trouble and expense of the ordinary course provided by law for the recovery of damages. With a view of meeting this difficulty, it was proposed that before the promoters of a railway should be authorized to enter upon any lands, they should apply to the Commissioners of Railways, and deposit with them such a sum as in the opinion of the Commissioners should be sufficient for the purpose of giving compensation for any damages that might arise; that on depositing this sum, they should obtain the warrant of the Commissioners to enter upon the lands; that after such entry the proprietor should be entitled to full compensation for damage; and should the promoters refuse to grant it, he should apply to the Commissioners, who should have power to award him such compensation as he was fairly entitled to. The next part of the proposal was also an alteration in the present system. In many cases much difficulty had been experienced by many persons through whose lands railways were intended to pass, in ascertaining how their interests and property were likely to be affected. It had been his duty, as chairman of the Committee on Standing Orders, to examine farmers and other persons connected with agriculture—the class most affected by these measures—and he had found among them a difficulty of understanding these plans and sections. Now it was most desirable that these persons should be clearly informed of the exact course of the line, and it was therefore proposed that after the completion of the survey, the promoters of a Bill should mark out the proposed line, either by a narrow furrow, or by stakes, also placing posts at convenient distances on which they would have to inscribe the number of feet or inches above or below the surface of the ground, so as to afford to every party interested clear and distinct information of the course and level of the line. By this means information of the most valuable kind would be afforded to that class of whom he had been speaking, which they were now totally incapable of obtaining. He would now pass to another part of the subject, in which the hon. Member for Montrose had taken great interest, and which arose out of the recommendation of a Committee over which the hon. Member presided during the last Session—he meant the propriety of instituting local inquiry previous to the introduction of a Bill into Parliament. Hon. Members might have observed the injury that had often accrued to proprietors, as well as expense to railway companies, from the fact, that in ordinary cases the landowner, not being aware of the exact course to be taken by the railway, had no opportunity of suggesting any improvement or alteration until the plans and sections had been deposited. It often happened that a landed proprietor, upon seeing that the course of a proposed railway would be inconvenient or injurious to him, went to the promoters, and representing this inconvenience, showed at the same time that another route through adjoining lands, while it would be much less injurious to him, would be equal, if not superior, as regarded the interests of the company, to that which they had selected. The answer of the company, in such cases, had often been, "We should really have been glad to know this before; but it is now too late. We have deposited our plans and sections, and we are required by the Standing Orders to bring in our plan in exact conformity with those plans, so that, unless we abandon our Bill altogether, it is impossible for us to attend to the suggestion." What then was the position of the landowner? Either he must rest contented with the injury his property would receive, or he must carry on an opposition to the Bill at great expense both to himself and the company. And what was the position of the Committee on the Bill? They were obliged either to put off a measure they believed to be generally good, or, by passing it, to inflict injustice on an individual. For the purpose of removing this evil, he proposed that the Commissioners, on receiving information of such cases, or on application after the marking out of the line in the manner suggested, should be empowered to send a competent officer to the spot to make a local inspection of the line; that this officer should, wherever the Commissioners might think it desirable, by public advertisement or otherwise, give notice of the times at which he would attend at different parts of the line, for the purpose of receiving any suggestions which might be offered; that on these being communicated to him and the promoters of the line, if the promoters should choose to adopt them, the Commissioners might authorize the promoters of the Bill to adopt such variations, and include them in their line. If, on the other hand, the promoters should decline to adopt these variations; and if the party should still remain anxious to press them, and to submit them to the Commissioners and the Legislature, it was proposed that the Commissioners should have the power to authorize these persons to deposit plans and sections of such variations, to make the necessary application to the landowners, and bring them before the Committee, so that the Committee might form a fair judgment whether they ought to be adopted, or whether the line ought to be constructed according to the original plan. He considered this a cheap and easy mode of proceeding, and hoped, not only that much expense and inconvenience might be saved to the landowners, but also that a considerable portion of the expense now incurred before the Committees of the House might also be spared. Supposing the line to be adopted, the next point would be to deposit the plans and sections in conformity with the Standing Orders. It was well known that a change had recently taken place in this respect. Those inquiries as to the compliance with the Standing Orders, which had been formerly taken before Committees of the House, had now, for the first time, been removed from the sub-committees, and two Gentlemen had been appointed examiners, in which capacity, he believed, they had discharged their duty with satisfaction to all the parties concerned. In future Sessions, he thought it would be desirable, so far as related to Railway Bills, that these duties should be discharged by the Commissioners, or by officers under their supervision. Previous information on engineering points might be of great advantage in investigating questions connected with the Standing Orders. These examinations had always been in some degree imperfect, because the only mode of testing how far the Standing Orders might have been complied with, so far as respected the engineering part of the measure, depended almost exclusively upon the objections of those parties who were opposed to it; and, therefore, supposing no opponents should present themselves, or that the opposition should be withdrawn — although hon. Members might be aware that, in numerous cases, the Standing Orders had not been complied with, still they had no opportunity of obtaining evidence on the subject. Now, when a person had been employed in examining thoroughly into the engineering portion of the line, the information thus obtained might also be brought to bear on that part of the subject. Without supposing that frivolous objections would be taken, it would still be in his power to ascertain that no substantial error existed with reference to the Standing Orders. Having now come to the point where the Standing Orders were proved, the next question would be, as to the Bill being submitted to the House. It was one part of the recommendation of the Committee on Railways last Session, that the Commissioners should report to both Houses of Parliament upon the merits of the different railway measures which might be proposed during the Session; and this part of the recommendation, of course, would be adopted. For that purpose it would be necessary, not only to possess engineers and persons competent to examine thoroughly into the plans and sections, but also to have power to enter upon the land and examine upon the spot all engineering questions relating to the line. There would also be a regulation requiring the Commissioners, or their officers, to hear those persons who might have objections to urge against the line of railway. It was proposed to hear those objections in such a manner as the Commissioners might appoint, so as to give a fair hearing to both parties in the case. It might be asked whether or not the Commissioners proposed to hear counsel. He certainly thought that would be a very unwise course, because it would be like hearing them twice over — once before the Commissioners, and a second time before the Committee—it would prolong the proceedings to so great an extent, that it would scarcely be possible for the Commissioners to get through their business; and, he thought, the business would be decided in a more satisfactory manner by taking a shorter and much cheaper course. Supposing the question to be an engineering one, a competent and disinterested engineer might be appointed to inquire into it, and have the two opposing engineers before him at the same time; and he (Mr. Strutt) laid great stress on this point, because it was desirable that no private information should be given either to the Commissioners or their officers. By authorizing the engineer so appointed to go into the engineering points connected with the line, giving him the power of calling additional witnesses, or sending a qualified person to make an inspection on the spot, they would be able to come to a fair decision on the question infinitely sooner, and much more cheaply, than by employing the expensive machinery of counsel. And with respect to various other points, they might be examined in a similar manner without the employment of counsel. After hearing the parties, it was proposed that the Commissioners should report to both Houses of Parliament, giving the fullest information on all the points on which Committees were now required to report, such as the engineering details, the amount of tolls, the amount of capital, &c. He thought these reports would be found to be of great benefit in preparing the matter for the consideration of the Committee, in shortening their proceedings, and in providing them with disinterested evidence on which to ground their decisions. Another important point was the degree of authority which should be given to the reports of the Commissioners. For reasons which he had already stated, he proposed that authority should be given to these reports, not by Bill, but by the Standing Orders of the House. The duty of reporting, he proposed, should be regulated by the Bill, but the degree of authority by the Standing Orders of the House itself. It appeared to him desirable, that on all matters of engineering, the report of the Commissioners should be primâ facie conclusive; and for this reason, the Commissioners would have better opportunities than the Committee of forming a correct opinion of the engineering merits of a line; and he believed, that by making their report on this point primâ facie conclusive, the Committee, and the parties to a Bill, would be relieved of great trouble and expense. He used the words primâ facie conclusive, because it would, no doubt, be sometimes necessary that the Committee should have additional information besides that conveyed to them by the reports. However full those reports, it might happen that points arose on which the Committee would require further elucidation; and, in that case, the Bill authorized them to report specially to the House, who would make an order for the additional information required. There was yet another contingency to be provided for. It might be possible, in some cases, that, notwithstanding every care, a serious error of fact might exist in the report of the Commissioners; and, in such a case, it would be obviously unfair that the parties should suffer. It was, therefore, provided by the Bill, that if either party complained of a serious error, in a matter of fact, existing in the report of the Commissioners, they might apply to the Committee to refer back the report to the Commissioners for reconsideration; but with this proviso, that if the Committee should see no reason for the reconsideration, the party so applying should be liable to costs. This proviso was for the purpose of preventing frivolous and vexatious objections. Another point of importance was that of fixing the fares and tolls to be adopted in Bills. He had often heard members of Committees complain of the difficult position in which they had been placed in this respect. With respect to engineering and other parts of the Bill, there were mostly two parties before them; and, after the long proceedings that took place, the speeches of counsel, and the examination of witnesses, justice might be done in the case; but in regard to tolls and fares, there were seldom two parties present, but those who promoted the proceedings were all interested one way, and there was no one representing the interests of the public. The Committee had no evidence as to tolls and fares in different parts of the country: they had, in fact, no data whereon to arrive at a fair decision on the point; and he had been told that in many cases Committees had done little more than adopt the tables placed before them. Now, it appeared to him that a report from a body having full information upon all these points—having before them the tolls and fares of all railways in the kingdom—knowing the practical effect of the rise and reduction of fares upon different lines, both upon the public and upon railway companies themselves—would render essential service in aiding the Committee to come to a fair conclusion. He came now to other points of importance, which were interesting to many hon. Gentlemen, and regarding which it appeared to him that similar advantages might be derived by the Committee from the reports of the commissioners—he alluded to the clauses in Railway Bills relating to the raising capital, the borrowing money, and the amalgamation of lines. The right hon. Member for Coventry was interested in this part of the subject, as he had been the chairman of a Committee last Session in which important questions of the kind had been raised. There had been a case in which a railway company had purchased another line, and had paid a sum amounting to 150 per cent beyond the original value of the stock; and the Committee had referred the subject to the House, expressing the opinion that some general regulation should be laid down. These were subjects which he thought might very properly occupy the attention of the Railway Board, and upon which, as the different Bills came before them, they might be able to afford very valuable information to the Committees, and offer opinions deserving consideration. By these regulations, an important amendment might be effected in regard to the cheapness of the mode in which the proceedings were conducted before the House. One point which had been urged upon him by gentlemen connected with railways, and by other persons, was this—that the Railway Board ought to retain under this Bill a veto upon all Bills submitted to Parliament. He owned, however, that he could not agree to that proposal. Suppose the Board possessed this veto, and suppose they used it, as very likely they would, only very sparingly, as, in the case of Bills obviously useless or improper, it appeared to him that the veto would be of little practical use, because the fate of those Bills would be shortly determined in another way, and very likely the opinion of the Commissioners themselves would put an end to them. But suppose the Commissioners used their veto very freely, and in the case of competing lines, were to give the preference to certain Bills over others, thus assuming the functions of Parliament, he doubted very much, looking to the feeling which existed in the country upon such matters, whether it would tolerate a board constituted with such enormous power as to say, in regard to two competing lines, this only shall pass, and the other shall not be allowed to be submitted for the consideration of Parliament. There was another question of great importance which had been urged upon him for consideration, as to whether powers should be granted to the railway companies in perpetuity, or only for a term of years. The latter practice had prevailed in other countries, especially in France; and a great deal of evidence on the subject had been taken before the Committee on Railways last Session. It should be remembered that French railways were altogether on a different footing to those of England. In France, the lines were selected by the Government, and a large part of the works were executed by the Government; so that in that country the railway companies might be considered in the position of occupying tenants, while in England they were in fact proprietors of the lines. Nevertheless, if the House were now, for the first time, commencing railway legislation, he thought it would be a matter deserving most serious consideration, whether or not some restriction of this kind should be imposed; but at present the case stood in a wholly different position. Nearly all the great lines of the country had already been granted on the terms of belonging to the companies in perpetuity, and not on lease for a term; and the question now was, whether in the case of proposed railways, and which were generally in connexion with existing lines, any sufficient advantage would be derived by granting those branches for terms of years only, while the great trunk lines remained grants in perpetuity. If a course of that kind were taken, it would not only excite considerable jealousy, but would also tend to limit the means the Legislature had of interfering generally in other ways. These measures of limitation would be brought forward by the railway companies as an argument against any other check which the House might seek to impose upon them; and he very much doubted whether, by so doing, the House would not be sacrificing greater and more important objects, for the attainment of a remote and uncertain benefit. For these reasons, no such proposal of limitation was made in the Bill. Another point which had been raised was, how far it would be desirable in new Bills to limit the rate of interest obtained by railway companies. It appeared to him that if a restriction of this kind were imposed, it would, instead of giving an interest to the company in economy and good management, give them an interest in waste and bad management. He thought that in attempting to regulate the rate of interest, they should be beginning at the wrong end; and that the more proper course was to adopt a judicious system with respect to fares and tolls. It was for the Legislature to exercise a wise and judicious control over railway companies, and to take care that the public should be fairly served, and at fair prices. If the Legislature could put reasonable restrictions of that kind on railway companies, and could introduce a system, the effect of which would be to guarantee to the public the advantage of moderate fares and tolls, it certainly did appear to him, that, this great object once gained, it was of very little importance to Parliament what amount of profit the companies might realize. If they could succeed in making their railways profitable, it was no evil to the public, and would, of course, be the source of much advantage to themselves. He had already explained the means he had proposed to adopt for determining the question of fares and tolls, so far as new and already existing companies were concerned; and it was therefore unnecessary to dwell now at any great length on the point; but he would observe that there was an addition which he proposed to make to the system. He considered that it was only fair and equitable that in the case of future railways the rate of fares and tolls should be limited by Parliament for a term of years. It was exceedingly difficult to estimate (and especially so in railway matters) what the future course of improvement might be, and to what great results it might conduce. Fares and tolls which were very reasonable and proper to-day, might not be at all so after the lapse of a number of years; and the interests of the public might be injuriously affected if a final and arbitrary rule were to be applied to a state of things which was essentially liable to change. Bearing these facts in mind, it appeared to him that Parliament, in granting such powers for the future, should take care to limit them to a certain stated period. Ten years was the period which he was inclined to advocate. But here he would take leave to say that he was most anxious not to be misunderstood upon this question. He did not mean that at the end of that period the property of those companies was to be thrown open, and that Parliament was to be at liberty to introduce any limitation of fares and tolls that it might think proper, without regard to the interests of the company; but he certainly did think that it was highly essential to the interests of the public, that at the end of a term of ten years the fares and tolls should be submitted to a revision, to be conducted on a principle similar to that upon which the scale had been in the first instance appointed. What he advocated was, that the requirements and interests of all parties concerned having been taken carefully into consideration, and it having been ascertained what fares and tolls other railway companies had exacted with advantage alike to themselves and the public, that all those facts having been clearly brought before them, Parliament should at the end of ten years address itself to the consideration of the question, what would be a fair provision to be made under the altered circumstances of the cases. Heretofore he had only spoken of the fares and tolls of new railways; but now the question suggested itself whether it was advisable that any revision should take place with respect to the existing lines. This consideration was the more urgent, because many Bills had been passed in the course of the last two Sessions, which contained clauses rendering the companies in whose favour they were enacted, subject to the future revision of Parliament upon this subject. That was one class of Acts. There was another class of Acts which did not render the companies who obtained them liable to any such revision. But then it should be borne in mind, that whenever those companies applied for new powers, it would of course be in the power of Parliament, in granting the powers so required, to make such conditions and stipulations as might appear to them best calculated to promote the welfare of the community. This right was exercised most beneficially for all parties at the instance of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth in the case of the cheap trains. The right hon. Baronet, whose suggestion had been productive of great good, not only to the public but to the companies themselves, proposed that whenever a railway company came to Parliament seeking for a Bill or demanding new powers, they should only receive the Bill or the new powers on the express condition of rendering themselves liable to the cheap-train regulation. He did not mean to contend that those companies which, by their Acts, were not liable to revision, should be placed upon the same footing with companies which were so liable; but this he would say, that when the former class of companies came to that House seeking for more powers — whether for amalgamation, extension, or any other purpose—the granting of their request should be made provisional on their compliance with such conditions as Parliament, in its solicitude for the welfare of the public, might think proper to impose. The course, therefore, which he was prepared to recommend was, that it should be made a provision of the Bill which he proposed to introduce, that when the Commissioners should have reported on any new railway with respect to its fares and tolls, they should not only recommend what scale should be adopted in this Bill, but, referring to the maximum scale of fares and tolls which they might find in any other Act of Parliament then existing, affecting the company in question, should also give their opinion as to the necessity of revising that scale. Where the right of revision was specially reserved in the original Act of a company, it was of course the same as a new Bill; but in cases where such special powers had not been reserved, it would then be a matter of consideration, taking into account the extent of the new powers demanded, and the evil, if any, which had resulted to the public from too high a rate of fares—whether for the Commissioners to report, and for Parliament to decide, how far it might be wise and expedient to institute a revision with respect to Acts belonging to that class. In all cases a limitation of time would be necessary, for it would be impossible for Parliament to make a regulation for all future time, having no grounds on which to form a conclusion, but the state of things at the present moment. There was another point connected with this question of fares and tolls, which would be included in the Bill, namely, that the fares upon any railway should not be altered without due notice of the fact being given to the Commissioners and the public. He had heard of serious complaints in consequence of non-compliance with this practice. He had heard of a case where a railway company suddenly raised their fares without giving notice to the public, and great inconvenience had been the consequence, for persons applied for tickets at the office with the old rate of charge in their hands; and in cases where the applicants were poor, or did not happen to have more money about them at the time, the annoyance endured was very serious indeed, for they were unable to proceed upon their journey. This was not at all fair. He did not think it at all right that any change should be made, without duly notifying to the public the company's intention in that respect. He would propose that notice should be given both to the public and the Commissioners. It would be optional with the company to state their reasons for making the alteration. They might, if they liked, assign their reasons; and the advantage of their doing so would be that they would be supplying with useful and interesting information the Commissioners, whose duty it would be to make an annual report to Parliament upon the state of the fares and tolls throughout the year, setting forth the inequalities and irregularities which had taken place, and their causes—calling attention to the cases (if any) where the public had been aggrieved, and, if necessary, making suggestions for additional accommodation, and a more strict regard to public convenience, by the granting of new lines or otherwise. Ample security should be taken for the due accommodation of the public, and it ought to be done in a manner of which no man should have reason to complain. He had no intention whatever to cast the slightest reflection on the great railway interests of this country. He was well aware that many of the railway companies had shown by their conduct that they were themselves satisfied that their own interests were identical with those of the public, and that if they desired to promote the success of the great works in which they were engaged, they could only hope to do it effectually by increasing their traffic, and giving greater accommodation to the public. Of this fact he was fully conscious; and although he considered that the regulations he was proposing were necessary, he felt confident that in many cases the wishes of the Commissioners and of Parliament would be anticipated by the companies themselves. He hoped and believed it would be so; but the fact of its being very generally supposed that this anticipation would be realized in many instances, did not render it less necessary that the Legislature should endeavour to procure some better security for a due and continuous regard to the welfare of the public, than was to be found in the expectation that all railway companies would take an enlightened view of their own interests. Government would not do its duty unless it proposed to undertake some such control as he described. It was necessary, not only for the public, but for the railway companies themselves. Suppose a case where four different companies had in their joint hands a very important line of communication. Three of them might take an enlightened view of their interests, and concur that the rates of fares should be reduced. If, however, the fourth company stood aloof, and were to refuse its assent to any such proposition, was it not manifest that not only the public, but the three companies whose opinions coincided, would have grievous cause of complaint? In fact, the three companies who were for adopting a liberal and enlightened policy, would be robbed by the single recusant. He was justified, therefore, in making the assertion that it was not only for the interest of the public at large, but also for that of the railway companies themselves, that some such system of supervision and restriction as he was now advocating, should be enforced. He now came to a question of inferior importance, but still of sufficient consequence to justify the application of the attention of the House to it; he alluded to the charges which were made by companies on account of services rendered to the Post Office establishment. He was sorry that greater precaution had not been taken at an earlier period in reference to this matter, with a view to securing the interest of the public. He was sorry that more extensive powers had not been reserved by the public for the transmission of the mails; for the arrangements which at present existed, were defective and unmethodical. The mode in which the charges of the companies were now regulated was this: when the Post Office authorities wanted certain services to be rendered, they applied to the company, and the rate of remuneration was settled by arbitration. Now, this certainly appeared to him an exceptionable mode of proceeding. It was an unsatisfactory and unbusiness-like system. Some clear and definite terms of remuneration ought to be specified. He was informed by the authorities of the Post Office department, that it was very probable that much greater services than were at present demanded, would hereafter be required from railway companies; and if so, it was only fair and equitable that those enlarged services should not be given at the same proportion of cost. If more extensive services were required, of course they should be given at a pro-portionably reduced rate. What he proposed was, that the Commissioners, after consultation with the Post Office authorities, should submit a specification of the different services that would be required from the companies. The companies should be called upon to furnish, in every new Railway Bill, a scale of the prices which they were disposed to charge to the Post Office authorities; and the Commissioners should make it their business to report on the matter to Parliament. But as in the case of fares and tolls, so too in this, it was requisite that there should be a distinct limitation as to time; and as circumstances might, in this instance more rapidly than in the other, occur to justify a change, he would suggest the limitation should be taken for five years only. The next point on which he would propose legislation, referred to the question of the punctuality of trains. There was no point on which the public and the companies were more deeply interested, than on that which had reference to the punctuality of trains. He had heard it stated by many gentlemen who had large property sunk in railway projects, that their local traffic was the most important item in their receipts; and there could be no question that the advantage of local traffic, as far as the public were concerned, very much consisted in punctuality. It was not so much the speed of the trains as their punctuality that was regarded by a man who had to go a short distance. If he had to wait at the station for the train, it would be scarcely worth his while taking it at all for a short distance. At the same time, however, it was clear that this punctuality was an object that was not to be attained by direct means. They could not regulate these matters by penalties. The object could only be promoted by bringing publicity and public opinion to bear as much as possible upon matters of this kind. He would propose that it should be made imperative on every railway company to keep, at such stations as the companies should appoint, a correct register of the arrival and departure of every train. This was already done for their own satisfaction; but he proposed that for the future the registry should be kept by an officer expressly appointed for the purpose by the company, but appointed under the sanction of the Commissioners. That there might be ample opportunity for checking the accuracy of the entries, he would suggest that the table should be hung up for a given time at the station for the inspection of the public; and that it should be subsequently forwarded to the Commissioners. The Commissioners should make an annual report to Parliament on the punctuality of the trains throughout the country, and should call attention to the effects of such punctuality or want of punctuality not only on the convenience, but on the safety of the public; for he contended that safety was quite as much affected as convenience by a want of punctuality. With respect to the cheap trains, some additional regulations might be advantageously introduced. Hon. Members were aware, that as things stood at present there was a law declaring that every railway company should run at least one train in the day, by which passengers were to be conveyed at not more than one penny per mile, in carriages provided with seats, and protected from the weather, in a manner to be approved by the Commissioners. These trains were bound to travel at an average speed of not less than twelve miles an hour, and to start at a period of the day most likely to suit the convenience of the class of passengers they were intended to convey, and to be approved by the Commissioners. Now, he did not propose any change in the principle of these regulations; but he begged attention to this fact, that companies would fulfil the requisitions of that Act by travelling at the rate of twenty or thirty miles an hour for a certain period, and then leaving the passengers on the road-side, perhaps for two or three hours, before the company might find it compatible with their convenience to forward them to the end of their journey. This appeared to him a manifest perversion of the meaning of the Act. He did not think it by any means a fair mode of proceeding, nor did he think it could ever be the intention of the Legislature that any such option as that now exercised should be extended to companies. For these reasons, and for the interests of the public, he thought it was expedient that the duration of the stoppages, as well as all the other matters specified in the Act, might, where necessary, come under the cognizance of the Commissioners. With respect to the number of passengers to be carried in each of the carriages, he would observe that this was a matter in respect of which it was not at present possible to enforce any restriction; but it appeared to him desirable that the number of passengers should be defined by the Commissioners, and printed upon the outside of each carriage. Another advantageous regulation was, that whenever they travelled by night, there should be a light in the carriage. He now came to another question, and one which related to disputes between railway companies, and in which he considered the Commissioners might have the power of interfering with advantage. He found this view of the case confirmed by the evidence of Mr. Hawkshaw, engineer to the Leeds and Manchester Railway, given before the Committee of last Session of which the hon. Member for Montrose was chairman. Referring to the advantage a Railway Board would be, that hon. Member asked—

"You consider that they might act as arbitrators in disputes and differences between companies?—Yes; in many cases where the traffic is destroyed altogether, because one company does not understand its own interest, or takes a different view of it from another company, and the consequence is, that you cannot get on at all. There are a number of links in a chain, and the middle link may say, 'We will not be troubled with this kind of traffic—we will not be annoyed with it.' That is a case in which the interference of the board would be very useful."

Mr. Glynn also says in his evidence—

"I thought that that department should be a controlling body with regard to railway companies amongst themselves in many particulars, and between them and the public; for instance, in the case of working two lines in connexion. Such things have occurred that one company has refused to put on second-class trains to meet second-class trains coming to it, and many other cases of inconvenient working."

Now, suppose the case of two competing lines meeting in a given point, and a third line forming a continuation of both from this point; and suppose the third line to be in the hands of one of the two rival companies, it is obvious that this company might, by the turning of its trains, and in other ways, inflict serious injury on its rival. Now, this was a case that would require the interference of the Commissioners. As the law now stood, if any two or more railway companies having a common terminus, or a portion of the same line in common, had any dispute, the Commissioners had full power to make such regulations as might appear to them most conducive to the safety of the public. He was for adopting the same words as were used in the Act; but he would enlarge them, and authorize interference on the part of the Commissioners, not only where the public safety was concerned, but also in cases where the public were exposed to serious inconvenience and the disadvantages attendant on want of sufficient accommodation. But it was to be understood that this interference was only to be undertaken in cases where the complaint came from one of the railway companies in question. Then there was another point as to the formation of railways, respecting the police requisite for preserving order. In Scotland, he believed, the sheriff had the power of requiring the appointment of a sufficient force; but in England the justices possessed this power only in cases in which actual outrage had occurred; and he would, therefore, propose that, in every case of the formation of a railway, if two justices of the peace reported to the Commissioners that any additional number of policemen ought to be appointed, the Commissioners might require such appointment. There were some other points to which he would not then allude, and which might be thought of minor importance; such as concerning the by-laws of the companies, and the convenience required for the transportation of the military from one place to another; but he should mention that he would propose to give the Commissioners a general power of calling for returns from the railway companies, and of testing the accuracy of such returns, when necessary, by a reference to books. He was sorry to have detained the House so long; but he could not sit down without referring to the subject of giving compensation to the relatives of persons killed by accidents on railways, on which a question had been asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln. There had latterly been an alteration of the law on this subject; for last Session a law had been passed, giving a right of action for compensation to the relations of persons killed by accidents. Such being the case, he did not feel inclined to propose any additional legislation on the subject, because it was desirable to see how the present Act would work; and if any other were found necessary, he thought that it ought to be general, and not confined to railways. He had now, he believed, gone through the main provisions which he had the honour of proposing for adoption in this Bill. He did not mean to propose it as a complete measure, because it was obvious that a measure of this nature could not be complete, and that further experience must give rise to further improvements; but this he might say, that he trusted it would be found by the public a useful amendment of the existing laws, without being, at the same time, injurious to the railway companies themselves. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by asking leave to bring in the Bill.

hoped he should not be deemed guilty of presumption in rising thus early to address the House. He felt bound to say, that during the fourteen or fifteen years that he had been a Member of the House, it never had been his lot to hear any Member make a more clear or straightforward statement than that which had been just made by the right hon. Gentleman. It was a statement on a subject of very great importance and great interest; and he must congratulate the House and the public at the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had commenced in that House the discharge of his official duties. His reason for rising so early was, for the purpose of offering a suggestion; and he would remark, that in offering the suggestion he was about to make, he merely spoke as one of the public, having an interest in the well-doing of railways, and participating in the advantages which the public derived from them; but, at the same time, he should observe, that he had no pecuniary interest or share in them. The point to which he was about to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman and the House, was one that fairly came within the limits and province of his Bill. It was one in which he conceived the public had stronger interest than in many of the points to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded. He might be told that the proposition he was about to make, would amount to an interference with the directors of railways, and that it was one of which they would themselves take care, without the supervision of any board whatever. That might be a sufficient answer to his proposition, were it not that there were three points which the right hon. Gentleman intended to bring within the province of the Commissioners, which were analogous to the proposition which he was about to make. The point to which he (Mr. Aglionby) would call the attention of the House, and to which the right hon. Gentleman had not alluded, was one in which the public had a great interest: he meant that a number of stations should be selected and fixed for the trains to stop at, and at those stations there should be a certain number of trains always required to stop. That should be a matter of regulation for the public convenience. He admitted it would be an interference with the directors; but it would be for the right hon. Gentleman to say whether or not it would be a reasonable interference with them. The right hon. Gentleman proposed himself to interfere in cases which he considered to be analogous. The first case was with respect to fares; and why should the Commissioners have the power of interference in the case of fares, any more than they should have it with regard to the case which he had suggested? The next was with regard to punctuality; and the other case to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded, was the duration of stoppages. And why had they interfered with them, but for the protection of certain classes of the public who had not received the full benefit of legislative enactment? With respect to the case to which he had referred, it appeared, that while great attention was given at present to passengers travelling a long distance, sufficient attention was not paid to passengers travelling a short distance; and he submitted, that every man going a short distance had a right to complain, except the railway enabled him to alight near his destination by frequent stoppages. There should, he conceived, be this general rule laid down, that wherever a railway proposed to supply a particular district with accommodation, and when it could be fairly proved that the district had been deprived of other modes of conveyance, it was necessary for the interest of the public to have a station at that place, at which a certain number of trains should stop in the day. How far having those stopping trains might interfere with the interests of railway companies, he did not know; but he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman to take his proposition into consideration before the Bill went into Committee.

wished to know if any means were to be adopted by which uniform and regular communication for the public on Sundays would be secured. This he considered to be a subject of importance, when they saw whole districts canvassing and discussing it as they now were, and when they saw that no less than nineteen towns had presented petitions against the stoppage that had taken place. It appeared that two millions and a half of persons were interested in the traffic, and he believed only two directors had prevented it. He did hope that some means would be adopted by which uniform and regular communication on Sundays might be secured. There was another point which he also thought of importance to the public—that was, to have more speedy communication by the third-class trains. At present they travelled at very inconvenient hours; and he (Mr. Hume) thought they had been hitherto too negligent of the interests of the persons who were accustomed to travel in them, and who had not the means of paying the increased charges that were demanded in the other classes. He thought the Legislature should rather assist them than throw any impediment in their way, and he hoped the Commissioners would also be able to give their attention to that point.

said, he would not interrupt the present discussion for a very long time. He had only to observe, that he agreed in the opinion already expressed, that the right hon. Gentleman who had introduced the present Motion, had, in the manner in which he had laid it before the House, furnished the best possible exposition, and given the best example of the good that might be expected from the board of which the right hon. Gentleman was a president. He wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman. It was this: What was the course to be adopted with respect to the Bills of the present Session? He had not had time to examine, himself, the details of those Bills; but he took it that there were before the House Bills involving the expenditure of a sum of forty millions of capital. It was very important they should know what course was intended to be taken before the present Bill reached Committee. He was sure, in the present state of public business, his right hon. Friend did not expect to carry the Bill which he had announced to the House before those Bills were referred to Committees; and it was desirable the public should understand what course was intended to be adopted with respect to the Bills of this Session.

stated, in reply, that the Bill which he had had the honour of proposing that evening, respected principally the Bills of future Sessions, and did not so much refer to those of the present Session, as the time for that had now gone by. With respect to the bearing of the new regulations on Bills now before the House, he could only observe, that by the Act of last Session the only additional powers that had been given to the new board beyond those with which the Board of Trade had been invested, were the power of making local inquiries and the power of reporting to the Crown; and, therefore, if there were any special matters relating to the Bills of the present Session on which Parliament required reports from the board, it would be in the power of Parliament to refer such matters to the board. But at this period it would be impossible for the board to go into the general questions relating to these Bills, or into the consideration of matters including the merits of the Bills, both because of the want of time, and also because the board had not yet such an organization of officers as would enable it to conduct the local inquiries satisfactorily. But questions of amalgamation, or any questions of that nature which the House might refer to them, they would consider and deal with to the best of their ability, and be ready, if required, to report upon them. He would humbly submit, however, that in all orders of reference, questions of this nature should be kept distinct from questions relating to the merits of the Bills; because, as he had intimated, both from want of time and want of officers, it was impossible that the board could report satisfactorily on questions of merits during the present Session. He was so anxious that the board should be enabled to discharge its duty satisfactorily to the country, that he thought it most important that they should not at first have any duties cast upon them which they were unprepared to deal with. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman might devise some method by which his suggestions could be carried into effect.

thought that the matters to which he had referred, and which were of extreme importance, ought not to be left to individual Members of the House. He wished to put a question to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon a subject which had been specially referred to in the report made by the Railway Committee of last Session, of which he (Mr. Ellice) had been chairman. He wished to know whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose any Standing Order, under which all matters relating to the capital of companies, and their power of raising loans, in the Bills of this Session, should be referred to the new board, for the purpose of its making, upon these subjects, reports which should be laid before the Committees on the different Bills before they proceeded to consider the clauses relating to the capital of the company, and its power of raising loans?

most heartily concurred with the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby), in what he had said of the ability with which the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman had been brought forward. With regard to the degree of discretion and control which the board was to exercise over the new schemes before the House, and as to their power of adjudication between rival schemes, he begged to observe, that, as had been forcibly stated in the report of a Committee of the other House, it sometimes happened that two schemes were put forward by two rival companies, neither of them being the best attainable line for the public, but each being put forward by the rival companies upon the ground of being advantageous to their own personal interests. Thus it was that the public often did not get the best line. Now, he was inclined to think it a defect in the measure of the right hon. Gentleman, that it did not give the power to the board of placing a veto on such lines as the board might see reason to disapprove; nor did it give them the power to originate, or cause to be originated, any line that might be really calculated to satisfy the wants of the district, in such a case as that to which he had referred. This suggestion he had ventured to make, with a sincere desire to promote the object of the right hon. Gentleman. As to the objection to vesting a veto in the board, that it would stand between the House of Commons and the parties, he thought it did not altogether apply; for the veto, if conferred, would be exercised, he was convinced, only for the purpose of keeping out of the House many schemes that were not entitled to apply to Parliament at all. A veto would not interfere with the authority of Parliament; and he would therefore wish to call the attention of the board to the question, whether they could not effect this object themselves by means of local surveys, which they must often be obliged to undertake, in order to determine between the conflicting claims of two companies, so as to be enabled to put a stop to such schemes as might appear clearly undesirable, before coming to that House. At any rate, he thought the board ought to have authority over such schemes, and be able to put a stop to those which their officers, upon local survey, found to be clearly inadequate to the wants of the districts through which it was proposed that they should pass; and he even thought that the board ought to have power to originate themselves the line that ought to be constructed in such cases. Now, with regard to the authority the report of the board ought to bear, after the minute and accurate investigation of which it would be the result, and when they signified their approval of one scheme and disapproval of the other and conflicting one, though their determination might be, in such case, that the latter scheme ought not to be brought before a Committee of the House, yet it might be right for the House to consider whether that might not be done by way of appeal against the decision of the board, costs being allowed to the party whose claim was confirmed before the Committee. He would not say anything as to the control to be exercised by the board over fares and tolls from time to time, except that he thought the period suggested by the right hon. Gentleman was somewhat short — too short, perhaps, to ascertain completely the effect of the rates. Before the true result could be arrived at of the enormous amalgamations that were going on, they must have a longer experience than could be derived from a ten years' trial. He had not risen to offer any opposition to that or any other part of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme; but he could not help expressing his fear, that the true result of the operation of a tariff of tolls and fares could not be ascertained with respect to some of the vast undertakings that were now in existence, except after a longer period of trial. With respect to the stopping of Parliamentary trains, it was very true that those trains did stop often, and more often perhaps than was requisite; but it was often necessary that Parliamentary trains, travelling much slower, as they did, should be moved out of the way of other trains, not only on account of the goods' traffic, but for the safety of passengers who were conveyed at a more speedy rate. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Aglionby) had made some observations with regard to the propriety of enforcing frequent stoppings on the line; and that which was in general the merit of a railway, and the proof of its success, the hon. and learned Gentleman would take as the test of its delinquency, namely, that it had put down other means of conveyance in the same district. He thought this was one of those accusations against the railway companies which tended to refute themselves.

considered the suggestion of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Ellice) was well worthy of attention. It would probably be very desirable that the report his right hon. Friend had alluded to should be made by the Railway Board.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ellice) had alluded to the powers given to railway companies to raise large sums of money by means of loans on securities that were transferable from hand to hand. Now, in his opinion, there was no reason why railway companies, like other parties, should not raise money on securities that were substantial; but the objection was, that the powers given to railway companies by Parliament put in their hands the means of raising loans by what was in fact a sort of paper money, entering into the circulation throughout the country, and that was manifestly inconvenient. He had been so unfortunate as only to hear a part of the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Strutt's) statement, and possibly this subject had been touched upon by the right hon. Gentleman; but in case nothing of the kind had suggested itself to the right hon. Gentleman, he trusted the subject would be taken into consideration, for it was a subject which he was anxious should not be overlooked, not only as regarded the railways themselves, but the financial state of the country.

thought the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman was so good that he hoped no attempt would be made to give a veto to the board, for he was quite sure that the House of Commons would never assent to it. He begged to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, whether the board could not yet undertake the investigation of the Bills of this year. If those Bills were to stand over until next year, the benefits of the new board would be lost for this year with respect to railway legislation. It was very much in consequence of the Board of Trade not being in the habit of examining the parties to rival schemes face to face, that the public had not had confidence in their reports; and he was glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to examine parties face to face. If the Railway Department of the Board of Trade had done that, he believed it would have been still on its legs. But he must suggest that something should be done with respect to the Bills now before the House; there was abundant time for it; the parties would be content to wait till Easter to allow time for the necessary preparatory steps to be taken; and it would save an immense deal of trouble, and an immense deal of expense.

protested against any delay with the Bills now before the House awaiting the results of this scheme. He was quite certain that it would be fatal to many of those Bills to be protracted to the end of the Session.

had not had the pleasure of hearing the statement of the evening, not knowing that it would come on so early; but he begged to ask the attention of the House to a matter affecting his own neighbourhood. A Railway Act had received the assent of the Legislature last year, under which a line had been made in his neighbourhood, crossing several turnpike roads on a level, and that in a thickly inhabited manufacturing district, to the great danger of the lives of the public. He had mentioned the circumstance to the right hon. Gentleman, but the right hon. Gentleman said he could only regret that the inspector had no power to interfere; but when he told the House that this railway crossed on a level a turnpike road to Keighley, along which 2,000 factory operatives had to pass to their work every day of the week, he would ask them whether, if the authority entrusted to the inspector did not permit him to interfere, there ought not to be authority to interfere vested somewhere, so as to protect the public, by obliging the company to build a bridge, or avoid by some other means the danger to which the people were exposed. This railroad, besides, crossed on a level five or six other turnpike roads. He was certain it could not be opened a single month without loss of life ensuing. When he applied to the right hon. Gentleman, the reply was that he had not the power to interfere. This was to be lamented; and in this case it was sufficiently evident that the Committee on the Bill had not sufficiently inquired into the circumstances of the line. He was anxious to draw the attention of the House to some other circumstances, by which he had been a sufferer to the amount of 4,000l. or 5,000l. He was tenant in tail of an estate through which this railway ran for two miles; and though the Act of Parliament compelled the company to give him notice that they meant to take the land, the tenant for life had the power of making a bargain behind his (Mr. Ferrand's) back with the directors for whatever sum they could agree upon, and the consequence had been a loss to him (Mr. Ferrand) to the extent he had stated. He had written to the directors for redress; but the chairman had kept him a full month without any answer, till at last, on the 1st of January, he received a letter, stating that he could have no redress, and finishing off by wishing him the compliments of the season. He protested against such legislation. The House had allowed a Bill to pass in so slovenly a manner as to enable a railway company to rob him as he had been robbed. Why was it that the directors of a railway company should have power given them to make a private bargain for their own advantage, which had the effect of robbing any person of his just rights? He had no enmity to railways; he thought they had conferred great benefits on the country; and he thought no man had conferred greater benefit on the country than his right hon. Friend (Mr. Hudson); but he said, while they legislated, let them do justice between man and man; and if the railways were to be the highways of this country, they ought to be obliged to do justice to all the parties concerned; and he hoped that some alteration would be made in the present law, so as to protect the interest of tenants in tail.

would give the plan his patient consideration. He wished to quiet the fears and alarms of his hon. Friend (Mr. Ferrand) with respect to the railway to which his hon. Friend had referred. He believed that it was rarely that accidents had taken place on crossings on a level; accidents, however, had been found to occur where the turnpikes were carried over railways by bridges. It must be remembered that we could not have unmixed good in anything. With respect to the remarks of the right Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn), as to the power of borrowing money given by Railway Acts to companies, it was during the Administration with which the right hon. Gentleman had been connected, that Mr. Gladstone had introduced a Bill which limited that power of borrowing; it put a stop to the power of borrowing by way of loan notes, but the companies were given five years in which to bring in their outstanding loan notes. He must, however, say this for the directors of companies, that, in several cases, had they not taken on them to exceed the powers conferred by their Acts, many of those undertakings which now contributed so much to the ornament and advantage of the country could not have proceeded. The directors of railway companies had on many occasions been called on, in order to prevent the stopping of the works, to give their own personal security. One thing had struck him during the able statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Strutt), namely, that he was attempting to do far too much, and much more than the board would be able to do satisfactorily to the public. With respect to tolls and fares, the right hon. Gentleman claimed the power of revision once in every ten years without any limitation; but when Mr. Gladstone introduced the Bill to which he had referred, it was thought right by Parliament, that the Board of Trade should not have the power of reducing tolls unless where the interest paid on the shares exceeded a certain rate. If it were otherwise, the interference of the board might totally destroy the dividends of the company. In giving that right of revision of tolls to Parliament, it was proper to put some limitation upon its exercise, so as not wholly to deprive of their fair remuneration those parties who had invested their capital in railways. It would appear that one of the objects proposed by the right hon. Gentleman was to secure punctuality in the trains; and for this purpose there was to be a superintendent appointed, who was to require greater punctuality on the part of the companies. He did hope that the right hon. Gentleman would have gone a little further, and that he would at once have suggested that the railway companies were not as punctual as they ought to be, and that something was wrong in the present management of railways. Now, he was by no means sure that the effect of the proposed superintendence would not be to diminish the speed of trains. Railway directors, in the apprehension that they would not be able on all occasions to insure punctuality, would probably not give that speed to the public which they now enjoyed. He begged to tell the House that a perfectly punctual system could not be attained. There were so many things that affected the speed of trains, the state of the atmosphere, the wind, the state of the rails, the coke and water, all these rendered it perfectly impossible that perfect punctuality should be insured on all occasions. But the great interest of railway companies was to ensure punctuality as much as possible, and to make every exertion for the purpose of increasing their traffic. He believed they had attained upon railways a degree of punctuality fully equal to that obtained in any other means of conveyance that had ever been attempted. He doubted whether Parliament would by its interference obtain greater punctuality; but at the same time he did not complain, because Parliament might have the right to undertake this legislation upon minute points. It had little to do, perhaps, and it must amuse itself, he supposed, at other people's expense. Instead of guiding the commercial enterprise of this country, he must say that this was not Inarching in the onward direction; it was a retrograde movement. He believed that railway undertakings would have prospered much more, had there been less interference on the part of Parliament. The more responsibility they threw upon the directors, and the less upon Parliament or the Railway Board, the better for the public. It appeared, that under the new Bill, the fares were not to be reduced without giving notice to the Commissioners. ["Raised."] Well, altered; but, surely, it was hard that the directors should be obliged to come to the board to ask their consent to excise powers which Parliament had given them under the Act. [Mr. STRUTT: Notice would have to be given of the intention to raise fares.] It had been complained that one railway had raised its fares without giving any previous notice to the public. Perhaps it would have been better if they had given notice. His system was not that of raising, but of reducing fares; but it was not his practice to give notice of his intention; and the company in question had only followed a similar plan in a reverse case. He thought it would be impolitic to press this Bill at present, and that there would be no possibility of carrying out the proposed inspection in a manner satisfactory to the public. Still, on behalf of the railway interest, he would say that they would give the Bill that consideration which it deserved; and if it were not unfair to their interests, they were willing to offer all the suggestions in their power to make the measure a fair and useful one to all parties.

wished to guard against committing himself to any of the details of the measure; but he must, at the same time, emphatically disclaim any participation in the jealousy and fear expressed by the right hon. Member for Sunderland with regard to the superintendence of the Railway Board. He was sure he expressed the opinion of the gentlemen with whom he was associated, the directors of the London and North-Western Railway, when he said that, being well aware, and having always maintained, that the principle of competition could not be applied to railroads, they were not only willing, but anxious, that the only other effectual protection to the public should be afforded in the shape of strong and even stringent control, exercised by some competent public authority such as the newly-constituted Railway Board. He wished to ask one question of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had omitted to explain one point upon which he was most anxious to be informed. He did not understand the right hon. Gentleman to say whether, in the event of reporting upon competing lines, it was intended that the Railway Board should distinctly state to which of the lines it gave the preference, and also the grounds of that preference. This he held to be of the utmost importance; and this was a labour which the late Railway Department of the Board of Trade, in his opinion, performed most satisfactorily. He was, moreover, of opinion that a great part of the mischief caused last year by over-speculation, had its origin in the readiness with which that House threw overboard the most excellent reports of the Board of Trade. He believed that the great majority of those reports were correct, and that they would, if they had been acted on, have obviated a great many of the evils by which the country was afflicted last year.

said, it would be impossible for the Board to report on the comparative merits of two competing schemes without expressing a preference. The hon. Member for Knaresborough had complained of a railway crossing the public highways near a populous place in his neighbourhood on the level. The Act authorizing that line had passed, and the unfortunate results to which the hon. Member referred were attributable to the conduct of Parliament alone, and were beyond the interference of the Commissioners. The Commissioners had only a power of interference to a certain extent: for instance, if a company should think fit to substitute a bridge for a crossing on the level, the Commissioners had the power to authorize this deviation from the original plan; but they had no further power save in the shape of remonstrance. He regretted that the right hon. Member for Sunderland should have misunderstood one part of his speech, with respect to the periodical revision of tolls by Parliament. The right hon. Member seemed to think that the object of that provision was to restrict the profits of railway companies; but he had distinctly stated that the principle on which, in his opinion, such a revision should take place, was exactly the principle on which the fares were first established, acting fairly between the railway companies and the public—giving the railway companies every due advantage, and affording to the public the advantages derivable from an altered state of circumstances, so that in the event of such altered circumstances Parliament might have the power of revision. The right hon. Member also said that it would be impossible for the Commissioners to ensure punctuality. Of course it would be impossible to secure perfect punctuality; neither had he supposed nor asserted such a thing to be possible. All he proposed was that the facts should be ascertained, so that where a railway company was remarkable for its great punctuality, and for the skill and attention with which it succeeded in affording accommodation to the public, the fact should be known; and that, on the other hand, where a company was remarkable for conduct the reverse of this, especially where their remissness led to accidents, that fact should likewise be laid before Parliament and the public. There was one more point on which the right hon. Gentleman was anxious for information—namely, with reference to lowering the fares. He begged to tell the right hon. Gentleman that under this Bill he might lower his fares when he pleased—no notice would be required.

rose for the purpose of appealing to the noble Lord the Member for Lynn to postpone his measure respecting railways in Ireland; and he might perhaps be permitted to state in very few words the grounds on which he made this request. It was only a week since the measure had been brought before the House; and it must therefore be perfectly obvious that the people of Ireland could have had no opportunity of expressing their opinions upon it. It was due to the importance of the proposal, that their constituents should have an opportunity of representing their views on the subject; and he thought it neither fair towards the Irish people or Irish Members that the subject should be forced to a premature decision. It was moreover notorious that the Government had staked their existence on the issue of the division; and the consequence therefore would be, that if the House should pronounce a decision adverse to the view taken by the Government, there would possibly be a change of Ministry. The consequence of such a change would be to throw into confusion legislation of the most urgent and immediate importance to the poor of Ireland—measures on which, perhaps, depended the existence of many thousands of their fellow-countrymen in Ireland. He held, therefore, that they were not at liberty, for the sake of gaining a great contingent advantage, to risk the possible loss of human life. He had entertained the hope that this measure would not have been discussed by either section of the House as a party question. He had entertained the hope that the noble Lord the Member for the city of London, and the Government, would have proposed to consider the question one upon which it was not necessary to stake the existence of the Government; but that they would rather have acquiesced in what appeared to be the general wish of the House. For his own part, he had no hesitation in saying that if the Government had brought forward a proposal which, on the whole, appeared more desirable than that introduced by the noble Lord the Member for Lynn, he should have felt himself bound to have given it his preference, were it only for the sake of avoiding the contingent change of the Ministry, which he thought by no means desirable. At the same time the proposal of the noble Member for Lynn not having been met by any counter proposal, and the noble Lord's measure being one calculated to give immediate employment and relief to many thousands of the Irish people, without any eventual loss either to this country, and without the imposition of any burden on Irish resources; finding that proposal placed in juxtaposition with a system of temporary expedients, which imposed on this country and on Ireland an unquestionable burden, for which no return was to be given in the way of national advantage, he had no hesitation in tendering, under existing circumstances, his support to the noble Lord; and upon that point, therefore, he did not wish that any doubt or hesitation should exist as to the course which he, at least, was prepared to take: and indeed he thought that a very general disposition prevailed amongst the Irish Members to support the noble Lord. He was, nevertheless, anxious that they should have an opportunity of considering this question with reference to its real merits, apart from the consideration of the existence of a Ministry, and apart from the consideration of the possibility of inflicting upon their fellow-countrymen the inconveniences and sufferings which might arise from arresting the progress of remedial legislation. With these views he should make an appeal to the noble Lord; and he expressed, he believed, the opinions of many other hon. Members, as well as his own, and would ask him to postpone for a few days the second stage of his Bill.

concurred with his hon. Friend (Mr. S. O'Brien) in requesting his noble Friend (Lord G. Bentinck) to postpone the second reading of the Bill; but he would not do so without frankly telling his noble Friend the feeling which he (Mr. Shaw) entertained on the subject. He was favourable to the principle of his noble Friend's Bill; he (Mr. Shaw) had always been in favour of a general system of railways for Ireland, to be undertaken or controlled by the Government, and had supported the measure brought forward with that view by the noble Lord at the head of the Woods and Forests, who was then Secretary for Ireland (Lord Morpeth). He (Mr. Shaw) had every hope that if the Bill was postponed, and that the Government found that it was a measure wholly irrespective of party, and applicable to the exigencies of Ireland, that they would give it their sanction, or themselves introduce one of a similar character; but it was only candid that he should inform his noble Friend (Lord G. Bentinck), that if he then pressed forward the second reading of the Bill, in opposition to the Government, and that it was to become a question on which the existence of the Government was to depend, he (Mr. Shaw) could not support the Bill to that extent. He thought that would be a most unfavourable position for the fair consideration of the measure itself; and, moreover, in the present state of parties, and the country, and, above all, the calamitous condition of Ireland, he (Mr. Shaw) would not join in attempting to put out one Ministry and form another upon such a question. He believed the most anxious and unqualified supporters of his noble Friend's Bill were also of opinion that it would be better to postpone it for the present.

would state frankly his opinions, without favour or affection for any man or party. He should do his duty to Ireland, and he trusted also to England. It was his intention to have voted for the noble Lord's Motion, and he said so openly and fearlessly. He had supported the hon. Gentleman sitting on his (Mr. Grattan's) side of the House for many years. He had been twenty years in Parliament—and never was there a time when Ireland required more the sympathy and good feeling of the people of England; and yet from his own side of the House he had heard his country attacked, the characters of Irish Members abused, and themselves insulted. He put all that by. But the people were dying, and here were two great doctors prescribing, and the question was, which remedy was the best. He would undertake to say, that the Government ought to consent to the plans of the noble Lord opposite, and if the Government put it upon that footing, he would prove it to be a debt due to Ireland. He maintained that it was a debt due to Mr. Drummond's memory, as well as to Ireland. The plan proposed by that able man had received the sanction of Colonel Burgoyne, Mr. Griffith, and all the ablest engineers of the country; every one, in short, who had reported for the Government upon the condition of Ireland, from the year 1835 to 1847, had suggested the utility of various railway systems, and had suggested plans for improving the condition of the country; but, he asked, had any one of them been followed up, or the slightest attempt been made to carry any of them into effect? And yet thousands upon thousands of pounds had been spent in Committees of the House—in one instance no less than 60,000l. in one Committee—wrangling about Railway Bills. He contended that, far from being a wasteful expenditure, the measure proposed by the noble Lord would be a saving of money to the English people. For what were the proposals of the noble Lord at the head of the Government? The noble Lord had brought forward three Bills, which were certainly insufficient to meet the exigencies of the case. The famine was extending; and fever was spreading in the north of Ireland, and in Lurgan, Lough Erne, Sligo, and other parts of the country. And what was the plan adopted to relieve the distresses of the people? They had military officers, colonels, majors, and captains, spread over the country, by way of superintending the giving out of soup and meal. He (Mr. Grattan) was too old a soldier to be imposed upon; and he could not understand the necessity for employing those military gentlemen in the distribution of soup. No; he knew better what their purpose was. They were sent there to survey the lakes and mountains, and the bogs of Ireland, in order to be the better prepared, as the times were believed to be dangerous. But he wanted them to guard more effectually against the circumstances of danger; and the first and the best thing they could do would be to send all the Irish Members back again. Yes, he repeated, let them send the Irish Members home to regulate their own affairs. They could do no good where they were. He had ever honestly upheld that opinion. But to return to the point before the House. The Government measures proposed—how much money for Ireland? Let them see what the next Bill before them was. It was for 1,500,000l. Now, of that there were only 500,000l. for which the present Government could take credit; for the 1,000,000l. had been given before. Let them compare that with the proposal of the noble Lord the Member for Lynn. The noble Lord said, that he proposed a plan which their (the Government's) own officer had, when they were formerly in power, recommended. Mr. Drummond had recommended it; but he should say, that when Mr. Drummond died, the Government, so far as regarded Ireland, died along with him. The people should be fed. They were dying of hunger; and the noble Lord at the head of the Government proposed to advance at the rate of 1,000,000l. a month to feed them, so that by the month of August next the sum that will have been expended had been stated at 6,000,000l. Now he asked if they did not adopt a plan of expenditure which would cause a reproductive employment, how were they to get back the money? There was no immediate chance under the noble Lord's plan of getting back their money. He might with truth say that the Irish nobility and aristocracy were gone. He knew one individual who paid interest on 100,000l., and another who paid 6,000l. a year interest money in London out of 7,000l. a year of ill-paid rents. In one instance, a proprietor could not cut down a tree on his estate without getting permission from an attorney; and the cases of Irish proprietors owing sums of 20,000l. to English capitalists were quite frequent. Why was this? Because these Irish landlords were brought over to London, and induced to remain there, by individuals who led them into expense. He would say that the remedy for such a state of things was a repeal of the Union; and, what was more, he believed that House would soon be willing to repeal it, and be glad to send Irish Members back to make laws for themselves. As he had said before, Ireland was under the care of two doctors, but he thought they were both bad doctors. They had been going on making their patient worse and worse for forty-seven years; and he thought that the patient must, therefore, be incurable, or that the doctors were bad. Compared with the temporary measures of the Government, he thought that the measure of the noble Lord the Member for Lynn was a good one, and he would, therefore, support it. With the exception of temporary measures, all that was offered to Ireland was a poor law, which they took care never to apply to England, for even under the old poor-law the right of out-door relief to the able-bodied poor was not acknowledged. He was opposed to such a measure for Ireland, because he knew the great expenses incurred by such a system. As a manager of the Mendicity Institution in Dublin, he could state that for years past that establishment had supported 3,000 persons at just one half the expense at which they could be maintained in the workhouses. ["Question!"] That was the question. The question was by which of two measures they should be taxed, and he wished to give his reasons for preferring the measure of the noble Lord to the Irish Poor Law Bill of the Government.

Sir, the hon. Member for the county of Limerick, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, have asked my noble Friend the Member for Lynn to postpone the Bill, which now stands the first among the Orders of the Day, for Railways in Ireland. I rise for the purpose of putting to my noble Friend a prayer of an exactly opposite description. I wish that the noble Lord would proceed immediately with this Bill, as it now stands for the second reading; and if the noble Lord thinks that it is too late on this evening to proceed with the consideration of that Bill, I shall be quite ready to give him any priority he may require to-morrow. But that which I do object to, and which I do strongly object to, is, that this Bill should be postponed for a fortnight, leaving the whole matter in uncertainty in the meantime—leaving it a matter of uncertainty what is the plan which the Legislature will adopt, and what is to be the course of action which the Government of this country is to take. Sir, my noble Friend, in bringing forward this Motion, stated, that he had brought it forward by no means as a party Motion; and I do think my noble Friend will say that I did not answer him at all in the spirit of party. But, Sir, I was obliged to say on that occasion, and I feel now still more obliged to say, what view I take of his measure in reference both to our general policy as regards Ireland, and also as relates to the finances of the country. We cannot but feel that we are responsible for the management of those finances. We cannot but feel that we are responsible for the application of very large sums to the relief of Irish distress, and for the application of that relief in the manner which in our opinion will be most efficacious, and which will enable this country to be ready to give that support which is necessary for a most immediate and most pressing and most urgent case of distress. Now, Sir, I was therefore led to say—and I feel now that I am under the obligation to say—whether I considered or not that the borrowing of 16,000,000l. for the purpose of laying them out in railroads in Ireland, was consistent, in our opinion, with that which ought to be the policy of the Government of this country. I could not speak as if it were any very small sum of money, or any inferior or doubtful matter of legislation, or as if it were a matter of indifference to the country whether this should be a part of the general finances of the year or not. I am obliged to say, and as long as I fill the situation which I have now the honour to hold, I shall not hesitate in such cases from declaring, whether I entirely adopt the plan of the noble Lord, or whether I think that it ought to be rejected; and I have no hesitation in stating my opinion that that plan ought to be rejected, and that it is not consistent with the plan of the finances of the year which we think it our duty to adopt. Sir, if the House should agree to go into the consideration of this question, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I shall be prepared to state our reasons why we have come to that conclusion; but at present all that I ask of my noble Friend to do is, to take one of two courses—either to bring this question to an immediate decision, in order that the House may know, and that the country may know, what is to be the policy which is to be pursued, or else to give up entirely his plan for the present Session. I do not care which of the two courses the noble Lord takes, I am ready to enter into the discussion. I am ready (if he thinks proper) to see it abandoned. I will tell him fairly at once, that though I do not wish to commit the Government either to adopt or reject any scheme for the promotion of railways in Ireland—for it would be imprudent so to commit the Government—yet I will say, on the other hand, that I do not think or expect that in the course of the present Session we shall have any large or distinct measure to produce for the promotion of railways on the part of Her Majesty's Government. I therefore do not wish to induce any man to vote against the noble Lord on this occasion from an expectation that we shall bring forward another measure which would ensure the expenditure of any similar sum of money. I will not say more now than that I think the plan of my noble Friend in 1839 was a wise plan, and that such is my general opinion on the subject; but I think that I have said enough to show I have a fair right to ask—and I think the House has a fair right to ask—that my noble Friend should not listen to the proposition that is now made to postpone his measure. After stating the general nature of my objections the other night, the noble Lord, after hearing those objections, got up at the end of the discussion, and said that it was the intention of himself and his Friends to put forward and bring to a decision this question. Sir, I have no objection to that determination. If the plans of my noble Friend are those approved of by the House and by the country, let them be adopted. All that we ask is, to have the opinion of the House on the subject, or that my noble Friend will cease to urge it on the consideration of Parliament this Session.

said, he was not one of those who thought they should let a question with which the monetary interests of this country were so deeply concerned, be postponed for a fortnight, for he thought that these great interests would be affected by such a matter being left hanging in suspense for such a length of time. He thought that hon. Gentlemen who asked for a postponement of the question were not justified in so doing by their own views. His hon. Friend the Member for Limerick said, he supported the Bill because he thought it would give immediate relief to the labouring population. Now, he was for going on at once with the Bill for that very reason. The noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government should remember that after the month of April the population would be totally unemployed, except in agricultural labour; and if no system of employment were introduced, many would then be idle. He supported the measure also, because he was of opinion that it would put an end to the wasteful system of expenditure that was now going on in Ireland, and which was at the same time draining this country of immense sums of money, and bringing a great deal of unnecessary odium on Ireland and her people. For these reasons he had listened to the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Lynn the other night with great satisfaction; and if the noble Lord went on with his Motion, he should be prepared to prove that the measure of the noble Lord was much better than the system of lending money to the landlords. For these reasons he would join his request to that of the noble Lord the Member for London, that the Motion should not be postponed.

observed, that if the Irish Members did not now support the measure of the noble Lord the Member for Lynn, they would not deserve to have it brought forward on any future occasion.

said, it appeared to him to be very difficult for the noble Lord the Member for Lynn to decide what course to take under the circumstances in which he was placed. He was not at liberty to tell the secrets of the prison house, or else he would mention to the House the result of a meeting of Irish Members that had taken place that day. ["Order!"] If he could not allude to the meeting, he had, at all events, a right to speak of what occurred afterwards. The Irish Members met in conclave, and they came to this conclusion almost unanimously, and after having entered into a long discussion, which he should be extremely sorry, at this period of the debate, to repeat to the House, that, under all the circumstances, it would be desirable that the noble Lord the Member for Lynn should postpone his Motion to a more convenient opportunity. He was merely giving a simple narrative, and he had not, individually, up to the present moment, expressed any opinion of his own on the matter. They conveyed, in the most respectful manner, their sentiments to the noble Lord; and they had been subsequently led to believe, that the noble Lord, in the most courteous manner, conveyed to them an intimation that he was willing, on the present most important occasion, to be guided by the opinions of the Irish Members. He would not have risen on the present occasion if he had not seen the extraordinary predicament in which the noble Lord was placed. He said this from seeing two Irish Members calling on the noble Lord to withdraw his Motion, while two others begged of him to go on. There was no Irish Member less disposed than he was to act in a spirit of hostility to Her Majesty's present Government; but having a few days ago stated his opinion that the measure of the noble Lord was eminently calculated to benefit the country in the present state of almost mendicancy to which it was reduced, and having also stated that he was one of those who felt bound to give that measure his most unqualified support, he certainly would not shrink from that promise; and while he hoped and trusted the noble Lord would consent to a postponement, yet if the noble Lord felt himself to be so trammelled that he must go on that evening, he felt himself unquestionably bound as a man of honour and a gentleman, and as one who did not wish to compromise his character in any way, not to shrink from the pledge which he had given, and he would therefore divide with the noble Lord.

had never listened to a discussion which gave him more pain than the present. In the very first instance there was a difference of opinion between hon. Gentlemen from Ireland. He had hoped to have seen an unanimous feeling on this subject; but here were they hampered between two contending impressions—approbation of a principle which most of them thoroughly approved, and apprehension of danger to their country by checking the measures of Government, which, though only temporary, were of vital importance to the interests of Ireland. He had hoped, he said, to have seen Irish Members unanimous in supporting the principle of the Bill, which was not so much the advance of 16,000,000l. as the introduction of railways into Ireland by means of the credit of Great Britain; and that it would have been disembarrassed of the other grave question which was now mixed up with it. But, unfortunately for Ireland, it was her curse that her representatives could never agree, even upon matters the most vital. He must himself own that he had been disappointed at the course of the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown, at his pressing upon the noble Lord the Member for Lynn to move the second reading of his Bill, for he was one of those who were inclined to support the policy of the Government, and therefore it seemed hardly fair for the noble Lord to press for a decision on the measure. Hon. Members from Ireland were placed thereby in a most embarrassing situation. How to choose between two evils was a matter of considerable difficulty—a matter so difficult, that, but for the recollection of the principle that, in this case, the boldest course was the best, he should have been at a loss how to decide. If there had been any chance, he should have added his request to those of his Friends to the noble Lord (Lord G. Bentinck) to postpone the second reading; but he feared that, after the call of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), one from him would have very little weight. If, therefore, the measure went on, he should leave the responsibility of it upon the noble Lord and his followers.

Sir, I feel in a very painful and difficult position. "No change has come over the spirit of my dream." As I was upon the first day of the Session, so I am now, deeply impressed with the conviction that the measure which I have introduced to the House, is one in which the dearest interests of Ireland are vitally concerned. Sir, it is true, as has been stated by the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. S. Butler), that at four o'clock to-day I received a requisition from three or four and thirty Members of both Houses of Parliament, all gentlemen from Ireland, requesting that I would postpone my Motion for the second reading of this Bill to some future day. I confess, Sir, with my feelings, that that proposition gave me the deepest pain, inasmuch as I am deeply impressed with the conviction that there has been no measure proposed by Her Majesty's Ministers for the immediate relief to the people of Ireland, for immediate relief to the burdened finances of this country, that can come into comparison with that which, on behalf of my party, it has been my honour to introduce to the House. But, Sir, though such were my feelings, I was prepared, at the united request of the Irish Gentlemen, to forego my own wishes, and so were my Friends, though many of them had been summoned here—my English and Scotch Friends—from the furthest corners of England and Scotland, and from foreign parts, to support this Motion. Though some of them, I say, had come from foreign parts, still I felt there was not a man among them who, from the warm sympathy he felt with the calamities of Ireland, at this present time, would for a moment have weighed his convenience against the convenience of the Irish people. And, therefore, when I was told there had been a meeting at the Foreign Office, at which a notice had been given by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, that he intended to stake the existence of the Government upon this measure; and when the Irish Gentlemen told me that great inconvenience would arise to Ireland if the measures for the temporary relief of the destitute poor, and the other measures of Her Majesty's Ministers, were to be indefinitely postponed by a change of Government, I was prepared for a short time to postpone my Motion for the second reading of this Bill. Sir, I must say again that I have heard with the deepest regret the announcement from the First Minister of the Crown, that the fate of the Government must be staked upon this measure. Sir, upon the first day of the Session, Her Majesty charged us that it would be our duty "to consider what measures would be required to alleviate the existing distress in Ireland;" further, Her Majesty told us She had likewise to direct our earnest consideration to the permanent condition of Ireland; and Her Majesty was graciously pleased to say to us—

"You will perceive in the absence of political excitement an opportunity for taking a dispassionate survey of the social evils which afflict that part of the United Kingdom."

In humble obedience to Her Majesty's commands, I did hope that the same impartial consideration would be given by Her Majesty's Ministers to any measures proceeding from this side of the House, which we have shown so warm a wish to bestow upon the measures of my noble Friend. That wish has not been shown in public alone. In private I have staked my honour to my noble Friend, that neither I nor any of my party have the smallest desire to make any measures connected with Ireland the battle-field of party. I am here to-night again to repeat that assurance to my noble Friend and to the country; and my right hon. Friend the Lord Mayor of York is ready to offer his still more valuable assistance, without fee or reward from Her Majesty's Government, in carrying those measures into execution. I did, therefore, hope that we might have come to the consideration of this question with all party and political feelings merged. But, Sir, since I am challenged by the First Minister of the Crown—willing as I am to pay attention to the requests of Gentlemen from Ireland, I feel that when the Queen's Minister, who is responsible for the safety of the country, tells me that it is for the advantage of that country that this measure should be forthwith discussed, and speedily decided, I feel I should be wanting in duty to Her Majesty, as well as to my country, if I were to hesitate in persevering now with my Motion. And, Sir, whatever may be the result, however important the consequences, upon my head is not the responsibility. Should it be the pleasure of Her Majesty's Ministers, in the present difficulties of Ireland, to desert the helm of State, great as I admit those difficulties to be—greater than any which, any previous Government has ever encountered in the conduct of the affairs of Ireland—my Friends are not appalled at those difficulties, and will not shrink from any responsibility which, unsought, may be forced upon us.

said, he was not very often in the habit of supporting any proposition that came from the Treasury Bench. He did not, however, like to see what he thought an injustice done on any occasion; and he thought that unless some Members not connected with Ireland expressed their feelings, very unfair impressions might go abroad as to the present condition of Her Majesty's Government. The noble Lord opposite had endeavoured to fix upon the noble Lord at the head of the Government the imputation of making this what he called a party question. A simple statement, he was sure, would carry conviction to the mind of the noble Lord opposite, that the noble Lord at the head of the Government could do nothing but that which he had done. The noble Lord (Lord G. Bentinck) said, that at the commencement of the Session, he told his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) he did not wish to make Ireland the battle-field of party. But he had since placed on the Table of the House a measure which, if carried, must materially affect the financial position of the country. Supposing this measure to be successful, was not the noble Lord called upon, in justice to himself, to say whether he would bear the responsibility of it, added to, and superinduced upon, and overbearing his own. The noble Lord merely said, "If the House of Commons pass this Bill, all I can reply is, it is not my act, and I will not be burdened with the responsibility of carrying it into effect." Was this making it a party question? What was the meaning and feeling of responsibility, if the noble Lord had not taken a correct and common-sense view of it? He (Mr. Roebuck) would tell the noble Lord the Member for Lynn, that if there ever was a person who ought to be accused of making this a party question, it was the noble Lord himself, and those who concurred with him. The noble Lord the Member for Newark (Lord J. Manners) had made some very significant statements upon this very question: whenever he had the opportunity, he had appealed to the Gentlemen from Ireland. "It is not we," he said, "that are opposed to the progress of Ireland." He did the same as to the Factory Act. He had distinctly stated—

"My noble Friend and myself, and all who follow him, are determined to bring this matter to an issue; we will press it upon the House of Commons."

And, turning to the noble Lord, he continued—

"If a majority of this House decide to carry this Bill, he will not interpose the prerogative of the Crown to stop the decision."

The noble Lord, however, said, he would not be responsible for the measure if it were carried; and that was a wise determination. It was not, then, to be "a party question," but a question of mere "convenience" to Irish Members. What was the meaning of "convenience" to Irish Members? There were two or three measures upon the Table affecting Irish landlords; and the "convenience" of Gentlemen from Ireland signified the convenience of that party. "Give us," they said, "as much as you can from your side of the House (the Ministerial), and when we have squeezed you dry, bring in the plan of the noble Lord, and give us something more." He would not mince phrases. The House had been told all sorts of strange things by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Grattan), as regarded the way in which England had dealt with Ireland. When the time arrived for that discussion, there should be no misapprehension—there should be no soothing phrases. If they were to speak the truth, the truth should be spoken. Let the House go into the discussion of this Bill. But the hon. Member behind him (Mr. P. Butler) had let out the secret. This measure, which was said to be for the immediate relief of the poor of Ireland, was to be delayed for the "convenience" of Irish Members. "For God's sake," exclaimed the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. S. O'Brien), "do not bring this Bill in tonight, because some of us shall be forced, in strict conformity with our notions of duty, to support the Government." ["No, no!"] Yes, yes! There was a split in the camp at the solemn conclave; it was dangerous; and the hon. Member for Limerick was put forward as a stop-gap to give the noble Lord the Member for Lynn a plausible pretence for not bringing on the question. Let him, however, say one word for England. Here we had a "great party." The noble Lord (Lord G. Bentinck) called it "my party." This "great party" had been called from all the four quarters of the globe, he supposed, paying no regard to personal convenience, not for English convenience, but for Irish "convenience." They had been called together to agitate the question of this Bill, which materially affected the whole financial and mercantile interests of the country. He therefore said, as one who felt an interest in the well-being of his country, it was the duty of the noble Lord (Lord G. Bentinck) to bring this question to an immediate issue; and he was glad that, in spite of Irish "convenience," the noble Lord had been forced to bring it to an immediate conclusion.

, amidst calls to "go on," and, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, moved, that the Bill be read a second time to-morrow.

, as he had already stated, was quite ready to give the noble Lord precedence to-morrow, upon the understanding that no objection was made to the third reading of the Relief of Destitute Persons Bill.

proposed the addition of a proviso, to follow Clause 10:—

"That it shall be Lawful for distillers to warehouse, for home consumption, Spirits distilled from Sugar, without payment of the Duty of Excise."

The clause was mainly grounded on the allegation of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had stated that it was his desire to place the manufacturer of colonial and British spirits upon precisely the same footing. His object was, to permit spirits distilled in Scotland and Ireland to be bonded in England. The Bill, as it at present stood, would be a perfect nonentity.

said, he must resist the Motion, as unfair to the distiller of grain. It was calculated to give an advantage to the distiller of sugar, to which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not think he was entitled.

wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he intended in any other Bill to place the spirits distilled in Ireland and Scotland on the same footing as spirits distilled in Jamaica? The latter was allowed to be bonded in this country; the former was not—why this inequality?

said, the present Bill, which was the only question before the House, was intended to place upon the same footing spirits distilled from grain and spirits distilled from sugar. It did not embrace the point alluded to by the hon. Member.

said, at another time the question of the hon. Member might afford subject for discussion; but at present it had nothing whatever to do with the matter before the House.

, the deputy serjeant, advanced to the Table of the House, and announced that having found a stranger in the Members' gallery, he had, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, taken him into custody.

stated, that the gentleman who had been taken into custody was a personal friend of his own. He was unacquainted with the numerous passages in and about that part of the House, and having been misdirected by a policeman, he had unfortunately stumbled into the Members' gallery. The occurrence was quite accidental, and he begged to move that he be discharged out of custody.

seconded the Motion, and it was at once agreed to.