The Sun. — London, England, 1836-05-18 00:00:00

N~ " r~ ~+ ~ _ ~.1 ' 4 - .1 SECON 1) ED.2.TION. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT, HOUSE OF COMMONS. The SPEXICER took the Chair at the usual hour. PERLETHORPE CHAPELRY. Mr. E. DENNISON brought up the Report of the Committee on the above Bill. CARLISLE DOCKS BILL. _ This Bill was read a third time, on the motion of Mr. HOWARD. gether the regulations to whi sons were stated, they could The SPEAKER said ' application since the Resolu not know that it was corref Lord COLE brought up the Report on the Ulster Canal Bill. On the motion of Mr. LOWTHER, the York and North Midland Railway Bill was read a third time and passed. Mr. TOWNLEY moved the third reading/of the Over Inclosure Bill. Dr. BOWRING felt bound to oppose the passing of this Bill. There was scarcely five acres of waste land in the whole parish, which could be of little importance to the five great proprietors who were the promoters of the Bill ; though, to the poor, it was of incalculable advantage, and, if taken away, many of them would be obliged to go to the workhouse. He hoped the poor would find defenders in thet House, they could not do so, so easily as the rich could employ counsel, therefore he hoped the Bill would not pass. The matter here suddenly dropped. Whether the Bill was read or not it was impossible to say. Mr. BOWES moved that the South Durham Railway Committee have leave to report up to the 17th June. Mr. PEASE moved that they might have leave to sit during the hollidays. Lord STANLEY opposed the motion, but was not heard in the gallery. Mr. D. W. HARVEY said, that to comply with his motion would be tantamount to a repeal of part of the re• gulation upon Railways.—(Hear.( The motion was, that the South Durham Committee have an extension of time to make their report. It appeared to him that no audible reason had been given—(A laugh)—the conversation that was carried on across the table respecting the motion, was wholly inaudible.) There had been a good deal of compa ratively silent conversation, but if there were any grounds for the motion it was desirable that the House should hear them. Unless the motion wlts a matter of course, the House ought to hear the facts and the reasons assigned for the motion. There was a recognised regulation of the House that no report should be received upon a Rail-road Com mittee after the 6th June, and this motion being to extend the period to the 17th, some reason should be given for it. The motion with which they had complied in the Brighton case was not an analogous case to the present, inasmuch as in the Brighton Committee there were two conflicting lines and two contemplated lines, referred to them. There were four lines to be adjudicated iy con sumed more of time then cam , scribed and therefore that case justif whole some rula. Unless they w alto- rea ion. second he did that, as there a similar applie; ,s the House would proceed to were altogether useless. He we , whe ther, in point of fact, there wou.- _ Jnience in this mode of proceeding,V.—when a Committee was desirous of making an appigation of this nature, they should present a special report, stating the grounds of the applica tion, the number of days they had sat, of the witnesses exa mined, and whether the report had beeniagreed to by the whole of the Committee, or if not, by what proportion of it, and on that Report being printed with the votes, the House would be able to come to a fair and reasonable de cision. —( Hear, hear.) Sir M. W. RIDLEY concurred in all that had fallen from the Speaker, but trusted that under the very pecu liar circumstances in which the Committee were placed, the House would grant them a further extension of time. . After a full observations from Lord STANLEY and Sir J. GRAHAM, Mr- BOWES gave notice that he should renew his ap plication on Tuesday week. DUNDEE AND NEWTYLE RAILWAY. On the motion of Mr. CHALMERS, the Dundee and Newtyle Railway was read a third time and passed. GLASGOW AND FORFAR RAILWAY. Mr. HOPE JOHNSTON brought up the Report of the Committee on the Glasgow and Forfar Railway Bill. MANCHESTER AND LEEDS RAILWAY. On the motion of Lord STANLEY, the Manchester and Leeds Railway Bill was read a third time, and passed. NEWRY NAVIGATION. On the motion of Mr. , BRADY, the Newry Navigation Bill was read a thimPtime and ppssed. Mr. PENDARVES brought up the Report on the Panett Navigation. Sir G. CLERK presented a petition from the Trustee to the Earl of Str,ithmore, against the Tees Water Works Bill. y. The third ruff the North of Ireland Railway Bill • having been moved, - M r . Hurr felt that his duty compelled him to move that the be read. a third time that day six months. This was Stated to be a part of a great railway to connect' the two capitals .of Great Britain ; but it went only 30 miles, leaving 100 miltiaAdone on the one side, and 200 on the other. Mr. T. ATT WOOD seconded the motion. Mr. PEASE said that of all the= speeches he had ever heard since he come into the House, the one he had just heard astonished him'the most. 'He would only ask the Hon. Member whether he bad ever hear&or read the evi dence that had been giveij,efore the Cdtp,mittee Mr. HUTrtuuld asstf6a his Hon. Friend that he was not in the habit of stating what was incorrect. He had been several tim..‘s in the comini4te-room, and had heard quite sufficient from the evide*of several persons ther e sufficiently to verify th e f ac t related. Mr. PEASE did not reeollak, seeing the lion. Member momthan three or four times in thACommitte-room, awl that only for tan minutes together. There had been several engineers examined, arid tiiey. l )ad all united that it was one of the best ; lines itat ctiiald have been suggested. The design and estimates were approved of. There had ken no division in the Committee on the subject ; and now, when everything had been approved of by the Com mittee, a new line was suggested. Mr. A. TREVOR, had never in his life heard of any measure the necessity and obvious justice of which was more clearly proved. He could not believe that there would be any serious opposition to a measure which was so loudly called for by the county of Durham. Mr. H. HUGHES protested against the measnrc, and would most cordially unite in opposing it. Mr. BOWES would merely state, that it was his inten tion to vote for the third reading, but lie did so entirely in deference to the opinions of his constituents. (LEFT SITTING.) upon, and conseziently they Mme within the 1 itude presc ificd the deviation from a w vere prepared to 'hich the coral'. cgs good d not comp.* 0; his moti that this Jialitieen the se ution ec i the Hese, and h act ; but he wohld suggest cation o be made, unless say *rat these resolutions mlOuggest to the House, wiSuld not be some conven HOUSE OF LORDS. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack five minutes after 5 o'clock. MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS. Lord STANLEY, Mr. P. HOWARD, Mr. BAINES, and several 'other Honourable Members brought up from the Commons the following Bills amongst others—the Carlisle Docks' Bill, the York and North Midland Railway Bill, the Leeds and Manchester Railway Bill, which were severally read a first time. (LEFT SITTING. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. ROUSE OF COMMONS, MAY 17. The SPEAKER took the chair at the usual hour. Messrs. West and Hamilton were then introduced as Members for Dublin ; the former by Lords Colo and Lin coln—the latter by Sir R. Bateson and Colonel Perceval. They were received with cheers by the Tory party. After being sworn, they took their scats on the front of the Op position Bench. The affair seemed to cause a considerable ferment among the old Orange party. A sort of levee was held behind the chair—all the regular old Tories being anxious to congratulate the Hon. Members. Mr. V. STUART brought up the Report of the Com mittee on the Lynn Navigation Bill. Mr. CLAY presented a petition from an individual against the Eastern Counties Railway Bill, and also a petition from St. Anne's, Middlesex, against the London and Blackwall Railway Bill. Mr. BAINES presented a petition from the" hankers and merchants of Leeds signed by upwards of 500 sub scribers in favour of the Leeds and Manchester Railway Bill. DROGHEDA RAIL WAY. Mr. M. O'CONNELL presented a petition from New church, in favour of this Bill, and a petition from Dunboyne against it. SOUTH DURHAM RAILWAY. Mr. A. TREVOR presented a petition from the Mar quis of Londonderry, praying this Bill. to be heard by counsel against On the motion of Mr. LYNCH, the Galway Improve ment Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be com mitted. SOAP v. STAMPS. Sir C. KNIGHTLEY wished to know from the Right leave to bring in a Bill to enable them to sue and be sued in the name of their Secretary. . ~1. A of the Exchequer, when Ge tiernari, the chancellor he intended to bring forward the repeal of the stamp duties upon Newspapers, as he (Sir C. K.) had a motion to make in the way of an amendment to repeal the duty upon soap instead of the duty upon Newspapers. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER pro posed before the holidays to commit the Bill pro jimna, say on Friday next ; but he would fix the discussion to come on between the Honourable Baronet and himself for the first Friday after the holidays. On that clay he would move that the House do resolve itself into a Committee upon the Excise Acts, as well as the Stamp Acts, in order to give the Hon. Baronet an opportunity of moving his proposition as a substantive one, and also to give him the most favourable opportunity of taking the opi nion of the House upon it. IRISH CORPORATION BILL. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL presented a petition from Dudley in favour of the Irish Municipal Corporation Bill. DUTY ON NEWSPAPERS. Mr. HAWES presented a petition for the total repeal of the duty on Newspapers ; also, a petition from the Churchwardens of Lambeth against the Turnpike Trust Consolidation Bill. JEWISH DISABILITIES. . _ The HoN. MEMBER then presented a petition from an individual, praying that no Bill with reference to the remo val of Jewish Disabilitie, might pass into a law. The Hon. Member stated he could not concur in the prayer of the petition. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Sir, I rise to give notice that, on the Tuesday after the Holi days, I shall move for leave to bring in a Bill to remove the civil disabilities affecting his Majesty's Jewish subjects. —(Hear, hear, hear.) Mr. WILBRAHAM presented a petition from a pa rish, the name of which we did not hear, complaining of injury to their right of franchise, in consequence of the conduct of the Revising Barristers under the Registry Bill. He hoped the Attorney-General would take means to reme dy the evil in the new Act. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—If the Honourable Gentleman will introduce a clause, declaring that the Bar risters shall do no wrong, and if he will undertake to make it effectual, he will most decidedly have my sup port. But if he only declares by it that the Barristers will not act in a particular way, and yet leave them to the exercise of their own judgment, I fear his object cannot be attained. NEWCASTLE AND NORTH SHIELDS RAIL- WAY. On the motion of an HoN. MEMBER the further conside ration of the report of this Bill was proceeded with. Mr. YOUNG felt it his duty to move that the further progress of the Bill should be deferred till this day six months. Mr. BELL having had the conducting of the Bill, felt bound to state that this was a mere speculation— the report from the Committee showed an expected profit of 33,0001. per annum.—(Hear, hear, hear.) The public would not suffer in the least from the tax on the carriage on coals, as it was a mere question between the shareholder and the landowner. The coals would be carried cheaper on this Railroad than on any other in Northumberland. He hoped the House would now agree to consider of the Report. Colonel SIBTIIORP opposed the Bill. Mr. CHAPMAN also opposed the Bill. Mr. INGHAM supported the Bill. Sir M. W. RIDLE Y could fully explain the regulations of this Railroad. It bad been an invariable custom from time immemorial in Northumberland, Durham, and the great coal districts, that the coal owners were obliged to•come to some agreement with the landlords, to enable them to make railways for carrying coals over the land of the different individuals to the place of ship ment. They were obliged to make separate and distinct arrangements with every landlord. This railway would interfere with these agreements, which had been made for centuries, and the landowners, whose property was thus destroyed, felt that the proprietors of this railway were called upon in justice to make some compeniation for carrying the coals on the public railway, and compelling the landowners to give up the advantages which they de rived from the private railways. This was the whole mys tery of the opposition to this railway. The chief object of the Bill was to enable the coal-owners to convey their coal with greater facility than they had hitherto been able to do.—(Hear, hear.) He only wished that the House should be disabused on the subject before it came to a decision. After a observations from Mr. Bell and Mr. G. F. Young in explanation, strangers were ordered to withdraw. The Gallery was then cleared for a division, when there appeared— For the original motion . For the Amendment Majority 72 YORK AND NORTH MIDLAND RAILWAY. On the further consideration of this Bill being moved, Mr. POTTER proposed a clause of which he had given notice, to the effect, that no railway shall be made across any street or highway, or public bridle-way, or footpath on the level without the consent :n writing of some two justices of the peace for the county, acting for the division within which the street, &c., so to be crossed :shall be situate. After a few words from Mr. PARKER and Sir J. BECKETT, Mr. BAINES said the objectithis felt•hy the people of Leeds to the Bill, had been removed in a great measure, and they had that day confirmid their favourable opinion of it by sending s petition, signed by 10,000 persons in favour of it, although the petition had been only three days exposed for signature, although Leeds Would be subjected to all the inconveniences df which the people of Sheffield had complained. He was glad to hear from his Hon. and Learned Friend that an arrangement satisfactory to all parties was in progress, that it would give to Sheffield the advantages which were sought for, and by which the traffic would not be diverted from the usual line. On the whole, he believed that no railway could be better con stricted for the public good, and he was sure that none had ever received a more patient investigation. The clause was then agreed to. RAILROADS. Mr. MORRISON, in rising to submit the motion re specting Railways with which he meant to conclude, said he wished that some Honourable Gentleman more able to do justice to the subject had introduced it. He always felt the greatest reluctance in bringing himself to the notice of the House, and in claiming their indulgence on this occasion, he did so from the importance and magnitude of the interests which were involved in the subject he was about to submit to the House.—(Hear.) Honoura ble Members might differ from him as to the remedy lie was about to offer for the evils which he anticipated in the railroad speculations. He need not dwell upon the vast in crease made in the last year in the public conveyances of the country, and the enormously increased speed, which was of so much value to trade and commerce. The various joint stock companies, in railroads and other speculations for public expedition, must, in the opinion of every man quali fied to judge, ere long render almost useless the turnpike roads of the country by exceeding them in cheapness, speed, and consequently, in cost, for time was us valuable as money. He was too sensible of the great public advantage likely to be derived from public joint-stock companies to entertain any wish to discourage them ; quite the reverse. The Manchester and Liverpool Railroad was a proof that they were deserving of such encouragement ; but what he wanted to prevent was any detriment to the public in terest, by any undue and uncontrouled encouragement to private speculation. The railroad now in progress from London to Liverpool was calculated to cost, when finished, five millions sterling, and was it fit that such an enormous profit should exist for ever in the bands of a company as substantial monopoly without even the controul of Parlia ment ? In the competition that existed at one time for the supply of water to the metropolis the public benefitted but little ; for, after a short time, the different companies came to an arrangement among themselves, which deprived the public of all the advantages of competition. Owing to this cause it was that the shares in tho New River Company were now as high as 19,0001. and the shares in the Loughborough Canal and the Mersey Canal had risen equally high in proportion to their amount, and the dividend paid on thou. This showed clearly that competition was no security against monopoly, and that some other remedy was necessary. The obvious and proper remedy must be, that Parliament should have the right to interfere in the regulation from time to time of all public companies instituted under its sanction and authority. The first duty of Parliament was to see that public capital was not wasted in wild and thoughtless specu lation—such, for instance, as establishing a second railroad on a line where one would be amply sufficient for all pur poses. Suppose a railroad had been established in 1770 between London and Manchester, yielding then a moderate profit, would it not be impossible to say at what amount tho rate of profit might not have arrived now ? The value of the trade in cotton goods alone was now, he believed, 35,000,0001. sterling, and since the year 1770 the popu lation had more than quadrupled. But great as had been the increase of the wealth and population of the country fur the last fifty years, would it not be reasonable to ex pect, considering the vast improvements in machinery, and the operation of steam and other power, that in the next fifty years the increase would be greater ? Indeed this was almost certain, considering that agriculture, which in the last fifty years was in a backward state as to improve ment, was now on the march forward, with all the other great interests of the country. Thus; then, would the pro fits of the companies about to be now established arrive at an enormous height without any adequate advantage to the public. It was the duty, therefore, of Parliament to pro tect the public by the best means they could devise. Ho did not think that limiting the dividends to any particular ~~: ' ~ ~;~ THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 1836. amount would do much good. He looked upon any limita tion of rates as a still worse measure even than a limitation of dividends. And what, then, was to be done ? In his opinion, Parliament ought to reserve to itself the power of inquiring into the whole management of these companies, taking care always that the parties embarking their capital should receive a fair remuneration for the outlay. Parlia ment had a right to impose conditions on these companies, as they did upon turnpike-road trusts, which, he believed, were limited to 21 years. The Americans had far out stripped us in le g islation upon, as they had in the establish ment of, railroads. There was not a State in America that had not at this moment a railroad in it, but the duration of the present privileges of the different companies was limited to 20 years, and the dividend to ten per cent., and at the expiration of the twenty years the State had the right to pay off the capital invested at par, so that the railroad would become the property of the public. The Hon. Member then moved the following resolution : " That in all Bills for railways, or other public works of that description, it be made a condition, with a view to the protection of the public interests, which might otherwise be seriously compromised, that the dividends be limited to a certain rate, or that power be reserved to Parliament of revising and fixing, at the end of every twenty years, the tolls chargeable." The re — solution having been seconded, Mr. GISBORNE was not disposed to object to the latter part of the resolution, which went to give Parliament the power of revising the tolls after a certain number of years, but he thought twenty years too short a limit. He would extend it to twenty-five years. He hoped, if the House should agree to the resolution, that the Hon. Gen tleman would follow it up by introducing a Bill upon the subject. Lord STANLEY said that the Hon. Member who had brought forward this resolution, deserved the best thanks both of the House and the country. The speculations in railroads at the present moment were of so extensive and wild a nature, that they were nothing short of a popular mania. While he said this, however, and agreed fully in the principle of the resolution before the House, he could not concur in the wording of it. He was quite opposed to fixing any maximum or minimum as a dividend. He was, however, decidedly favourable to a periodical revision of the tolls by Parliament. A railroad must necessarily be a mo nopoly. He would support that part of the Hon. Member's proposition, which went to the revision of the tolls every twenty years, and he hoped the Hon. Member would follow up his resolution by introducing a Bill upon the subject, in which an ex post facto clause should be introduced, extend ing the Bill to the different companies that had already been sanctioned by an Act of Parliament. Mr. P. THOMSON should not agree to the resolution unless a Bill were to be founded on it, and that the provi sions of that Bill should be made to extend to the compa nies that had already received Parliamentary sanction. It would be unfair to apply the rule to one set of companies and not to all. He considered that twenty-one years would be a proper limitation, but that could be settled in the Committee. He was of opinion that there should be also a return required of a statistical nature, such as the num ber of passengers conveyed, and the charges incurred. He trusted that the House would allow his Hon. Friend to withdraw his present motion, and move for leave to bring in a Bill, and when that Bill was brought in, he hoped it would meet with the attention of the House. Lord SANDON was inaudible, but was understood to express himself in favour of Parliamentary control. Mr. HUME said it would not be just unless all the companies which had obtained Acts were included. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ex pressed a hope that a clause would be introduced in that or in any other Bill for the construction of railroads, compelling the proprietors to take his Majesty's mails at the same price that they took all other goods. Mr. MORRISON was willing to adopt the amendment that had been suggested to him, and would therefore move for leave to bring in a Bill to provide for the periodical re vision of Parliamentary railroad tolls. Mr. E. DENISON wished it to be distinctly understood by both sides of the House, that the retrospection was to apply, not ds had been suggested, to those companies which had obtained their Bills during the present session, but also to those companies which had obtained their Acts prior to the present session. Unless this were done Parlia ment would be guilty of a manifest injustice. Leave was then giveh. tended with necessary difficulties at almost every step. He by no means argued, however, against an inquiry, but merely against the form of inquiry proposed by this motion. It would still remain a question whether or not an inquiry should not be instituted under the direction of that House, either through the medium of a Select Committee, or by any other means. The reason he had assigned was, he conceived, sufficient ground for opposing -the present mo tion, although he by no means wished to. be understood as objecting to inquiry. Mr. GULLY rose amidst loud calls of his name. He (Mr. Gully) had heard Mr. O'Connell accuse the Hon. • Member for Bradford of having spent 7,0401. in bribing the electors of Pontefract, an accusation which was after wards repeated, and to which he (Mr. Gully) had been in duced to give attention, from the circumstance of his not having heard a contradiction or explanation of it, as well as from another incidental circumstance, which at the same time had come to his knowledge. That circumstance was the fact, that it it was a current rumour at the time when Mr. Raphael was candidate for Pontefract, that more money had been spent by Mr. Raphael on that occasion than had been spent since his (Mr. Hardy's) election. Within the last three days, however, he (Mr. Gully) had received a letter from one of his own constituents, who stated therein that he had a great mind to send Mr. O'Connell a letter which he had himself received from Mr. Hardy, in which he stated the exact amount the Pontefract election had cost him.—(Hear.) This he (Mr. Gully) merely stated as being the rumour—nothing more ; but at the same time he had no doubt that the writer of the letter he had received would deliver the letter referred to into his (Mr. Gully's) hands, in order to corroborate the statement made. These circumstances had made him (Mr. Gully) think it rather extraordinary that the Hon. Member for Bradford should not before have demanded an inquiry into the circumstances alleged against him. Mr. HARDY challenged the Hon. Member for Pon tefract to produce any letter from him to any person, and to read it to the House. Mr. GULLY had no doubt that he would be supplied with the. letter referred to by the writer of the letter to him. Colonel BRUEN should support the motion of the Hon. Member for Greenock.—(Hear, hear.) It had been asserted that there had been a combination on the part of the 'landlords in the county of Carlow to extirpate from their possessions all tenants professing the Roman Catholic creed. Now, in the first place, he would meet this charge with a plain and distinct denial.—(Hear, hear.) There was no foundation for the charge. He did main tain, and he thought he should not be opposed in his posi tion, that a landlord had a perfect right to dispose of his property in the manner he might think most fitting, without his being liable to be interfered with by that House or by any other power. (" Hear, hear," from the Ministerial Benches.) He maintained that a landlord had a right to take a farm from a tenant who did not make it productive, and to transfer it to another tenant, who had better claims. (Hear.) Before the system of agitation had been com menced there was not a more peaceable county in Ire land than the county of Carlow ; but such had' been the effects of that system, that unless the law was better ad ministered, the landlords would be compelled to combine in defence of their lives and liberties, and the consequence must be a serious collision. The landlords had a right to do what they pleased with their . own—( Hear, hear)----so long as they confined themselves within the limits of the present law. The Hon. and Gallant Member then proceeded to answer, in detail, some of the allegations of the Hon. Member for Greenock. The Hon. Member had complained that the Carlow landlords did not give their tenants receipts in full ; but the fact was that the manner in which Irish tenants paid their rents was such as to preclude the possibility of receipts in full being given. They paid when, how, and what they liked, and frequently not at all ; and it was ex tremely difficult to see how receipts in full could be given to tenants who got rid of their obligations in this manner. —(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Then, as regarded Captain Woodcock. He (Colonel Bruen) remembered that ten years ago Captain Woodcock had been prosecuted for poaching on his (Colonel Bruen's) grounds, and that the result of that prosecution bad been the conviction of Cap tain Woodcock, who found that his knowledge of the Eng lish law would not apply to Ireland. The fine was not levied, because the object of the prosecution had not been vindictive. but merely to show Captain Wood cock that he could not shoot the game of the Irish land lords with impunity. On another occasion the same in dividual had been brought to the bar of the House of Lords on the complaint of a Peer, and had there made a public apology. He was let off without payment of the tees from motives of consideration on the part of their Lordships. But the point which he (Colonel Bruen) more particularly wished to impress on the House was the state of ,the county of Carlow. Such was the system pursued there by the Roman Catholic party, that every man voting for the Conservative candidates did so at the risk of his life or property.—( Hear.) Mr. HOPE expressed his (I , :sire to forward the in quiry in any way that was calculated to bring it to a sa tisfactory issue. The lion. Member, in referring to the petition of Mr. Vigors, had omitted to read the name of Lord Beresford, although that nobleman was mentioned therein ; and this he (Mr. Hope) took as a tacit admission that the Hon. Member did not agree in the statement made against his Lordship. But in reference to that sub ject, he (Mr. Hope) would draw the attention of the (louse to a correspondence in a Dublin paper between a clergy man named Maher, a curate on Lord Beresford's estate, and a Roman Catholic priest named Tyrrell, brother of a gentleman of that name, examined before the Carlow Committee. The Henourable Gentleman then read extracts from the letters to which he referred, from which the following facts appeared :—The Rev. Mr. Maher had in a letter to the paper in question charged Lord Beresford with having ejected three tenants from their farms on account of their creed. To this the Rev. Mr. Tyrrell replied (in a Catholic Journal, under the control of the Priesthood) that no ejectment whatever had been served in respect of the farms in question, and suggesting the propriety of Mr. Maher in future taking the trouble to inform himself before making similar charges. To this the Rev. Mr. Maher replied on the 20th of April, 1835, that he had been mistaken, and that the ejectments had been threatened only. There was then a further letter from the Rev. Mr. Tyrrell, mentioning various acts of kindness on the part of Lord Beresford as a landlord—as, for instance, allowing a poor tenant to hold a cabin and forty acres of land at no rent, and giving a cabin to an orphan family.— (The reading of these extracts was received with cheers by the House.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the Hon and Gallant Officer the Member for Carlow had used a significant phrase—a phrase the true import of which was well understood i n that House, although that House was the last place in which such a phrase should have been used. The Hon. and Gallant Officer had said, "he thought he had a right to do what he liked with his own."—(Cries of " Hear, hear," from the Ministerial benches, echoed back by ironical cheers from the Opposi tion.) With respect to the controul over his own property, no one was more ready to admit than he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was, that the Hon. and Gallant Officer had " a right to do as he pleased with his own ;" but then he must deny that any man had a right to use his property for the purpose of controuling the free exercise of the elec tive franchise.—(Hear.) Colonel BRUEN (interrupting)-1 did not state that I thought I had a right to do what I pleased with my own, without adding, provided I acted in every respect according to the laws of the land.—(Cheers.) The CHANCELLOR. of the EXCHEQUER would join issue with the Hon. and Gallant Member on his own declaration.—(Hear, hear.) Although a man might have " a right to do as he pleased with his own according to law," he was not justified in so exercising his legal rights as in effect to controul the opinion of others, and thereby violate the freedom of election.—(Hear, hear.) That would be a perversion of the law, and such conduct should be visited with the censure and animadversion of that House. Colonel BRUEN made an observation which was not audible in the gallery. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCI/Eold i llit s aid two persons on his side o f the Heilsil anted that the ,tenant should be allowed to vote for or against his landlord without deriving advantage or sustaining disadvantage. This was also his opinion ; but although the whole Of the grovo opposite was full of singing'-birds than Was no cheer for the sentiment.—(Laughter.) He was against all intimi dation.---(Hear, and renewed laughteo He VvaS as touch . averse to the intimidation or the Priests as he was hostile to the intimidation of the Landlords, for the one was just as detrimental to the freedom of choice in elections as the other. Such proceedings, with respect to the influence exercised by the landlords over their tenantry, were by no means of modern date in Ireland. So long back as 1795 an entry appeared on the journals of the Irish House of Commons which would show that such things were even then known in that country. He must say lie did not think it possible that an inquiry of this description could he prosecuted with effect, either in Carlow or any other county in Ireland. Could it he expected, he should like to know, that such a proceeding could be carried on amidst those unfortunate people whom the Hon. and Gal lant Officer had not hesitated to designate as savages (Hear.) It grieved him to hear such a description of the Irish people, coming as did from a countryman of his own —(Hear)—but he did not think that was the way to make matters better ; or, rather, he thought it was the way most calculated to aggravate and perpetuate - the unhappy dis cord which existed between landlords an d tenants in that country.—(Hear, hear.) if he were cal led upon to give any opinion on the subject, he would say that the state ments on both sides, whether on the part of the landlords or of the tenants, were greatly exaggerated, and the facts overcharged. He had no doubt that error was committed on both sides, but still it was to him a source of regret that the Clergy of any persuasion should so far forget their sacred functions as to mix themselves up in the excite ment, and take au active part in the business of elections. —(Hear, hear.) Believing the present motion to be not only contrary to all precedent; but unnecessary, he had no difficulty in refusing his assent to it.—( Hear , hear.) Mr. WARBURTON agreed with the Right Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that granting a Com mission for the purpose required would be any thing but judicious. Sir H. H A RDINGE agreed that a Commission would be as completely useless as a Committee of that House, because the whole subject had already been gone into by the Intimidation Committee. There had been so little to complain of as regarded the conduct of the landlords; that the Intimidation Committee did not think it necessary to prosecute their inquiry further, whether with respect to Carlow or any other county ; and h 3 knew that it was the opinion of many, if not of all the Members of the Com mittee, that the evidence taken was as full and complete as they could hope, by any means within their reach, to obtain. To talk of freedom of election in Carlow was a farce, for no such thing existed there. It was true that he had been accused, whilst Secretary of Ireland, of having carried the elections by the bayonet • but what was the evidence they had on that subject ? Why, that at the election of 1835 it would have been utterly impossible for any voter to exer cise his franchise freely without the protecting presence of the military. No such state of society existed in the known world ; but, as it was his opinion that granting a Commis sion would be of no advantage whatever, he should feel it his duty to oppose the motion. Mr. S. CRAWFORD said that the tenant in Ireland was completely dvendent on the landlord and entirely in his power. If the tenant at any time disobliged the land lord by opposing his wishes, the latter had ample means of annoyance in his hands. He knew-an instance in which a landlord had, in revenge for opposition on the part of a tenant, set fire to a quantity of turf belonging to him. The instances of landlords oppressing their tenantry were fre quent in man parts of Ireland. The Hon. Member pro ceeded to vindicate the Roman Catholic clergy for their in terference at elections, which be contended was quite jus tifiable. They were bound to endeavour to counteract the influence used_by the Protestant clergy and by the landlords. Sir ROBERT BATESON said - there was no influence so secret—there was no influence so absolute—so powerful, and he might add so deadly, as the influence which the Catholic Priest used in the confession. The Right Hon. Gentleman proceeded to contend that the intimidation of the Catholic clergy was a powerful and a dangerous intimi dation, and that no comparison could be made between that, and the exercise of the legitimate influence of the landlords. He believed that there was no better landlord than the Hon. Member for Carlow, nor one who had a stronger claim upon the regards of his tenantry. The Right Hon. Gentleman concluded by expressing his opposition to the motion, as being uncalled for and unnecessary. Mr. F. BRUEN—Sir, as I am on my legs, I must say, that I am unfeignedly rejoiced that the Hon. Member for Greenock has at last brought for Ward his promised motion. This motion is calculated to reveal the real facts of the case. Sir, a short time ago, it became absolutely necessary for 'public county purposes—viz., the building of a Courthouse, to remove many poor families from their dwellings, not te nants of the Hon. Member for Carlow county, nor having the slightest claim upon him. The Jury assembled to assess the value, aad gave a fair remuneration. What was the conduct of the depopulator of villages, the murderer by the slovi process of cold and hunger ? He actually, unsolicited, paid to each of these poor people double the amount awarded by the Jury, lest they should suffer loss or incon venience by removing.—(Cheers.) Does this argue a wish to turn poor people houseless on the world ?—(Cheers.) I rejoice, Sir, that in this attack on the gentry of the county of Carlow, they have been so happy in the selection of the individual in question. Neither he nor I have ever oppressed or persecuted, for political reasons, one individual elector.—(Hear, hear, hear.) The glaring fact is, that no elector has been put out ; and as for reli gious persecution, I can only say that since I came into the possession of my property, I have never turned out a single Catholic, but having at this moment nearly 3,000 English acres out of lease, covered with a Catholic popu lation, I . have divided the land among them in smaller por tions than in my judgment I thought prudent, even for their own well being, and have built last year fifteen slated houses, to preserve as far as in me lies, their comfort and happiness.—(Cheers.)—ls it not superhuman, I had almost said superchristian, forbearance in us not at once to have insisted on all 'that was due to us?—(Hear, hear)—but we in many instances forbore. What is the conduct of the opposite party if any freeholder dare to vote against them in one county ? Why the death's head and cross bones system is instantly put in action. Some soft-hearted individual among the fanatic rabble may pray for his soul, thcu;h that is against orders ; but no mercy in this world for his body. What say the priests from the very altars of the God of peace and love ? I quote evidence concerning Carlow now before this House :—" Put the brand of Cain on his forehead, hold no intercourse with him, assuage not his hunger, quench not his thirst, let the wife of his bosom spurn him from his own door—l shudder, says he, at the cruelty of the landlords demanding their rent. That is unheard-of Tory persecu tion, Without parallel in the annals of election oppression. I will visit these electors in the mitigated penalties of pro scription and massacre in this world, and eternal damnation in the next."---(Hear, hear.) And these are the very per sons that have sent this petition to the House. Any man who voted for Kavanagh or Bruen would be refused all re ligious rights, and run the risk of everlasting punishment. A freeholder, whose wife, in obedience to high spiritual orders closed the door against her husband, was found con cealed from his pursuers in a gorse cover, 24 hours after, in the month of December, at death's door, from the inten sity of the cold.—( Bear.) Has the field of agitation which has borne so rich a harvest to the Hon. Gentleman never been watered by the tear of the widow and the orphan ? Has the well-ordered compact first established in Carlow to defraud the Protestant Clergy of their lawful property, to dash the very food from their lips, to denounce them to a fanatic rabble, so that they are literally counted as sheep appointed to be slain—has that compact never been ce mented by the blood of husbands and parents ?—( Hear, hear.). I protest, Sir, if the cries of widows and orphans ring in the errs of these lay or clerical agitators, they must be the cries of his own victims. Ilow long will Hon. Gen tlemen opposite—English Gentlemen of probity and he nour—be deceived by the audacious fabrications circulated by the very people that are guilty ? How long will this House permit the atrocities which I have enumerated to be perpetrated, in order that a paramount influence may be gained,perfis ct nefas, which boldly steps forward in this House to beard King, Lords, and Commons—to trample under foot the laws of the country—to dismember the em pire, and drag captive at its chariot-wheels the executive Government of the country ? Sir, if inquiry be made, I have no doubt that for every two instances in which the votes of electors have been constrained by their landlords, 200,000 instances can be shown where they have been ex torted by the influence of the priest.—(Hear, hear, from the 'Opposition, and cries of " Oh," from the Ministerial side.) Mr. M. O'FERRALL said that having heard so much said of the generosity of the Member for the county of Carlow, he must take the liberty of stating how that ge nerosity was exercised. It was well known that some years ago the prices of agricultural produce had fallen so much that the tenants were quite unable to pay the rents at which they held their land. At this time many landlords made abatements to their tenantry. in this way :—The landlords re ceived as much of the rent as, under the circumstances, the tenant could afford to give, and the abatement, instead of being remitted totally, remained against him in the shape of a balance, and was allowed to accumulate as arrears. In this way a heavy amount of arrears was accumulated, and, when the tenant became obncxious to the landlord, he had only to call upon him to pay this large amount of arrears, and if he Was unable to do so to serve him with an eject-' meat. This he believed was the case in some respects with flid lion, MerialiSt fot Carlow. The Hon. Member proceeded to state the ease or it Mr, Caulfield, who was a tenant to the Duke of Leinster, and who, besides, had rented some land from Mr. Bruen. When the prices of agriciiltutal pteduce became low, abatements were made in thd shltjic tit taittfieti hi the way in which he (Mr. M. O'Ferrall) bad already described. Mr. Caulfield, finding the land too dear, ultimately applied to have the land taken off his hands, but was refused, unless be consented to pay up those arrears. lie consented to do so, and the land was taken off his hands and given to another. He denied that any Catholic Priest or Bishop had used his influence in the that lind been described. If any such individual had used the influence of the confessional for any p olitical engagement—("purpose he would be acting at variance with th e spirit an de. principles of his hear," flrera th Opposition)—and the sooner he left the Church tibetter. —(Cheers from the Opposition.) Mr. F. BRUEN, in re l y to what had fa l l en from the l. Hon. Member for Kildare, had never ejected asin gl e to meet e tenant to p On the contrary, he had made large abate men ts the fall of prices. 1 of w Carlow. e bad stated to the Hon. Member for the t b al o l r u Go d c g lin e ntic hat h man as a All that lie had ever hoard of that Hon landlord was highly to his credit.--( Hear') d off his hands, .could e an s Caul field he had been requested to attach to him for corn- Colonel BRUEN stated that with respect to Mr. Caul. and he did not see what blame plying with his request. WALLACECommission,nehdop_ed that in moving from any language for this ite u npleasant feelings, and he which was calculated to (3c be re i p i l a i d ect abs r e e i still thought that the inquiry which be Fought was such as CARLOW. Colonel BRUEN presented a petition from the land owners of Carlow, denying the charges made against them, and charging the Catholic Priesthood with using unfair and undue influence at elections. Mr. WALLACE then rose, to bring forward his motion for a Commission to inquire into the circumstances stated in the petition of Mr.• Vigors and others. After referring to those petitions which bad been already presented, he said that upon a careful investigation he believed that a com bination did exist amongst the Conservative Protestant landlords of Carlow to drive out their Catholic tenantry, and replace them with Protestant tenants. The Hon. Gentleman then referred to the evidence of the Rev Mr. Maher and others, with the details of which the public have been already fully acquainted. After that evidence he could not believe it possible that the Government or the house could refuse to assent to a motion for a Commission of In quiry into the truth of these allegations. The Hon. Mem ber then referred to some statements contained in a pamph let, from which he read. By these statements he found that from the estate of the Hon. and Gallant Member for Carlow, 93 families, containing 503 individuals, had been ejected ; from that of Mr. Newton's, 41 families, and 235 individuals ; from Lord Beresford's, 103 families, and 518 individuals ; from Colonel Latouche's, 16 families, and 99 individuals. Since this statement was first circulated, there had been additional removals, making in the whole 338 families, and 1,886 person's ; and by private let ters since, ho had heard of about 200 more who had been added to the list, making more than 2,000 per sons who had been driven from their native soil within the last three or four years, on religious and political grounds. These families were, he understood, often influ enced to quit themselves, in consequence of an intimation that it would he better for them to do so voluntarily, and they were even encouraged to pull down their own little houses as an effectual means of getting rid of them whilst they bad the trifling advantages arising from the sale of the materials. Another part of the system was to call rigidly for arrears of rent if the tenant voted against the wishes of his landlord, whilst it was the custom not to give receipts for the rent as it was paid up, so as always to keep the tenant in debt, and consequently in the power of his land lord. As to the Priests, he again denied that they had overstepped the bounds of their duty. The Hon; Member then entered into several particulars of the case of Captain Woodcock, whom he praised in high terms, and of whom the Honourable and Gallant Member opposite (Colonel Bruen) had complained that he was compelled to prosecute him for poaching, and that he had been called for miscon duct before the bar of the House of Lords. He should move that the House agree to an address.-- " That his Majesty be graciously pleased immediately to issue a loyal commission to proceed to the county of Carlow, there to inquire, Ist, into the whole facts and circumstances set forth in the petition presented to this House on the 15th of February, by Nicholas Aylward Vigors, Esq., and since by other persons belonging to the said county of - Carlow, and especially into those parts of the said petitions which relate to the persecution and ejectment of the Parliamentary electors of the said county, therein referred to, by removing them from their homes and possessions, or otherwise coercing or mal treating them, to the injury or ruin of them and their families ; od. Whether corruption, coercion, and intimidation, through the actual ejection of electors, or threats to that effect, ought not in future to form legitimate grounds of inquiry before elec tion committees ; 3d. Whether, in the existing state of politi cal excitement in the county of Carlow, the persons, properties, and suffrages of the Parliamentary electors should not be protected in future by voting by ballot; 4th. Whether any and what measures would best secure the independence of the electors of the county of Carlow, and the purity of election in that county ; and to report their opinions, with the evidence, to this House, touching all the matters herein referred to." Mr. HARDY said that the Hon. and Gallant Gentle man behind him, who was principally interested, not ob jecting to the i nqu i ry , o f course h e would not. He would now take the opp or t un ity f or w hi c h h e had sought of advert ing to a charge m a d e aga i nst hi mself by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, n o t now a M em b er of that House viz.—that he himself had b een gu il ty of bribery. To th a t Vigors (Mr. O'Connell) should,acdoe n , n e and be charge he would at once di s ti nct l y say that it Was ea_ lumnious, false, and unfounded.-..(Hea r , h ear.) Mr. IIUME expressed his s urpr i se that the Hon \ Member had not met the charge w h en i t was made, iwhenpr esentthe iHon.in theand H Learned ouse. A G s t e o nt i‘ le ir. G entleman remembered that the Committee had decided that it could not enter into the inquiry—into the allegations of intimid a - tion herefore, Mr. Vigors could not have brought them forwar and, t d. Mr. HARDY rose to explain. On one occasion Mr. O'Connell had retired under the direction of the Speaker, and be (Mr. Hardy) did not think proper to say anything in the absence of that gentleman—(H ear , and a laugh)— and afterwards he chose the first opport un i ty of meeting the charge.—(Maugh on the Ministerial side.) exPlanationlof the testimony UfaLor J. RUSSELL felt bound to add his having on to the ct of the Hon. Member (Mr. Hardy) chargetlie occasion m a(ie a g r a e i f n e s r t rocl h i n t l o , , w or il e c r h e d ex h p i l s anation Was at the time postponed in consequence of the subject not being re gularly before the House. With respect to the imme diate question, ho (Lord J. Russell thought th e motion of the Hon. Member for Greeno certainly without precedent ; for it did appear to him th a t t h e issuing of a Royal Commission to proceed to the C ounty of Carlow, and there to inquire into individual charges against the landlords, would be a most inconvenient one, and ono at- . 0 would induce some Hon. Members opposite who might _h anxious to elicit the truth to vote with him. He (Mr- W.allace) would persist in moving for a Royal Conn Wallace) as no Committee of that House could go into the q u es ti o n to a sufficient extent. It could be only properly entered into by a Commission, which would make it s inquiries upon the spot. It was desirable, as r tain whet her this matter had proceeded so far, t o asceh the pr iests the fault lay with the landlords or wit. The Hon. Baronet opposite said that the Priests were ce' ten times worse than the landlords ; but his (Mr. Wallas) impression was the other way, for he considered the laud lords ten times worse than the Priests. With regard to, the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman opposite, it was alleged that lie had sat as a judge in a case where he himself , an accuser. This was one of the ma tters which demanded inquiry, and as the facts containe d in the allegatior were offered to be verified on oath, he (Mr. Wallace) wou not cease in his! efforts to procure investigation until the matter was fully sifted. The House then divided, when there appeared-- For the motion .............................. 52 Against it ................................... . 123 1 Majority against it .................. ---7 TOWN COUNCILS—(SCOTLAND.) On our return to the-gallery we found Sir A. LEITH HAY proposing to bring in a Bill, tar the purpose of establishing Town Councils in certain bur,jll, of barony, royalty, and others, in Scotland, not of Parliamentary burghs. It was a measure, be said, of ' 41 % the advantage to large towns would be admitted by persons acquainted with Scotland. He would not 1 3 .°' enter into details of the measure, but merely content 111.0;" self with stating that the intention of the Bill was to coal_ these towns to elect magistrates who would have the dire tion and control oflocal a rrangements. Sir G. CLERK hoped that the Bill would not be CO pulsory. Leave was then given to bring in the Bill. CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. Sir W. RAE wished to move an ad dress to his M il ' jesty, that he will be graciously pleased to require the Church of Scotland Endowment Commissioners to report forthwith on the matters referred to them in so feltfars the same relate to the city of Edinburgh. liesd a it his duty to bring_ the question before the' He on former occasion, and he had made a motion to that din on which a debate was taken. The question :was decide vvit , by the Noble Lord opposite requesting him to hdrtaolds his motion, and assuring him that the Government we,„,,, appoint a commission to inquire into the s ub j ect. commission was appointed ac cordingly, and he aPPe a r p, to the recollection of every Hon. Member who wa s r oi — o sent whether the instruction to them to re p ort from t' f ant to time was not understood to mean f or the purpose of applying a remedy to those places whe re the w ?„. church accommodation was most pressingly felt Ad in (Hear, hear, hear.) Yet was the re sult ? Instead of any remedy being applied, the Commissioners, at`l to the present moment had actually made no reporth : all ; and, what was still worse, he learned f rom high autha3 rity that none would be made this session. Nay, b e a heard that one of the Commissioners doubted whether report should be made at all. Under these circunist,4lo lie felt called upon to bring the subject once again Parliament, for the purpose of compelling the Commiestenith. t here report to the House, or to state their rea sons for where holding it. The question at issue was whethe r or Scot as be a grant made for Church accommodation in it la ' nd . If there was, why not ascertain at once Whe nr:rej was most needed, and apply it without delay ? A hu Churches might be endowed out of the sum alreadY p th e e n .s d hfo e e d rdm .. He had been informed that the Edinburg ea rly trictfin was completed, and that the Glasgow was 11- , u a er, W e h r y ea sho h u e l t tn i e f t re t a n d e y C ? om u m a is d s e io r ngs esereritrcc",l3.coir: stances he felt bound to press his motion. If, l' es ' t hat h t n h lee e nw N t o us b ol d l e aes t tr o oa r in idaaoakperpeoi report available a w iila o a u bt l lh d ee givefporre legislation, aatniona sessions s h u e r e a f a (Sir it Rae) would withdraw it, otherwise he should cortle r t. his duty to take the sense of the House on the 11 sir —(Hear.) The Honourable Baronet conclude d by 'll°ll the Address. 'i n' ' Lord J. RUSSELL believed that it wa s an 'i n '', ol course to take to address the Crown, for the 1.51 0 1..0 1 requiring a Commission to report, without regard bei"g °o l c e to the state of preparation in which they might beerei s one. The Commission was appointed in t he latt. e,, ," ( t o last August. About the beginning of November first enabled to enter on inquiry. The interval 3s p laes ployed in putting matters in train, and c om p let loo for proceeding. In January they examined above not ioe° nesses, chiefly clerical, in Edinburgh. These eNt° 9 , l "„ pro' occupied a considerable length of time. TheY t''e'Otorc• ceeded to Glasgow, where they examined about their It was not at all wonderful, with such occupation for I°ea ,. time—seven or eight hours a day being fully ele,r_„Yooso that they were not ready with their R e port boa r ' 0 0 One of the additional causes of the backwardeess'A to the illness of one of their members. Witli rore; le s s( t p h iLil eo e etuerl partial t r bh t 3e i ee a ;men p R a od e ßre p t asrmsttei rtqell) d u sbi required tdm. not.ad by ev v thinkotl i f e t H aiGtt aa n asn . dgdsoi l v. rEs l a a a ibo r t ii0: 1 0 t ; but not of the latter solely. He had expressed. It s ce ° i` v i ed to the Commissioners to that effect. He bad r cod' letter from the Secretary totlieComamsistsoiotnb,cisevjpic 1 tamed the latest and best information ro th - i_ngs ; and as he (Lord J. Russell) could not accede root Hon. Baronet's motion, he should move as an atil, e T a ieso that an humble address be presented to his t ' sore praying that a copy of a letter addressed by Sr tart' of the Scotch Church Commission to the u. i n s - ie fore cretary of State for the Home Department be laid cd the House. Mr. GILLON said the Commission was a ° ll- to th°, one ; and that it was calculated to give no c ontea t i , n ay 0' the people of Scotland. The interests of the vas t l'i c ,1 1 )", Dissenters in that country were entirely unrepresee osca it, inasmuch as out otthe eleven Members which co: P the ir it only one was a Dissenter. He protested egai r t o g0( 36 report in limine as that of a one-sided body. `'" could possibly result from ho at ' Sir G. CLERK said that the Hon. Member big hos' just sat down took every opportunity of manifesting ",7 0 ,0 tility to the church of Scotland, and therefore it of that he protested in anticipation against the 1 ' 1) 0 04 the Commissioners. He (Sir G. Clerk) had ne e a on to the Hon. Member espousing the ca u se objection the Dissenters with as much zeal as he thong at nears sarY ; but he strongly objected to his doing 0 ° " Witlt expense of the character and feelings of o thers. U de" respect to the question before the House, it r;_ as „,soar, 'liable that there was a want of sufficient churcu modation for the poor in Scotland. He adatititedtotd. the course proposed by his Right Hon. Friel? CO; dress the Crown, for the purpose of m aking t"sir report was an unusual one ; missioners but he Clerk) should beg to suggest one which was less s';': We' and which he was sure would have the support of tiv vo te Member for Middlesex. He would propose that th e to ho of 10,0001. included in the miscellaneous estimates Co er brought . on next Friday should be withheld until tern to j e . missioners had shown the House what they had do!i n to re serve it.—(Hear, hear.) If that would riot or clh e effectual than the private admonition of the Noble : 1 " d el (Sir G. Clerk) was very much mistaken. , 0 c Mr. HORSMAN, as one of the Commissioner', ho assure the House that no unnece ssar y delay wii" tc e , taken place. _ (1.4 ,s 11Ir After a few words from Dr. Bowaisro, .F. ra and Mr. OSWALD, Sir WILLIAM RAE replied, and the motion lugs; drawn. IRISH CONSTABULARY BIL L ' to 04/ Lord MORPETII rose at a quarter past twelve 4 do the attention of the House to the above Bill, as se“, os by the Lords, with voluminous amendments. I . !e ,lb o al* pThreepiarreLdetrodsioliffpesr had,any captious op p o o t tt e ir ait t e o ra tl r on r :: derably reduced the number of appointments vestedc;co; Lord Lieutenant of Ireland under the Aet. T he in talea t ment had originally proposed a scale of air oo t e ery which would admit of and secure the most etee e l cco arY; stabulary force, that might at any time be t. " t o iitt . but, except in circumstances of necessity, tulboo intend to ha ve acted on it by filling tiP had be to e! pointments. Their enlarged arrangernen" con)pit adopted in the conviction that the mgr© 0 so r e ly they rincingdhetre(dleetrheeaseconositeabmulialirtyaryfoercseta,htibisebt:ftrsl., trriii.Wt they er en th e ; "9 6 . 0 G r P o l ' oanfdLiotrmdsu,sthdoowetivleertelistadit :eoutidcuonadfi u t ties thrown in its way. The House of Lords !,ladflijj; lung duced the patronage of Government under thi ( 1 ) ; ic , llHrussee, that was not a point of which any person 31! tts l „ likely to complain. Ho then adverted to it e d ' o a ub i o a thr e ' t. reduced the number of paymasters, while , r share of labour, by extending it over a.F o b o rt to This increase he felt bound to provide for by .` e nuee r ,. 3tk i ) :tr • which would be necessary to adjust thoi.r e r . d for tu t ' b t) c6 their duties. In clause 11, which proVh , _ so , azonstat jo „t allOWd% ,j 11; in atiction baroniesof a a certain t h a it? half-baronies, o b e e i r e s o , of the constableseffeet 1,11%, would only be enabled to introduce M. 76 , 1 ; cr` the occasion. In the countY of Galra:iti),,re 1 ° u 113Ve „U 13 one district, in which 560 were at pre!c wwever have been stationed, they would in are allowed, &l ow be In'the county of Galway, where I . _ nn , I tit) wou ld o f only have 20 ;in the city of hooflk rfickfergiO, reduced to 20 ; and in the town a , tii (dildpbe, calculated to WA( tha the provisions of this clause wehree• aid, an ignorance c o t sive mischief, displaying, ae t efficient establishre material facts necessary for the e 100, they would henceforth only be allowed a. to 4 ., ti 0