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

~~: ' ~ ~;~

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 legislation 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/Eoldillit said
two persons on his side of 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 political
engagement—("purpose he would be acting at variance with the spirit ande.
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 fallen from the
l.
Hon. Member for Kildare, had never ejected asingle
to meete tenant
to
p
On the contrary, he had made large abatements
the fall of prices.
1 ofw Carlow.e
bad stated to the Hon. Member for the
t balolru
God cg
linentic
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 thisite unpleasant feelings, and he
which was calculated to (3c
bereipilaidectabsreei
still thought that the
inquiry which be Fought was such as