The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-07 00:00:00

r

11...

at noun- t of railway undertakings which had sprung up,
nil w!nich were absorbing the capital of the county.
't,t had been proposed that Parliament should not pro-
ceed with the railway Bills before it without hav-
ing a meeting of the shareholders of the various lines,
so that no Bill should be gone: on with till the
sanction of the great majority of the shareholders was
obtained. He would propose that no sanction should
be given to any railway Bill where, after a meet-
ing of the shareholders, the Veelse was petitioned by
a majority of that meeting, not to allow such Bill
to proceed. This would pre-tent many of the schemes
whie:h were not likely to ',urn out good speculations,
from. being passed. He heiped her Majesty's Govern-
ment would give this rtaut matter their fullest eOll-
-
Sir IL PEEL said tleere were few nereons in tha
House who could not at first have seen that many of the
railways which were e,ouglit ..to he sanctioned were rite
profitable speculations,. There had been a spirit of spe-
culetion tor some tire.° past, but he thought it could not be
checked by that '3 o' ise, The speculation in railways was
the seine as the -speculation in South American Bonds, and
the interference wi.th one would be an interference whir
the other. The ex perienee of time would prevent
these rail wey sTisoculations from being too largely
indulged 111. He thought that there was no
greater rig'nt, to interfere with this question
than in t'ee ordinary commercial speculations,
fur he went on the principle that every person was
beat judge of his owi- concerns, and was best competent
to inana;; a his owii affairs. At the same time, consider-
i"fs': the 'extensive powers the House had in railway • pe-
culatior Is, it was in some measure a party to them.
Specut ations of this kind ditfet e• I from
the (e-dinery run of speculation in the respect that the
Leg i slat ure was called upon to take away and interfere
Wit b private property for public purposes, and it ale
Pe'ii •ed to him that the House might. therefore, inter-
PC,Bi with respect to that species of speculation. As
far- as the individuals themselves were concerned,
he: had no pity for them, for this sort of speculation
uuld never be corn cted except from the per•
' sena' suffering of the party—(Hear, hear)—fur
rmany of the speculators diverted their money from
-their ordinary courses, and from the trade from
which they derived their subsistence. At the commence-
ment hueletn the part of her Majesty's Government, gave
it as his opinion that it might be possible to interfere with
this habit by putting a check upon some of the railway
Bills. He spoke with considerable hesitation on this
subject, as it might be unwise for the House to interfere
on this subject. His Hon. Friend the Member for Liver-
pool called the attention of the House to this subject..
It. would be for the House to consider whether it had the
power to interfere indirectly in putting a stop to those railway
speculations. It would be in the recollection of the House
that a vast number of Bills were projected last year, but after
they had been prepared a great change of circumstances took
-place ; for instance, the amount of capital became greater than
had been anticipated. It appeared that the profits were not
likely to be what had been anticipated ; the difficulty of pro-
curing money had been increased. The hope was entertained
dur'in4 the railway fever that money could be had at two and a
half per cent. ; but when it came to be applied for it was
forena impossible to be had even at five per cent. ; and all these
e' scumstances had acted very powerfully to deter many from
'engaging further in railway speculation.—( Hear.) As the law
'mow stood in reference to railways, he apprehended the
case to be put thus :—a railway was projected—parties took
shares and held scrip, and they appointed a provisional com-
mittee and directors. Well, a great change took place, such a
.change as made it desirable on the part of the subscribers to
.dissolve the company ; and if it was found that the line would
not be a profitable one, or that it would riot be for the benefit
of the public to make it, he could not see why there should
not be a power in the legislature to dissolve it. In such a
case he would ask what test should the House apply in order to
ascertain that it was desirable to dissolve the company ? He
should say the test would be the feelings of the subscribers.—
( Hear.) If a majority of the subscribers we're of opinion that
the company should be dissolved, he could not see why this
House should not lend its sanction to such a proceeding. He
was aware of some Scotch companies in which the shareholders
were a good deal alarmed, when they had heard that their Bills
had pssual the Standing Orders' Committee, and they came to
the resolution to disoilve the company.—( Hear, hear.) He
knew another case in which 100,0,0/. had been subscribed,
10,000/. of which had beet. expended in preliminary proceed-
ings, so that 90,000/. remained vested in Exchequer-bills ;
but the directors and subscribers having become convinced that
the line would not be a profitable one, they came to a reselu-
ition to dissolve the company ; but then there was 90,000/.
still invested, and in the meantime a few of the
subscribers objected to the dissolution of the company.
Even supposing the Bill were to fail in the present session, the
directors would not be relieved from their obligation to do all
in their power to get the scheme sanctioned by the Legislature.
He was not aware that the directors had power to dissolve the
company, or the shareholders the power to absolve the directors
from their obligations, even supposing the Bill had failed to
pass the Standing Orders' Committee; and yet it was mani-
festly for the advantage of the public that such a company
should be broken up, and the balance of their subscription'
divided among the shareholders ; but a single shareholder
might file a Bill in Chancery, and prevent this course being
adopted. Now he thought the House ought, with as little
delay as possible, to pass a Bill enabling the majority of the
shareholders to dissolve the company in the event of their
ascertaining that the scheme would not, in the end, prove a
profitable undertaking. He should propose, however, that the
liability of the directors and the parties to the original agree-
meat should still remain, and they should become j ointly liable
for the debt of any creditor of the company. It might be
necessary to have some kind of an official assignee, to see if
the balance of the funds were properly appropriated, and the
claims of creditors fairly and honourably liquidated. If the
House would sanction a hill of this principle, they would en-
able the majority of the shareholders to break up the company,
and prevent the public from incurring the inconvenience of
establishing undertakings which held out lie prospect of public
advantage, or of yielding any profit to the parties promoting
the undertaking, and prevent the majority if the shareholders
falling a sacrifice to a few surveyors, solicitors, and engineers,
and be at the same time of incalculable advantage. He thought
they ought to make some provision that a majority of sub-
scribers in point of number, and in point of amount of shares
held by them, should be taken as a fair and full representation
of the opinion of the subscribers at large, and he thought that
the parties ought to be allowed to present a petition to Parlia-
ment, expressing their willingness to withdraw the concern ;
and he thought also that Parliament should give th.,
power to the parties to make that representa-
tion. There would be no principle of selection or
interference, and he believed that if they were to pass such a
Bill, it would effectually relieve the money market. He hoped
that in the course of to-morrow a full explanation would be
given with respect to the subject.
Mr. LABOUCHERE had always been of opinion that this
matter should be taken up by the Government, and he had
felt great disappointment, when the Committee upon this sub-
ject was appointed at the commencement of the session, that
some proposal was not made by the Government to that Com-
mittee. He regretted very much that the question had not been
taken up before by the Government, as an earlier interference
would have been more effectual than an interference now.
As far as giving facilities to those parties who had embarked in
these undertakings to get rid of them, he would have no ob-
jection, and he thought such a measure would give universal
approbation, but if they attempted to go further then they
would pursue a course full of embarrassment. It seemed to
him that it they rejected a Bill on the ground that it was not
right the capital should be so applied, it would be an interference
with capital which he thought objectionable. He would not,
however, be so wedded to abstract principle as not to censidei
the subject, on good cause being shown to kthat effect. lle
thought that something was required to be done, but he was of
opinion that the scheme proposed by the First Lord of the
Treasury was not calculated to have the effect intended by the
Right Hon. Baronet.
Sir G. CLERK said, with respect to the Committee
appointed by the House to fix the amount of capital,
that Committee was not authorised tolimit the number
of railway Bills to be taken tis session. The Right
lionourabie Baronet had taken
properlyaod .said• that it would
be very impolitic to interfere ?!ri
tiers of capital. and that nothing degree with the applica-
bmu::.trir
such
of the greatest
Baronet, thhaatni
necessity would justify the Govern
finhteertiem:dence.
Committee, he should have
He could aseire the Right Hon.
but as he hadv,hil,
he did not think it worth hisccountry,
tr was
re-
ceived any encouragement from his C
put this case before the • '
been prepared to
re-
ceived no encouragement,
to raise any discussion on the
.subject.. The ease, however,
now in a different position. for in various parts of the
especially in Liverpool, there was a strong feeling that some
facility should be given to persons who, in the course of last
autumn, had embarked in those schemes, who were now
convinced and
convinced of their folly, of withdrawing from them, care being
taken that all agreements entered into by th,m, and all ex-
penses , • .urred should be discharged. He trusted that the
measure alluded to by the Right Hon. Baronet would
of
such a nature as to carry out the object the petition had, in
view, while no injustice would be done to the promoters of any
of those schemes who might have been actuated by a wish to
further the public good.
Mr. WARD said that he thought that the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet had taken the right view of the subject, and, with all due
deference to his Hon. Friend near him, it was material in the
present state of the public mind, that the option should be
given to the majority of the shareholders, that on theirappliva-
tiori the Committee should not proceed with their Bill. his
Hon. Friend had spoken of provisional directors. He (11r.sa
Ward) did not believe that in three years such an animal as
live provisional director would exist in the three
kingdoms. The Committees of the House would be
them
willing to
act on the wishes of the shareholders, when a majority of
expressed their opinions that the Bill should not be proceeded
with, and he thought that it would have a happy effect on all
those large classes of witnesses now connected with the railway
interest.
Mr. W. PATTEN said that he agreed with the Hon. Gen-
tleman who haul just spoken, but it must be recollected that the
measure would only give power to the company to dissolve
itself on the vote of its shareholders. A great maj 'rity of
these Bills were under consideration, or in the course of being
committed, and an enormous amount of expense was incurred
without any power on the part of the shareholders to prevent
it. The proposal of the Right Hon. Baronet was well worthy
of the attention of the House. He thought it of great
importance that it should be known to the country, that any
Vitiownizdesented to the House requesting the withdrawal of
referred to the Committee on the Bill ; and it
would then have
the niu.should its due weight on the consideration whether
holulers
e proceeded with or not, and that if the share-
have du7iestiheecdt.to withdraw a Bill a petition to that end would
M
raitti:o.uSetaT Ei
VhAl !II bre said that the only consideration was,
on scrip holders t en suggested that it should be compul-
sorywhich they were concer
0 report their opinion of the lines with
law to the cwonitshtrudcifiitiroitof the scheme, the proceeding would
ned, before permission was given by
be attended
and compared, it would rYI. If these opinions were gathered
sibility, and also tend e ieve Parliament of a great respon-
from the money market. very considerably to remove a weight
Mr. BARING should fe 1
unless a very strong reuone very strongly disposed to hesitate,
rented to limit the capital for: o deed were given, before he con-
Mr. B. DENISON was of
arts
holders resided in different partsopoifnion that, were the share-
the of the clause would occasion the country, the introduc-
instance in the cave of the London great
a ineonvenience ; for
holders were spread all over the kinado York line, the share-
postereus to call them together at a ritemet,inand it would he pre-
might give in their opinion that the Bill oinu Tier that they
ceeded with. It would be the interest of existig tto be pro-
file promoters of them to induceparties who hadlg railways for
new lines from going on with them. taken up with
Mr. BERNAL was of opinion that it was perfectly
possible
for any shareholder to vote by proxy. The shareholders
might
go is, fore a magistrate and make an affidavit, in any rhdistantigt
part, and it might be transmittedas his vote to any place, how_
ever distant, where the meeting should be held.
After a few words from Mr. HODGSON, who brie fl
planted the manner in which the affairs ex-
airs o railway companies
were wound up,
Sir R. PEEL observed
that he was before unaequaieted
with the mysteries of winding up. He would defy any man to
speak with any conlidollC9
at this moment of what ought to be

adopted with respect to railway affairs ; and the Government
incurred no blame in acting in the combined manner they did
with respect to these subjects. It would not be wise to inter-
fere too early, or before the fever had abated. What he pro-
posed was, that the original shareholders, and those who had
sold their interest, should have no voice whatever in the choos-
ing whether this scheme should be proceeded with or not. He
was of opinion, that if a certain number of share-
holders should present a petition to Parliament set-
ting forth that it was their opinion that the scheme, if
carried out, would not. be beneficial to the public ; in that
case he should think it advisable that proceedings in that
House with respect to the Bill ought not to be carried any fur-
ther. It should, however, be clearly understood, that the peti-
tion so presented should receive the signature of the majority
of the shareholders ; and that, at whatever stage of the Bill the
petition should be presented, all further proceedings should be
immediately stopped, so that it would be unnecessary the Bill
should be read a third time. Of course, the original share-
holders, who had parted with their shares, would not be
allowed to have a voice in the matter. It must be observed_
that the directors of the company had no certain knowledge
who the shareholders of the company were, and therefore, to a
great extent, any collision between them would be prevented,
and each would act as a check upon the other. It appeared to
him that all parties would carefully look after their own in-
terest. They would also have a I,eus penitentia, by which they
would be enabled, if they thought proper, to be relieved of
their responsibility of carrying the project to a termination.
He should be very sorry to express any objection against the
principle of the clause ; but some restrictions with respect to
the regulation of the majority of shareholders should be
introduced.
Mr. Eocis and the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER made
some observations. but in so low a tone that they were quite
inaudible in the gallery.
Mr. COLLE coy sidered that it was incumbent on the
Government to lay down some definite plan by which railway
affairs might be regulated. The same difficulty had occurred
with reference to gauges, and no distinct plan had been decided
on. An important Commission had been investigating this
matter upwards of three months, and their report had not yet
been produced. He thought that it was highly desirable that
Hon. Members should have an opportunity of perusing that
report during the Easter recess, and hoped that it
would be very shortly laid upon the table. He
was very glad that the Right Hon. Baronet had
drawn a proper line between shareholders and scripholders.
He looked forward to this as a measure which would afford
great relief to a considerable portion of the public, and hi
trusted it would prove to be such. It would also be very
important if it afforded relief from responsibility to those
who had signed the deed of register ; of course, after due
regard being had to all the just claims of creditors.
Lord MORPETH said, he looked upon this Bill as a most
prudent arid proper measure ; but it would be well that
care should be taken, in all cases where companies were
to be dissevered, that the scrip holders had expressed a wish
to that effect.
Mr. RUTHERFORD said he quite agreed with the Right
Honourable Baronet that this was a very necessary measure,
but he thought it would be defective unless it contained a clause
protecting all parties who had fair and just claims on the Com-
pany, and to take care that those claims were satisfied before
the company could be dissolved. There was also another point
of importance to which he would wish to call attention ; it was
this—suppose that while a Bill was under investigation before a
Committee a number of shareholders should send in a petition
praying that the proceedings should not go en any further,
what difficulty could this House have in declaring in favour of
that petition, before this Bill had passed? This course might
be adopted without affecting the liabilities of the parties.
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET gave notice that he
would postpone the third reading of all railway Bills until after
Easter.
Mr. RICARDO hoped the Bill would provide against men
of straw signing the deed of register, and thereby prevent a
great deal of fraud.
Mr. C. BULLER said he hoped that the House, before it
broke up, would adopt a resolution by which the public would
be made aware that it was the intention of the Government to
propo'e such a measure as this, in order that parties might be
prepared to act upon it.
In reply to an observation snide by Mr. JOHN ABEL
SMITH, which was inaudible in the gallery,
Sir H. PEEL said it would be better to abstain from en-
tering into those details at present ; but it would be advisable to
have a clause in the Bill, empowering the Standing Orders'
Committee to dissolve a company under the circumstances
already stated ; and also a clause requiring that a meeting
should be held, at which a majority of the shareholders should
declare in favour of dissolving the company.
Lord SANDON hoped that no delay would be given to the
measure.

Mr. J. O'CONNELL would wish to observe, that in refe-
rence to Irish railway Bills, though a great desire had been
manifested to facilitate the passing of them, with a view to
giving employment, yet many Bills had been passed towards
the carrying out of which not a single step had been taken.
He, therefore, hoped that some measure would be introducei
by which parties would be compelled to complete a line in a
given time after the Bill had been passed.—( Hear, hear.)
The motion was then agreed to.
Lord SANDON presented a petition from the merchants,
bankers, and brokers, in Liverpool, praying the House not to
eneourw,e the great excess of railway speculation which had
arisen this year. He also presented. on the part of one •f the:
Members for the city of London, a petition signed by every
member of the Stock-Exchange praying that, with a view of
benefiting the general commercial state of the country, those
persons who had embarked in railway speculation should have
facilities afforded to them of withdrawing from the schemes.
NOTICES OF MOTION.—ECCLESIASTICAL RE-
VENUES IN IRELAND.
Mr. ELLIS gave notice of his intention to ask the Right
Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-.
merit, whether it was the intention of Government to take any
steps to restrain the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of Ireland
front expending the capital of sums of money arising from the
ecclesiastical revenues derived from land in that country.

Mr. W. COLLETT (who was very imperfectly heard) gave
notice that it W 23 his intention, on going into Committee on
the Protection to Life Ireland Bill, he would move for a
clause to give compensation to the tenant farmers who might
be injured by the passing of the Bill.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN said that he would postpone his motion for
a Select Committee to inquire into the organisation and admi-
nistration of the constabulary force in Ireland, and of
the Dublin police; and also his motion for a Bill to
amend the laws relating to grand juries in Ireland. He
also gave notice of his intention of moving, after Easter,
that an humble address be presented to her
Majesty, urging on her consideration that not one
of her Majesty's advisers or Ministers of State, was, by a re-
sidence in the country or in any other way, acquainted with
the Irish people, and also that the executive officers of the
local Government of Ireland were perfect strangers to Ireland,
and yet held situations of the highest responsibility. And
under these circumstances it was not surprising that it should
be found that in the conduct of those officers there was a disre-
gard of Irish interest and of Irish feeling ; and also a total
want of confidence in those officers on the part of the people.
He also gave notice of his intention to move on Thursday next
that, with a view to diminish the expense of the railway projects
of Ireland, all inquiries into the merits of Irish railways,
which had hitherto taken place in this country, should after
the present session be allowed to take place in Ireland.
PROTECTION TO LIFE IN IRELAND.

Sir R. PEEL said that he did not know what probability
there was of the House coming to a division that evening, on
the first reading of the Bill for the protection of life in Ireland,
but supposing that it did net, he would ask of those Hon.
Members who had notices for to-morrow to allow the debate to
proceed. He did not wish to interfere with the full discussion
of the measure, but if the House would allow him to take the
discussion on the Corn Bill, a considerable amount of good for
the nation might be effected, and if Hon. Members could con-
clude the discussion that evening, and permit the discussion of
the Corn Bill to he proceeded with to-morrow, they would
render the nation a most essential service.

Mr. S. O'BRIEN said that he could assure the Right
Honourable Baronet that every one of the Members on
his side of the House felt as deeply as he did
the inconvenience suffered by the country from the course
taken in the conduct of these Bills. The Right Hon. Baronet,
however, hail it in his power to move the adjournment of the
debate till after Easter. and to continue the discussion on the
Corn Bill. As far as he himself was concerned, he would give
way to the discussion on the Corn Bill, but would not in any
way facilitate the discussion on the Coercion Bill.
'The SPEAKER said that the Hon. Gentleman should de-
fer his speech until after the motion for the reading of the
order of the day.
On the motion that the order of the day he read.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN said he did not wish to adept any con-
cealment in the course he was about to take. It was the
bounden duty of the Irish Members to take care that the dis-
cussion on the Coercion Bill should be a discussion in which
the misgovernment of Ireland should be fully canvassed, and
that every opportunity should be given for the exposition of the
wrongs of the country, and for the suggestion of such measures
as would conduce to the removal of those evils which the op-
nos,tte party s 9 utterly denied.
PEEL, said that in permitting, after due 'discussion,
the.7.ras in opportunity
t t t o t e r edo
fa
speaking firs t t moen,
itth
ienHi
tosn .
subsequent Gen tle rfian
stages.would
of Righ SB
t i
B. OOR 11.' slid that he wished to ask a question
was the
Gough froinint"nti
n. Baron. e had heard a report that it
imolina of the Government to recall Sir Hugh
R. PEEL said He
that
he
eu
didd w isoht
know
on knowo„
rof a whether such
reporta report was true? •
as tShire one alluded to by the Hon. Member. He had just ad-
vised Hugh Gough, and thate fsreoariedet
eht
dhei
anthgiwmwi
toohuu rlrdeognfaortad peerage on Sir
her Majesty to
ti confer
r Je.-coa,lelinogNhNimE.
LLP sthoo twh ea nCy o ienr tcei o
n
Bill, it was a measure which he n
believed would be injudicious
for the ends it was inten.ied to answer
outrages which it proposed to put down.; it would increase tivise
It was a Bill which
people would banish from the minds of thelsh
any feeling for any sympathy which had been all chance of
shown to them.
This Bill would never reconcile the differences between the
two countries, but would produce results of a most disastrous
nature to the people of Ireland. The people of Ireland saw
s
they could not look back to any but a
mischievous
that during the seven centuries of the connexion between
countries,eration of our Government. It was time that
the
this state of thines should be changed. He believed that the
interest of the two countries was bound up in the connexion
that connexion lie
between them, and in the wish to preserve
would rather that this measure were postponed ; and he did not
believe that the Government would lose anything by the delay,
like a renewal the
was there anything to encourage anything
Had the Special Commission sent nut by Government
offailed, or
l th
experiment ? Any expense was better than increasing the bad
feeling of the country. If the Government proceeded wit
Corn Bill, and adjourned the present measure, they woulde be
able to try the force of their hands. When the
Government at some future period could say that it had
tried every remedial measure, and that they had failed, it
would find a support from kis ( Mr. O'Connell's) side of the
House that it had never calculated on. He was sorry that an
accusation had been made against the opponents of the Coercion
Bill by a leading journal of that morning, as having offended
public opinion. Whatever accusation might be made against
them, a great heat of feeling had arisen and would continue
throughout the course of this debate, and he had himself been
betrayed into some warmth on the question. He certainly
could not consent to give up this measure so as to facilitate the
Corn Bill. It was his country to which he had to look, and
it was for the welfare not of one but of both countries, if this
Bill were well considered before it was allowed to pass.
Sir R. PEEL said that he was not aware that, on any occa-
sion, he had been betrayed into any heat on the subject. He
had asked the Hon. Members on the other side of the House
to allow the orders of the day to have precedence, and had re-
ceived an answer. He hoped Hon. Gentlemen would proceed
to the orders of the day without further delay.
Mr. COLLETT would ask the Right Hon. Baronet to what
period the House would adjourn for Easter ? The state of the
public business required that such an adjournment should be
for as short a period as possible.
Sir DR LACY EVANS said that he thought that the perti-
nacity of the Nlembers for Ireland was excusable. Considering
the extraordinary nature of the Bill, it was wished to bring
beforede the House, he thought that Hon. Gentlemen had not
made it clear what the determination of the House was as to
the course to he rm
his Hon. pursued. According to the deteinaiion of
sure . Friends on this side of the House, neither the mea-
at all. under discussion, nor the Corn Bill, would be advanced

After a few words from Mr. C. POWELL, which did noi
reach the gallery,

Lord MORPETH said, that while this subject was before
the House, he could not refrain from reading a letter which he
had received from York. It did not bear immediately on the
question, but it related to it is some degree. It stated, that
pending the decision on the Corn Bill and tariff, trade and
pr es s owne, and thatta tae
oflargecod
inn
sbet
iortcdueyt operatives pa iennrda tadi vesept:s state
edf
depending
respectableeoxnt r
charity,emed
cla s
The r q
uestion pf
priority of discussion was not in the least interfered with in
this measure ; but he must say, that on the other hand, he
the debate.
ample means would be given for the termination of
Sir R. PEEL said that he would inform the House of the
length of time for which he would adjourn the House, from
Tursday next, to-morrow (this day).
Mr. P. SCROPE could not see any reason why the Coer-
cion Bill should be proceeded with at once, and the Corn Bill
adjourned over Easter.
Sir R. PEEL said that it was clear that the House would
make no progress if it took the Corn Bill to-morrow; it would
be of great advantage to the nation if it was proceeded with
at once. He had asked Hon. Gentlemen to pospone their
motion for that purpose, and he had received his answer—he
did not wish to press the question further.
Sir J. GRAHAM saidithat he had offered to Hon. Members
that the Bill should be read a first time as a mere matter of
courtesy to the other House.
Mr. WARD said that the Right Hon. Baronet was under a
misconception as to the words he had used, for he had said that
he did not ask this first reading as a matter of courtesy between
tee two Houses of Legislature, but the time was arrived when
it was necessary that the opinion of the House should decide
what was to be done on this question.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that it bad been remarked that he
had wished the first reading of the Bill under protest, but he
thought that such a precedent was one from which considerable
inconvenience and disorder was likely to arise, and he could not
encourage such a principle.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE said, if the determination was
come to to adjourn the debate, it should be adjourned till some
time after Easter. They might then go on with the Commit-
tee on the Corn Bill to-morrow night. In such a case, they
would get through with that Bill before the holidays. If the
Government would go un that night, on them rested the re-
sponsibility.
After a few words from Mr. BROWN, in concurrence,
Colonel RAWDON suggested that if her Majesty's Govern-
ment would go on with the Corn Bill, and if Hon. Members
who had motions for to-morrow night would give way, as he
had no doubt they would, there would be no difficulty in going
on. They would then have a free stage before them. If they
is ould persist in going on, he would move the order of the day
fur the adjourned debate be read that day three months.
Mr. C. POWELL inquired whether certain returns, re-
lating to the outrages committed in the disturbed districts of
Ireland, had been received, and were ready for production?
Sir J. GRAHAM said he had not yet received all the re-
turns.

Colonel RAWDON said he would move that which he be-
lieved was more regular than that he intimated to do. He
begged leave to move that the other •rders of the day be pro-
ceeded with

Lord AIORPETH hoped the Hon. and Gallant Member
would not press his motion, but would allow the debate to pro-
ceed.

Mr. B. ESCOTT said, though opposed to the measure, he
could not consent to meet it in such a factious and unusual
manner. If the Bill was not taken now, the Corn Bill would
not be proceeded with that night, and the evening would be
lost. He hoped they would proceed with the debate at once.
Mr. J. COLLETT said he shoull wish to hear the case of
the Hon. Gentlemen opposite. It must be a bad one else they
would not seek to meet the Bill in this unbecoming and left-
handed manner.

Sir R. PEEL was not to be provoked by the course taken.
There bad heen a full understanding on all sides that they
should that night proceed with the discussion of the Irish Pro-
tection of Life Bill. He did hope therefore they would be
allowed to proceed with the adjourned debate at once.
Colonel RAWDON, in deference to the feelings expresssed
by lion. Members, would withdraw his amendment.
On the order of the day being then read,
Mr. CHRISTIE asked a question of the Home Secretary
about the poor-laws, the purport of which did not reach the
gallery.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM replied that he had not heard of
the matter referred to, and could not give any answer about it.
If notice of motion was given, then he would be prepared to
meet it.
Mr. M'CARTHY presented a petition from the city of
Cork against the Irish Coercion Bill. It was agreed to at
a meeting presided over by the Mayor, and signed by about
3,000 most respectable persons. It deplored the state of
Ireland, but attributed the outrages that prevailed to
agrarian causes and the social condition of Ireland, especially
the law relating to landlord and tenant. As the petition was
one of great importance, he would give notice that to-morrow
he would move that it be printed with the votes.
ADJOURNED DEBATE.
The adjourned debate was then resumed.
Mr. CAREW proceeded to address the House. He did not
intend to consume much of their time in stating the reasons
why he opposed the present Bill. Had her Majesty's Govern-
ment come to the House with remedial measures, while they
proposed the present measure, they would have had a much
stronger case to rely on than the prsent ; the result would
have been of a more satisfactory and consistent character.
The measures hitherto brought forward, instead of being of an
healing character, had been, generally speaking, coercive
and oppressive. It could not be denied that a good landlord
and tenant law was much wanted for Ireland ; as for a long
time the process of dispossessing tenants had been going for-
ward to a great extent. Evidence had been produced, showing
the deplorable results which had followed from this system of
clearing land, and the want of security that accordingly ex-
isted. The Hon. Member here read a number of extracts
and documents in illustration of these proceedings in various
counties in Ireland, showing that outrages, threatening notices,
and all the heartburings that for some time past had charac-
terised the relationship between landlord and tenant, flowed
from the system of eviction. To expect anything like peace
and order under such a system was impossible. The state of
Ireland in 1832 had been well described in the report of a
Commission then al pointed to inquire into it, and yet, though
sixteen years had passed away, the case of Ireland was as bad
as ever.—( Hear, hear.) The recent report of Lord Devon's
Commission amply established this. It had been clearly proved
that party had nothing to do with these outrages, but they
were entirely of an agrarian character. A Bill to change this
system would be of far more effect in healing the evils of Ire-
land, and in removing outrage, than any number of Bills
they could introduce and pass of a coercive character. But this
ought not to be all. The religious inequality that prevailed in
Leland should also be done away with. Did they ever know
any other country where the religion of a minority was the es-
tablished religion, while the faith of the great body of the
people was proscribed, and its votaries called on to support the
establishment of the minority. The longer the equitable set-
tlement of this question was delayed, the greater would be the
difficulties of the country. They had in Ireland 6.400,000
Catholics, while the Established Church did not number above
800,000, and the other dissenting bodies about as many more.
It was not therefore fur a moment to be borne that the great
body of the people should be treated thus. As Mr. Burke truly
said, the Church of Ireland was one which the people of the
country would not ask the assistance of, either living or dying.
That Church had also got to be very unpopular with the people
of Ireland, because its bishops had opposed the measure for the
national system of education in Ireland. If the present bad
been the first Bill on the subject, he might have been disposed
to consider it. But it was not so. Not less than seventeen
Bills of a similar character had been introduced since the
Union.—( Hear, hear.) He would conclede generally by say-
ing that he did not think the Government were proceeding in
the right way to conciliate Ireland, or to command its confi-
dence. They had departed from the impartiality that charac-
terised the Marquis of Normanby's Government, and as such,
had failed in all they had done to tranquillise that country.
The O'CONOR DON said, that after the able and tempe-
rate speech of the Hon. and Learned Member for Cork (Mr.
O'Connell) none could doubt but that the measure was of a
most unconstitutional and arbitrary character. Neither had
it been shown that the measure had any real connexion with
the crimes sought to be suppressed. The Right lion. Gentle-
man, the Secretary-at-War, had stated that the Bill was
mainly a Bill for the protection of the poor, who were subject
to be attacked at night, while the rich were shot during the
day. From what he (the O'Conor Don) knew of Ireland,
the Bill, instead of being a boon, would be looked on as a curse,
and operate most injuriously.—( Hear, hear.) A great num-
ber of markets in Ireland were held till a late hour in the day ;
and people, if they attended them, could not avoid travelling
home after dark. But if this Bill was carried out, it would be
impossible for them to attend to their business at all.—( Hear,
hear. ) The result would be, that the attacks against parties
would be directed in another way than they were at present.
In July last he had sat on the grand jury of the county of Ros-
common, when the state of Ireland was discussed, and a motion
made for a petition to the Legislature in favour of a Coercion
Bill. lie Imposed the resolution then, and it was stated that
the Government would not support a Bill of that kind. In
that, it seems, he had been mistaken, as the present
Bill would show. He opposed the Bill, because he be-
lieved it would be the means of aggravating instead of
healing the evils of Ireland. Other resources might be easily
proposed that would be ;far more effectual; hut now, as ever
before, Ireland had been the victim of tardy legislation. What-
ever measures of a healing character the Government had to
vropose, the sooner it did so the better, especially the Land-
lord and Tenant Bill It was an astonishing, yet a melancholy
fact, that whenever Ireland was alluded to from the throne, it
ainmertactienshould
was in regard to its evils and distress, and not to its prosperity.
—( Hear, hear. ) It would be much more satisfactory arid
useful to consider the resources of Ireland, and how to develop
and apply them in the best manner, than in proposing coercive
and irritative measures like the one before them.—( Hear.)
Mr. M. MILNES said that in the observations he was about
to make he would confine himself strictly to the question, and
not launch into the sea of Irish politics. He looked on the
Bill before the House as a measure of police merely, and he
hoped a very temporary measure of police. And while it was,
he thought, required in the present state of Ireland, he hoped
other measures for the advancement of the social and moral
condition of the country would not be lost sight of.
He believed that the Government would be ready to receive
any suggestionsnretinflsresoomorme:ntehlfftlehoeicnfisil Gentlemen opposite calculated to
ldmi
Honourableuaamrkiduring
ng ttes Fißill
effective. This r
through
uT.
Secretary
sat spiritth at
hr
ehad
ijh
House
sehene sfhi
statedaw shorn
fully concurred in the sentiment of the Right
that he would never consent to make Ireland 'again the battle-
fieldthat
tohftspia3rttll He hoped it would not be allowed to go forth
*had been brought I sward as an insult to Ireland.
iwstaesd to meet certain
The bitterest enemy of the Government°oood7:tuosnt
oafdmthitatthat they
gthethe lines of party wlciilntforYr-*
had The
They
doneho d
smu
eu
ceehe d to ameliorate
give his support to this
,iitehe continuance in force of which
temporary.he lt must be recollected that
Bill, yoapseexadi smltvecodausli
measure
be Ireland.
fbpolicy,
li c y
the measure was intended mainly to meet the outrages which
were committed at the night time. These outrages were
the most difficult to meet, and,nt}ol
tetihrmeferoeaufnno therefore, an
foundation
that
axttthrteahoerydcinot relationrl
dy
ita:elin landlord and tenant. To do that
d ( Cheers.)
a general change in
reermadeiedavtowtahsorseequeivr.ieisdt.whhe
rtain which required
inlcahewt between
be e ecteThe
whichobject atof ptrbetsse n
Bille
stringent powers for their suppression. He trusted, however,
t
that her Majesty's Government would notiuc
tu.sne
oafnwy
hundue
severity in this matter. There were modifications which
might be made in the Bill, in the introhe
mshouldeasur bemeasure
readywouldbe followed to co-operate.
. hoped,
however,remedial
measures.
No English Government could go on without such measures.
No matter what Government was in power, the next year would
extensive
be a most important one with respect to the prosperity of Ire-
land, and he trusted that much time would not elapse before,
with the blessing of Providence, they were enabled to wipe
away that great stain which rested upon this country with re-
spect to the past Government of Ireland.--(Cheers.)
Mr. D. BROWNE expressed the gratification which he felt
at the moderate tone, and the conciliatory spirit which
had been exhibited by the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat
down, and he trusted that her Majesty's Government would
follow the example of the Honourable Gentleman, and
that they would adopt the course which had been recom-
mended to them. He (Mr. Browne) believed that the re-
dress of grievances would be the best remedy and preven-
tion of that crime which they all so much deplored. The
poor man's home, by this Bill, would be rendered a prison,
and compared to which the convict's dwelling was a pleasant
home. 'rho poor man would never be enabled to return to
hislomemithoutlearing that he would be subjected to the
espionage which this Bill would give emissaries of the law