1. 569 568 nch could be con as the reason why eth's name. The ble Marquess had san, Mr. Blacker, lation whatever to but although the it upwards of half Cements respecting Ited from a trans in an alehouse in to know on what ness rested these thority on which made, was the not before their ould they judge ess was right or e a peremptory ements of the d be liable to he conceived, uld not be held ght forward as impossible he not impute any to the noble ght fit to cast able that House ether those imHis belief was, was mistaken; is assertion in ce? On the ested; and no ed, the noble pportunity of d again. So e, he believed The Westmeath {JULY 24} Election. 570 objection which the noble Marquess had | Anglesea. And yet some time afterwards. urged against his appointment. The noble the noble and learned Lord opposite had Marquess said, that his prognostications thought proper to appoint this very genwith respect to Mr. Sheil, were borne out tleman to the magistracy-contrary to the by the evidence; but if it should turn out remonstrances of the lord-lieutenant of that the contrary was the case, why had the county, the noble Marquess who had not the noble Marquess attended the in-introduced this motion-and subsequently quiry, as he might have done, in order to to the transactions complained of. [Lord make good the charges he had brought Plunkett: The appointment was not, in forward? In conclusion, he must say, any way, connected with those transthat he had scarcely ever witnessed a more actions.] He begged the noble and unprecedented course than that which had learned Lord's pardon; but no one could been adopted by the noble Marquess that doubt that the appointments of both the night in moving for these papers; and he gentlemen alluded to in this motioncould only add, that, if he was rightly in-appointments made in the teeth of remonformed, the statements made by the noble strances on the part of lords-lieutenant of Marquess, so far as the charge against counties-were nothing less than political Mr. Fitzsimon and Mr. Sheil were con- appointments. He was prepared to prove cerned, were strongly denied by the evi-it, if necessary, from the papers he held in dence relating to the transactions them- his hand. They were recommended to be selves. appointed to the commission of the peace by the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland himself The Duke of Wellington said, that he could not agree with the noble and learned and were appointed in spite of the reLord who had just sat down, that the monstrances of the lieutenant of the course taken by the noble Marquess on county in question. It appeared, that the he present occasion, was very unusual- Government had thought proper to order lthough it was one which might not, per- a party of police to preserve the peace in aps, be exactly in accordance with the the county of Westmeath during the peParliamentary rule. The noble Marquess riod of the elections, and that one of those ad risen for the purpose of calling the gentlemen, although himself a magistrate ttention of their Lordships to that which of the county-had opposed himself to nust ever be considered a very important another magistrate, who was in the disubject by their Lordships-namely, the charge of his duty, keeping the peace in a ppointment of magistrates in Ireland, public-house in the county. Would any nd the conduct of the noble and learned one say, that this was justice-or that this ord with respect to those appointments. was the manner in which a just Governfe held in his hands, the papers which ment should be carried on? He only ad been moved for by the noble Marquess wished to justify the noble Marquess in n a former occasion, and, in moving for bringing this case before their Lordships, thers, the noble Marquess had taken oc- a thing which the papers already produced asion to advert to the conduct of the fully justified him in doing. He was sorry oble and learned Lord in the appoint-to be under the necessity of referring to Jent of magistrates, and to the conduct of the subject; but he must say, that until hose magistrates. The noble Marquess Ireland should be governed with justice ad also moved for other papers, the ob- and fairness-they might give her either ect of which was to show what had been poor-laws or corporations, if they pleased; e nature of the conduct of the Irish but they would not render her condition lovernment with regard to appointments by any means so happy a one as he was the magistracy, as well as what was the most anxious and desirous to see it. ate of society in Ireland, which was pro- Returns ordered. uced by those appointments. He found, at one of the gentlemen who had thus een appointed magistrates, having thought roper to place himself at the head of an legal meeting in Ireland, held for the urpose of stimulating the destruction of roperty, which had ever been considered tered by Parliament, had been dismissed om the magistracy by the Marquess of rror from be- the papers e produced. O contradict bar with de afait, HOUSE OF COMMONS, Petitions presented. By Mr. AGLIONBY, from Dumfries, GIBRALTAR LIGHTHOUSE.] The House went into Committee on the Gibraltar Light-house Bill. On Clause 4, and on Question that the blank in it be filled up with one shilling, Mr. Hume objected to the tax of one shilling upon all vessels passing Gibraltar being imposed. This country allowed 250,0001. for the support of light-houses, but the expense of the light-houses did not exceed 60,000l. or 70,000l. The remainder went into private hands. It was said it was applied in pensions to captains and seamen by the Trinity House. If it were necessary to apply such a sum in pensions, it ought to go under the proper head. The commerce of the country was already very much taxed. This clause was adding to the evil of giving to an irresponsible body like the Trinity House, additional power. He would ask the hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Trade on what principle it was that they proposed to extend the power of the Trinity House to Gibraltar? No Government ought to seek to give such powers to a self-elected body like the Trinity House. He should move the exclusion of the clause. Mr. Warburton said, the Trinity House had come badly out of the inquiry on the subject of lighthouses. Why then was it to be selected for the purpose of superintending the Gibraltar lighthouse. The Ballast Board in Ireland and the Northern lighthouse commissioners went upon the regular and proper principle of apportion ing their revenue to the actual cost of the lighthouses. Let one of these boards, then be chosen. He should support the motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny. Mr. O'Connell put in a claim on behalf of the Irish Belfast Board (of which he was a member), for that board had conducted itself best of any. It had diminished the taxation on the public, and its members asked no remuneration for their services, thus standing in proud contrast to the Trinity House. Mr. Poulett Thomson said, that was not the time to discuss the rival merits of their lighthouse Boards. The Trinity House, however, had been proved before the Lighthouse committee to have conducted itself with great propriety; and a bill had been passed last Session, giving it additional powers. He did not think the board deserved the censure which had been heaped upon it. Now, with respect to the clause in ques tion, his hon. Friend had asked why put this lighthouse under the Trinity House? The reason for doing so was, because Parliament decided two years ago that lighthouses should be put under that body, and the proposal now made was merely following out the precedent laid down in the case of Heligoland. His hon. Friend. then objected to the toll, and said there was a surplus revenue at Gibraltar. If so it was carried to the account of the public, and therefore paying this charge out of the surplus revenue would be nothing more than making a charge on the public of the sum necessary to keep up this light. His hon. Friend in this was contending for the principle of all lights being paid by the country, on which principle the House did not agree with the hon. Member. The hon. Member said this was a mere trifle. He was perfectly aware of that. The country had erected the lighthouse, and all that was required was a small sum for the annual expense of maintaining it. The shipping interest were willing to pay these dues, and he had introduced the Bill at their request and with their sanction. He hoped the House would agree to the charge in the manner suggested. Mr. Wallace, as a member of the committee two years ago, begged to remind the hon. Gentleman that it was then understood that in case any new lighthouse was built they were not to follow the track of the Trinity House. He wished to know what was to become of the surplus income of Gibraltar; was it to go into the coffers of the Trinity House? It was monstrous to collect a revenue in the shape of lighthouse duty, under the name of charitable purposes. Mr. Hume said, that Gibraltar, since its capture, had been a free port, and the effect of the Bill would be to destroy that, He would put it to the House whether, for the sake of a paltry shilling, it would adopt such a clause. He wished to see the lighthouse erected, but he thought its {JULY 24} Warburton, H. erection should take place at the expense | Vere, Sir C. B. Adam, Admiral on it. Archbold, R. ues. Baker, E. put Barnard, E. G. Barrington, Visc. Blackburne, I. Blair, J. Blennerhassett, A. Bramston, T. W. Par ght ody, rely n in end ere 80 lic, Bowes, J. Broadley, H. Canning, Sir S. Dunbar, G. Graham, Sir J. of Chute, W. L. W. ing Clements, Lord Visc. blic Craig, W. G. ght. Darby, G. for Divett, E. the Douglass, Sir C. D. use Ebrington, Visc. The Fergusson, R. C. ifle. Follett, Sir W. he Gibson, T. nd Goulburn, H. Rich, H. Richards, R. Thomas, Colonel H. TELLERS. Maule, hon. F. List of the NOES. Kinnaird, hon. A. Knight, H. G. Lascelles, W. S. Aglionby, H. A. Boldero, H. G. Bridgeman, II. Chalmers, P. Codrington, Admiral Power, J. Dalrymple, Sir A, Duncan, Lord Hector, C. J. James, W. Redington, T. The remainder of the clauses were agreed to, and the House resumed. EXPEDITION TO THE PERSIAN GULF.] Sir J. Hobhouse had to state, that it 575 Poor-Laws (Ireland)— {COMMONS} Lords Amendment. 576 also that an important experiment had lately |fringement of the privileges of this House, been tried in order to ascertain whether it was customary to communicate with the the navigation of the Euphrates was prac-Speaker on the subject. It so happened, ticable. The right hon. Gentleman was therefore, that he had been applied to perhaps also aware that our commercial by a very distinguished person in referrelations with that part of the world had ence to this bill. In reply to questions become much more extensive than for- which were put to him, he then said, that merly. It was in consequence of the po- if his opinion were called for on the sublitical state of Central Asia that the Go-ject of these amendments he felt bound to vernor-general had thought it requisite for the protection of British interests to send that expedition to the port indicated by the right hon. Gentleman. He believed the right hon. Gentleman would think him right in declining to say anything further than that the expedition had sailed on the 24 or 5th of June, in consequence of in-necessarily incidental to such a measure, structions from the Government at home; and the Governor-general of India. say, that he considered them as an infringement of the privileges of the Commons' House. But, at the same time, as the bill was one of a very peculiar character, affecting not only the proprietors of the land but the great mass of the people of Ireland, and as the principle of rating was he considered that if the privileges of this Sie Stratford Canning was satisɓed with they would almost tend to prevent the House were strictly pressed in such a case, the manner in which the night hon. Gen- House of Peers from taking such a measure tleman had answered his question, but he into its consideration in a way that might had one doubt remaining, which it was de- be on all grounds advisable. On referring sirable to have removed. think it was clear from the answer of the namely, those of the English Poor-law He did not to precedents he found two instances, night hon. Gentleman whether the expe-Bill, and the English Municipal Corpora. diton was sent merely for general purposes, tions Bill, in which amendments were or with a specific object. Of course, if it made by the House of Lords which ha ro specific object, any apprehension; were not strictly in conformity with the wh h might be entertained of an imme- privileges of the House of Commons. diate change in the character of our rels Referring to those precedents, it was for tions with Persia would vanish. He hoped the House to consider whether, in rethe right hon. Gentleman weed consider ference to the present bill, they should himself at liberty to satisty has doubts on throw out the bill as amended by the in with those amendments might be inLords and then introduce another bel corporated; or whether they should waire the hingement of their privilege, and smesed to the consideration of the Lords" amendments. As the arikrised garda: of the paleges of the House, he had booght (a riigis to expia his ecoduct on the present cerasco, which ne trusted would meet with the approval of the House; at the same time he must aid House would be best secured by being act that he taught the privileges of this the for pressed. Siz J. Hahhouse feared that his day would not permit be to gue my other nswer thus that he had already given He had admitted the Bois mesteret år the right hon. Genteman, and be trustad when the proper tire arrived that Farm went and the publie would rank the Governor-general of Ind a verfibetly mists feu la vie course he had taken. Subject Prompet. 1 Lori John Basel sail that the House he was sure, woubi feel seir moth injedord 22 the Speaker for the anxiety with he had acended to the protectipa 2 for sewleges He agreed entirely 1. Setlemen, that in is isserpton, in wirt wrich དདང ནང པཱ སུཅ ཅེངད 1:| དྷཱནོ?བྱད རྣ 6 པ ns. ouse of Lords in their legislative func- himself, he should propose that the House On looking back at the English should now agree to it. The principle of oor-law Bill it would be found that the amendment was clearly to create a ere were amendments proposed in that feeling of responsibility and of interest in ill by the House of Lords as fully con- all parties to attend to the general conected with the subject of rating as any cerns of their respective districts, which 1 the present bill. He hoped, therefore, might have a wholesome tendency. He hat the House would enter upon the con- should recommend, therefore, that the ideration of these amendments, which House should agree to this amendment vere, doubtless, framed with the view with some verbal alterations which he had rather of forwarding the objects of the bill to propose in it. There was another clause than otherwise. Perhaps there never was inserted for the punishment of desertion a bill of such vast public moment which of the wife and child by the husband and was agreed to by the House of Commons father. There was, however, a very in the absence of all party feeling, and by material amendment with respect to which so large a majority, the third reading of it it was very probable, that the Speaker having been carried by a majority of 234 might have to consider whether or not it against 59. The bill had since received came within the privileges of that House. the mature consideration of the House of It was, in the first place, an omission of a Lords, and, with the insertion of some clause inserted in that House with regard amendments, had been agreed to. On to 5l. tenements; and, in the second place, the whole, considering the importance of a substitution of another clause with rethe subject, and the vast number of pro- spect to the charge which might be taken visions which were required for the pur- by the owners on the payment by rates of pose of carrying it into effect, and the such tenements. According to the bill as diversity of interests and opinions which it went up from that House, the occupiers must necessarily be involved by it, even of tenements under the value of 51. were after the principle of the measure was not in the first instance to pay the rate, sanctioned, he must say, that the amend- but that they should have the power of ments which the House of Lords had made charging the whole rate on the landlords. in this measure were less in number and They were, therefore, in limine, exempt importance than might have been expected. altogether from the rate. Now, the House Two or three of these amendments, how-of Lords had determined that these perever, were of considerable importance. sons should, in the generality of instances, One of the most important was that pay the rate; at the same time they did whereby an approach to the law of settle-not alter the total amount of rate, whatment was attempted. It was proposed by this amendment to divide the country into electoral districts, in order that, whenever a person was received into the workhouse of the union, the expense of his maintenance should be charged to the particular district to which he belonged. Whilst this was proposed, however, the question of residence was not to be raised, and there would be no exclusion of parties on account of their settlements, to whatever part of the kingdom they might properly belong. He considered, therefore, that this amendment was not liable to the great inconvenience which the law of settlement generally led to, namely, the prevention of the circulation of labour from one part of the country to another; and, therefore, although he felt much doubt as to the practical effect of this provision, which he was inclined to think would remain in a great measure inoperative, and though he certainly should not have proposed it VOL. XLIV. {i} ever it might be, which was settled by the board of guardians on application to the commissioners, and they proposed another clause by which an arrangement took place between the landlords and tenants with regard to the small holdings. What the House of Lords proposed was in substance, that the owner and the tenant should make an arrangement between themselves by which the owner might agree to a certain deduction not exceeding ten per cent. for the sum to which the small tenements were liable, and with the approbation of the guardians, and the sanction of the commissioners, that such payment by the owners should exempt the occupiers of tenements. He thought it would be a very vexatious and inexpedient proceeding if they were to insist on their privilege as a ground of objection to this alteration. He thought it one of those alterations which did not touch the general question of taxation. It was not with U |