Page images
PDF

his knowledge; and, because Mr. St. George, one of the most respectable men in Ireland, had done something that was distasteful to the Government, he also was removed from the magistracy. The truth was, that the present case was the parallel of that in which Mr. O'Connell was concerned. Mr. O'Contiell was a magistrate for the county of Kerry, and although he had used denunciations at Cailow, which Mr. Vignolls, the chief constable of police, was ready to verify, his statement being substantiated by the testimony of two of the officers of the 71st regiment, yet Mr. O'Connell was allowed to continue in the commission of the peace for the county of Kerry. This, then, was anything but even-handed justice. He (the Marquess of Weslmeath) brought the subject forward, on public grounds, and not wishing to say anything of Mr. Sheil more than he could help, for he did not even know him, the only additional remark he would make, was, that he did not think Mr. Sheil was in such a situation in life as to justify his being placed on the bench of a county where the magistrates were all men of great respectability and large property. The noble Marquess, in conclusion, moved for the production of the evidence taken during the inquiry at Mullingar, and the report of the Commissioners thereupon.

Lord Plunket said, that it was not his intention to reply to that part of the speech of the noble Marquess which applied to himself in relation to the appointment of Mr. Sheil to the magistracy of the county of Westmeath, and he thought their Lordships weuld also excuse him if he declined to follow the noble Marquess through the imputations which he had cast on the Lord-lieutenant, Mr. Drummond, and Lord Morpeth. He mentioned Lord Morpeth, because he was one of those against whom censure had been pronounced by the noble Marquess; for it was Lord Morpeth who had recommended the appointment of Mr. Sheil, on the ground that it would not only be satisfactory, but lead to the peace and tranquillity of that part of the country. It was, in fact, on the recommendation of Lord Morpeth that he (Lord Plunket) made the appointment; but still he denied, that the noble Marquess had any right to complain of that appointment, inasmuch as he had been applied to for information on the subject, but had failed

to state any objection which could be considered as valid. This was the reason why he had used Lord Morpeth's name. The observations which the noble Marquess had made about Mr. Deglisau, Mr. Blacker, and others, had no relation whatever to the present subject; but although the noble Marquess had spent upwards of half an hour in making statements respecting the trial which had resulted from a transaction which took place in an alehouse in Mullingar, he should like to know on what authority the noble Marquess rested these statements. The only authority on which such statements could be made, was the evidence; and that was not before their Lordships. How, then, could they judge whether the noble Marquess was right or wrong? If he were to give a peremptory contradiction to the statements of the noble Marquess, he should be liable to censure; and, therefore, he conceived, that the noble Marquess could not be held blameless for having brought forward as facts, matters which it was impossible he could verify. He would not impute any thing like wilful mistake to the noble Marquess, but if he thought fit to cast imputations, he ought to enable that House to judge for themselves, whether those imputations were just or not. His belief w as, that the noble Marquess was mistaken; but how could he verify this assertion in the absence of the evidence? On the evidence, the whole case rested; and no doubt when it was produced, the noble Marquess would take an opportunity of going over the whole ground again. So far as he knew of the evidence, he believed the noble Marquess was in error from beginning to end, in all that he had stated; and this he would find, when the papers for which he had called were produced. He would not have said thus much, if he had not felt it to be his duty to contradict the extravagant statements in which the noble Marquess had indulged; but with respect to his own conduct in the affair, all he could say was, that when a recommendation was forwarded to him by the Lord-lieutenant, he had a right to act' upon it without reference to the noble Marquess. Mr. Sheil was a highly respectable gentleman, and, although he might not possess as large a property as other magistrates, still his property was considerable. It was no objection to Mr. Sheil that there were enough of magistrates without him; and thai was the only

[graphic][subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]
[graphic]

571 Gibraltar {COMMONS} Lighthouse. 572

Sir E. Soodbn, Lord O. Somerset, ami Mr. M. Philips, from various places, against the encouragement of Idolatrous Worship in India,—By Mr. M. J. O'connell, from the Spirit Dealers of Killarney and Tralcc, praying to be placed on the same footing with their fellow tradesmen in this country.'—By Sir R. Inglis, from the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury, against the Ecclesiastical Appointments Suspension; and from the county of Gloeester, against the Grant to Maynooth College.—By Mr. HindLey, from Stockport, in favour of the Ballot.

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 250,000/. for the support of light-houses, but the expense of the light-houses did not exceed 60,000/. or 70,000/. The remainder went into private hands. It was said it was applied in pensions to captains and seamen by the Trinity Mouse. 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.

Mi. War bur ton 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 apportioning 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 question, 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 iu 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 sec the lighthouse erected, but lie- thought its erection should take place at the expense of the surplus revenue of Gibraltar, or the surplus revenue of the Trinity House.

[graphic]
[graphic]

The Committee divided on the original motion. Ayes 92 ; Noes 22—Majority 70.

List of the Ayes.

Adam, Admiral
Archbold, R.
Baker, E.
Barnard, E. G.
Barrington, Vise.
Blackburne, I.
Blair, J.

Blennerhassett, A.
Bowes, J.
Bramston, T. W.
Broadley, H.
Brotherton, J.
Brownrigg, S.
Bruges, W. H. L.
Campbell, Sir J.
Canning, Sir S.
Chute, W. L. W.
Clements, Lord Vise.
Craig, W. G.
Darby, G.
Divett, E.
Douglass, Sir C. D.
Dunbar, G.
Ebrington, Vise.
Fergusson, R. C.
Follett, Sir \V.
Gibson, T.
Goulburn, II.
Graham, Sir J.
Grant, F. W.
Grattan, J.
Grey, Sir G.
Ilastie, A.
Ilawes, B.
llayter, W. G.
Hill, Lord A. M. C.
Ilindley, C.
Hobhouse, Sir J.
Hogg, J. W.
Hope, hon. C.
IIo|.e,G. W.
Houldsworth, T.
Howard, P. II.
Inglis, Sir R. II.
James, Sir W. C.
Jones, T.
Knight, H. G.
Lascelles, W. S.

Lefevre, C. S.
Lemon, Sir C.
Lockhart, A.M.
Lowther, J. II.
Lushington, C.
Lygon, hon. Gen.
Lynch, A. H.
M'Taggart, J.
Mahon, Vise.
Martin, T. B.
Morpeth, Vise.
Morris, D.
O'Brien, W. S.
Palmer, G.
Palmerston, Vise.
Parker, M.
Parker, R. T.
Peel, Sir R.
Perceval, Colonel
Phillpotts, J.
Ponsonby, C. F.
Praed, W. T.
Price, Sir R.
Pusey, P.
Rich, H.
Richards, R.
Rushbsook, Col.
Russell, Lord J.
Seymour, Lord
Sibthorpe, Col.
Sinclair, Sir G.
Stanley, Lord
Style, Sir C.
Sugden, Sir E.
Surrey, Earl of
Thomas, Colonel H.
Thomson, C. P.
Townley, R. G.
Troubridge, Sir E.
Turner, E.
Williams, W. A.
Wilmot, Sir J.
Wodehouse, E.
Wood, C. W.

TELLEHS.

Maule, hon. F.
Stanley, E. J.

[blocks in formation]

Vere, Sir C. B. Telleks
Warburton, H. Hume, J.

Ward, H. G. Wallace, R.

Clause agreed to.

The remainder of the clauses were agreed to, and the House resumed.

Expedition To The Persian Gulf.] Sir Stratford Canning wished fto put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, the president of the Board of Control, and he was much mistaken if the right hon. Gentleman would not willingly embrace the opportunity of affording information to the public on a point of considerable importance, particularly to the commercial interests of the country. It had been known to commercial men for some days, that an expedition composed of several armed vessels, and having on board a body of 500 or 600 men, commanded by Colonel Sherrift", had sailed from Bombay to the Persian Gulf. The only conceivable object of such an expedition must have reference to Bushire, the most important port belonging to Persia on the Persian Gulf, or to the island of Karak, in the neighbourhood of that place. As both belonged to Persia, it was obvious that an expedition sent with the view of taking possession of any of those places must involve us in hostilities with that power. It was therefore very important to those who were connected with the trade of the country to ktrtw if the expedition was directed to objects of a kind likely to be attended with that consequence.

Sir J. Hobhouse had to state, that it was undoubtedly true that a small expedition had by this time at least sailed from Bombay for the head of the Persian Gulf, consisting of a frigate, a brig, two steamers, and a Government transport, having on board about 500 sepoys, commanded by the gallant officer named by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had stated what would be the result, supposing certain orders to have been given. He could only inform the right hon. Gentleman that the expedition had been sent to that quarter in consequence of a despatch received from the Governor-general of India by the Governor of Bombay, in which was stated the reason why the Governor-general thought it advisable to send sucli an expedition. The right hon. Gentleman knew that the East India Company had a resident at Bushire; he knew also that they had a resident at Bagdad he knew

[graphic]
[subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][graphic]
« PreviousContinue »