had been given on this question, he certainly thought that this was one of the most serious cases that had come before Parliament for a long time, not perhaps as to the amount of money involved, but as affecting the character of a public man, and it would very seriously affect his Majesty's Government, if, after all their professions, they attempted to cast a shield over it. He really could see no difference between an eminent stationer procuring for his son a situation in the Stationery Office, and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland putting his own son into a situation, which a body of Commissioners, of which he himself was one, declared should not be filled up. He had no hesitation in saying, that he thought such an appointment might be afterwards revoked by the proceedings of that House, and that they should best discharge their duty by expressly showing, that if public men were so led away, such acts of injustice towards the public should meet with their decided reprobation. Some other circumstances of a similar character which had heretofore taken place, relative to the ap Mr. Hume was quite aware of the facts which the right hon. Gentleman had just stated. What he was about to observe was, that it was stated as a very important ground for the Motion, that the clergyman officiating in each of the parishes would have each of them, an adequate income, depending on his own efforts, and quite unconnected with any individual holding the monopoly of the rectory. Now, he must say, that this became a question of very serious importance, when after the Commissioners had declared their opinion in favour of a change, one of those Com-pointment by the Lord Chancellor of Iremissioners departed from that recommendation in favour of his own son. It certainly did appear to him, as the right hon. Baronet below him had very truly said, that if ever there was a case in which this House would be justified in interfering with an appointment of this description, it was this. He should very much like to know, who recommended this individual; who proposed to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland the promotion of his own son, and whether it was given at his own recommendation? He thought this was just that species of case in which the House ought to have the fullest possible information laid before it. After the appointment of this individual by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, he really could see no injustice in this House sitting as a Court of Equity, agreeing upon an Address to his Majesty, praying him to have justice done in this case, and that the recommendation of the Commissioners, which this House generally is of opinion it would be advantageous to adopt, may not be set aside by any of the parties interested in the question. land of his relatives to places of trust and profit, induced him very reluctantly to make these observations. He thought it was highly creditable to the individual appointed, that, when he discovered how the case really stood-he being ignorant of the recommendation of the Commissioners at the time of the appointment--he made the representation he did to the King's Government. He would maintain, however, that this had nothing to do with the merits of the appointment itself; and that they would not do an act of injustice to any one-even to that individual himself if they decided on the propriety of Addressing the Crown to revoke the appointment. If the right hon. Baronet were to press such a Motion to a division, he certainly should have his (Mr. Robinson's) most hearty support. Mr. Littleton perhaps might be allowed to suggest, that the House should abstain from expressing a very strong or decided opinion on this case, until it had ascertained the nature of the course taken by the Lord Lieutenant in Council-because the declared opinion might be, that in this case there was nothing to complain of. Whether this would be the case or not, he, of course, was unable to say; but this much he might state, that he (Mr. Little ton) had seen a letter, not addressed to him, and partaking somewhat of the nature of a private communication, in which the writer expressed the strongest opinion, that in consequence of the altered circumstances produced by the operation of the clause in the Temporalities' Act, it would be the duty of the Commissioners to revise the whole of their Report. What recommendation they might give under those altered circumstances was another question; but he thought the House should pause before it formed a judgment of a case, the merits of which were not in any way before it. cate with the Lord Chancellor and say, "For God's sake, make some arrangement which will remove your son from this appointment?" Is it not natural to suppose, that this course would have been pursued ? It had been said, that the Commissioners recommended that the salary should be 1,000l. a-year. It was now, he believed 3,000l. [Mr. Littleton: Oh, no! 2,0001.] Well then, the facts were clear, and required no comment; and under these circumstances he contended that they had a right to know what course his Majesty's Ministers meant to adopt with reference to the intervention on the part of one of their own Commissioners appointed by themselves who was Lord Chancellor of Ireland. Mr. Ruthven wished to remark, that one of the Commissioners appointed to value livings in the southern part of Ireland, was the son of the present holder of the deanery of Down. Colonel Davies said, that with reference to what had fallen from the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, he begged to remind the House, that this appointment took place long before the passing of the Church Temporalities' BiH. He could not help saying, that in his opinion this was one of the most scandalous cases of abuse that ever came under the consideration of the House. They were told, that the question was under the consideration of the Privy Council. Who was the most important member of that Privy Council? Why, the Lord Chancellor himself; and thus he was to be constituted as the Judge of his own act. He was very sorry the rightward would be effected, and therefore, hon. Baronet had been induced to withdraw his Motion. He thought the sense of the House ought to be taken upon it; and he had no doubt, that if he pressed it, e would be enabled to carry it. Mr. Sheil thought that the revision of the emoluments of the deanery, and of all those unions, was suggested, a year ago. Now, what were the facts of this case? The Commissioners made a certain Report; they recommended the dissolution of these unions; an avoidance took place; the Government had cognizance, or ought to have had cognizance, of this fact; the Lord Chancellor was one of the Commissioners; this appointment was made in the name of the Government; and he appointed his own son. Now surely this simple fact was sufficient; there was no complaint-there was no reference to what had been done; and when the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies was Secretary for Ireland, did he remonstrate with the Lord Chancellor when he was in office? This occurred three years ago, and he was Secretary for Ireland for two years during that period. Did the right hon. Gentleman communi Mr. Goulburn merely rose for the purpose of saying, that he was willing to accede to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He was quite confident, after what had passed to-night, and after the general expression of opinion on the part of the House, that the object he had in view in bringing this question for without depriving himself of the opportunity of again bringing the question under the consideration of the House, should it be necessary, he thought it would be more becoming in him not to press the matter at present. With reference to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, as to the operation of the Church Temporalities Bill having the effect of altering the Report of the Commissioners, he would only say, that if he had searched for the strongest argument which could be adduced in favour of this Motion, he could have found none of greater weight than that. Motion withdrawn. CALL OF THE HOUSE-REPEAL OF THE UNION.] Mr. Spring Rice: In rising to move for a Call of the House on the occasions of the Motions of the 15th and 22nd of April, for an investigation of the Union with Ireland, he had to apologise for the terms in which he had given his notice of Motion; but that circumstance arose from the notices on the book the one being for the 15th of April, and the next for the 22nd of April, for a Se lect Committee to inquire into, and to report the means by which the Repeal of the Union might be effected, &c. Now, he wished to know which Motion was to come on ? Mr. O'Dwyer: Both. Mr. Rice Then he would move, that this House be called over on both occasions. He knew it was unpopular to move a Call of the House, but he trusted he should stand excused, in resolving, that the call should be enforced on each occasion. Mr. O'Dwyer hoped the House would be called over. His own Motion stood for the 15th April. Sir Robert Peel hoped that his right hon. friend would show sufficient confidence in the House, thus far, that if the first Motion to which his notice referred were not carried, there could be no fear for the second. Mr. Rice said, he would not object to suspend the Motion of a Call of the House on a second notice of Motion, at the present moment, as he only wanted to have one full discussion, which he thought would be sufficient. But, he might find that the question fixed for the 15th was abandoned. If, then, the discussion for the 15th was not brought on on that day, he would move a Call of the House for the 22nd. House ordered to be called over on the 15th of April. BOROUGH OF WARWICK.] Mr. Halcombe rose, pursuant to his notice, to move the appointment of a "Select Committee to take into consideration the evidence already before the House, relative to the borough of Warwick, and to report to the House full particulars respecting the cases of bribery, and the class or description of persons bribed; and whether any treating, and to what extent, by the authority of the candidates or their agents, occurred after the issuing of the writ; and particularly to report whether in the event of disfranchising the parties bribed, or that class of electors to which they belonged, a sound and competent constituency would remain in the borough; and that such Committee be appointed by ballot, two Members being named by the House." The hon. and learned Member adverted to the Report of the Committee to which the case of the borough had been referred, and said, that he had asked the hon. and gallant Officer (Sir Ronald C. Ferguson) who was Chairman of the Committee, who it was, by whom the Report of the Committee had been drawn up, but the hon. and gallant Officer had refused to give him any information on the subject. He had heard, however, and he verily believed, that the Report had been drawn up, not by any member of the Committee, but by Mr. Parkes. Sir Ronald C. Ferguson said, that the hon. and learned Member was as ignorant on that point, as he was on all the other matters connected with the question. The Report had been drawn up by a member of the Committee, and was approved by the rest. Mr. Halcombe contended, that a course ought to be pursued with respect to Warwick, similar to that which the House had adopted with respect to the borough of Carrickfergus; and confidently submitted his Motion to the House. Motion negatived. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Wednesday, March 12, 1834. MINUTES.] Petitions presented. By Sir MICHAEL SHAW STEWART, from Paisley, for the Abolition of Church Patronage there.-By Sir ROBERT PEEL, from Bridgewater, in support of the Established Church.-By Mr. LITTLETON, from the Fishermen of Bantry, for Relief.By Colonel ANSON and Mr. LITTLETON, from two Places, -for the Better Observance of the Lord's Day.-By Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET, from Hertford, against the Bill for Disfranchising that Borough, and from Chepstow, for Protection to the Established Church.-By Sir FRANCIS VINCENT and Mr. KEMEYS TYNTE, from two Places,for Amending the Libel Law.-By Colonel SEALE, from Brixham, for the Repeal of the Reciprocity Duties Act; and from Dartmouth, for Protection to the Established Church.-By Mr. EWART, from Birkenhead, for a Vestryroom detached from the Church.-By Mr. W. WHITMORE, from Sedgeley, for the Repeal of the Sale of Beer Act.By Mr. O'CONNELL, from Rye, for Mitigating the Penalty imposed upon L. E. Cohen; and for the Amendment of the Libel Law; and from West Auckland, for Universal Suffrage, Vote by Ballot, and Annual Parliaments.-By Mr. WARD, from the Parish of Marylebone, against the Board of Sewers.-By Mr. O'CONNELL, from Galway, for the Repeal of the Apothecaries Act; from several Places, for the Abolition of Tithes; and for the Repeal of the Union. -By Lord MORPETH, Sir W. CHAYTOR, Colonel SEALE, Colonel WILLIAMS, and Messrs. C. BERKELEY, RYDER, H. HANDLEY, CALVERT, P. THOMSON, G. W. WOOD, GASKELL, L. WATKINS, BAINES, Brotherton, WILKS, BRODIE, W. WHITMORE, PARROTT, and EWART, from a Number of Places,-for Relief to the Dissenters.-By Mr. COLQUHOUN, from several Places, for the Abolition of Lay Patronage in Scotland.-By Lord MORPETH, from several Places, for Inquiry into the present State of the Medical Profession.-By Mr. RIDER, from three Places, for a Commutation of Tithes.-By Mr. COLQUHOUN, from Dumbarton, in favour of last year's Sabbath Observance Bill; and from one Parish, for a Revision of the Law relating to Parochial Schools in Scotland.-By Messrs. METHUEN and TALBOT, from several Places,--for an Alteration in the System of Poor Laws.-By Messrs. WHITMORE and C. BERKELEY, from several Places,-for the Better Observance of the Sabbath, allow such a state of things to go on without a remedy? DISTRESS-IRELAND.] Mr. O'Connell presented Petitions from the parish of St. Mary's, New Ross; from the parish of Longwood, county Meath; the parish of Tullalish, county Down; the parish of Ballyhogue, county Wexford;-for the Repeal of the Union. With regard to those petitions, he (Mr. O'Connell) would just mention to the House the circumstance of the women of these different places making an application to affix their signatures to the petitions. He mentioned this, to show the intense anxiety that predominated in the breast of the Irish people for the Repeal of the Union-an anxiety which would prevail until the object of it be attained. Mr. Poulett Scrope said, he had received a letter from Ireland, detailing scenes of misery which were sufficient to account for the feeling which the people had in favour of a Repeal of the Union, since that, they were told, would give them relief. The letter was from Dr. Locke, an officer of the Board of Health in Dublin. He stated, among other scenes he had recently witnessed, that in one house he found, in a garret, seven old and helpless females, without fire, food, or raiment, with the exception of a few rags, which they wore both night and day, which were wet, and remained so from the want of fire to dry them by. Dr. Locke added, that he had seen pigs in a sty better lodged. In an opposite room, he found nine human beings, younger than the first, with the same kind of covering. One of the women had a child hanging at her breast, crying for the nourishment she could not give, because she herself had been without food. But, he had seen still deeper miSery than this; for he had seen, men, women, boys, and giris, ying down and rising together in one common room. Children of both sexes, from six to twelve years of age, were familiar with vice of every description, having no employment, and no one to take care of their morals. In one house in Felix-street, near Smithfield, he found nineteen females in one room, who formerly were employed as glovers; but who now, when they rose in the morning, had not one penny between them to buy food. Such being the state of things described by Dr. Locke, was it to be wondered, that the people called out for anything which they were told would give them relief? Could they be living in a Christian and civilized country, and Mr. O'Connell said, that the gentleman who had written the letter quoted by the hon. member for Stroud, was worthy of every credit. He had not at all exaggerated the deplorable condition of many in the city of Dublin. Another officer of the Board of Health (Surgeon White) had published a pamphlet, detailing what he had seen, from which it appeared, that in one parish, containing 8,000 inhabitants, there was only one blanket between every thirty-five persons. Such a state of destitution, was frightful, and that man, who did not feel for it, could not have a human heart beat in his breast. The only question was, the mode of relieving it. Formerly, there was a million of Irish money spent in Dublin, which was not the case now. One hundred noblemen had their residences there, as also two hundred country gentlemen. If they were still there, Dr. Locke would not have to write letters complaining of the state of the people, to gentlemen in England. There was not a city in the world of its size where so much charity existed. The hospitals and other benevolent establishments were most numerous, and were all of them supported without the aid of Government. He thought, that the only effective method that could be devised for the relief of the distressed people of Dublin, would be to allow the Irish to manage their own affairs; to oblige those who had money to spend it at home; and to give some compulsory power, such as formerly existed in this country, by which absentees could not only be called home, but that persons having estates in Ireland, should not be allowed to have them elsewhere. hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House, thought a Poor-law the remedy for the distress to which he had alluded, but, in his opinion, a Poor-law would be an addition to the already existing grievances. He could never assent to the assertion, that, one man had a right to be relieved by the property of another being forcibly taken from him, and that was involved in the principle of Poor-laws. He did not say one word with respect to the moral obligation-his objection lay to the legal part of the question. There was no doubt that distress existed in Ireland, the difficulty was to find a remedy. The solution of that doubt would, he was sure, enlist all the feelings of that House. The Mr. Lambert said, that there was no | Committee had led to the present Bill. doubt that distress, to a melancholy ex- The object of the Bill was to carry the retent, existed in Ireland, but he did not see commendation of the Committee into efhow that distress would be relieved by the fect. The electors were divided into three Repeal of the Union. Distress had existed classes-the old inhabitant householders, previous to the Union, and it was matter who resided within the limits of the old of history, that measures of the greatest borough, and who were subject to no injustice to the poor had been passed by qualification but the payment of rates and the Irish Parliament. He admitted, that taxes; 2ndly, the freemen; 3rdly, the new absenteeism was an evil; but did it de- 107.constituency. The object of the Bill was crease the evil of absenteeism, by render- to disfranchise the first class, as being ing the country uninhabitable, and driving the most determined supporters of the out of it every man who did not belong bribery; leaving the two other classes, who to a particular faction? He knew that were scarcely tainted with corruption, many gentlemen had been driven out of untouched. The whole number who the country by the state of things which polled were about 671, and the total numexisted there-three were gentlemen who ber of voters about 702. Of these, 314 gave large employment to the people. were inhabitant householders of the first Employment was all that was wanted to class; 264 were 107. householders; and relieve the distress of the people; and he 124 freemen. It appeared also, from much thought it would tend to more good, to of the evidence on the first Election Comdirect the public attention to the demand-mittee, that the extent of bribery and coring measures of practical relief, than to delude them into the pursuit of those which were impracticable. Governed as Ireland had been for centuries, she had at last a right to expect justice, and that justice would be most effectually rendered by taking measures for the relief of the people, by giving them employment and support. Mr. Ruthven was sorry, that, however Irish Members might disagree on other subjects, they were quite unanimous as to the existence of distress. It was too bad, after Ireland for thirty-three years had been suffering the effects of the Union, to attribute her present state to the bad Acts passed by the Irish Parliament. Ireland was in a state which required a variance from the strict principles of free trade. Her manufactures must be protected, for a time at least, and some measures should be taken to check absenteeism. He denied that any man was unsafe in Ireland, unless he made himself exceedingly obnoxious by his opposition to the interests of the people. Petition to lie on the Table. HERTFORD BOROUGH DISFRANCHISE MENT.] Mr. Bernal moved the Order of the Day for the second reading of this Bill. As this measure had been already very fully discussed, he should not trouble the House at any length. That Report of, and evidence taken by the first Committee was referred to a Special Committee, and the recommendation of that ruption depended materially on the limits. |