Meanwhile, parliament should determine on measures of relief; not such as would be pleasing to the Orangemen in particular, nor yet in particular to the Catholics: but such as would be most beneficial to the people of Ireland at large. The amendment was negatived without a division, and the House resolved itself into a committee, in which the blanks of the bill were filled up. HOUSE OF COMMONS. VOTES OF MEMBERS ON QUESTIONS IN WHICH THEY ARE PERSONALLY INTERESTED.] Mr. Byng having presented a petition against the Isle of Dogs Railway, Mr. Grenfell lamented the absence of the hon. member for Montrose. He wished it to be directly understood whether or not the principle which was laid down last night respecting hon. members interested in private bills was to be uniformly acted upon. What he was anxious to know was, whether it was his hon. friend's intention to bring forward a specific proposition to the effect, that persons so interested, directly or indirectly, should not be allowed to vote; if not, he would take the earliest opportunity of doing so himself. He had this object in view-an object indispensable to the honour and consistency of the House-namely, not only that the votes of members having a direct interest in the bills under consider ation, should be disallowed; but that the votes should also be disallowed of those members who had a direct interest in any undertaking that might be prejudiced by such bills. Mr. Brougham said, that the mode of voting on private bills was so scandalous in its nature, that he had made it a rule never to vote upon a private bill, nor had he ever voted, except upon one, which was not in his estimation, a private bill, but a bill of considerable public interest, the Highgate chapel bill. That was in itself a corrupt job of an attorney, not out of zeal for the welfare of the church, or any excess of piety, but out of a corrupt love of jobbing, for his own bill of charges. But the House would not go half far enough if it stopped at the exclusion of those who had an interest either in supporting or opposing the bill. Why should a member be prevented from giving his own vote, and be left at liberty to obtain as many votes as he could, by the solicitation of himself or his agent, his wife or his sister? Persons went about with letters from members, entreating the votes and interests of other members to whom such letters were addressed; meaning thereby that they were to come down, not only to give their own corrupt votes, but to endeavour to corrupt as many others as they could prevail with for the same object. It was that view of the scandalous jobbing in votes for private bills which had caused him to take the resolution which he had mentioned. He had before stood in this breach, and had been checked by the bashful consciousness of the House, from relating an anecdote concerning the manner of voting on those occasions, as if hon. gentlemen were afraid that he was tearing away, with too rude a hand, the veil of mystery which hung before that branch of parliamentary proceeding. But now, to show the notoriety of those practices, which were equally shameful to the character of the House, and a just complaint among the people, he would relate that very anecdote which the House, from a consciousness of its own virtue, had refused to let him mention before. It was a fact which took place in the progress of that Highgate chapel job. He was counsel for the bill. The proceedings in the committee resembled more an investigation of a committee under the Grenville act. The committee sat from ten till the meeting of the House daily-examinations were met by cross-examinations-there were objections taken which were again replied toall forms of argument were resorted to in turn. He had never seen business more regularly, zealously, or effectually performed." His hon. and learned friend Warren was in favour of the bill, which was about to be rejected, not by jobbing in votes-the opponents of the bill were determined not to solicit one, but-by main strength-by the absolute goodness of the cause. They had sixteen votes out of twenty gentlemen who had uniformly attended the committee. At that instant, when victory was sure, as they all thought, the other committee-rooms were ransacked and swept; down came twenty new members, who had never heard one word of the proceedings, and overwhelmed the sixteen who had prepared their minds, by tedious examination, to reject the bill. The good sense of the House fortunately prevailed at last, and the bill was rejected. He wished to say a word or two more on | must be shocked at the manner in which this subject. It was a well-known prin- private business was conducted in that ciple of our constitution, that persons on House. It was unworthy of a civilized a jury should not determine on the rights country. The success of a private bill deof private property, without fully examin-pended, not on its merits, but on the ining the claims of the parties. The mem-terest by which it was supported or opbers of that House, however, did so with- posed. That was notorious. Canvassing out hesitation. They allowed themselves was the mode resorted to by the friends to be influenced, not by justice, but by and enemies of a private bill; and evifavour and affection. The very men who dence and argument were overborne by would shudder at the notion of so con- activity and numbers. How would any ducting themselves on a jury, would, in a gentleman who was about to serve on a committee-room of that House, decide jury, receive a request from a friend that ignorantly, shamelessly, and without com- he would favour him in any particular cause? punction. To him it appeared, that that Would he not resent it as a serious insult? was a much greater evil than allowing a Yet, in the much more important cases member who had an interest in a bill to that were determined by committees of vote upon it in the House. Nor, indeed, the House of Commons, solicitations of was he quite sure that the latter propo- that nature were looked upon as mere matsition was strictly legal. The members ters of course. For his own part, he had of the House of Commons represented never voted on a private bill until he had the interests of all their constitueents, and examined the question, and made himself their own too; and he was not prepared to well acquainted with it. This, however, say, that they had not a right to vote upon was any thing but the general practice. every question brought before the House."We are only doing what is done by But, on the other point, there could be no others," was the apology with which hon. doubt whatever. He had no objection to gentlemen tranquillised their consciences. any hon. member's voting in a committee So convinced was he of the partiality and on a private bill; but then it ought to be injustice evinced by committees on private in consequence of his having made up his bills, that rather than leave private busimind upon the evidence and argument; ness in the state in which it was, he would it ought to be because he thought the bill consent to remove it out of the House. should or should not pass, but not because No other tribunal could be so decidedly A or B requested him to vote so or so. objectionable. Perhaps the evil might But, if hon. members who were interested be diminished by ballotting, as in the in private measures were to be disqualified case of election committees; giving the from voting upon them, why should the committee so appointed the power of disqualification stop there? Why should adding to their number members whose a lord of the Admiralty be permitted to local knowledge might render their assistvote on the motion of the hon. memberance advantageous. At all events, he for Newcastle, to reduce the number of was for limiting the right of voting in comthe board? Why should borough owners mittees to those members who had heard be allowed to vote against parliamentary the argument and the evidence. reform? Why should those who fatten whatever levity might be exhibited by on the public purse be allowed to vote those hon. members who came down against economy? Why should persons merely to vote in committees on private in place and office, be permitted to vote, bills, he was sure they would be deterred year after year, against the motion of the from voting against the justice of the case, hon. member for Wareham, for abolish- if they previously rendered themselves ing the salt duties, the abolition of which masters of its merits. With regard to might certainly tend to prevent them from the House itself, he certainly thought having "salt to their porridge?" He they had a right to expect that any hon. trusted, therefore, that those who were member who had a direct interest in a desirous to prevent interested individuals private bill before them should, as a man from voting on private bills, would have of honour, avoid voting upon it by a selfthe virtue to go a step further, and endea- challenge. But, to go further, might be vour to prevent interested individuals productive of much inconvenience. from voting on public measures. Mr. Baring agreed with much that had fallen from his learned friend. Every man For, Colonel Davies protested against the doctrine which had been advanced with respect to the right of voting. When members received instructions from their | had occasion to find fault with the decisions constituents on any particular measure, of that House, but not upon the disposal were they to be deprived of the power of of private bills. Besides, the temptation carrying those instructions into effect? to corruption was not a tenth part so great He doubted the right of the House to upon private as upon public transactions. disqualify any of their members in that It would be idle, therefore, to remove the manner. It was true, the House might private business to another tribunal, while have come to resolutions of that kind; the great public questions were left to the but how frequently did they, as in the management of those whose liability to celebrated case of the Middlesex election, corruption made that removal necessary. regret resolutions by which they in fact disfranchised a portion of the people? At any rate, the prohibition, if agreed to at all, should be complete. To prevent those who had a direct interest in a bill from voting for it, while those who had an indirect interest against a bill were allowed to vote against it, would be at once to stop all private business, and to paralyse the energies of the country. Mr. Bright agreed that it would be wrong to allow business of this nature to be decided by any other tribunal. But he was not of opinion, that the private business of that House was conducted with perfect purity. That he must deny. Decisions were very often made by persons who knew nothing about the business on which they voted. This showed that the private business was not carried on in such a way as to give satisfaction to the country and the suitor. The hon. gentleman said, that if any injustice was done, parties might come to the House and have the obnoxious bill repealed. This was not altogether so certain; besides, they should not lose sight of the expense which it entailed upon the aggrieved parties. The hon. colonel had said, "What are we to do? we are sent here by our constituents, and are bound to vote in support of their interests." He Mr. Calcraft allowed, that where a member had a direct interest in a private bill, he ought to abstain from voting upon it; but, further than that, it appeared to him to be difficult to go. He did not well see how canvassing in the committees could be prevented. In every concern between man and man interest and influence must operate; and if hon. members were not fit to be trusted with the private, they must be still less fit to be trusted with the public and more important business of parliament. But really, notwith-agreed with the gallant officer, that being standing all that had been said, he had seldom heard any complaint made of the way in which private bills passed through that House. For, let the committee be as jobbing as it might, the bill came back to the House, and might there be thrown out. Then again, it went to the other House of parliament. Surely, let the conduct of committees be as criminal as it had been declared to be, there were sufficient checks upon it. Besides, if any bill, when passed, was found to be impolitic or injurious, nothing was more easy than to propose its repeal: this was the course which he proposed on a former occasion, when he found a bill injurious in its operation. What did the objections amount to, but to this-that, while the whole of the great public business of the nation was to remain in the hands of the House of Commons, its members were to be declared unfit to manage its private and less important matters? If this was in reality the case, in God's name, let them go about their business, and leave it to the country to return more fit and proper representatives! He had often sent there, they were bound to do their duty; they were bound to attend to the interests of their constituents in preference to their own; and when a member found that the being a shareholder would prevent his doing his duty, he ought to give up his shares and attend to the interests of those constituents. This was the course which he would advise; for he was decidedly of opinion, that no member who had a direct interest in a private bill ought to vote upon it. There were, in his view of the subject, many ways of checking the evil; for instance, the vote by ballot, and also by reducing the number of the committee. He hoped the hon. member for Aberdeen would introduce some measure upon the subject. Mr. Hume said, that he intended on Friday to propose an inquiry as to how far the custom of parliament went to disqualify those directly interested from voting on private bills. For himself, he had no hesitation in stating, that the practice. of the House would be found such as to preclude the necessity of any new enactment on the subject. There was, how ever, another point of great importance, and that was, how far those interested in opposing such bills were entitled to vote against them. Sir M. W. Ridley said, that the practice alluded to, however theoretically bad, was found to be productive of little practical injury. There could be little difficulty in coming to a decision upon the first point; but there would be great difficulty in preventing those who had an indirect interest either way from voting on such occasions. Last year a committee recommended a vote by ballot, and various other remedies; but he thought the best way would be, to leave it to the honourable feelings of the House; for no member could hesitate what course to adopt, when he found his interests opposed to his honour. He had received letters, some of which he had then in his pocket, upon the subject of private bills, which, if published, would, if he might so express himself, blow those bills out of the House; and it would depend upon circumstances, whether he should or should not detail some of them to the House. It was to him astonishing, that agents should so far forget the feelings of men as to lend themselves to such applications. The petition was laid on the table. HOUSE OF LORD S. was not poachers who suffered from these weapons, but servants, and gentlemen, and children, who happened to stray in woods where they were set. Poachers knew how to avoid them. He had heard that royal blood was very near being shed not long ago by one of these spring-guns. They were liable to inflict death on people; and he was sure no one of their lordships would sanction the principle, that individuals should take the law into their own hands, and inflict capital punishment for an offence that the law only punished with a much lighter penalty. It could not be allowed that individuals, for the protection of their property, should thus go so far beyond the law. It was in this case rendered more odious, by the sneaking and assassin-like manner in which the injury was done. He did not mean to say that any gentleman, or particularly any noble lord were assassins; and he hoped he should not be so understood, as he was quite convinced no one of their lordships ever wished to inflict death on any man for stealing a pheasant. As to the legality of the practice, he would undertake to prove it illegal; not, indeed, by reference to any particular law, for then the bill he had the honour to propose to their lordships would be unnecessary, but by arguments drawn from analogy. There were, however, doubts existing on the subject, and the bill he offered to their lordships would clear them up. He would not then trouble their lordships with any further observations, but move that the bill be read a first time. Earl Grosvenor hoped the bill would receive the attention of their lordships; as he was satisfied that it was likely to do a great deal of good. The bill was read a first time. Thursday, February 24. SPRING GUNS.] Lord Suffield rose, pursuant to the notice he had given, to move the first reading of a bill to declare it unlawful for persons to set Spring-guns, or any other instruments which were dangerous to life, or liable to inflict bodily harm. He understood the forms of their lordships' House did not usually permit of discussion on the first reading of a measure, as it provoked objections PETITION OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICS which were generally reserved for the OF IRELAND.] The Earl of Donoughmore second reading of a bill. He hoped the rose, pursuant to notice, to present to same courtesy would be extended to him, their lordships the petition which had been and therefore he should only state the confided to him by his Catholic brethren object of the bill, and his reasons shortly of Ireland, and the value of whose confor offering it to their lordships. The fidence he fully appreciated. In rising object of the bill had been, however, stated to present their petition, he could not already in its title, and he did not know state its object better than in their own that he could add any thing on that sub-language. It was calmly and firmly to ject. The reasons which had operated ask the restitution of their rights from the with him for bringing in the measure, legislature. It was impossible for him were principally those reports which he then to enter into the merits of the subhad lately read in the newspapers, of ject of petition, or discuss the question to various accidents resulting from the use which it related, either directly or inof spring-guns, to innocent persons. It directly, as he meant to call on their VOL. XII. 2 T 3 There was one act of that noble person more particularly deserving their lordships' notice. In the court of Exchequer in Ireland there was an office of great importance, that of remembrancer. Lord Wellesley had conferred it on Mr. Blake, a Catholic. This appointment was a great benefit to Ireland; for this gentleman had long been an ornament of the bar. Whatever might be the opinion of the noble marquis on the measure now in progress through the other House, he could not help saying, that his government had brought Ireland to a state of prosperity it had never known before. He said this in justice to the lord-lieutenant; but he must add, that he could not have so far succeeded, had not his efforts been ably seconded by this Catholic Association, which had done much, under the calumniated Mr. O'Connell, to calm the people. He would only move, that the petition be read, and would not now fix any day for taking it into consideration. lordships on some early day to take the petition into consideration, when he should have a fit opportunity to go at length into its merits. He would only then state, in a few words, that the petition did not relate to any ordinary or trifling subject, and that it contained the signatures of 100,000 of his majesty's most faithful subjects. They had proved themselves so in times past, and would be again ready to do so, when called on in the hour of peril. The petition expressed the sentiments not only of those who signed it, but of all the Catholic inhabitants of Ireland, amounting to seven millions. Never, perhaps, was a petition presented, more numerously signed, or more deserving their lordships' attention. Never, he believed, were the sentiments expressed by one part of the people more completely in accordance with the sentiments of the whole body of the people, than on the present occasion. From the peer to the peasant, all descriptions of persons, all sects of religion, were unanimously in favour of the petitioners. Not only were the people unanimous, but PETITION OF PROTESTANTS OF DUB they brought it forward with all the energy LIN IN FAVOUR OF CATHOLIC EMANCİof freemen demanding their rights. They PATION.] The Marquis of Lansdown had met together, and numbered amongst said, he had to submit to their lordships them some of the ablest men of the a petition in favour of the same object, country, who advocated their cause with from the Protestant land-owners, merenergy, but with calmness and discretion. chants, and bankers of Dublin and its The petition was signed by the whole neighbourhood. Though not so numerbulk of the respectable part of the Irish ously signed as the petition which had population. The first person whose sig- been presented by his noble friend, it was nature was attached to it, was lord entitled to the most serious consideration viscount Gormanstown; who, their lord- of the House. It expressed the opinion ships might ask, was lord Gormanstown? of the most respectable and wealthy He was a descendant of a lord deputy, portion of the Protestant inhabitants of the representative of his majesty in Ire- that part of the country from which the land, in better times than the present. petition came, on the claims of their It was impossible for him, when speaking Catholic fellow-subjects. The first name upon this subject, not to say, that he had was that of the duke of Leinster; the next the honour, on leaving Ireland, to receive was the earl of Meath, the two greatest the proxy of his majesty's representative landed proprietors in that part of Ireland. in Ireland in favour of Catholic emanci- These names were followed by the sigpation. The descendant of one lord natures of the marquisses of Downshire deputy had signed the petition, and the and Westmeath, the earls of Limerick present representative of his majesty had and Charlemont, lords Glengal, Riversdone him (the earl of D.) the honour to dale, Forbes, and many other noble names. entrust him with his proxy, to represent After these came the names of wealthy his feelings on the subject of the Catho- capitalists and opulent merchants. There lics in that House. He would say of the were to be seen among the bankers and marquis of Wellesley, that he believed merchants, the name of Latouche, and Ireland had never had a more able or a the names of the descendants of men who more honest governor. During his resi- had fled from religious persecution in dence in Ireland, he had effected a great another country, and had found an asylum deal of good. He had carried a reform in this. Their ancestors, who were the into the magistracy, and had thereby victims of an act of great injustice comconferred a great benefit on Ireland.mitted by an ambitious tyrant, abandoned |