inactive clergy, and local leaders who sought places, and instructed their representatives in making a traffic of the votes of the people, for the purpose of getting cousins, nephews, and other connections appointed to places of emolument and gain, in these cases the representatives were required to vote against the people, and to sacrifice them; because there was a consciousness, on their part, that there were none amongst those they ought to fear, who would call them to account, before God and man, for their treachery and baseness (tremendous cheers).  We are dealing here to-night, not so much with theories as facts; and I, therefore, tell you of those things which I have seen, my statements in reference to which I can vouch."[208]

The positions taken up by the proposer of the Bill were not seriously damaged during the discussions which followed.  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was the chief speaker on the Government side against the second reading; but his arguments were characterized by an honorable member as “a mockery.”  The only effective objection he made to the Bill he put in the foreground, when, he repeated what the Premier had said more than once before, namely, that the Government would not undertake to carry out the noble lord’s plan, as they could not do so consistently with their views of public duty.  He also asserted that loans to Ireland, as a rule, had not been repaid, and he instanced the loans for the making of canals in that country:  a loan given to the Dublin and Kingstown railway had, he admitted, been repaid, which confession elicited cheers from Lord George Bentinck and his friends.  The charge made against Ireland of not paying back what she had borrowed was met by Mr. Bernal Osborne.  The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, that he did not wish to see the State become a great money lender; in reply to which Mr. Osborne expressed the opinion, that it would be much better for the State to become a great money lender than to continue a profligate spendthrift—­dissipating the funds of the country on the highways of Ireland.  “Had not,” he asked, “the policy of the State always been to become a great money lender?  Since the Union L18,000,000 of money had been lent to England and Scotland, of which L6,000,000 had been repaid, whilst L9,002,000 had been lent to Ireland, of which L7,000,000 had been repaid.”  The Chancellor of the Exchequer also said in his speech, that he had been informed by a person of great experience on the subject, that only 25 per cent. of the money would go for labour; and that from twenty to thirty men per mile were all that could be employed; taking the highest figure, the noble lord’s scheme, he said, would only afford employment to 45,000 workmen.  Mr. Hudson, the “railway king,” then the great authority on such matters, thus replied to the Chancellor’s assertions:  “As far as he (Mr. Hudson) could ascertain, there were but two points on which the right hon. gentleman had doubted the statements of the noble member for Lynn—­namely,