Commons Sitting of 16 April 1832

MINUTES.
Return ordered. On the Motion of Mr. PRINGLE, Copy of the last Appointment to the Office of Clerk to the admission of Notaries in Scotland.
Petitions presented. By Mr. DAVIES GILBERT, from the Gravesend Steam Boat Company, to be allowed to carry an additional Number of Passengers in proportion to their Tonnage:—By the Sheriffs of the City of London, from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council, for the Abolition of unnecessary Oaths:—By Mr. GRANBY CALCRAFT, from the Inhabitants of Wareham in favour of the New Plan of Education for Ireland. By Mr. JAMES BROWNLOW, from the Clergy, Gentry, and Inhabitants of Manchester, the Inhabitants of Cheltenham, Rochester, Chatham, Stroud, and Canterbury:—By Mr. J. WYNNE, from the Inhabitants of Crossmoline, Adrigoole, Glenlough, and other Places, against the said Plan:—By Mr. BAYNTUN, from the Managers of the York Savings Bank, for the Repeal of so much of the Act 9 George 4th as limited the Amount of Investments by depositors:—By Colonel TORRENS, from the Proprietors of The Bolton chronicle, for the Repeal of all Taxes on Knowledge.

EDUCATION (IRELAND) PETITIONS.
The Sheriffs of the City of London presented a Petition from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council, approving of the new plan of Education proposed to be introduced into Ireland, and praying that the House would sanction the same.
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, as one of the Representatives for the metropolis, he felt himself called upon to support the prayer of the petition. The petitioners found it necessary to lay their sentiments before the House in consequence of the remarks made by hon. Members on presenting petitions containing a contrary prayer, in doing which they assumed that the opinion of the country was with them. He begged leave to move, that it be printed.
Mr. Henry Grattanthought the prayer of this petition was highly honourable to the petitioners. He lamented the difference exhibited on this subject between the independent Corporation of London and the once independent Corporation of Dublin; he must further observe, that the latter would never recover its respectability until it followed the example of the former.
Mr. Alderman Venablessaid, his constituents had requested him to support the
538
prayer of the petition, which he did with great pleasure, for he entirely approved of the new plan of education proposed for Ireland.
Petition to be printed.
Sir George Murraypresented three petitions from three Presbyteries of Scotland, against the new system of education in Ireland. The petitioners stated, that they felt a deep interest in everything relating to the education of youth in Ireland. The people of Ireland had a right to a religious education of which the proposed plan would deprive them; and they, therefore, prayed that the House would not pass any legislative enactment with a view to force it upon the people of that country. He hoped, that it would not be for one moment supposed that he had swerved from the principles of toleration he had always professed; but, notwithstanding, he continued stedfast in those principles, he concurred with the petitioners in thinking that it was the principle of the Protestants throughout the empire, to have the sacred volume in their possession, and to be instructed from it. The plan proposed by Ministers was erroneous and blameable, in as much as it separated the moral and literary from the religious education of children. It was a great error to suppose that education could thus be divided into two parts; one of which, the State, by this plan, attempted to take under its own protection, while it left the other entirely to itself. This system could not fail to weaken the religious impressions which prevailed at present amongst the humbler classes of society. The Government sought to reconcile principles to each other which were wholly irreconcileable. The Protestant thought that the whole volume should be thrown open to the public, while, on the other hand, the Catholics thought, that the sacred volume should be placed in the hands of their priesthood, and that only as much of it as they chose ought to be given to the public, with such comments as they chose to give with it. It was impossible to reconcile such a wide difference as this. He would not discuss which principle was preferable, for both were liable to abuse. The Catholics might turn the one principle to the injury of the Protestant religion, while the Protestant principle, if carried too far, might tend to weaken amongst the lower classes the respect and regard with which they viewed the Holy Scriptures by teach-

539
ing them to look upon it as if it were merely a common book. The Catholic principle, on the other hand, even if it did no harm, yet would give to the priesthood of that persuasion a tool to turn to their own advantage. Upon the whole the plan of Ministers appeared to him to be very unlikely to be attended with success and it could not fail to weaken the religious feelings of the community. He was decidedly of opinion that the public money should not be employed in such a scheme. The right hon. Baronet concluded by moving that the petitions be brought up.
Colonel Conollysupported the prayer of the petitions. He would call upon that House to prove to him, if they could by any possibility, that the new system was in the smallest degree calculated to act as an improvement upon its predecessor, and that its admission was not likely to produce the most dangerous results and effects in that country. Surely, if that sacred volume were to be put into the hands of the lower classes, with the idea impressed strongly upon their minds that one part of it was proper for them to read and that another part of it was improper for their perusal and for their belief; surely if this were so, he would ask, could a doubt exist in the mind of any man of the evil tendency of such a system. When the question should come before the House, he should take the liberty of urging to the utmost of his abilities the various objections—the almost insurmountable objections he would term them—he had to the plan. He should feel himself called upon to press those opinions upon the House as strongly as his powers would enable him, with a view of inducing either the abolition of such a system, or with the hope that some amelioration might take place in the proposition of the Government. He did consider that no sanction ought to be given to any plan which had for its object the creation of a discussion on religious subjects.
Mr. James E. Gordonsaid, that the Presbyterians were now all alive to this subject, and without a single exception, he believed, were opposed to it. This was the sixth petition which had been presented to that House, and he expected that all of them would follow the example. The heads of the Presbyterian Church were, he had no hesitation in asserting, the best and most proper judges of the effect which
540
the new plan was likely to produce. It was well known that the Scottish system of education was the best in the world, and it was, therefore, that he contended that the Scotch people were the best judges of that plan which was likely to be productive of the most advantage to the people. This was, to a certain extent, a proposition which would show a disposition to follow in the steps of the Roman Catholics, for the individuals of that religious persuasion were restricted by their priests from the free use of the Bible. He would contend that the more the Scriptures were used the greater the degree of reverence in which they would be held by the lower as well as the higher classes.
Mr. Pringlecould assure the House the general opinion in Scotland respecting the Ministerial plan was anything but favourable. For his own part he must express his entire concurrence in the opinions contained in the petition.
Petition to be laid on the Table.
Sir George Murray, in moving that the petition he printed, merely wished to say that he did not object to the sacred volume being thrown open.
Mr. Ruthvensaid, that the colouring which was given to this new system of religious education, was, in his opinion, very different from that the proposers of the measure gave to it. He denied that the Roman Catholic priests were against the use of the Bible, and he condemned this marshalling of parties against each other on the subject of religion. There ought not to be any objection to a measure which was pregnant with benefits to the people, and calculated to produce the most desirable results.
Mr. Henry Grattanwas prepared to say, of his own knowledge, that the assertion that the Catholic children were not allowed to read the Bible, whether made in that House, in Exeter Hall, in Scotland, or elsewhere, was false and unfounded. He could take upon himself to say, that most of the Catholics had not only access to the Bible, but were in the habit of reading it. He was surprised that any Member should have the hardihood to make such an assertion.
Sir George Murraybegged to quote, as his authority for the assertion he had made, and which he requested the hon. Member would peruse—not of course the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, but the hon. member for Downpatrick—a passage

541
contained in a letter written by the right hon. Gentleman, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in which the allegation was made. As to the observations of the hon. Member who spoke last, he should take no notice of them.
Mr. James E. Gordonwould follow the example of the gallant Officer, and take no notice of the observations of the hon. member for Meath; but whatever statement he made in that House, he should, at the same time, be prepared to substantiate it.
Petition to be printed.
Sir Robert Inglispresented a Petition from the clergy, gentry, and inhabitants of Manchester, signed by upwards of 4,000 persons, against the new plan of religious education in Ireland. The petitioners said, they did not so much object to a selection from the Bible, as to a selection which was to exclude the use of the whole volume of the Scriptures. The essence of Protestantism was the Bible, and the whole Bible. Protestantism, therefore, could gain nothing, but might lose much by the substitution of selections from the whole Bible. There was a growing feeling throughout the country on the subject. These petitions, like the others, were signed by several clergymen, not of one, but of numerous denominations of Christians; and, differing as they did, on political subjects, and also on theological points, they were still unanimous in their desire to make the Bible the foundation of education, which they considered essential, and in no instance was it more necessary to disseminate Gospel truths than amongst the common people. It was a subject which became the more important, as by the new system all the support which had formerly been given to the Protestant establishment for education in Ireland had been withdrawn, while the Roman Catholic institutions of a similar description were left untouched. The objections to the new plan were greatly increased by the circumstance that the Roman Catholic was thus to be the only national education in Ireland supported by Government.
Mr. Sheilsaid, he would thank the hon. Baronet who dwelt so much on the use of the entire Bible as the essence of Protestantism for some information on the subject. He begged to ask, whether at the public schools of Westminster and Rugby, the Scriptures were read with so much care and so exclusively as his arguments
542
went to prove? He wished the hon. Baronet would extend his sympathy in this respect to the Aristocracy of England, for he did not believe that at the Universities the Scriptures were greatly attended to. He would ask whether, if a volume were made containing extracts of the Statute-laws now used, the hon. Baronet would say that the use of such a volume amounted to a disuse of the Statutes; besides the hon. Baronet was not quite correct when he asserted that the Roman Catholic was the only system of national education supported by Government in Ireland. The University of Dublin received 40,000 l. a-year.
Sir Robert Inglis, in reply to the question of the hon. and learned Member, said, he could assert that the Scriptures were now duly attended to in the Universities, and the public schools; with respect to the sum of 40,000 l. a-year received by the University of Dublin, that was altogether distinct from anything the State gave. It was absolute property, in nowise connected with a parliamentary grant, and was as much the property of the University as any property the hon. and learned Member could call his own.
Petition to be printed.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—SUNDERLAND HARBOUR.
Lord Stormontsaid, that agreeably to the notice which he gave on Friday last, he now rose for the purpose of bringing forward what he conceived to be one of the grossest violations of the privileges of that House of which he had ever heard. In the first place, he wished to correct a statement which had gone abroad, and which seemed to have gained credence, that it was his intention, in bringing this subject forward, to move the Standing Order for the exclusion of strangers. He begged to state, that it never was his intention to take such a course. On the contrary, he had always conceived it to be most desirable that the greatest publicity should be given to those proceedings of the House in which matters of privilege were concerned. The breach of privilege of which he was about to complain arose out of the publication of a letter and of a placard at Sunderland, upon the subject of the proceedings of a Committee of that House which had lately sat up stairs upon a private bill relating to the harbour at Sunderland. After a careful and patient investigation of sixteen days

543
that bill was thrown out by the Committee. The solicitors to the bill, Messrs. John P. Kidson and Joseph John Wright, then wrote a letter to the Harbour Committee at Sunderland, and that letter was printed in a provincial newspaper, and also in placards, and stuck about in different parts of the town. It was of the terms of that letter, and of the manner of its publication, that, in the first place, he complained. He would read it to the House, and then leave hon. Members to decide whether it did not amount to a gross breach of their privileges. It was addressed to the Committee of the Wet Dock, Sunderland. The expressions of the letter, and the statement which it set forth of the divisions of the Committee, constituted, in his opinion, one of the grossest violations of the privileges of that House of which he had ever heard. Could anything be more insulting to the House than for persons to talk of a Bill having been thrown out in consequence of the selfish interests, private wishes, or family connections of any of its Members? But the breach of privilege of which he complained was not confined only to the letter which he had read; there was also another placard published by the same parties, to which he now begged to call the attention of the House. It was exhibited in the streets of Sunderland. The noble Lord then moved that these placards be laid on the Table, and read at length by the Clerk.
They were read accordingly.
Lord Stormont: I now beg leave to move that these placards be taken into further consideration on Monday, the 7th of May next.
Mr. John Hodgsonsaid, that he had been directed by the solicitors to the bill to state that they had given no direction for the publication of the letter which they sent down to Sunderland, and of the publication of which the noble Lord now complained. While he by no means concurred in the sentiments expressed in that letter, he did not think that it furnished any grounds for proceedings on the part of that House against the writers of it. With respect to that part of the breach of privilege to which the noble Lord had directed the attention of the House, which was comprised in the publication of the divisions of the Committee, he felt that he was himself a party, because it was he who had furnished the information. In justice to himself, however, he must state
544
that he did so in perfect ignorance of its being a breach of privilege. Indeed, if it were thought expedient to publish the divisions of the House itself, it was daily done, he could not conceive why it was not equally as expedient to publish the divisions of its Select Committees.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the publication to which the noble Lord had directed their attention was undoubtedly a gross breach of the privileges of the House, as was also the conduct of his hon. friend behind him, if his own statement were correct. It certainly was not strictly according to the privileges of the House that such information as his hon. friend had furnished should be given for the purposes of publication.
Mr. Warburtonthought, that if the words of the publications complained of were a little more narrowly, a little more critically observed, it would be seen that they did not apply to the Members of the Committee up-stairs. It was undoubtedly stated that the bill had been thrown out from selfish and private interests, and from family connections; but it did not state that it was owing to the selfish and private interests, or the private connections, of the Members of the Committee.
Mr. Beaumontthought that when the whole of the responsibility of publishing the letter was shown to rest with the Wet Dock Committee, the noble Lord ought not to persist in any further proceeding against the printers or the solicitors.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, the hon. member for Bridport had entirely overlooked one part of the letter which alluded to a Gentleman who was returned by a constituency interested in the bill, and which held out a threat that his conduct in the Committee would be attended with the loss of his seat. In his opinion, therefore, a grosser breach of privilege never was committed, and he called upon the House not to attend to the extraordinary species of criticism which the hon. member for Bridport had recommended to them.
Ordered that the matter be taken into further consideration on Monday, May 7.
The printers ordered to attend at the Bar of the House on that day.
Lord Stormontsaid, that, as the letter of which he complained was expressly stated to be an official letter, he thought he should be justified in moving that its authors should be brought to the Bar also.
Mr. Hodgsonrepeated his statement, that the letter had been published without the authority of the solicitors by whom it was written.
Sir George Cockburnthought, that great blame rested with the solicitors. If, on the throwing out of any private bill, solicitors were to be at liberty so to libel the House, there must be an end to all privilege.
The solicitors ordered to attend at the Bar on May 7th.

CASE OF MR. CURTIN.
Lord Althorpmoved that the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into a Committee of Supply be read,
Mr. Duncomberose, for the purpose of directing the attention of the House to the case of the rev. James Curtin, which he conceived to be one of considerable hardship. In the year 1799, this gentleman, a clergyman of the Church of England, was sent out to the island of Antigua by the Society for the Instruction of Negro Slaves in the Christian Religion, and with the approbation of Dr. Porteous, then Bishop of London. The rev. gentleman proceeded to that island, and succeeded to a benefice there, that of St. Mary's, in 1817, to which he was promoted by the Archbishop of Canterbury, who was then Bishop of London. He continued to do his duty as a minister, and as a member of the Society for the Conversion of the Slave Population, down to the autumn of the year 1830, when, in consequence of ill-health, and by virtue of a leave of absence procured from the Bishop of Barbadoes, he came to this country. During the thirty-three years of his residence in Antigua, and down to the hour of his quitting it, he had received many flattering testimonials from the Archbishop of Canterbury and other persons of distinction, of the high estimation in which the zeal and energy with which he discharged the sacred duties of his office was held. During his stay in this country circumstances arose to prevent his return within the period to which his leave of absence was limited. In January, 1832, a correspondence took place between him and the Colonial Office on his petitioning for some temporary employment in Great Britain, the answer to which was, an order to return immediately to the colonies, notwithstanding he had the implied consent of his diocesan for a longer period of leave
546
Shortly after this, however, Mr. Curtin received another letter from the Colonial Office, telling him, he must proceed forthwith to the colony, to which he replied, on the 7th of February, that he was prevented by bad health from doing so. In the interval of his remaining in this country it happened that an action at law was commenced by a publication called the Anti-Slavery Reporter, against Blackwood's Magazine, for an alleged libel, in which Mr. Curtin was subpœnaed as a witness. That being the case it seemed that steps had been taken to retain him in England, and on the solicitor to the defendant applying to Lord Goderich for Mr. Curtin's leave to be prolonged until after the trial, a letter was written by direction of that nobleman to the solicitors, informing them they might retain Mr. Curtin in England on condition of making good the loss which he would necessarily incur by being absent from his benefice in Antigua. Notwithstanding that letter, extraordinary as it must appear to the House, Mr. Curtin himself received a notice, bearing date the very same day as the letter received by the solicitors, that he must either return at once to Antigua or resign his situation there. He thought that this was a very hard case. Mr. Curtin was now sixty-eight years of age, thirty-three of which he had spent in unwearied exertions to fulfil the duties of his office in a climate little congenial to the health of Englishmen. He was also in a state of uncertainty, in consequence of the extended period of his absence, as to whether his benefice now remained open to him, for such a doubt was implied in one of the communications he had received from the Colonial Office. Therefore, to insist upon his immediate return, while it would deprive Mr. Blackwood of an essential witness, would also, in his (Mr. Duncombe's) opinion, create a bad impression on the public mind, as it would imply a desire to smother all inquiry into the state of the colonies, for Mr. Curtin, from his long residence in the colonies, would be a most important witness, not only in the action now pending, but in an inquiry going forward before that House. All that he asked for, then, was six months additional leave of absence for this gentleman, after which time, if his health permitted, although at so advanced an age, he would not shrink from returning to the discharge of his clerical duties in Antigua. To obtain

547
his object he (Mr. Duncombe) should submit a resolution which, if the noble Lord did not concede, he should certainly take the sense of the House upon. His Resolution was in these terms—"that this House having taken into consideration the case of the rev. James Curtin, Missionary of the Negro Conversion Society, is of opinion that, in consideration of his long and meritorious services in the island of Antigua, and of his services being required in a Court of Justice, his leave of absence be extended six months from this day, without prejudice to his salary."
Lord Howicksaid, that he had heard with extreme astonishment the statement of the hon. Member. The Resolution moved by the hon. Member implied that the House had considered this case; but the House had just as much considered it as the hon. Member appeared to have done, who had not given the shadow of a reason to support such an extraordinary resolution. The defence for the conduct of Lord Goderich which he had to offer was, that he could not act by the existing law otherwise than he had done in this instance. This reverend gentleman came to this country on a leave of absence for six months in the autumn a 1830. According to the existing law, the Bishop of Barbadoes, who had granted this leave, could not give a leave of absence for a longer period than six months, and any extension of that leave could be obtained only by an application to the Colonial Office. Yet, though this gentleman came home in September, 1830, he gave no notice to the Colonial Office of his being in this country until January, 1832, which was more than twelve months after his leave of absence had expired, when he first applied for permission to change his living for one in this country. It was impossible for the Colonial Secretary to comply with such an application, for the Colonial Secretary had no benefices in his disposal except in the colonies. Taking twelve months additional beyond the period of his leave of absence amounted in fact to a resignation of his office, and if any other person but a clergyman was concerned, it would most assuredly be looked upon in that light. This gentleman first applied for an exchange for a living in this country, which was repeatedly refused. His next application was on account of ill-health, but it was not particular or temporary ill-health, and that
548
application was also necessarily refused. He then applied for an additional leave of absence, and at the very same moment that that application reached him (Lord Howick), came a letter from the Solicitor for the periodical publication, against which an action for libel had been brought, applying for permission for the reverend gentleman to remain some additional time in this country. It was not unreasonable under such circumstances, to conclude that there was some collusion between the parties. He had, therefore, written an answer stating, that provided the parties who required Mr. Curtin's evidence, paid his salary during his continuance in this country he might continue, but they declined doing this. He had also written to Mr. Curtin informing him that the grounds which he had stated for a further extension of leave were not sufficient, and that, therefore, he must prepare to return. He again had received on the 13th of February, a letter from Mr. Foss, urging additional leave of absence, on the same ground that he had previously stated. In reply to this, a letter was written, stating, that, by the provisions of an Act of Parliament, the evidence of Mr. Curtin might be taken by interrogatories before the trial; and if this was produced in a Court of Justice, it would be equivalent to his vivâ voce evidence. A number of other communications passed between Mr. Curtin and the Colonial Office, in which he continued to urge leave of absence on some ground or another, until at last Lord Goderich wrote to him to say, that, if he intended to retain his living, he must return without delay, as it was impossible to allow a longer leave of absence. The hon. Gentleman said, that Mr. Curtin was treated in a cruel manner; but he forgot that it was in the power of the Bishop to have filled up Mr. Curtin's living on his not returning to his duties. Again, on the 4th of April, Mr. Curtin wrote to ask for a passage out in a King's ship. The answer returned was, that it was the invariable custom for public officers to go out at their own expense. The Colonial Office might, perhaps, be mistaken, but from the way in which these applications were made, and from the manner in which the excuses were given, there certainly was some reason to suspect that they were only excuses given for this gentleman's neglect of the usual mode of obtaining extended leave of absence.
Mr. Patrick M. Stewartthought the hon. member for Hertford had made out a very strong case. From what he knew of the circumstances he must contend that there had been no collusion whatever between the party charged with a libel in the magazine and Mr. Curtin, for Mr. Curtin's evidence was of the utmost importance in the case—indeed it would be sufficient to rebut the charge. It happened that the reverend Gentleman was the person who had baptized the woman referred to in the article in question, and could, therefore, give the best evidence on the subject. For the sake of justice, he hoped that the leave of absence of the reverend gentleman would be extended in the manner required. He had been hardly dealt with already, and Government, he thought, ought to grant this request.
Mr. Burgesaid, the regulation adverted to by the noble Lord with respect to the extension of leave of absence must be one of a late date. There were many quite ignorant of it till very recently, and Mr. Curtin might be one of these. If any one was entitled to special indulgence, this gentleman was, for his long and meritorious services. His character in the West Indies stood very high, and under the peculiar circumstances of these colonies, as well as from the importance of the evidence which Mr. Curtin would give to the Committee, it was a matter of importance to the Government itself that he should remain in this country for some time longer, for no man had more deeply studied or was better acquainted with the capabilities of the negro intellect. He, therefore, hoped, that his leave of absence would be extended six months longer.
Sir Matthew White Ridleysaid, that, though, as a private individual, he should wish that a lengthened leave of absence might be given to the reverend gentleman, he could not as a Member of the Legislature, consent that that House should interfere with the Government, in order to grant a leave of absence in direct contradiction to the terms of an Act of Parliament.
Mr. Duncombe, in answer to what had fallen from the noble Lord opposite, begged to observe, that if the Bishop had not the power to grant and to renew leave of absence, that right reverend person was in a mistake as to the extent of his power, for it was clear that he imagined he possessed the right winch was now denied
550
him. In the first letter he wrote to Mr. Curtin he promised to prolong the leave of absence from time to time; again in a letter of a subsequent date which the reverend gentleman received from the Archdeacon, he expressly stated, that the Bishop hoped that the reverend Gentleman might be able speedily to return to his duties, and of his willingness, in case of actual necessity, to extend the leave of absence to a further period. Besides, an extension of leave in this case could do no injury, for there was a curate doing the duty of the parish, to whom Mr. Curtin paid 50 l. a year, and who was residing in the parson-age-house. As to what had been stated about the reverend gentleman not having reported himself to the Colonial Office, he believed, that if the noble Lord would take the trouble of looking over the books of the office, he would find that the report had been made, and that Sir George Murray the then Secretary of the Colonies, had done him the honour to enter it in his (Sir G. Murray's) own hand-writing.
Lord Althorpwas opposed to the Motion. It was quite contrary to the practice of that House to interfere with the Government in granting leave of absence, the proceedings relating to which were governed by the express words of an Act of Parliament. He thought that the residence of clergymen in the colonies was a matter of great importance, and that the rules relating to it ought not to be lightly violated. He was sure that the public opinion was not what the hon. Gentleman opposite imagined; and on the statement of facts which they had heard, there was no one who could say that the conduct of the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department had not been strictly warranted by law, or that it was not justified by the necessity of adhering to those rules which had been established with regard to such matters. It was true that Mr. Curtin obtained leave of absence from the Bishop of Barbadoes; that leave was subsequently renewed for six months; but it would be too much to ask for additional leave of absence without any solid reasons. He could easily understand that Mr. Curtin preferred a living in this country to one in the West Indies; but he was equally satisfied that nothing was more requisite upon the part of clergymen than a residence amongst their parishioners. Mr. Curtin was a worthy and a zealous clergyman, and it was that alone which induced

551
his noble friend to overlook his absence from his duty for such a length of time.
Mr. Robert Gordonwas of opinion, that, under existing circumstances the great age of the reverend gentleman, his length of service, and the importance of his evidence in the case referred to, the Government would not be justified in refusing him a further leave of absence, merely on the ground that, when he first came over to this country, he had not complied with the forms which the Colonial Office required.
Lord Howickassured his hon. friend that it was not merely from a want of compliance with the forms of office that caused the suspension of the reverend gentleman, but for staying a whole year in this country without giving notice.
Mr. Fanethought the noble Lord had not acted quite candidly when, in the same day he wrote to the reverend gentleman to say he must depart, and to the solicitor for Mr. Blackwood, to say he might stay provided the solicitor was prepared to pay the reverend Gentleman's salary.
The Motion negatived.

CAPTURES BY THE BRAZILIANS.
Mr. Dixonbegged to call the attention of the House to a subject of great importance, it was connected with the capture of many British vessels by foreign powers, whom the Government had not restrained from such lawless proceedings by resorting to the energetic measures which the circumstances of the case required. In the year 1826, a war existed between the Brazilians and the people of Buenos Ayres, the former blockaded the month of the Rio de la Plata, and, under pretence of a breach of the blockade, captured a number of English vessels. The first case to which he begged to call the attention of the House was that of the ship Caledonia, on a voyage to Valparaiso. This vessel, when on the coast of Patagonia, was chased and taken possession of by a Buenos-Ayrean privateer. A prize-master and a number of men were put on board and ordered to take the vessel to Buenos Ayres. When the ship came within sight of the Brazilian squadron, the prize-master and his men escaped on shore, leaving the vessel in the possession of the commander. The ship was taken possession of by the Brazilian squadron, carried into Monte Video, and there adjudged to be a prize. It was objected by the Captain that she was a neu-
552
tral vessel, and had not committed any breach of maritime law which made her liable to seizure; but the capture was held good, on the ground that she had been in the possession of the Buenos-Ayrean privateer. The circumstances of this case were so gross a breach of national faith, that a British ship of war on that station received orders to re-capture the Caledonia wherever she might be found. This was done, and, on the Brazilian government's complaining, the Admiralty censured the conduct of the British officer. At the same time, however, notwithstanding the cargo was plundered, and although it had been admitted that according to no principle of international law, could the Brazilian government retain possession of the vessel—no redress had been obtained. The next case was that of the Unicorn, which had excited considerable attention: this vessel was captured without the least ground for her seizure. In the Brazils no vessel could be condemned unless on the judgment of the Court of Admiralty at Rio. Now, on the appeal from the Admiralty Court at Monte Video to the Court at Rio, the condemnation of this ship was reversed. He understood the British Consul was told by the Judge of the Admiralty Court at Monte Video that he would not have given the judgment which he did, had he not been under fear of his life. Another vessel, with West India produce on board, was seized by the Brazilian squadron, though there was not the least pretence for saying that she had been guilty of the violation of any orders of blockade. Another vessel, the George, was captured in the same manner—with respect to which there had been a decision in one of the Courts of Justice in this country. The case was brought under the consideration of the Court by an action against the insurers, and the Court of Common Pleas decided that the assured was entitled to recover, as the capture had not been occasioned by any misconduct on the part of the Captain. Under these circumstances, how was it that the Government of this country had not interferred to compel the Brazilian government to make some compensation to those British subjects whose property had been thus unjustly seized by the Brazilian squadron? France and the United States of America had compelled the Brazilian government to attend to the claims of their citizens, and had obtained compensation.

553
The matter had been the subject of negotiation between the government of Brazil and this country; but we had suffered the Brazilians to evade giving proper satisfaction up to that moment for the injuries they had inflicted on British subjects. According to the articles which Lord Ponsonby induced the Brazilian government to assent to, Commissioners were appointed to settle these claims, and the manner in which this was to be done was agreed on. The articles were sufficiently specific, if they had been acted upon; but the truth was, that nothing had been done, and no steps taken to ensure redress. The Government had allowed the Brazilians to evade just demands in a most shameful manner. It would appear as if this country had not the power to protect its subjects from the aggressions of a government like the Brazilian. He understood, that just before the dissolution of the late Government, Lord Aberdeen sent a dispatch to Rio, in which he gave notice, that, if the British claims were not settled without delay, reprisals would be resorted to. That despatch was followed by another, the first of those sent out by the noble Lord, the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in which the same tone appeared to be adopted; but in a very short time afterwards the noble Lord sent out a very different despatch, in consequence of which the threatened reprisals were prevented. He believed it would be said, that this second despatch was sent out because the Brazilian government promised redress, and the Brazilian agent undertook to procure the dismissal of Lisboa. But these promises had not yet been executed, and the noble Lord had suffered British subjects to be denied redress. If what he had stated was correct, as he believed it to be—if the noble Lord really had countermanded the order to make reprisals—the Government was, he must say, much to blame. But there was another subject, on which, in his opinion, the Government had not acted with that strict attention to British interests which was to be expected from them. The mode of paying that sum which the Brazilian government had admitted to be due, was settled to be by forming a sort of debt, the value of which was to be taken in the paper of that government, at sixty-two and half per cent, although the last loan made to that very Government was only valued, in the market at forty-five per cent.
554
In this way, therefore, the British merchant, even when his claims were allowed, would find himself still a considerable loser by the means taken to liquidate them. Of course, the persons having claims made them, on the presumption that they should be paid the full amount of the judgments they obtained. But, instead of their receiving the full value for every hundred pounds sterling, they were ordered to receive only at the rate of 750 milrees for 1,000. But, in consequence of the depreciation of the currency, occasioned by a large issue of paper, the 750 milrees were equivalent, in metallic currency, to only 540, or was equal to about 63 l., which they were to receive for 100 l. But, even at that depreciation of thirty-seven per cent, the parties had been unable to obtain a settlement, after a delay of six or seven years. He asked, then, whether the British Government was not prepared to vindicate the national honour, and obtain redress for the merchants who had already lost so much? He was sure, if the Government had acted with the least appearance of energy, that the Brazilian government would have set aside sufficient money for the payment of all these claims. He thought he had made out a strong case, and he hoped that the papers which he was about to move for would be granted, and that the House and the country would be made acquainted with all the circumstances of the case. At the same time, he felt some degree of anxiety as to the explanation which must now be given by the noble Lord, which, he trusted, would be of such a nature as to give satisfaction, and to hold out the prospect of a speedy settlement. He begged leave to move, as an amendment to the Motion for the Speaker leaving the Chair, "that an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, 'extracts or copies of all correspondence or despatches that had passed between the Foreign Office and the British Legation at Rio de Janeiro, regarding the seizure and capture of British ships and property by the Brazilian squadron, in the river Plata, in the years 1826–7; also between his Majesty's Consul at Monte Video and the Foreign Office, also, of the correspondence between his Majesty's Consul at Monte Video, and the British Legation at Rio Janeiro; also, extracts or copies of the correspondence that may have passed be-

555
tween the Foreign Office and the Brazilian Legation at this court, on the same subject; together with a copy of the memorandum, dated 5th May, 1829, entered into between Lord Ponsonby and the Brazilian minister for foreign affairs on the same subject."
Mr. Alderman Thompsonrose to second the Motion of his hon. friend, and to express his feelings of indignation at the conduct which the Brazilian government had pursued towards British subjects. Its proceedings were utterly unwarranted by the laws of nations, or the commonest rules of justice. Several of the British vessels that had been captured had sailed from this country three months before the declaration of war between Brazil and the Buenos-Ayrean government, and yet they had been taken to Rio Janeiro, condemned, and the ships and cargoes sold, for breaking a blockade of which their captains knew nothing till the ships were seized for violating it. There were also some instances of vessels being captured which were not even bound to any port within the territories of Buenos Ayres, much less to the Rio de la Plata. But without going into details it was sufficient for him to refer to the acts of the Brazilian Government itself to expose in its true light the principles of its conduct. The Brazilian legislature had provided for the compensation of British subjects, a decree of the emperor had repealed the condemnation of the vessels seized, and a convention, after a lapse of two years spent in negotiations, was finally obtained, settling the manner in which compensation should be awarded, and providing for the appointment of a mixed commission to carry the convention into effect. Three years had passed since the convention was agreed to, but no decision whatever had been come to by the Commission with respect to the claims referred to it. Was it fit and proper, that the Government of Great Britain should be thus trifled with, and insulted, by such a government as that of the Brazils? What had been the conduct pursued by France and the United States under similar acts of aggression? They had insisted upon reparation under the threat of reprisals, and their claims were immediately allowed. For what purpose had this country a navy which cost 5,000,000 l. a-year, if such acts of outrage were not to be redressed. He assured the noble Lord, the Secretary for
556
Foreign Affairs, that this feeling of indignation was general among the mercantile body, and particularly among the merchants of the metropolis, some of whose claims, varying from 5,000 l. to 25,000 l., they had been kept out of for several years, and there even now appeared but little prospect of recovering the money. The Brazilian government had evaded making reparation by every means in its power, and, among the rest, had changed its agent in the course of the discussion, so that much time was wasted in again going over the subject with the new agent. The British Government ought to insist on the agent coming to London, so that he might not be changed at every changing caprice of the government he represented. The government of Buenos Ayres, on which there were similar claims, had done so, and their Commissioners in London had already adjudicated upon a number of cases. Indeed, such was their despatch, that they frequently decided cases in a fortnight. He knew, that the financial state of Brazil might render it difficult for her government at once to satisfy these claims; but it should, at all events, acknowledge their justice. There could be no pretence for withholding this right, for some of the vessels were seized in barefaced violation of every principle of justice. As one instance of this, he must mention, that there was a vessel insured at 8,000 l., at Lloyd's, which had been captured by the Brazilian squadron, news of which arrived in this country. The insurers here directed their agent at Brazil to purchase the ship, if it was sold under a certain sum. It was accordingly purchased by him at 2,500 l. The Brazilian government, however, forced the agent to give up the ship; and he believed that, at this moment, the ship was employed in the transport service of Brazil. He charged the Brazilian government with misconducting itself purely for the purposes of plunder. He was sure that, if the noble Lord would follow the excellent example set him by his predecessor, the Earl of Aberdeen, in the matter of the British claims on the Spanish government, this affair with the Brazils would soon be satisfactorily terminated. It fell to his lot to take an active part in the settlement of the claims he had alluded to, and he should not do the noble Earl justice, if he did not take this opportunity of saying, that he manifested the utmost anxiety and

557
zeal in obtaining redress for the British merchants who had claims upon Spain, for which conduct he had obtained the gratitude of the commercial world. There was another point connected with this subject which he must briefly notice. In 1823, a loan was contracted for by the government of Portugal, with the House of Goldsmid, for a million and a half sterling. By a convention entered into between Portugal and Don Pedro as emperor of the Brazils, the latter took upon himself the payment of this loan; and, in consideration of so doing, Portugal was to surrender certain ports, ships, and warlike stores. In pursuance of this agreement, the Brazilian government paid the interest of the loan to the bondholders for two years. Remittances were sent to pay a dividend due in May, 1828. These were received by the Portuguese minister in London; but when applied to for them on behalf of the bondholders, he said, "No; Don Miguel is now on the throne of Portugal, and the bondholders must look to him for their money." In fact, the Minister wanted this money to apply to the fitting out of his expedition to Terceira; and, from that hour to this, no redress whatever had been afforded the British bondholders. In order to show the feeling which prevailed among, British merchants upon this subject, he would take the liberty of reading to the House an extract from a letter written by Mr. Eyre, one of the Committee of the bondholders, on their behalf, to his excellency, the Marquis of St. Amaro, the Brazilian ambassador. Mr. Eyre writes thus:—
"London, March 9, 1831.
"Sir—The public papers, I find, have announced, that you have presented your credentials at the Court of London, under which circumstance I now enclose, for your information and that of the government you represent, a copy of a letter which I had the honour to address, on the 21st of February last, to the Chevalier de Mattos, on the subject of the unpaid dividends due on the Portuguese loan, which was assumed by Brazil, by the Treaty of Separation of August, 1825, and, subsequently, inscribed in the Great Book of the Brazils, as a national debt of their own.
"I also now officially transmit you a printed copy of an appeal and protest made on behalf of myself and fellow-sufferers, against the glaring injustice committed towards us; and as the most effectual means of making this known to all concerned, I have caused it to be posted in the Royal Exchange of this city for some days past. Policy and expedi-
558
ency, apart from common honour and honesty, equally call aloud for the most expeditious redress of our grievances, and having now suffered tamely under them for more than three years, it is quite impossible to attribute to us any want of patience or forbearance.
"The attempt to raise a loan for the regency of Terceira, and ostensibly on the security of funds to be received from the Brazils on account of our debt, has, from its very nature, proved abortive; it has been scouted from the British Stock Exchange."
This sufficiently showed the opinion of British merchants with regard to the justice dealt out to there by the Brazilians government. In conclusion, he would express his hope, that the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would speedily take effectual means to obtain for them that redress to which they were entitled and which the interest of the country at large, as well as their individual advantage, required should be obtained.
Viscount Palmerstonbegged to assure the hon. Gentleman who had brought forward the question, that the postponement of his Motion, from time to time, had not been sought, on his part, with any intention of evading it, but simply on account of his being most busily occupied elsewhere. With respect to the Motion itself, it must be obvious that, pending transactions of this sort, to produce every thing stated on one side for the information of another, could not be advantageous to the interests of the parties concerned. He did not stand up in that House to undertake the defence of the Brazilian government in respect of these transactions, for he felt himself bound to say, he considered these captures as made against every principle of national law. It was on that ground that redress had been demanded from the Brazilian government. He was sorry to be obliged to add, that, in the execution of the memorandum which had been referred to as laying down the principles on which redress should be granted, the Brazilian government had not shown that sincere desire to carry that agreement into effect which this country had a right to expect. It was true, as stated by the hon. Member, that the original admission obtained by the late Government from that of the Brazils towards the end of the year 1828—that compensation was due—was obtained by a threat of reprisals in case it were not made, and some proposition laid down to carry it into effect. In consequence of this the memorandum alluded

559
to was drawn up between Lord Ponsonby and the Brazilian government, in the early part of 1829. The hon. Gentleman had truly stated, that when that memorandum came to be carried into execution, and the Commissioners appointed under it came to apply the articles of that memorandum to the cases brought before them, the representatives of this country had reason to complain of delays of all kinds being thrown in the way, and that these delays were not occasioned by a desire to forward the ends of justice, but for the sake of procrastination. The result was, that his predecessor, Lord Aberdeen wrote, towards the end of 1830, to our Chargé d'Affaires at Rio, instructing him to inform the Brazilian government, that the British Government expected a faithful and prompt execution of that agreement; and that, if we had reason to believe the Brazilians acted with bad faith, we should be obliged to have recourse to the measures originally hinted at. When he came into office, in November, he had grounds for considering, that a second communication to the same effect was necessary, in order to advance the progress of the arrangement; and, accordingly, some time in December, he wrote to Mr. Aston in stronger terms than those employed by his predecessor, instructing him to communicate to the Brazilian government, that, if we had cause for supposing that any vexatious delays merely for the purpose of gaining time, and evading the fulfilment of the agreement, were resorted to by the Brazilian Commissioners, Great Britain would have recourse to those reprisals, by which alone justice could be obtained for her subjects. Subsequently to sending off that despatch, he had had a communication with the Marquis of St. Amaro, in which he assured him of the good disposition of the Brazilian government to do what was proper. In consequence of these representations, and the proceedings taken by him, he was induced, towards the end of January, to send Mr. Aston another despatch, instructing him, if he had not already acted upon the instructions contained in his last, to suspend the doing so till he heard again from him. The hon. Member said, that this despatch was the cause of great prejudice to British merchants; but how it could have been so, when, before its arrival, Mr. Aston had already acted upon the contents of its precursor, he was at a loss to imagine. It
560
was clear, that that first communication must have had its full effect before the arrival of the second. The hon. Member talked of the negotiations having been carried on for so long a period; but the fact was, that there were no negotiations at all, after the signature of the memorandum. All that had to be done was, for both sides to appoint Commissioners, as therein agreed upon, in order to apply the principles of the memorandum to the cases brought before them. But then came the revolution of the month of April, by which Don Pedro ceased to be emperor. The change of government which then took place might create delay to a certain unavoidable extent; but he was sorry to say, that greater delay took place than was explicable upon that ground alone. He had, therefore, felt it his duty, towards the close of last year, to repeat the communication he had before made to Mr. Aston, in stronger and more positive terms. Mr. Aston received that communication on or about the 18th of December. It authorized him to state to the Brazilian government, that it was impossible for England to avoid resorting to those measures which her naval superiority placed in her hands, unless the Brazilian government proceeded faithfully in the execution of the memorandum. But, in the meantime, a considerable step had been taken by the Brazilian government to do that which, up to that moment, they had not done, but which was necessary to enable it to pay to British claimants the indemnity that might be awarded there. Towards the end of October, they, for the first time, made a communication to the Brazilian chambers of what had taken place, and the Brazilian chambers passed the vote of credit which the hon. Member had alluded to, placing 300,000 l. at the disposal of the government, for the satisfaction of these claims, and some unsettled claims of French and American subjects. He was aware that, large as was the amount of this sum, it was not equal to the amount claimed by British merchants; but the principle being thus once admitted, there could be no doubt that, whatever sums might be necessary to satisfy all these claims, would be forthcoming; and, at the date of the last accounts from Mr. Aston, the Commission was proceeding to the investigation of some of the cases before it, the objections which had previously been taken by the Brazilian Commissioners

561
being given up; and there being every reason to suppose, that no improper delay would be again opposed to the settlement of the subject. He was sure the House would feel, that forbearance was especially due from a strong empire like Great Britain, towards a weak power, like the Brazils. There was nothing like equality of maritime strength between them; and Great Britain had it in her power, at any time, to have recourse to force to obtain redress. In such a case more forbearance was due than might be, were the forces of the two parties approaching nearer to an equality. It had not been from any feeling of indifference to these claims that our greater power had not been asserted; but from a desire to abstain from having recourse to forcible means, so long as there appeared a possibility of obtaining redress by any others. He was not sorry, that this Motion had been made; nor could he have the slightest wish to prevent its being brought forward for it could not be useless that the Brazilian government should understand, that if our communications to them had borne a character which made them, in their address to their chambers describe us as "the most imperative of friendly nations"—it could not be useless that they should know, that, if we had been urgent in our demands, it was not because the Executive Government preferred that mode of communication, but that the House of Commons, even if the Government should be neglectful of its duty, would interpose, to see, that justice was finally done. In the present state of these transactions, then, having no reason to believe, that the Brazilian government was not now disposed to take the right steps to have these claims properly investigated, and feeling that the correspondence moved for by the hon. Gentleman would not be useful for his purpose; but, on the contrary, inconvenient to be produced, he must request the House not to consent to this motion. The hon. Gentleman had expressed a hope, that the Government would not consent to any modification or change of the terms of the memorandum. He might state, that application was made to him, to reconsider that memorandum; but it was impossible to do so—it was a binding engagement between the two countries, and that, whilst we, on the one hand, could not ask for more than that memorandum gave us, so, on the other, we were entitled to every thing it did give
562
us. He was aware, that with respect to the question of the exchanges, time had produced an alteration in the working of the article which regarded them; but, he still thought, upon the whole, that memorandum contained just and equitable principles for the settlement of these claims, and he should certainly conceive it to be his duty to require it to be executed as it now stood.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that his noble friend (Lord Palmerston) had observed, with some semblance of justice, that, in disputes between a strong and a weaker nation, forbearance ought to be shown towards the latter. That did not, however, appear to be the principle which the House was willing to recognise in the case of Portugal, for there appeared to be on the part of the majority which upon a late occasion had refused papers explanatory of our relations with Portugal, a disposition to censure Lord Aberdeen, because he had allowed thirty or forty days to elapse before he proceeded to exact justice by force for wrongs alleged to have been done to British subjects. Admitting, however, this principle of forbearance to be just, as it was generous, he thought the time had long expired, during which forbearance could with either prudence or justice be extended towards the Brazils. if the true history of the transactions in which British property had not merely been mistakenly seized and confiscated, but in h is conscience he believed designedly plundered, were laid before the House of Commons, they would not hesitate to declare, that the period had arrived when the Government ought no longer to delay exacting reparation for the injuries and insolence which had so long remained unredressed. He must say, that those injuries had been much underrated by the two hon. Members who had brought forward and supported the Motion. The true history was this:—There was a war between the governments of Brazil and of Buenos Ayres, and a blockade of the ports of Buenos Ayres was proclaimed. It was, however, but a paper blockade, there being obviously no adequate power to enforce it. Under these circumstances, the principle laid down by the government of Brazil was this, that no vessel should be held responsible for breach of the blockade to which previous notice of the blockade had not been regularly given. In utter disregard of this principle established by Brazil itself, and without an adequate force to maintain

563
a real blockade, several British vessels were seized upon by Brazilian cruisers, and confiscated, to the value, he believed, of 500,000 l. An attempt had been actually made, on the part of the Brazilian government to draw a distinction between the French and Americans and the English, and to act upon the absurd doctrine that the British had no right to that warning which it was admitted was due to the vessels of those other Powers. Seizures took place in 1826 and 1827, founded on this unjust and ridiculous distinction, before his noble friend, the Duke of Wellington, came into office. Shortly after that event, his noble friend, Lord Aberdeen, wrote to the British minister at Rio, stating, that the injuries thus sustained by England were so monstrous, their injustice so glaring, the partiality attempted to be shown to the governments of other countries so indefensible, that, unless the government of the Brazils promised immediate reparation for the injustice which had been done in the cases of four particular vessels (which were named), the British Admiral on that station would, within the lapse of thirty days, proceed to immediate reprisals. The names of these four vessels were, the John, the George, the Henry and Isabella, and the Coquette. These vessels were seized against all law and all justice, and law and justice were prostituted by their condemnation by the Vice-Admiralty Courts of Rio. The British Minister thought the reparation so incomplete, that that minister, Lord Ponsonby, a nobleman who enjoyed the full confidence of the present Government, did not confine his claim for compensation to these four particular vessels; but threatened reprisals, unless the whole sum of 474,000 l. was immediately paid down by the government of the Brazils. The hon. Member who brought forward the present Motion blamed the Government for its conduct in the case of a vessel called the Nestor, which had been seized by British ships from the Brazilians, but was afterwards restored. If a person was not acquainted with the facts, it was very natural for him to think that the British Government was wrong in directing that vessel to be restored, until the compensation claimed on account of losses sustained by other British subjects was paid. But if the Nestor was seized by a British cruizer, contrary to the law of nations, the British Government, in his opinion, acted justly in directing res-
564
titution to be made. The case had been submitted to the King's Advocate, and his opinion was, that it was not competent for the British squadron consistently with the law of nations, to take forcible possession of the Nestor, while she was under the jurisdiction of a Vice Admiralty Court. The British Government in effect said—whatever injury our merchants have sustained, we will not obtain redress by unauthorized and illegal means—we will not consent to be unjust ourselves as a set off against previous injustice. If the King's Advocate was right in his law, of which he (Sir Robert Peel) entertained no doubt, our claims for redress were fortified, by setting an example of strict obedience to the laws of nations. The hon. Alderman who had seconded the Motion seemed to imagine, that the French and Americans had demanded immediate reparation, while this country had postponed the enforcement of her claims until after an inquiry had been made by a mixed commission—but the fact was, that the course taken by the three Governments was precisely the same. If the new government established in the Brazils had been ignorant of the principles of the law of nations, if these injuries had been inflicted through inadvertence, the novitas regni, the newness of their authority might have been pleaded as some excuse, but that was not the case. From what he knew of the transaction, he must say, that it was anything but creditable to the Emperor. There was ground for grave suspicion that these vessels were wilfully seized, against the advice of the Emperor's ministers, by the Brazilian Admiral, who happened to have more influence with the Emperor than they had. With regard to the Hellespont, a vessel seized and detained for adjudication, it was plundered, before the period of adjudication had arrived, to such an extent that it was no longer possible to restore it to its owner, possessing the same value. His noble friend had told them that at length there was some prospect of a settlement. He was happy to hear that they were at least to derive some advantage from the recent revolution in the government of Brazil, and that the existing government had a greater disposition to afford redress than the government of him under whom these atrocities against British property had been committed. And this Don Pedro, under whose sanction and by whose contrivance it was gravely sus-

565
pected these enormities had been perpetrated, this was the man whom his Majesty's Government had permitted to trample upon the municipal laws of England—to recruit British soldiers upon the British territory—who was even now, as it was ostentatiously reported, at the head of a British battalion at Terceira, and under whose banners an officer holding the King's commission was allowed to lead on a British force against Portugal. He should like to know what injustice Portugal had been guilty of, what injuries she had inflicted on us, which could be compared with those he had described? What insults had we experienced from Don Miguel equal to those offered to British subjects, and through them to the British nation, by Don Pedro? What infatuation was it that led his Majesty's Ministers to lend their countenance to that individual in his project upon Portugal? If the people of Portugal decided in favour of the claims of Don Miguel to the crown, nay, if they acquiesced in his rule, preferring it to that of Don Pedro or Donna Maria, he could not see upon what principles, consistently with the independence and integrity of nations, this country or its Ministers could lend their names to the contest. He did not stand there to defend Don Miguel, but his belief was, that Portugal preferred Don Miguel to Don Pedro, and in that case he could not but entertain a deep sense of the injury done to Portugal by the conduct of his Majesty's Ministers. If Miguel was the choice of the Portuguese nation, what better claim, he wished to know, had Louis Phillippe to the throne of France than Miguel to the throne of Portugal? Was it that the people in the latter country shewed symptoms of dissatisfaction in occasional commotions? Was not that the case in France also? And upon what pretence, then, did the Government allow British officers to join the hostile expedition of Don Pedro? Why not issue an order of rectal for all British officers engaged in such an enterprise? The truth was, that this expedition was an attack upon the independence of Portugal on the part of France and England, for it never could have been prepared without their countenance and assistance. It might succeed through the agency of British valour, and in consequence of the permitted violation of our municipal laws; but by what policy the British Government was actuated in allowing British officers to
566
enlist under the banners of either party he could not understand. To complete the folly of our conduct, this enterprise, by which civil war was to be introduced into the Peninsula, was fitted out by the money due in the form of dividends to the British creditors of the Brazilian state. He knew that his Majesty's Ministers would answer that it was not in their power to interfere. But he denied the validity of that excuse. Suppose that Charles 10th, or a party attached to Charles 10th, had hired armed ships and levied men for an expedition against France, did his Majesty's Ministers mean to say, that they would not have exercised their power to prevent such proceedings? If neutrality was a duty in the one case, it was in the other, and it was no answer to allege, that France was a powerful country and that Portugal was not. It was not Portugal alone, he feared, that was concerned in this question. The peace of Spain was endangered. He must say, that, of all foreign countries, he had seen none more disposed of late years to draw closely the bonds of amity with this country than Spain. He believed that she was well aware that her true interests would be promoted by a strict union upon honourable terms with this country. For the last seven years she had shown a disposition to listen to the reasonable proposals of this country; and if the late Government had continued in office, he had little doubt that, by this time, she would have consented to recognise the independence of the South American states. In her pecuniary dealings with this country Spain had been conspicuously honourable. She had paid money, the hope of the payment of which Mr. Canning had treated as little better than a dream of insanity. And yet we were to be the parties by whose agency Spain was to be convulsed by the renewal of civil dissections. We were about to endanger her internal peace, by lending our sanction to a foreign expedition, in contradiction to our professions of neutrality and our boast of non-intervention.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, he had heard the statement of the noble. Lord with much regret, for he believed, from what had fallen from the noble Lord that Government did not entertain any idea of following the matter up with more vigour than it had hitherto displayed, for the purpose of showing the Brazilian government that Great Britain would no longer submit to evasion and procrastination. He must remind the

567
House that a different plan had been pursued with regard to Portugal; a squadron was sent to the Tagus, and immediate reparation demanded and enforced, while in the case of the Brazils, the noble Lord had satisfied himself with making ineffectual remonstrances. The noble Lord said, that, on coming into office, he was so convinced that there had been improper delay in settling these claims, that he sent to Mr. Aston, at Rio, enforcing the orders of his predecessor, but that he was afterwards induced, in consequence of the remonstrances of the Brazilian ambassador, to desire him not to act upon that letter. The noble Lord further said, that the first letter was communicated to the Brazilian government before the arrival of the second, but he took it for granted, that, in consequence of the arrival of the latter, the tone of the former was not followed up. He recollected, on a former occasion, that the noble Lord had taken great credit to himself because Lord Aberdeen had held out a threat to Portugal, which was not followed up, whilst he sent a squadron to the Tagus and obtained satisfaction; but how was it that he had not pursued the same course with regard to the Brazils? There was a want of firmness of purpose about the foreign policy of Government, according to the received opinion amongst British merchants, which placed them under a great disadvantage in foreign countries. He disliked any thing in the shape of tortuous policy, and he hoped, therefore, that Government would fix a period, after which reprisals would be made, unless satisfaction were given within the time. It was within our reach to do so, for the Brazils was a commercial country, so that at any time we might have recourse to reprisals. He thought it most nefarious that money sent to this country from the Brazils, to pay the interest of the loan, should be appropriated to another purpose by the Brazilian authorities in London. As the noble Lord had taken no notice of this part of the subject, as propounded by the hon. Member who introduced the Motion, and the worthy Alderman who had seconded it, he trusted the debate would not close without the noble Lord giving some reply, calculated to satisfy those persons who had suffered from so scandalous a proceeding.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, that he had become acquainted with the papers relating to this case, and his opinion was, that it ought to have been settled long since. He
568
could not see any reason why the claims of Great Britain should be postponed to those of France and the United States, who had both successfully urged their respective claims. It was with much regret and surprise that he heard of any relaxation of the just demand of Great Britain, for no man could doubt that such relaxation would lead to consequences most injurious to our commercial and maritime interests. He was at a loss to know why the British flag, with all its rights and all its attributes, should be treated in the South American seas with less respect than the flag of any other nation. The only mode, however, of getting reparation front states was, by representation to the government, not by resorting to similar piratical acts, and therefore, he approved of the restoration of the ship Nestor. If Great Britain had the magnanimity to release the vessels which had been seized, she ought still to insist upon retribution and compensation. He wished to ask the noble Lord whether he had fixed a period for the adjustment of these claims, beyond which other means would be called into action to vindicate the honour of the British flag. The merchants of London had had abundant reason already to complain of the delay, and unless the noble Lord stated some period when justice was to be done, he should recommend an address to his Majesty, praying him to take measures for insisting on retribution.
Lord Althorpwas perfectly willing to admit that the acts complained of were most grossly unjust, and wholly unjustifiable on the part of the Brazilian government. The late Administration had two courses to pursue, namely, to send a squadron and make reprisals, or, (which was the course they did take) to call on the Brazilian government for redress, and threaten reprisals if it was refused. He considered that the late Administration was wise in what they did, in giving the Brazilian government an opportunity to make reparation. The case was not one of absolute refusal, but unnecessary delays had been interposed; and, as his noble friend had stated, instructions had been sent to our Minister in the Brazils, to communicate to the government that, unless those delays were put an end to, reprisals would be resorted to; and, in consequence, the cases were in a course of adjustment. He did not see how we could act otherwise than to declare that, if we

569
saw any unnecessary delays interposed, we should resort to reprisals, and this was the course Government were determined to adopt.
Mr. Ewarthoped that the noble Lord would act up to his declaration, and not suffer these claims to stand over indefinitely, but exact all he could from the Brazilian government, and vindicate the national honour. He could assure the Ministers that there was a very strong feeling in the mercantile classes that a great deal too much forbearance had already taken place in entering into prolonged negotiations upon such manifest acts of injustice.
Sir Frederick Trenchsaid, that the French and the North Americans had very speedily obtained redress; even the Swedes, who had a claim for a few thousand dollars, had sent a vessel of war to enforce their demand, and had thereby received satisfaction, but British claimants were ridiculed in their attempts to enforce it, and British diplomacy was the jest of the South American States. He did hope that one effect of this discussion would be, to induce Government to adopt a more decided tone.
Lord Morpethsaid, that he had a petition to present from merchants at Leeds, who stated, that they suffered great distress through the indefinite delay of the adjustment of their claims. He admired the promptitude with which his noble friend, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, had acted in reference to Portugal, and hoped he would exercise in the new world a little of that energy which he displayed in the old.
Lord Sandonsaid, that a great portion of the claims were made by his constituents, and he did hope that his Majesty's Government would give them the protection and support to which they were entitled. He should like to hear that the noble Lord was prepared to assign a specific time for the adjustment of the claims, beyond which frivolous and vexatious delays should no longer be tolerated. Other states of the new world were imitating the conduct of the Brazilian and Buenos-Ayrean, and preying upon British commerce; and the only way to put a stop to such outrages was, to repress them at the outset with a firm hand.
Mr. Humecalled upon the Government to act upon the memorandum which had been suffered to lie unheeded by the Brazilian government for three years. As
570
far as his information went, the noble Lord was not correctly instructed, for not one case had yet been adjudicated. He regretted that English merchants should be so treated. The British flag, which was once respected in all parts of the world, was now mocked every where. He, therefore, considered the question was of much greater importance than the noble Lord seemed to consider it, and to allow such unjust acts to be committed with impunity was a disgrace to the Government.
Sir Henry Hardingereally thought it time that his Majesty's Government should make some answer to the charges brought against them. It had been stated in that House that the country had been disgraced, that it had been made a subject of ridicule, and that it had become a laughing stock to the whole of Europe; and these statements had all come from Members usually supporting the Government: and it was not only in the failure of his Majesty's Government to protect the rights of British subjects that they had rendered themselves thus obnoxious to complaint, for, while this had been done, others of his Majesty's subjects had been allowed to join an army for the purpose of making war upon a friendly power and ally of this country. He wished to ask the noble Lord, whether any steps had been taken to recal those officers of the army and navy who had joined the armament for the invasion of' Portugal?
Colonel Evanssaid, that, if the interference of officers on one side was a matter for interference, he should like to know whether the Government ought not also to take notice of the well-known fact that a noble Lord in his Majesty's service was now directing the operations of Don Miguel? He should like to know whether the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, meant, that the Government ought to send out an expedition to prevent the expedition of Don Pedro from attacking Portugal.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, he did not state to the House any thing which he thought the House would not have clearly understood. He had not spoken upon vague newspaper reports: he had seen the names of British officers affixed to proclamations issued under the authority of Don Pedro, and, as such conduct was in direct violation of the statute, he thought the Government ought at once to interfere, and to remove all such officers.
Viscount Palmerstonhad not expected

571
this sort of discussion on the merits of the contest between Don Miguel and Don Pedro. In reply to the question of the right hon. and gallant member, he could only say, that there was a person in Don Pedro's service who was formerly an officer in the British navy, but he no longer held a commission in the service. If there were any military officers in Don Pedro's service the same rule applied to them. It certainly was against the statute for British officers to serve in foreign fleets or armies. It might not be right for any Englishman to do so, but, how was it to be prevented? Admiral Brown and others who were in the South-American service prior to the recognition of the New States, had not been recalled, and could not be, for they had no commissions, and the Government had no power over them. But it was said, that the Government behaved different in the case of France—that King Phillippe received different treatment; but in that they had only followed the example of their predecessors. Did not King Phillippe receive different treatment from the late Government? Was not he acknowledged, and Don Miguel treated as an usurper? He thought the course pursued was the only fair one. His Majesty's Government had observed a strict neutrality. With respect to the alleged insults and mockery of the British flag, he had no knowledge of the grounds on which the statements had been made. His noble friend had correctly stated, that the cases were in a course of investigation. The case of the Henry and Isabella was under adjudication when the last advices came away. He only asked the House to have so much confidence in the Government as to believe it would use the best means it could, and would not shrink from the discharge of its acknowlodged duty, either to obtain adequate remuneration for property unjustly seized, or to repress outrage by whomsoever practised.
Sir Robert Peelwas satisfied, from the statement, that the production of the papers would be injurious to the claims of the parties, and he thought the noble Lord ought not to be called upon to state at what period the payments were to commence. After the declarations of the two noble Lords connected with the Government, it would be well to leave the matter in their hands, and he suggested to the hon. Member that the best course he could pursue would be, to withdraw the Motion.
Sir John M. Doyleremarked, that, were it not that he conceived it would be derogatory to a British Member of Parliament to become an informer, he should have much pleasure in answering the question pat by his much-respected friend, the right hon. General opposite, to his gallant friend at this side of the House. As to British officers serving in the army of the usurper, Miguel, he could hardly conceive it possible that his right hon. friend, and some of those hon. Members who sat near him, could be in ignorance of the fact; he also begged leave to state that a British officer on half-pay, and who served on the staff in Portugal, and now in the military service of Miguel, was, at this moment, a diplomatic agent in London, and had been so employed for months past: of course, he forgot the name of this respectable individual.
Motion withdrawn.
House went into Committee of Supply.
Ordnance estimates postponed.
House resumed.

ARREAR OF TITHES (IRELAND.)
Mr. Stanleymoved the third reading of the Tithe Bill.
Mr. Ruthvensaid, he hoped to hear some better arguments in favour of this Bill, on the third reading, than had yet been urged in its behalf. From all he had seen and heard, he was convinced that a cessation from agitation and excitement would be most desirable and beneficial for Ireland; that cessation, however, it would never obtain if this Bill passed into a law. Every account only tended to show that the people were opposed to this impost as being most unjust, unequal, and oppressive; and, if hon. Gentlemen thought, that, by severity and harshness, they could put down the opposition to the payment of tithes, they would find themselves much mistaken. The people considered themselves insulted by the introduction of such a Bill as this during the progress of the great measure of Parliamentary Reform. They felt and knew that this Bill was inefficient. It excited the of the country at present, and held out no hope whatever for the future. He did trust, therefore, that Ministers would reconsider the question, and pause before they endeavoured to carry into effect enactments that could not be sustained by any established law, but which had been merely brought forward to meet the passing necessity of

573
the moment. His main objections to the Bill were, that it left the general question untouched, and merely provided for one year; and that it was most obnoxious to the people of Ireland. Some Gentlemen might be induced, by the necessity of the case, to vote for the measure; and he had no doubt that, in doing so, they were acting conscientiously. Had it been proposed to extend general relief to the people of Ireland, he was sure there was no one in the House who would object to supplying Government with the means. But, could any one conceive that the disgusting and insulting provisions of this Bill, which were to be followed up by half-martial law, would be productive of peace or harmony in Ireland? He trusted hon. Gentlemen would not, for the sake of their own credit, and for the sake of the credit of this Parliament, consent to pass such a law as this; if they did, he told them it would not work well. Some advocated the adoption of rigorous measures—some were in favour of conciliation—but both parties joined in opposing this measure; which, instead of uniting and dispelling hostile feelings, would only give rise to new sources of discontent. The present system of tithes was universally admitted to require some amendment; and when the people first heard of extinction, they eagerly grasped at it, because they were ignorant of the wide distinction between extinction and abolition. The people of Ireland were not in a state to be easily satisfied. There was no common feeling between the governors and the governed; the people were dissatisfied with a system which drove them to desperation; and could it be supposed that they would be tranquillized by such a measure as this? There was no man more anxious to preserve the union between the two countries than be was, but he knew that many who were formerly decidedly opposed to a repeal of the Union, now looked at the question in a different point of view. He believed those who were the best friends to the two countries were opposed to keeping Ireland in the invidious situation in which she was now placed. There was a growing feeling in Ireland that was hopeless unless some change took place in their domestic Legislature. The people of Ireland would be tranquillized if some prospect of relief were held out to them, and yet they could have no kind, soothing, word from
574
Parliament. Under this ungracious mode of treatment, they never could be satisfied. Rigorous measures and martial law could only tend to increase their discontent, and, therefore, he gave his determined opposition to this measure.
Mr. Maurice O'Connellhad already stated his opinions on this question, and did not think it necessary at any length to reiterate his objections to the principle of the Bill. He was free to admit, that, as a coercive measure, the Bill was as lenient as could be expected; but what he objected to was, that any coercive measure should be forced upon the people, unless, at the same time, that measure were accompanied by a measure of relief. He gave the right hon. Gentleman credit for the very best intentions in introducing this measure; but he certainly was bound to say, that the right hon. Gentleman was acting under a very gross delusion. That Bill would be found inefficient. It would not be in the power of the right hon. Gentleman to enforce that law, because it was a bad law, and because it was a law which was condemned by the public voice, and repudiated by the public feeling of the country. Unjust laws were mere waste parchment. They could not operate, and, if it was attempted to enforce them by penalties, it could not be done unless by constant collision with the people. He again admitted that, as a measure of coercion, the Bill was as lenient as it possibly could be; but it was just cause of complaint, that a measure of coercion should be forced upon the public, despite of every pledge that there should be no coercive measure unattended by the removal of the grievance complained of. Having said thus much, he did not intend to trespass further upon the attention of the House. He had opposed the Bill all through, but he did not conceive it necessary to offer any further fruitless opposition.
Mr. Petresaid, that he could not but condemn the course which had been taken in opposition to this Bill, which he thought so fair and reasonable as to be entitled to every fair and proper support. He denied that the members of the Catholic religion were actuated by a wish to overthrow the Church Establishment in Ireland. He was a Catholic, and he felt bound by the oath he took, when coming into that House, to support the Protestant Establishment. He considered the Establish-

575
ment of the Protestant Church as part and parcel of the Government of the country; and, as a Catholic, he felt himself bound, by the oath he had taken when coming into that House, not to do anything calculated to overthrow the Protestant Church. He was returned to that House by an almost exclusively Protestant constituency, and he considered that he should be guilty of the greatest ingratitude to them if he could be capable of joining in the unjust and unreasonable resistance given to this Bill. Looking to the oath taken by Catholic Members in coming into the House, he must contend that the conditions of that solemn obligation bound them to resist any attempt to overthrow the temporalities of the Established Church. So far as he could, understand the question, the present Bill appeared to him a mild and lenient Bill. A combination existed against the rights of property in Ireland, and was it to be told to the Government that they were not to interfere and vindicate the law. It was not now a question as to the merit of any existing law; if the law was bad, that House was the proper place to have it amended. But he did not think that the people had a right to take the law into their own hands, and say they would not obey the law? He thought that it was the duty of every Member of that House to support his Majesty's Government in upholding the authority of the law, and vindicating its power. He had felt it to be his duty to use these words for the purpose of repelling the imputations as unjust, that the Catholic Members of that House felt inimical to the Established Church. If he had acted otherwise, he should be ungrateful to a Protestant constituency, who returned him to that House—and, more than that, he should be ungrateful to the Protestant Legislature, which relieved him from his civil disabilities, and rendered him eligible to a seat in that House. He had felt bound to say thus much, and he certainly was surprised at the unreasonable perseverance with which hon. Members continued to oppose this measure.
Mr. Sheilsaid, that the hon. member for Ilchester (Mr. Petre) was an English, and that he was an Irish, Catholic. They were animals of a different genus, though they had been in the same cage. The member for Ilchester confided in the Government—he confided in the power and
576
determination of his countrymen. The hon. Gentleman was grateful to English Protestants for his enfranchisement—he might have extended his gratitude, and felt that he owed some thanks to the virtue and the energy of the Irish millions who knew and who proved that—"Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." Ireland, for her freedom, had to thank herself; and from what he had observed, he felt convinced, that it would be to herself that she would owe the removal of her remaining grievances. He had risen to protest against this Bill, and against the construction of the Catholic oath given by an English Catholic, who had applied his political habits to his interpretation. First, as to the Bill, it was a piece of preposterous legislation, while Reform would give a giant's strength to Ireland, the Tithe Bill would prompt her to use it in a gigantic fashion—it was like striking a man a blow in the face, while you put a club into his hands. At the next election, the people would seek for candidates for Parliament among martyrs to tithes. Newgate would be the avenue to St. Stephen's Chapel, and Government would, by irritating the people, reverse the saying of Mirabeau, and prove that there was but a single bound to be made from the foot of the Tarpeian rock to the summit of the capitol. They must grant Reform to Ireland—they would not presume to withhold it—talk, indeed, of abolishing fifty-six close boroughs in England, and of leaving the pay of twenty boroughs in the sordid hands of the provincial oligarchy of Ireland! It might be incommodious for Government to hear, at this moment, a reference made to their former pledges on the Church; but they had, themselves, forced these topics into discussion, by bringing forward their tithe Bill, pending Reform in the Lords, while they were embarrassed, and their virtue was bound to the ground by those small Lilliputian ligatures and constraints which prevented them from standing up. The Catholic oath had been referred to. That oath bound a Catholic not to subvert (that was the word) the Church, nor weaken the Protestant religion. Was the reduction of the revenues of the Church equivalent to its subversion? The meaning of the oath, perhaps, should be collected from the rejection of Mr. Wilmot Horton's motion to prevent Catholics from voting in ecclesiastical matters. There was in

577
Scotland an Established Church—a cheap and useful institution, agreeable to the feelings, and not burthensome to the resources of the people. Will you lay the Irish Church in ruins by bringing, it on a level with that Establishment, whose simple front and plain fabric is built on the principles of apostolic architecture? As to weakening the Protestant religion, he trusted that it consisted in something better than vast episcopal territories, numerous sinecurism, bloated pluralities, offensive rates, insulting cesses, pulpits occupied with cobwebs, altars encompassed with loneliness, and churches with clerks for a congregation. The creed of Irish Protestantism was to him matter of indifference; but the coffers of Irish Protestantism were a public and political concern; and so far from the religion being impaired by the diminution of its revenues, it would, on the contrary, be relieved from those obstacles which were opposed to its progress by its pecuniary abuses causing national detestation. These sentiments might be unpalatable to a Reforming Parliament; but a Reformed Parliament was at hand, and it would have a different relish. It was of little consequence how these opinions were received in that assembly. It had given itself a suicidal stab—it had declared itself unworthy of the Offices of Legislation, and it was to its successor that he should look for that great work of ecclesiastical regeneration, which was indispensable to the peace, tranquillity, and ultimate safety, of Ireland.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that the course which the debate had taken was so entirely foreign from the matter under discussion, that he would not have troubled the House at present, were it not that he felt bound to offer a few remarks on that most extraordinary piece of most extraordinary declamation with which the House had been favoured by the hon. Member who had just sat down. He did not think it necessary to vindicate his hon. friend, the member for Ilchester, from the imputations indirectly cast upon him; any one who witnessed his plain and straightforward, and manly and unequivocal manner, must feel convinced how infinitely superior the course his hon. friend took was, to what he should not hesitate to call the flimsy and hollow casuistry—the quibbling sophistry—which had, under cover, no doubt of elegant language and brilliant imagination,
578
been used to attack his hon. friend, by the hon. member for Louth. His hon. friend, the member for Ilchester, had pursued an honest, manly, straightforward course—he unequivocally declared, that he felt bound by the ties of duty and honour—by the sense of gratitude to Government—by his duty to his country and by his duty to his God, not to use, to the injury or the destruction of the Protestant establishment, powers vested in him by an exclusively Protestant Legislature. How different was this from the casuistry which had been resorted to by the hon. and learned member for Louth, who denied that the obligation of this oath was so felt or understood by the Catholic Members of that House. What, said the hon. and learned Member, "You must permit us to be the auditors of our own accounts." Did the hon. and learned Member, then, mean to make good the charge that had been urged against that oath by the opponents of Catholic emancipation, and which he and others of its advocates indignantly denied? Did he then admit that the oath was taken, in the solemn presence of his God, with a mental reservation, and not according to the meaning of those by whom that oath was administered? In the terms of that oath, he who takes it is supposed to do so without mental reservation or equivocation; and, when the hon. and learned Member talked of being the auditors of their own accounts, he would be glad to ask, what did the hon. and learned Gentleman mean by that expression, unless it was, that this oath was taken with mental reservation, and not in the meaning of those by whom it was administered? What else than this was the meaning "that they were the auditors of their own accounts?" Did the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say, that those who took the oath were to be the judges of its meaning, and not those who administered it?
Mr. Sheilbegged to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, as he was arguing upon an expression which he had never used. What he said was directly the reverse of what was stated by the right hon. Gentleman. He had contended that the oath was taken in the exact meaning of those who administered it; but that so taken, it did not bear the interpretation put upon it by the hon. member for Ilchester. His reference to the motion of Mr. Wilmot Horton had been adopted merely for the

579
purpose of illustrating the argument he was urging.
Mr. Stanleyresumed—He should be the last person that should wish to interrupt any hon. Gentleman from setting him right, whenever there could be a possibility of his mistaking any expression of such hon. Gentleman. However, in the present instance, he had taken down the exact words made use of by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He certainly thought that they bore the construction which he affixed to them. An oath was not a matter of honour; it was a solemn obligation between two contracting parties; and either party had the full right to claim the fulfilment of that oath. The hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to a motion made by an hon. friend of his (Mr. Stanley's) at the time of the Catholic question. At that time he condemned that motion as unjust, unreasonable, and unnecessary; but, certainly, the explanations and assertions indulged in by the hon. and learned member for Louth, had gone far to shake his confidence in the opinions he then entertained. The hon. and learned Member had argued the question with a great deal of casuistry; but what was the meaning of the terms of the oath?—that he would defend, to the utmost of his power, the rights of the Protestant Church, as by law established; and the oath goes on—"And I hereby abjure any intention to subvert the Protestant religion."—No; to subvert the Protestant Church.—No; but "to subvert the Protestant Church-establishment, as settled by law." The hon. and learned Member, with all his eloquence and all his casuistry, must not tell him that the Protestant religion or the Protestant Church were synonymous with the Protestant Church-establishment as settled by law. The hon. and learned Gentleman's construction of that oath ran counter to the intentions of those by whom that oath was framed, and who admitted the hon. Member and his friends to a seat in that House. The whole of the hon. and learned Gentleman's casuistry amounted to this: "I may destroy three-fourths of the property of the Established Church in Ireland; my oath binds me not to destroy the property of the Protestant Church; but, as long as there is a fractional part left remaining—as long as I don't destroy the entire property of the, Established Church, so long I do not violate my oath." He would not now stop to argue whether
580
any gratitude was due to the people of England for their support of that measure which gave to the hon. and learned Gentleman a seat in that House. He would not ask, whether any share of gratitude was due to those who, for struggling in that cause, had endured the fatigue of that strife, and who, night after night, had perseveringly continued in that House, and assisted in giving the crowning stroke to that great measure. He did not mean to deny, whatever portion of the merit was due to those who, by the persevering agitation of this question, had at length succeeded in forcing it on the attention of an unwilling Government; but, whatever share of advantage might have resulted from that measure, it was not to be reaped without the intermixture of some of those noxious weeds which shoot up amidst the most luxuriant soils, and of which they were now reaping the bitter fruits in the fulness of that factious opposition with which the well-meant measures of the Government were resisted. He would have the hon. and learned Gentleman beware how he taught a bitter lesson to the people of England. He would implore him to be think himself in time, and not to do irreparable injury to the cause of Irish Reform. The arguments and the tone adopted by the hon. and learned Member would go far to strike a deep and fatal blow against the cause of Irish Reform. The hon. and learned Member had said, that Irish Reform would follow English Reform, and that then the Irish people would have additional power to resist the Government and thwart their measures. He begged to remind the hon. Member that nothing could be more dangerous than to assert that passing the Reform Bill would be a mere transfer of agitation from Ireland to this House. He begged to tell the hon. Member, that he mistook the principle on which his Majesty's Government had introduced the present measure of Reform. They had not introduced that measure upon the principle of Universal Suffrage, but upon the principle of extending the franchise as widely, and amongst such persons, as might safely exercise it with advantage to themselves, and to the existing institutions of the country. That was the principle on which they proceeded to extend the franchise to as large a class of the community as they could with safety; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman asserted that doing so would be but a transfer of

581
agitation from Ireland to this House, he could not inflict a heavier blow on the cause of Irish Reform. The hon. and learned Gentleman, vindicating the resistance of the people, had quoted the words,
"Hereditary bondsmen, know ye not Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow."
Did the hon. and learned Member pretend to be ignorant of the meaning which was attached to that language in Ireland? Did the hon. and learned Member pretend not to know for what purposes that language was employed in Ireland? It was but two days since that he (Mr. Stanley) had received from Ireland one of the most inflammatory placards that could be written. It commenced with the words which the hon. and learned Member had quoted, and the placard proceeded:—"These are the words of O'Connell; and let us follow up these words, and deal with no person, or hold intercourse with no person, who will continue to pay the unjust and oppressive exactions of tithes." This was the effect of this placard; and it was for purposes such as this that this language was used in Ireland. He thought the hon. Member should feel that he spoke in that House as a Member of the Imperial Parliament, and as the Representative of the county of Louth; and it was more befitting for a Member of that House to infuse into the people obedience to the laws, than to inflame them into a resistance to the laws. He begged to tell the hon. Gentleman that, if he felt anxious for the extension of the franchise, he could not injure what he had at heart more than by using such declarations. But he would rescue the people of Ireland from the implied imputation. He would not believe that the people of Ireland were so lost to all sense of justice; and when he should, in his place in that House, have to move the reading of the Irish Reform Bill, he should, he trusted, be able to show that the people of Ireland, despite the slanders cast on them, were in every way entitled to a share in the general advantages of Reform. The hon. member for Clare had given him credit for believing that this measure would afford relief. Now, he did not believe any such thing. He did not bring forward this measure as a measure of relief, and that which would be introduced as a measure of relief would be one in every way calculated to afford relief. He did not want that the present measure
582
should do more than enforce the law; but did they think that it was the poor wretched peasant that would be selected for its operation? He did not wish that this law should be brought into operation against those who were poor and unable to pay, and whose arrears had accumulated from distress; but against the rich, who having the means had refused, and against the wealthy comfortable farmers, almost in the class of country gentlemen; these were the persons who would be selected; and when these persons were compelled to pay, he was sure that the resistance to the law amongst those who were influenced by their example would soon be at an end. This was not a sectarian question—this was not, as already had been well said by the hon. member for Ilchester, a question between Catholic and Protestant, but it was a question of right and property—it was a question, whether individual rights should be prostrated—whether the just claims of individuals should be set at nought, or what, perhaps, was of still more importance, whether the law should be overborne with impunity. It would, in his opinion, be contemptible in any government to allow the laws to be overborne, and its authority trampled under foot. The present measure, then, preceding as it did the measure of relief, was a measure to vindicate the law. The hon. member for Clare had that night admitted, that, if it were necessary to vindicate the law, and introduce a measure of coercion, that a more lenient measure than the present could not possibly be resorted to. The cost of these prosecutions would not fall upon the people, but upon the clergy. The object, as he said before, was, not to wage war against the poor, but to compel the rich to comply with the existing law. Great clamour had been used against this measure, but it did no more than merely transfer from the hands of the clergy, which were weak, into the hands of the Government, which were strong, the duty of asserting the rights of those individuals. It was to make the rich bow to the law—to compel those who had it in their power to pay the claims which they asserted. The hon. and learned member for Louth had talked of the consequences of Reform in Ireland; he had said that agitation would be the price of a seat in Parliament—that none but those who resisted the payment of tithes, and cheered on that resistance, could expect to be distinguished by public

583
favour. The hon. and learned Member, with great beauty of language and happiness of quotation, had said, that there would be but a step from the Tarpeian rock to the summit of the Capitol. Now, he did think, that, if these were to be the consequences that were to result from Reform in Ireland, Reform would be an injury to that country. He begged to deny the inference of the hon. and learned Member, whose conclusions, he felt satisfied, were erroneous, and he was quite convinced that those persons who were crouching at the base of the Tarpeian rock, felt very little disposition to play the part of Marcus Curtius. He relied upon the good sense of the people of Ireland to influence them to give up the resistance to the law, when they saw that those who were setting the example of that resistance were compelled to acquiesce—when they found that, instead of having to deal with a clergy who were weak and feeble, and could not enforce their rights, that they would have to deal with a Government which was strong, and able to enforce and vindicate the laws. It was his conviction, that, as soon as the leaders of this resistance were reduced to obedience, the people, who were deluded into the following of their example, would return to their obedience also. He trusted that the Government, in the execution of this measure, would have the support of the gentry of the country, who would find that in obedience to the laws consists the best title and security of their own rights. He hoped that the predictions of those who foreboded evil from this measure would be falsified, and that the state of the country would be such as would enable them to silence the clamours of those who would resist that measure of relief which it was the intention of his Majesty's Government to afford. He would not longer occupy the time of the House. He did not intend to have trespassed on it, but for the manner in which the debate had wandered from the subject of discussion, and thanking the House for its indulgence, he would merely add, that he felt it due to his own feelings not to allow what had fallen from the hon. and learned member for Louth to pass unnoticed.
Mr. Henry Grattansaid, that the attack of the right hon. Secretary was very ungrateful, after the zealous support which the Irish Members had invariably given to the English Reform Bill, notwithstanding
584
the numerous rumours that had been spread abroad relative to the intended alterations in the Irish Reform Bill. It was said, the present question that had been raised upon the tithes was caused by agitation; and it was asked why their payment was not disputed before the settling of the Catholic question? He would tell the Gentlemen why. It was because the Irish people knew that till that point was carried, it was useless to agitate any other; but now that that point was gained, there were many other points that must be agitated. There was the Poor Law Question—the Absentee Question—the Jury Cess Question—and the Vestry Act Question—all of which must be agitated until they were satisfactorily settled. What the people of Ireland wanted was, not to destroy the Church Establishment, but to make a more equal distribution of its revenues. They did not like to pay men who did no duty. The right hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding his great talents, would find it difficult to carry this act into execution, whatever the hon. and learned member for Dublin might say about maintaining the rights of the Church. The very man against whom the troops were brought out was sued in the hon. and learned Gentleman's own Court, for the tithes in question, and what was stated by the party? Why, that the clergyman had no right to the tithes at all. That was what he complained of with regard to this Bill. They were putting the Attorney General into a situation of bringing actions against parties where no tithe at all was due. There was a case in which, after some vexatious proceedings, the man who was sued denied the right of the party who claimed the tithe, but said he was quite willing to pay the legal claimant. That settled the case; but then there were the costs to pay. They were giving a summary power to the Attorney General, which, for want of the necessary knowledge of the circumstances of each case, would be most oppressively and vexatiously used against the people of Ireland, who refused to pay the tithe, not contumaciously, but upon the ground, in many instances, of the want of legal right on the part of the claimant. He said to the right hon. Gentleman, "You wilt not succeed by this measure, but you may by the subsequent measure; if you will tell us what that is, and, if it appears to be a fair measure, all the difficulties of the case will be over. But now you have

585
no power at all, because you must have a sale and a decree." They had heard arguments, recriminations, and speeches—and about what? About the sale of a cow. Would the Government suffer things to go on in this way—would they suffer a system to continue which required them to employ 4,000 men to sell an old cow? If they could not govern that country without a police, they had better give it up at once. To be controlled by force was what the people would not submit to longer than the Government could make them; and for this reason—if the laws were first of all bad, and you attempted to enforce them by arms, that was tyranny: and the people had a right to rise up against tyranny, whether practised by one or by many. He entreated them not to declare war against the people of Ireland, especially for the sake of maintaining the Established Church—because, though it might be established by the law, it was not established by the people: they derived no benefit from it. The Government talked of vindicating the law: this had been the dogma of Statesmen at all times—but what was the result of attempting to vindicate the law, in the case of America? They were compelled to give up the Stamp Act, and then they would vindicate the tax on tea; but they were resisted, and they finally lost the colonies. Be assured that such would ever be the result of any attempt to enforce a law which was repudiated by the whole people. He repeated the words of Mr. Burke as applied to America—if you can only govern Ireland by coercion, she is not worth governing; but adopt a conciliatory course, and Ireland will not only be easily governed, but she will be a source of strength to this country. What was the consequence of those Acts of Parliament which were passed in favour of her commerce? Was there, then, any revolution apprehended? Did not the Irish legislature vote 30,000 seamen at once, and did they not declare they would stand or fall by Great Britain—and why? Because they were governed well. But if they went on in the course they were now pursuing, Ireland would be lost; for it was idle to say that they could govern 8,000,000 of people just as they could govern a parish. The Attorney General might send one man to gaol, but what could he do with 5,000,000 of people? If the Secretary for Ireland stood upon a point of honour, the peasantry of Ireland
586
would stand upon their point of honour; and nothing could be so foolish as to go to war with a whole people upon such an imaginary ground. There was no necessity for vindicating the law; the people had declared they would not pay the tithes for the benefit of a few, which ought to be paid, and which they were willing to pay, for the benefit of all: and it was in vain that they talked of the vindication of the law. He understood some alterations had been made in the Bill, but he had not been able to get a copy of those alterations; and yet they were now called upon to consent to the third reading. Time ought to be allowed to consider these alterations. But should the Bill be passed, he hoped it would have a peaceful issue, and not only conduce to the strength of his Majesty's Government, but to the satisfaction and stability of the country. The opposition to the Bill was not dictated by a factious hostility to the Government, but by a sincere desire to promote the general welfare. He knew men who were now sitting in that House, and had opposed this Bill, recommended the people of Ireland to pay their tithes, though, at the same time, the landlords, who were also Members of this House, had not received their rents. The Irish Members had hitherto supported his Majesty's Government; and the opposition, in this instance, was founded upon principle. He begged to assure the right hon. Gentleman, that a Government was never so secure and respectable as when it received the votes of unpaid men. If the Ministers attempted to carry on the Government in opposition to the independent Members of this House, they would most signally and most deservedly fail.
Mr. Humeregretted to have heard the sentiments which fell from the right hon. Secretary, because they were uncalled for by the observations of the hon. and learned member for Louth. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman what interpretation he put upon the words, which he seemed to deliver with so much emphasis—whether he thought that a Roman Catholic Member was bound, by the oath he took, never to support any alteration of the laws that regarded the property of the Church? He understood the hon. and learned member for Louth to say, that an alteration in the Church Establishment was necessary: and was an interpretation to be put upon that oath similar to that

587
which was put upon the Coronation Oath in the late reign? He thought the speech of the right hon. Gentleman amounted very nearly to a declaration of war against Ireland. He had to-night shown the House what were the consequences of possessing power. Such doctrines as he had broached to-night might have been expected from former Administrations; but that they should come from a Member of the present did, indeed, surprise him. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to say, that no alteration was to be made in the Church Establishment of Ireland? He understood the hon. and learned member for Louth to say, that there ought to be, and that there must be, a change, before Ireland could be quiet: and was there any man in that House, except the right hon. Gentleman himself, who would say, that the Church of Ireland was to go on without alteration? To make the Establishment congenial with the feelings of the people, an alteration to a great extent must be made. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that it was in vain to attempt to force this measure against the feelings of the people; and that the present effort to vindicate the law, as it was called, was in exactly the same spirit in which the law was endeavoured to be vindicated in our American colonies, but which failed then, and would fail now; for, when laws were made, whether they applied to England, Scotland, or Ireland, which were inimical to the feelings of the whole people, it was impossible to carry them into effect. In the present case, Government had not redeemed their pledge to this House—they had not followed up the spirit of the Resolutions which they, by that pledge, prevailed upon the House to adopt. He, for one, concurred originally in those Resolutions, because he believed that Ministers would not propose a measure of coercion without bringing forward the remedial measure: but the House was now about to separate, and no Bill for remedying the existing evils had been brought in; so that his Majesty's Government had neither kept good faith with the country, nor had they acted in consistency with their own Resolutions. Was it possible that the right hon. Gentleman was so utterly ignorant as to fancy that such language as he had used would tend to the peace of Ireland, by prevailing on the people to acquiesce in a system which they had for ever de-
588
nounced? The right hon. Gentleman said, that when the people saw, that Government could and would enforce the law, they would immediately comply with that law—but 50,000 men would not enable him to enforce the law. Was it possible that the right hon. Secretary could be uninformed of what was now passing around him? He should remember that the present Government did not stand in the same situation as the former Government. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues came into power upon the principle of conciliation, and they, therefore, had no moral force to sustain them in their efforts to carry a measure in opposition to the feelings of the people. Let them but pass the English Reform Bill, and then refuse the claims now made by the hon. and learned member for Louth on behalf of Ireland, if they dared. The idea was absurd. Why, the Government stood committed upon the principle of Reform, and to an equal extent to Ireland as well as to England. If, then, the Church of Ireland was not to be reformed, what kind of pledges had they from Ministers, or what were those pledges worth? He confessed he had heard with regret the whole of this debate, because it held out, as regarded Ireland, nothing but hostility and irritation. The system of rule which the speech of the right hon. Gentleman indicated, could only be maintained by an enormous military establishment. No other means could carry into effect such measures as that speech contemplated. It was a speech which they ought not to have heard; it was contrary to every thing the right hon. Gentleman stated a few nights ago. Then he condemned the system pursued towards Ireland, and told the House that it was the anxious desire of his Majesty's Government to retrace the steps of former Governments, and to conciliate, by every measure in their power, the feelings of the people of that country. Good God! could he believe that, after hearing such a speech, which was so explicit, and which gave the highest gratification to all who heard it, and which had since diffused such real satisfaction throughout Ireland—could he expect that from the same lips would proceed a speech so opposite in spirit, and so irreconcileable in principle, as the speech which had just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman? Talk of agitation—who was the agitator here? But it was in vain; the people—the millions—would not be so put

589
down. If he could read what was passing in that country, the matter would not rest there. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that his policy of coercion had done more to unsettle Ireland than any other circumstance that had occurred for a long time past. And yet he complained of the conduct of the Irish Members. Did he expect that they were not to agitate within these walls for the sake of that country which had sent them there? If they did not, of what use were they? Were they to come here each to sit as the "silent Member?" Their duty was to agitate, and to persevere in that agitation until they had obtained a redress of those wrongs under which their country laboured. Let them be called delegates—they were such—a Representative was a delegate, and a delegate was a Representative. Was he there, for instance, to act for himself, and to hold himself irresponsible to the electors of Middlesex, and to disregard their feelings and interests, or what they were desirous to effect? If he was, then he had nothing to do with the county, but was his own Member. They were delegates to this House; but they might call them delegates or Representatives, it mattered not: it was not the name, but the duties they had to perform that concerned the people. He would repeat his regret that the Government should have persevered in this measure, instead of waiting until the other had been introduced. He feared that they would discover that they had proceeded too fast; and, by not fulfilling their pledge, they would ultimately drive the people of Ireland to desperation.
Mr. Long Wellesleysaid, he did not think the property of the Church ought to be converted to any purposes but those of the Church, and he apprehended the great majority of the people of England held the same sentiments; they might desire as he did, to see the principle of commutation generally acted upon; but the attempt to overcome the law by violence must be put down, and, therefore, he approved of the present Bill. When the remedial measure for Ireland was brought forward he should be prepared to give it his best attention.
Mr. Lambertopposed the Bill now as he had done from its first introduction into the House, because he thought it a weak irritating measure, and he believed would be inefficient. Indeed he was convinced
590
that not 100 l. would be recovered under it, unless it was accompanied by a remedial measure. This Bill proceeded on the bad principles of bad times, when the Church handed over its refractory members to the secular arm. He feared the tone and temper of the speech of the right hon. Secretary would not tend to allay the agitation in Ireland. It seemed to imply a threat that Ireland might be deprived of her part in the great measure of Parliamentary Reform.
Mr. Stanleybegged to be allowed to interrupt the hon. Member, and to add a few words in explanation. What he said was, that the line of argument adopted by the hon. and learned member for Louth was calculated to alarm many persons in this country, and thereby impede the progress of the Irish Reform Bill; and that if he anticipated the same consequences from its passing, as was anticipated by the hon. and learned Member, he would even now withdraw it.
Mr. Lambertwas happy to hear the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman, but he feared he could not give such a satisfactory one of the manner in which he had spoken of the oath to be taken by Catholic Members. He had taken it in its plain direct sense, and did not like to have the doctrine of double dealing thrown in his teeth. To return, however, to the Bill, the people of Ireland had decided the question; the tithe system must be abolished; but it was not yet too late for the Government by the adoption of proper measures to lead the people, and protect the interests of the Protestant clergy, by introducing measures of conciliation.
Mr. Ralph Howardmust also join in regretting the tone and temper of the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland. If the construction put by that right hon. Gentleman on the oath taken by Catholic Members was correct, it would have been better that the proposition of Mr. Wilmot Horton should have been carried, which prohibited them from voting upon all questions connected with the Church, than to have left them at liberty to do so. As he understood the oath he considered himself bound to abide by the existing law, but a difference of opinion might fairly exist as to the best mode of enforcing that law. He saw that on the present question a decided breach had been committed in it;

591
and, therefore, he had voted in support of the measure before the House, but there was a great distinction between maintaining the property of the Established Church and supporting the present unequal distribution of that property.
Mr. Huntmust express his abhorrence of the measure, and he must condemn the tone and the speech of the right hon. Secretary.
Sir John Milley Doylesaid, he did not approve of the whole Bill, but, as it had proceeded so far, he would not oppose the third reading.
The House divided—Ayes 52; Noes 7—Majority 45.
Bill read a third time.
On the question that the Bill do pass,
Mr. Sheil: The Secretary for Ireland has assailed me. I could not reply to him, according to the rules of the House, until the motion that this Bill do now pass. I rise to answer him, but without resentment; for I make allowance for his feelings with respect to the Church. It is not that his early reputation is associated with it by his debut—there is something more substantial than mere oratory to bind him to it. He is chained to the Church by a golden link, which it would be preposterous to require of him to break. The magnanimity which is requisite to sacrifice his interests is not to be expected from such specimens of the hon. Gentlemen's feelings, habits and character, as have been witnessed in this House. Yet I do not accuse him of any impurity of motive. It is just possible that his judgment may be obscured, and that he may find it difficult to arrive at a sound conclusion, when there are so many impediments to unbiassed reasoning in his way. Then why should I resent his giving me a lesson? Why should I complain of his taunts, and his harshness, and his rebuffs, and his lack of common courtesy, when he uses Ireland in the same fashion? Can I hope to escape from the fate which is destined for my country? Yet the hon. Gentleman may be ultimately treated by his 7,000,000 of pupils after the manner in which the Roman schoolmaster was used for having betrayed his country to Camillus. The hon. Gentleman says, I have given, by my menaces, a blow to the Irish Reform Bill. He is himself the man who has forced these topics into discussion, and by rashly and obstinately pressing his measures forward, pending the Reform question, has
592
exasperated Ireland, and those by whom Ireland is represented. The right hon. Gentleman has arrayed an entire nation against him, by his demeanour and his proceedings, and he then complains of indiscretion. Now what has been the hon. Gentleman's conduct? What has he done? To what act of wisdom can he refer as evidence of his genius for legislation? He commenced with the Arms Bill, and according to the rules of political unity, faithful to his character, he was about to make his exit from Ireland with the Tithe Bill—a bill in every way worthy of him—a bill of a precipitate, rash, domineering kind, on which the right hon. Gentleman has stamped an image of himself, and impressed it with the proofs of his parliamentary parentage. What has been his conduct this very night? Although so many of the men who are associated with him in office are pledged to reduce the wealth of the Irish Church, yet he stands up in the front of the Government, and declares that no change in the establishment shall be made. But there is a spirit abroad—the spirit which carried emancipation for one country, and is carrying Reform for both—which will strike down the pile of consecrated abuse, and, instead of being able to uphold that mass of sacred enormities which already totters beneath the shocks of public opinion, he will fall beneath, and be crushed under its ruins.
Mr. Stanley: In the course of the observations which have fallen from the hon. Gentleman, he stated that he was not influenced in the attacks which he has thought proper to make upon me by any feeling of irritation or vindictiveness, but I put it to the House whether the speech of the hon. Gentleman indicated that total abstinence from personal feeling for which he appeared to claim so much credit. The hon. and learned Gentleman appears to be in full possession of the secrets of the Cabinet, and professes to know what is passing in the councils of the Government, although he must be aware that the Members of the Cabinet are sworn not to divulge what passes at their meetings. The hon. Gentleman stated, that I brought forward the Arms' Bill, without consulting my colleagues in the Government. I will tell the hon. Gentleman, and I speak in the presence of some of those who are my associates in office, that I did submit that bill to the

593
other Members of the Government. It was not, however, at the time completed, and on consideration, a difference of opinion, I admit, did prevail respecting some of the clauses, which were conceived too strong, and although I was convinced of the propriety of that measure, and have since heard no reason which would justify me in changing that opinion. I have, however, abandoned the measure, not because I was convinced of its impolicy, but on account of the dissatisfaction expressed against it by the Irish Members. The hon. Gentleman has, therefore, no right to taunt me with having, upon that occasion, surrendered my own judgment and deferred to the opinion of the Irish Members, contrary to the convictions of my own mind. The hon. and learned Gentleman has thought proper to insinuate that I have been actuated by other than constitutional motives in bringing forward this measure. [The hon. and learned member for Louth shook his head, in token of dissent.] The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but will he deny that he used the words? In the course of his former speech the hon. and learned Member made obervations which I took down at the moment, yet notwithstanding that the hon. and learned Member afterwards disclaimed them.
Mr. Sheilbegged to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, for the purpose of explanation. He did not throw any imputation upon his motives; but he did say, that there were certain ties, a golden link, which bound him to the Church, and which might possibly have the effect of prejudicing his mind and obscuring his vision against the abuse of the establishment.
Mr. Stanley: "I make the hon. and learned Member a present of his explanation. I will pass by this topic—it is unworthy of notice." The hon. Gentleman (continued Mr. Stanley) sought to be informed what the present Government had done for Ireland. Why, he appeared to think that men who came into office after years of exclusion, should be at once prepared with antidotes against all the evils which a system pursued by former Governments had engrafted in the Constitution of that country—that all their plans of improvement should be prepared and matured at once—that what would require years to complete, should be executed in a single day, and Ireland should
594
spring up a new country simultaneously with the change of Administration. Did not the hon. Gentleman know that before he set his foot in Ireland, he had been made the object of the most foul and slanderous attack; that every effort that could possibly be devised had been resorted to to counteract every attempt of his to better the condition of that country? He would certainly acquit the hon. Gentleman of any participation in these acts; he must do him the justice to say, that he never abused him behind his back, or gave utterance to an expression which he would not use to his face—he never joined that faction which heaped vilification upon Government, because they would not go the lengths which those demagogues demanded. But was it true that the present Government had done nothing for Ireland? Had they not carried through that House a Bill for the Regulation of Juries? Would the hon. and learned Gentleman say, that that measure was of no benefit to Ireland? Had the Ministers not, in despite of a violent opposition from a most powerful party, established a national system of education? Was that doing nothing? and had they not, within the last few days, pledged both Houses of Parliament to the abolition of tithes? Would that have been done if the present Government had not come into office? Would Ireland have had her Jury Bill, her Board of Education? would tithes ever be extinguished if a Tory Administration were in power? and yet they were to be told that they had done nothing for Ireland. The hon. Gentleman had taunted him with his Arms Bill. He had attributed to him a disposition to coerce the people. Did not the hon. Gentleman know that applications had been made by Magistrates in certain counties in Ireland, for an increase of power, for an augmentation of the military force? did he not know, that in some instances the Insurrection Act had been demanded, and yet Government refused these applications, and relied on the ordinary power of the law to restore subordination? Did this look like a disposition on his part to coerce the people? But this very night had not attacks been made upon them in another place, for not granting powers to put down the people. So much for the attack of the hon. Gentleman. In the remarks which he had made, and which appeared to have given so much offence to the hon. Gentleman, he did not

595
intend anything disrespectful towards him or any other hon. Member for Ireland, who acted in connexion with him upon this occasion. He came there to support the measure before the House, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman thought proper to introduce a topic foreign from that question—if he undertook to discuss the meaning of the oath taken by Roman Catholics upon entering that House, he felt that he was but discharging his duty, in replying to the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and expressing in the strongest terms, his reprobation of the doctrines which he had heard that night with astonishment, put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Much had been said about the support which Government had received from the Irish Members. He was not disposed to undervalue that support; but he must say that the general support which they gave to the Government, by no means precluded him from expressing his dissent from them on any public question upon which he might entertain a different opinion. This was a principle upon which he would always act, and he begged of hon. Members not to deceive themselves by supposing that he could be induced to abandon a course which he conscientiously believed to be correct.
Bill passed.