HC Deb 25 May 1832 vol 13 cc119-75

The Order of the Day having been read,

Mr. Stanley

said, that in moving that the Irish Reform Bill be read a second time, he felt relieved from any necessity of calling the attention of the House to any general topics of Parliamentary Reform, which it would be wasting the time of the House now to discuss, inasmuch as, upon various occasions, they had been repeatedly recognized by the decisions of that House, and he was at length happy to say, by the votes of the other House. If there were any men who would contend that what was right in England, was wrong in Ireland; that here nomination boroughs were a curse and odious, and there a blessing; that here large towns should have the franchise, and there that they should be practically excluded from all the rights of Representation—if there were any Gentlemen of these opinions, it was not for him, in a prima facie case, to vindicate the Bill. He should leave it to those who held such doctrines to vindicate themselves. He was well aware that there were some Members of that House who approved of the principle of the Bill, but who did not think that in the details it was carried far enough. He could only say to those Gentlemen, he was prepared equally with themselves to give every consideration to the subject in the Committee, for, as all such persons must vote for the second reading, he held that it was unnecessary for him to state any arguments with reference to their opinions in the present stage of the proceedings. A letter upon the principles of the Bill had appeared in one of the newspapers, and which, perhaps, would scarcely have attracted his attention, had it not appeared with the signature of the hon. member for Kerry. He would excuse that hon. Gentleman, and would return him thanks for the letter, if he would only prove, to the satisfaction of the Gentlemen of the other side of the House, two, and only two, of the assertions which his letter contained. The first of these assertions was, that the Bill was of such a character that it ought to be entitled "A Bill to restore the power of the Orange ascendency in Ireland." He was persuaded that the hon. member for Kerry could never convince" him of anything of the sort, and all he begged of him was, that he would try and persuade the other side of the House that such would really be the result of the Bill. He should be equally obliged to the hon. Gentleman if he would make good his second position, which was, that he (Mr. Stanley) had received the assurances of all the Tories in the House that it was their intention to support the Bill. This was certainly a great boldness of assertion, but he would forgive the hon. Member that, and every other boldness of his letter, if he would only ensure him that support. He must beg leave to say, that the hon. Gentleman very well knew, that of the three Reform Bills, the one upon which the heartiest and strongest opposition on the part of the Tories rested, the one which they considered the most revolutionary of the whole, the one which they were prepared to meet with the most decided resistance, was the Irish Bill. Having said this, he would not further advert to the hon. Member's letter. He would now turn to the contrary side of the argument, and would endeavour to show that the Bill was not revolutionary, that it was not subversive of the rights of any class of men, and that it was not in any one respect dangerous to the Protestant institutions of Ireland. The right hon. member for Aldeburgh (Mr. Croker) had formerly said, that he would give his assent to the second reading of the Scotch and Irish Reform Bills, because the House had approved of the English Bill; but the right hon. member for Perth went further, and said, that he hoped that the House would be consistent, and vote for the Reform Bills for Scotland and Ireland, as the three together were less likely, in his opinion, to be dangerous, then either of them separately. The right hon. member for Perth had even said, that Ireland and Scotland had been treated with great injustice; that enough had not been done for Ireland; and that it was impossible for the House to oppose the second reading of the Irish Reform Bill. He was glad to hear that sentiment; and he did hope that the Scotch Members had not adopted it merely as a lure to Ireland, and in order to induce the Irish Members to concede something more towards Scotland. To those Gentlemen who might be disposed to object to the Bill because it did not go far enough, he would at once say, take it as something, though not all which you desire, and in the Committee you may, perhaps, make it more agreeable to your wishes than it is at present. The objections, however, to the Bill, he believed, chiefly rested upon the amount of danger with which it was supposed to menace the Protestant institutions of Ireland, by the immense preponderance which it was thought that it would give to the Roman Catholics. If he thought that the slightest possible danger would result from the Bill to the Protestant interest, he should yet be prepared to meet the argument in limine, by showing that the argument, if good abstractedly, could be no argument whatever for the year 1832. Such an argument would be totally inconsistent with the whole spirit of legislation; it would be inconsistent with that system which was perfected and concluded by the great legislative measure of 1829. The hon. member for Dundalk (Mr. James E. Gordon), who was the strict and regular Representative of the Protestants of Ireland—would perhaps be brought to acknowledge that he (Mr. Stanley) could prove this, even to his satisfaction. From the date of the Act of 1829, he (Mr. Stanley) conceived that the position had been laid down, that all religious distinctions, with their kindred rancour and strife, had been done away in Ireland. If the House admitted the general principle of Reform, and if it had admitted that no distinction any longer existed between the Church of England and the Catholics, or between the Church of England and the Dissenters, he asked upon what ground they could turn round and say, that they would not extend the right of returning Members to Parliament because the Catholics must participate in the extension? They might as well object to Reform in England, because the Dissenters would share its benefits. If this were to be the case, then he would say, that there was yet a Catholic Question left behind and to be settled, and that a broad political distinction between the religions still existed. The 40s. freeholders were not disfranchised because they were Catholics, as he remembered hearing the right hon. member for Tam- worth say, but because they were not politically independent. They were beings totally and absolutely dependent upon their Protestant landlords. That right hon. Member (Sir Robert Peel) had no right to complain of the Bill in this respect, for by his great measure of emancipation, the Protestant and Roman Catholic 40s. freeholders were equally disfranchised; and perfect equality in this respect was at once established between the Catholics and Protestants. He had ever been a supporter of the propriety of disfranchising the 40s. freeholders of Ireland, because of their extreme dependence, and he had supported the hon. member for Staffordshire (Mr. Littleton) who, in the year 1825, brought forward a measure to disfranchise them, not on account of any religious distinction, but because, in point of voting, they were practically nothing more than a part of the live stock upon the estate of the landlord. The disfranchisement of those men, if it had any effect at all in point of influence as to religious parties, diminished the influence of the Protestants more than that of the Catholics. Sixty-four of the 100 Irish Members were returned by a county constituency, and there were, therefore, two-thirds of the Members who could not be said in any way to be affected by this Bill, and to that extent it must be perfectly clear that it could not injure the Protestant interest. According to the last returns, the population of Ireland amounted to 7,700,000. Of this number, 7,000,000 might be considered the country population, out of which was formed the county constituency, and of this large number there were only 52,162 who had votes, and therefore formed the whole of the county constituency. There was no freehold under 10l. There were 22,000 of the value of 50l. and upwards, 9,000 of a value between 50l. and 20l., and out of the whole county constituency of Ireland, there were but 20,000 freeholds of 10l. value. If this was a dangerous constituency, it would be better to say at once that Ireland ought to have no constituency at all. Of these 20,000 10l. freeholds, there were 8,500 in the Protestant province of Ulster, and only 12,000 for the whole of the other three provinces. Now, he should mention what the changes were which they proposed by this Bill to make in the county constituency, and he would then appeal to the House, whether they were such as ought to form a ground for any apprehension. It was proposed by this measure to give the right of voting for counties to beneficial leaseholders to the amount of 10l., having a lease of not less than sixty years. He was informed that in the north of Ireland there were very many respectable Catholics whom this regulation would let in, and who, having formerly been restricted from holding freeholds, had acquired the beneficial interest of long leases. He saw no danger to the Protestant interest from that, for they would be counterbalanced by leaseholders under the Church; and they were, on the whole, a more respectable class of men than the 10l. freeholders. The other leaseholders proposed to be admitted were those having a beneficial interest to the amount of 20l. on a lease of not less than fourteen years. This was the only addition they proposed to the county constituency, and no person could say that it was not a perfectly safe one. He now came to the boroughs, and would refer for information to the letters furnished by Captain Gipps and the other Commissioners. According to these, there were eight counties and cities which, together with the boroughs, contained a population of 535,000. The whole of the constituency out of this number was only 17,000, 8,000 being freeholders, and the remainder freemen; and the constituency, by this measure, would be raised to only 25,000—not one in twenty of the whole population. The city of Dublin was the only place of which it could at all be said that the constituency, by the present Bill, would be rendered inconveniently large. The population of Dublin was 250,000, and the number of voters would be about 16,000. At present there were 3,500 freemen, and 2,500 freeholders. There were 1,000 of the freemen not resident, and there were 1,000 more who occupied houses under 10l. rent, but these were to have their rights continued for life. They were Protestants; and, if they formed a safe constituency, how could it be said that Catholics paying 10l. rent were a dangerous constituency? There were six large places, being counties of cities, the Representatives for which would be returned by a constituency of from 15,000 to 16,000 voters, who were the principal residents of these towns. Would any one tell him that the constituency was too numerous for Cork, Waterford, Galway, Limerick, and Kilkenny. Coming to the next class of boroughs, it appeared that Belfast had a population of 44,470. The number of electors, however, at present was only thirteen. By this Bill the number would be raised to 2,300. Could any person say that this would form a dangerous constituency for the large Protestant town of Belfast? There were seventeen of the largest class of towns, the whole of which, deducting only three, had a constituency, amounting to only 1,900 persons, and he believed about 2,600 persons returned the Members for all the boroughs of Ireland. Dundalk was one of these, and afforded a proof of the practical blessings of virtual Representation. There had been Sixteen elections since the time of the Union, and from that period not less than thirteen different Members were returned for Dundalk, and of these there were but two or three who had the slightest connexion with Ireland or with Irish interest, though they might be described as Representatives of the Protestants of Ireland. There were five towns with an extensive Representation. In two of these, Newry and Downpatrick, they proposed to raise the franchise from 5l. to 10l. As to Lisburne, it was no matter whether it was 5l. or 10l.; and in this place, even after the passing of the Bill, the member for Aldeburgh (Mr. Croker) might find his last refuge, without any fear of being returned by a too numerous constituency. In these boroughs the right of Representation was originally in the whole of the inhabitants, with the Corporation, but James 1st removed the Corporation officers, and substituted more pliant persons to fill their places. What the views of King James were, respecting the proportion of the Representation which should maintain the Protestant interest, might be judged of from a speech addressed by Sir John Davis to the Irish House of Commons, at the opening of Parliament in the year 1613. In that speech Sir J. Davis stated, that the King's reason for summoning that Parliament in the manner in which he had summoned it was, that he did not wish his people should be bound by laws made by persons whom they had not chosen; and he added, that, therefore, the Parliament should no longer consist only of Knights of the Shires within the pale, but by persons chosen by the inhabitants of the whole country, whether English born, or of English descent, or native Irish. In that House of Commons there were 125 Protestants, and 101 Catholics. Such was that protection which the Conservative Monarch considered sufficient for the preservation of the Protestant interest. There were now in existence not more than fifteen of the boroughs of James 1st. They were all swept away at the time of the Union, because they were rotten and insignificant. Looking at the Bill in the most bigotted point of view, it would add no more than six or seven to the Catholic interest. But when it was said, that throwing open the boroughs to the people would be injurious to the Corporations, what was that if it were not an admission that they had interests hostile to the interests of the people? And was that an argument which should have any weight with that House? Was their rottenness to be made their merit? If the House could safely throw open those Corporations, therefore they were bound to do so by all the claims of justice which a country could have upon them, to which they were irrevocably united. But those corporators claimed to have interests opposed not only to the Irish people but to the English people, and they had, therefore, opposed the English Reform Bill, whilst the great body of the people of Ireland came forward, in the most frank and generous manner, to give the claims of the people of England their best support. If it was just that the principles of that Bill should be applied to England, it was no less just that they should be applied to Ireland. If the Reform Bill conferred only upon the people of England that which was their right, why should the same rights be denied to Ireland? Could such rights be long withheld without danger? If they were withheld, would not that be a fair reason, wherefore the people of Ireland should demand a Repeal of the Union, seeing that the interests of England were looked upon in that House in a different view from that in which they regarded the interests of Ireland—that in England the opinions of the people were attended to, whilst in Ireland the voice of the people was stifled? He concluded by moving that the Bill he read a second time.

Mr. Lefroy

said, in rising to oppose the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, and to propose as an amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, he felt it necessary to request the indulgence of the house, not only on his own account, but also on account of the great importance of the measure itself. That House had very frequently been called upon to legislate for Ireland, but he would be bold to say, that their attention was never engaged upon any measure of greater importance than this, not only to the interest of Ireland, but of the empire at large. He trusted, therefore, the House would extend their indulgence to him, while he endeavoured to explain what he thought would be its effects. He should be as brief Its he could, and, for the purpose of abridging as much as possible, what he had to say, he would concur at once in the principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, as to the general necessity of improving the system of Representation, and should confine what he had to say to the reasons which induced him to think, that the English Reform Bill and the Irish stood upon totally different grounds, and that there were in Ireland peculiar circumstances which rendered the proposed measure dangerous to kindred institutions in this country—institutions, too, in which the general interests of the empire were involved. There were dangers connected with the state of Ireland at which the right hon. Gentleman did not even glance. The main grounds upon which the English Reform Bill had been supported were, the disproportion of the borough Representation in this country, and the departure, in consequence of it, from the original principles of the Constitution. But did such arguments apply to this Bill? What was the state of the Representation in Ireland now? At the time of the Union the Irish House of Commons contained 300 Members. Of these, 200 were entirely swept away, and 100 were preserved, forming the best and soundest part of the Irish Representation. Of these 100 Members for Ireland, sixty-four represented counties, ten cities with an Open and popular constituency, and one the University of Dublin. This made seventy-five out of the whole number returned by a constituency of the most unobjectionable kind. There remained, therefore, twenty-five, who represented the most populous of the remaining towns and boroughs. The alterations now proposed principally affected the places represented by these twenty-five. He would say at once that he was not much disposed to object to the alterations proposed by the right hon. Gentleman in the county constituency. With respect to the towns there were eight of these last-mentioned boroughs which had a popular constituency, at which elections were warmly contested, and which sent into that House not less than seven Reformers. The standard of the constituency in these places was, he believed, more liberal than that of the newly-created boroughs in England. The constituency of Coleraine, one of the smallest, amounted to fifty-two, and it was a place often contested. Here, therefore, were in all eighty-three Members out of the 100, sent to Parliament by a popular constituency. Of the remaining seventeen boroughs the constituency was not so large and popular, the constituency ranging in various degrees of increase from twelve to ninety-four. There were only five or six of them which had so small a number as fifteen electors. It was proposed by this Bill to add five popular Members, which would make the whole number of popular Representatives for Ireland not less than eighty-eight. Of all the class of boroughs to which he last alluded there was not one of them in decay. They were all flourishing; not a Gatton nor Old Sarum was to be found among them. If at first it was thought consistent with constitutional principle that they should have Representation on the principle on which it had been hitherto exercised, was there any good reason why it should be now taken away? They were not places which had fallen into decay; they were now as thriving and as prosperous as ever they were. Why alter the Constitution of the boroughs, after the House had pledged itself to support the principles of the Constitution, and decided that it was on these principles they acted in reference to the English Reform Bill? He called upon the Solicitor General for Ireland, who had before treated the House to such extraordinary Constitutional law, to explain this. If the borough Representation in England bore only the same proportion to the rest of the system as it did in Ireland, would any person have ever dreamt of the necessity of bringing in a Reform Bill for England? There was only one-fifth of the Irish Representation a borough Representation. If there was but the same proportion here, would any person contend for the necessity of Reform? There was nothing to justify the application of such a Bill to Ireland. It had been said by the right hon. Gentle- man, that the object of the Bill was, to equalize the Representation of the three countries. He should be glad to know upon what principle he undertook it. The principle upon which Reform was granted in this country did not apply to Ireland; they were quite differently situated. If they were to legislate upon the same principles, property should be represented, and not party. The right hon. Gentleman said, that they were to have an accession of county Members to counterpoise the borough influence. If principle governed the legislation, why not afford counterpoise to protect property from the influence of open boroughs? If the right hon. Gentleman wished to preserve his consistency, he would legislate for Ireland upon the same principles that he did for England. But he conceived that the principle upon which Reform was granted in England did not in any manner apply to Ireland; they were placed under quite different circumstances. The introduction of such a measure into Ireland would be attended with peculiar danger—danger which few foresaw. It would not only endanger the Constitution, the institutions of the country, but the whole empire. It had been said that one of the greatest objections, indeed the chief objection, to the measure was, the weight and influence which it would give the Catholic over the Protestant; but it would not stop there, for, in his opinion, it would cause the subversion of the Protestant Church in Ireland. It was admitted, that political power was given without reference to religious distinction; but he would ask the right hon. Gentleman, upon what grounds could he justify the ceding of such a power, when it would endanger the Protestant Constitution? But the right hon. Gentleman perhaps would say, what had religion to do with political power; but he forgot that he was legislating for Ireland and not for England. Still, he would ask, was not the Constitution of England Protestant, and was not the Protestant religion the established one? And if religion was not to be a dictinction, by what title was the Throne held by the Monarch? Were not the King and Queen Protestant? If they did not legislate for Ireland upon those principles, legislation was a mockery, the Reform Bill was a mockery, and Representation under such a Bill would also prove a mockery, as it would neither be the Representation of property, nor of the established institutions of the country, but that of the numerical force of the people. When his Majesty recommended the consideration of this measure in his Speech from the Throne, did he not recommend it to be taken into consideration with all due regard to the established religion and the institutions of the country? And did not the right hon. Gentleman vote an Address which was the very echo of that speech? There was great danger and injustice in the measure towards the Protestant Church in Ireland; the danger extended to the empire at large. It was unnecessary to advert to the danger to the Established Church in Ireland, for that was but too obvious; it would so increase the influence of the Roman Catholics in Ireland, that the Protestant Church of Ireland must fall. But she would not fall alone, for such was her connexion with this country, that the Protestant Church of England would most likely follow. But let them suppose that such would be the case of the Protestant Church in Ireland, what would be the consequences? Would not the great link and bond which cemented their union be broken, and a separation must be the consequence? He would give the House the authority of a noble Lord, who was well acquainted with the subject, who was not only a Reformer and an emancipator, but a Whig; he was now in the House of Peers; he alluded to Lord Plunkett, and he hoped the noble Lord on this measure in the other House, would remember the language he made use of in a speech in that House. The noble Lord said, 'that he had no hesitation to state that the existence of the Protestant Establishment was the great bond of union between the countries; and if ever that unfortunate moment should arrive when they would rashly lay their hands on the property of the Church to rob it of its rights, that moment they would seal the doom and terminate the connexion between the two countries.'* The present measure was one which he had no doubt would be likely to produce that effect. Ireland was anxious for that measure which was the next step to it, the Repeal of the Union. He begged to refer the House to a letter from the hon. member for Kerry to the Irish people at the last election, who in writing to them told them, 'I never did—I never will—I * Hansard, (new series) vol. xi. p. 574. never can, abandon my anxious desire for a Repeal of the Union. I deem that Repeal essentially necessary to Irish prosperity. I pledge myself to use every suitable occasion to promote that Repeal, and never to omit any available opportunity to advance the interests of the cause of the legislative and constitutional independence of Ireland. If there be an immediate dissolution, be satisfied with Reformers, without insisting on anything further. Your present preparation for Reform will be the best means of hereafter ensuring your Re pealers.' He would take that as the ground-work of his argument. Reform was a stepping-stone to Repeal, and he would ask any hon. Member in that House, who would consider the measure uninfluenced by party feeling, would not the effect of this measure be, to throw twenty-five additional Members into the hands of that great political leader, who would on all occasions oppose the Government? He would appeal to the experience of the right hon. Gentleman, and beg to ask him had not this great political leader opposed the right hon. Gentleman on every measure which he, with the best of his judgment, proposed for the benefit of Ireland? Did he not oppose him on his Yeomanry Arms Bill, his system of education; and did he not oblige the right hon. Gentleman to abandon every one of his measures for Ireland? Was not the existence of such a body, under such a control, dangerous in the extreme? They would not only influence the Government of the day, but would embarrass and dictate to the English and Scotch Members. They would be a party which nothing could divide; they were bound together on all occasions by a tie which it would be impossible to sever. If a Member dare act independently he would be denounced at the next election; he would be put in the black book of the priests, and would have no chance of being returned again. This would be the great link which would bind them together; this would be the bond of a party the most dangerous that ever existed. What was this Reform Bill going to do? Was it not going to give eighteen boroughs, besides the five additional county Members, to that party whose influence in the country was prejudicial to her best interests? The Relief Bill was intended as a measure of political equality; it was not intended to give preponderance to one party or another. In consequence of Protestant property not being fairly represented in that House, and to control the political influence of the Roman Catholics, the 40s. freeholders were disfranchised; but by this Bill they were going to create a constituency, he conceived, far worse. It was the 10l. franchise. It was not like the 40s. franchise, where the freeholder was obliged to swear that he had an interest in his holding of 40s. over and above all rent and taxes, but in the 10l. franchise that was not the criterion; all the qualification it required was, to prove that he paid a rent of 10l. 1s., though the bolding might not be worth the one shilling. Therefore, the introduction of this measure would be attended with the worst consequences; it would produce the abolition of the Irish Church, and of the British connexion. And as to its being a measure of national Representation, it was all mockery; it would not be the Representation of the property of the country, but of the physical force. He must say, that it was an act of injustice towards the Protestant landed proprietor in Ireland, and he could not conceive how the right hon. Gentleman could pretend to do an act of justice which was founded upon injustice. If no person else would advocate the interest of the Protestant Church in Ireland, he should not be ashamed to stand forward as its advocate, and, as the advocate of the Protestant interests of the empire, demanding justice at the hands of the British people. The Relief Bill gave the Roman Catholics great preponderance, though it professed to give political equality. Was that the case? Recent events in that country proved the contrary. At the great national Union those boroughs which were going to be thrown open were chosen and preserved as the representatives of Protestant property. If they were going to be disfranchised, still the places would remain, though they had been deprived of the spirit and life. Protestant property would be no longer represented in Ireland; it would be only, as he said before, the numerical force. It was well known what sort of feelings existed in the minds of those whose alleged ancestors' possessions were confiscated. They entertained the bitterest jealousy and cruel aversion towards the present possessors, and viewed English dominion with hostile feelings, and in all the addresses which had been circulated among them, taunted them with the endurance of English thraldom. There was a great political body in Ireland opposed to Protestant interests; and if the present measure was carried, in all the boroughs, every little country shopkeeper would have a preponderating influence, as his trade would give him an influence amongst the surrounding population which would prove destructive to the Representation of property. To the Catholics this measure would give everything; from the Protestants it would take the little that was left them. The accession of their opponents to political power would be exercised with domination and insolence, and it was not to be expected that the Protestants would endure the tyranny of their political rivals. They would be at length goaded into a resistance which would be greatly to be deplored. He would appeal to those Irish Members who supported the English Reform Bill, or who were not governed by their prejudices or biassed by their passions. Was it not dangerous to give an addition of political power to a people who were opposed to the Government of the country, and its establishments? The accession of Members to the Catholic party would enable them to force and worry the Government into any measures they chose, and even into a Repeal of the Union. When the Relief Bill was under consideration he had heard a great deal of the injustice of withholding it, but he would say, that the present measure was founded in injustice towards the Protestants, independent of the danger to the Established Church. He hoped the House would give it that consideration which the interests of Protestant Ireland demanded; and he was sure, if it received that consideration, it would be found that there was more justice in withholding than in conceding it. The Government might depend on the cordial support of the Protestants of Ireland in maintaining that connexion with this country which was so essential to the weal of both. He would not trouble the House any further than to propose that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

Lord Castlereagh

rose to second the Amendment. The right hon. Secretary had made out no case to justify him in proposing a measure which he (Lord Castlereagh) greatly feared would be found in its operation to shake the very foundations of society in Ireland—to upset the Church Establishment, and all the institutions now existing in that country—and to lead, at no distant period, to a complete separation between England and Ireland. That such a fearful experiment should have been proposed upon grounds so insufficient, or rather, upon no grounds whatever, might have surprised him if he had not recollected the course pursued by the present Government on many subjects connected with Ireland. Nothing else could be expected by him from a Government which had discountenanced the Protestant Yeomanry, and encouraged those who were the open advocates of agitation, and the enemies of tranquillity, in that country. He believed that, notwithstanding the increased power of the Roman Catholics, arising from the Catholic Relief Bill, the Established Church of Ireland would be enabled to support itself by means of the Protestant borough constituency; but after this Bill was passed, a great proportion of the borough constituency would be Roman Catholics, as well as the county constituency. At the time of the Union, twenty-five of the boroughs created by James 1st for the preservation of the Protestant faith in Ireland, were left, and those boroughs had uniformly returned Protestant Representatives, determined to support the Protestant interest on the one side, and the rights of property on the other. It might be said, that the twenty-five boroughs left at the Union would still exist under this Bill, and true they would; but they would be swamped by a constituency which he should not attempt to describe, though they had been highly panegyrised by the right hon. Secretary. He might state, however, that many of those persons who would be entitled to vote in the boroughs, under the 10l. qualification were merely keepers of lodging-houses, dependent upon charity for the qualification out of which they would vote. Why so extensive a change was proposed in Ireland he could not conceive, unless it was, that his Majesty's Ministers, like Dr. Sangrado, who had only one cure for all complaints, had applied Reform to Ireland, because they had applied it to England, in deference to a party who had done them some service in that House, at that great crisis, the passing of the English Reform Bill, and who now boasted of the great services they had conferred on the Ministry. If his Majesty's Ministers had not been pressed by the hon. member for Kerry and his party, in his (Lord Castlereagh's) opinion, the House would have heard very little of the Irish Reform Bill. If it were consistent with the rules of that House, he would put a question on this subject to the hon. and learned member for Kerry; and he was convinced, that that hon. Gentleman's answer at once would be, that he was not satisfied with this Bill; but the hon. and learned Gentleman had already, on a former occasion, declared, that if he could not get the whole pound of the debt that was due, he would get as much in the pound as was offered, and then take an early opportunity of seeking for more. It was curious to see what immense extent of power the Roman Catholics would gain on the passing of this Bill. He did not profess to have all the arithmetical accuracy of Lieutenant Drummond; but, nevertheless, he would venture to read to the House a list of those counties which, he believed, under this Bill, would return Catholic Representatives. There were Carlow, Cavan, Clare, Cork, Donegal, Galway, Kerry, Kildare, Kilkenny, King's County, Leitrim, Limerick, Louth, Monaghan, Sligo, Tipperary, Waterford, Westmeath, Wexford, and Wicklow, which, with some others not quite so certain, would make up twenty-six counties in the Catholic interest. Out of the boroughs of Ireland, he supposed that about fifteen would return Catholic Members. [Mr. O'Connell: What do you say to Enniskillen and Newry?] Enniskillen and Newry might have a chance the other way, but he could hardly say so much for Lisburne, though the observations of the right hon. Gentleman on that borough seemed to savour a little of personality, as if he had met with something in the shape of a disappointment there. Belfast was another place that was likely to fall into the hands of the Catholics; for he believed that that town contained 1,000 Catholic voters; however, he could not deny the importance of the place, and the justice of giving it another Representative. He calculated on the whole that seventy-six Catholic Members would be returned at least; besides which, he believed in some other place the Catholic constituency would have the power of turning the scale at elections, and thus returning a Member disposed to support their own views. The result of a change so extensive would be, that the hon. and learned member for Kerry would come down to that House, like a Scottish chieftain, "with his tail" of eighty Irish Members, holding the scale between any two parties in that House, and exercising an influence under which no Government could be safely carried on. It was not too much to anticipate that, when this state of things had been produced, the Irish and Scotch Members, disgusted with the influence which the Irish-Catholic Members exercised, would gladly consent to the Repeal of the Union, which was the fond and anxious wish of the hon. and learned member for Kerry. There was another circumstance to which he should allude, but without any invidious or illiberal feeling. It was well known that, in many Roman Catholic families in Ireland, maps and title-deeds of lands, formerly possessed by those families, were preserved, in the expectation that, at some future period, the bud of promise would be ripened into the flower of possession, and that the confiscated lands would be restored to them [cries of "name, name."] The hon. and learned member for Kerry called upon him to name the families to whom he had alluded, but it was hard to give names in support of general assertions. He believed that the fact he had stated could be easily proved, and he left it to the hon. member for Kerry to deny it if he could. [Mr. O'Connell: That I do, most distinctly.] He would not dispute the point with the hon. Member: the first time he ever spoke in that House was in favour of the Catholics, and he wished he had seen no cause to regret his vote in their behalf. He would ask, was Ireland at present in a situation which made it expedient to try so extensive an experiment? Was it not in a state of disorder and excitement? That Ireland was not peaceful, and that the Roman Catholic Relief Bill had not produced the beneficial consequences which its advocates anticipated, was not, in his opinion, to be ascribed to the people of Ireland generally, or to the great mass of the Catholic population. The fault lay with those who had used the best means for the worst purposes; with those who had excited the worst passions; with those who fanned the flame of religious hate with unrelenting ardour, on which the British Legislature, in passing the Relief Bill, had endeavoured to pour the peaceful waters of eternal oblivion. He was opposed to this Bill as a direct infringement of the Act of Union, and he protested against it as a measure which would be fatal to the interests of the Established Church in Ireland, and fatal to the future existence of the connection between the two countries. Upon those considerations, and believing that the present moment was most unwisely chosen for flinging this torch of incendiarism, this new material of combustion into a country so inflammable as Ireland, he should cordially second the Motion of his hon. and learned friend that the Bill should be read a second time that day six months.

Mr. Crampton

observed, that the noble Lord had admitted that any agitation which had prevailed in Ireland was not to be attributed to the great body of the Roman Catholics, but to a few individuals. He would therefore ask the noble Lord, whether it was right that he should visit, on what he might call the great majority of the people of Ireland, the faults and errors of a few? The noble Lord had asserted that the Bill was unnecessary, because the county Representation of Ireland was, in his opinion, perfect at present. He admitted that it was in a great measure free; but the object of this Bill was, to give the elective franchise to a large number of his Majesty's subjects, who were deprived of that privilege at present. The question then was, would this proceeding endanger the peace of Ireland? In his opinion, there was no danger to be apprehended from passing the Bill. The extension of the franchise in the counties would be beneficial, not dangerous. What would the Bill do? It would give to persons holding leases for sixty years, or the assignees of such persons, and having a beneficial interest in the property to the amount annually of 10l., the right of voting. And he would say, that the persons thus situated were to the full as respectable, as wealthy, and as independent, as the 10l. freeholders. The noble Lord had asserted, that the position in which this Bill would place the Roman Catholics, with reference to a number of counties, was likely to be productive of great mischief; but that he had not a very perfect knowledge of the counties in which the Roman Catholic interest was likely to prevail to any extent, might be gathered from what be had said of the counties. The noble Lord had drawn up an extraordinary list of those which were to become Catholic by the operation of this Bill. Who would ever have thought of having Cavan placed among the Catholic counties? And still more, who would have supposed that Sligo would ever be accused of such backsliding? The present gallant member for Sligo might be described as the very quintessence of pure Protestantism; and it certainly seemed very little likely that that county would ever descend from its present high and palmy state. The noble Lord had also animadverted on the conduct of the Government, and had accused it of promoting confusion and disorder in Ireland. This, however, had been a very common topic by the members of the Conservative party, throughout the whole of the debates on the Reform Bill; and whenever it was stated, it was cheered by their friends to a degree that was quite overwhelming to those who did not coincide in that opinion. But what was the remedy for Ireland, according to the Conservative party? Surely their's was the Sangrado system, for their proposal always was—the Insurrection Act, for the purpose of drawing the blood of Ireland, which was quite after Dr. Sangrado's own prescription.

Lord Castlereagh

I must protest against the hon. and learned Gentleman putting arguments in my mouth of which I never made use. I never said a single word about the Insurrection Act.

Mr. Crampton

The noble Lord was quite right; he never said a word about the Insurrection Act; but he spoke of measures that were to tranquillize Ireland; and the Conservative party had always strongly recommended the Insurrection Act for that purpose. If, indeed, the noble Lord chose to separate himself from the Conservatives, he could have no objection to the divorce. But, at all events, whatever might be the opinion of the noble Lord, he knew that the doctrine of the very Catholic member for Sligo was, that the only way to pacify Ireland was the Insurrection Act, banishment, and punishment. The noble Lord had alluded to the Arms Bill, introduced by the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, and it was said that it had been withdrawn in consequence of intimidation. The bill so introduced was one which, he thought, would have been useful to Ireland. That bill was not, however, withdrawn in consequence of intimidation. After great consideration it was abandoned, because a very considerable portion, not merely of Irish Members, but also of English Members who supported the Government, thought it was not advisable to proceed with it. The learned member for the University of Dublin had very unnecessarily stated that he (Mr. Crampton) had, on a former occasion, enlightened the House with some new constitutional doctrines, and the learned Member then went on to ask him, why these seventeen boroughs were to be disfranchised by Act of Parliament, and whether they were not as constitutional and pure now as in the time of James 1st, when they were established for constitutional purposes. Whatever he might have stated on any occasion relative to the constitutional law of the country (and he begged to say, that what he had said had been very much misrepresented), he should be ready at the proper time to explain; but he would not be forced into taking that step on the present occasion, because the hon. and learned Gentleman had thought proper to taunt him for that purpose. But to the question of the hon. and learned Gentleman he would endeavour to give an answer. These boroughs were rotten boroughs—he would not shrink from calling them by their name—and the existence of rotten boroughs, he was prepared to contend, was contrary to the law of the land; it was contrary to the constitution of the country; it was a nuisance that ought to be abated, and at the existence of which every constitutional lawyer ought to be impatient. The statute law recognized this doctrine—the common law recognized this doctrine; and he therefore replied to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that for these reasons it was, in his opinion, advisable to disfranchise these boroughs. But his learned friend said, "Oh! you have not proved that these boroughs are rotten boroughs." But was it not as notorious as the sun at noon-day, that those boroughs were bought and sold, and that persons represented them who had no connexion either with the boroughs themselves or with the country in general? Rotten boroughs could no longer be tolerated, and he repeated, that the Protestantism of Ireland rested upon a more certain foundation than such boroughs. The Protestant Church in Ireland was founded upon an honest basis, and not upon abuses in the State. It was said, that the opening of seventeen boroughs would do great mischief. That he denied, and the Conservatives, as they called themselves, could not controvert what he had said. As to any danger from the 10l. franchise, it was really ridiculous to imagine it; and when his hon. and learned friend said, that, if the Reform Bill passed, the Radicals and Conservatives would unite for a Repeal of the Union—[Mr. Lefroy: I said no such thing.] The 10l. franchise could not open the borough of Armagh—and, although his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Lefroy) was fretting by day and by night upon this subject, he could assure him that he had no real ground for alarm. Could his hon. and learned friend, who talked about danger from passing the Bill, suppose that no danger would ensue if the Bill was not passed? Was there no danger to be apprehended from disappointing the excited expectations of the people of Ireland? He believed that the danger would be greater from refusing to pass the measure than from passing it. He would not enter further into the subject than to state one amendment which his right hon. friend meant to introduce. It would have for its object to diminish the expense of elections. By the law at present the poll could be kept open fifteen days. It was proposed by the machinery of the Bill to diminish the length of time which the poll could be kept open, and it was to be limited to five days, striking off ten days from the present fifteen days. It was at the same time meant to preserve the present system of registration.

Mr. Shaw

wished at the outset to state, that it was a great mistake to imagine that he had ever been the enemy of an extensive and beneficial Reform. But then he must add, that if the scale of enfranchisement in Ireland was to depend upon population, rather than wealth and intelligence, then he would fearlessly assert, that the Protestant Church of Ireland would be materially endangered. He believed that this Reform Bill would have that effect, and as such he felt it his duty to oppose it. Little doubt could now be entertained that the principles of all former Governments were repudiated at this time—and while he said this with regret, he must add, that he never acted with, or belonged to, any party who sought to govern Ireland by the Insurrection Act. If the Irish Government did their duty, much ill blood and bad feeling would be saved; if they did not, he could not answer for the consequences. For his own part, he had always acted openly, and spoken plainly his opinions. His hon. and learned friend had applied observations to him which his public conduct in this House could not justify. [Mr. Crampton: I made no specific allusion to my hon. and learned friend.] He thanked his hon. and learned friend for his frank and early contradiction of what he considered as an erroneous impression upon his part. It was said, however, that the Reform Bill in Ireland would operate to useful purposes. So far was that from being the case, that two Catholic Bishops, Dr. Doyle and Dr. M'Hale, had publicly stated, and written too, that tithes and Protestantism in Ireland must at once, or, at all events, very speedily, be abolished. These Gentlemen openly avowed, that it was to be the universal object of the Irish people to obtain, through Reform, the overthrow of the Protestant Church. Dr. Doyle was inconsistent, for in 1823 and 1826 he had professed a desire to preserve that Church, and to show how the tithes might be conveniently collected, while in 1831 and 1832 he avowed that his object was to destroy that Church. It was said, that a timely concession of Reform would avert this evil; but that he denied, for it was quite clear, that the Catholic Relief Bill, although well intended, had in the result been followed by the most disastrous effects. The hon. and learned member for Kerry was consulted. That hon. and learned Gentleman had always avowed that his object was, to obtain the Repeal of the Union, and the overthrow of the Protestant Church. These objects were to be obtained through Reform. The Government had promoted these views. It had discountenanced the Yeomanry—it had withdrawn its support tom the Magistracy—it had left the Clergy in distress, and exposed to illegal exactions—and it had, in all thing's, opposed itself to Protestantism, repudiating those principles which all preceding Governments had followed [hear]. The hon. and learned member for Kerry might well cheer, for the Government was doing the work, and acting on the bidding, of the hon. and learned Member. If that were not the case, why did the Government, which retained the freemen in perpetuity in England, put an end to them in Ireland, where they were the chief support of the Protestant cause? The right hon. Gentleman said, he thought those who were supporting him in this measure were doing it from a sincere affection for Reform. The hon. and learned member for Louth had plainly told the Ministry that they stood on the brink of a precipice; that at the next election eighteen new seats would fall into the hands of the Catholics, and that the Repeal would be certain if the Ministers did not extinguish the tithes. He referred to that to show the real object of the Irish supporters of the Bill. They supported the Bill because it would lead to a Repeal of the Union. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken lightly of close boroughs, but had not the right hon. Gentleman found shelter in a close borough himself? And then the right hon. Gentleman held light an hon. friend of his, because he had not spent any great time in Ireland, and yet pretended to know the feelings of Ireland. It was true his hon. friend had not lived all his life in Ireland, but he believed he had spent a longer portion of time there than the right hon. Gentleman had. He did not think the remarks of the Solicitor General for Ireland, with respect to the observations of his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Lefroy), were founded in justice. His hon. and learned friend had not proclaimed himself an advocate for the Repeal of the Union. His hon. and learned friend had held out no threat. The opinion of his hon. and learned friend he concurred with. He did think that the passing of this Bill would give new facilities to the hon. member for Kerry for carrying his designs into execution. That hon. and learned Member had hitherto succeeded by intimidation, and this Bill would give him new means for acting upon his old system. Those who opposed this measure were charged with want of liberality, of disinterestedness, and of patriotism; but he would say for himself, that his opposition was founded on principles as pure, as honest, as disinterested, and as patriotic, as those of any man breathing. He loved Ireland, and he was bound to it by every tie that could bind a man, and, as he believed in his conscience and in his soul that this Bill would be to it a frightful plague and pestilence, he solemnly protested against it. He was not an enemy of Reform, and when the present Government was first appointed he was far more inclined to support it than he was to support the late Government. The course, however, pursued by the Government had rendered it impossible for him not to oppose it. He spoke as an independent Member, loving and devoted to his native country. When the present Government entered upon office, he felt that Reform was necessary, but he did not contemplate destruction. Eighteen months ago he felt himself secure; he felt that his children had a just and well-grounded right to look for independence. Now, however, the case was far different. The conduct of the Government had altered the face of affairs. He had looked upon the property he was possessed of, and the office he held, as secure for life; but if this Bill passed, he seriously declared he should not regard either as worth two years' purchase Such was his opinion, and such he believed to be the opinion of most connected with the administration of justice and the security of property in Ireland. He joined in the apprehensions of his hon. and learned friend. The Bill would undermine British connexion, destroy the Established Church, and ruin the security of property. It was, in fact, a Bill rightly designated when termed superlatively revolutionary, and he most sincerely opposed it. By proposing this Bill, anti by the means they had used to procure its success, his Majesty's Ministers had diminished the star of England's glory. The Constitution might linger for a short time—in England, for a brief period, its name might continue, but in Ireland, with the passing of this Bill it must expire. England, fenced and protected, might resist for a time, but Ireland would experience a violent and a sudden destruction. For these reasons then, he opposed the Bill, and when he thought of its passing he felt a sorrow no language could pourtray, for that act would operate as a signal for delivering his country up a prey to boundless anarchy and fearful bloodshed and confusion.

Mr. Ruthven

said, it appeared to him that the House seemed to have lost sight of the question which was the subject of discussion, and, in place of the simple proposition whether Ireland was or was not to have Reform, the state of the Protestants and Catholics of that country (which, in his humble judgment, had nothing whatever to do with the question) appeared to engross the attention of some hon. Gentlemen who had addressed the House, For his part, he should always lament the introduction of such topics, and this recurrence to miserable religious dissension, which had much better have been buried in oblivion, and which were unnecessary and uncalled for. On no occasion, when reference was made to Ireland, was it free from this disagreeable accompaniment, and at the present moment the exaggeration of Catholic strength and numbers was resorted to as an expedient for defeating the extension of popular privileges. Was this the way to meet a question of such importance as this? Was it by miserable quibbling and special pleading that a great national question like the present should be met? Did hon. Gentlemen suppose that such language as had been uttered in that House that night was calculated to allay the irritation and excitement of which they so loudly complained? If they thought that the amelioration of the country was to be effected by such means, they must entertain very strange notions of the people and of the country with which they professed to be so intimately acquainted. For what purpose, he would ask, were those repeated references made to his hon. friend, the member for Kerry? True it was, that the powerful and commanding talents and uncompromising principle of his hon. friend had conquered the great conqueror of the age, and extorted from him, on the score of expediency, what had been denied to him and his fellow-Catholics as a matter of right. Those who spoke of the acts of Mr. O'Connell, and alluded to his commanding influence in Ireland, had, in his opinion, paid that hon. Member the highest possible compliment. But he would put it to the House, whether the opinion of his hon. friend upon any particular question should be urged as a plea for withholding a great measure of national justice? Was this the test by which a question affecting a people's rights was to be decided? An hon. Gentleman, the member for the University of Dublin, lamented the treatment the right hon. Secretary for Ireland had received at the hands of the hon. member for Kerry, and that he had been forced by him to abandon such a good project as his Arms Bill, the revival and calling out of the Yeomanry, and other equally efficient measures which had been intended, no doubt for the benefit of Ireland. Now, after all, was there anything in this which could justify the introduction of the topic as an argument against Reform? Had not the Irish Members a right to oppose any measure brought forward in that House, either by the right hon. Secretary, or by any other hon. Member, which they might conceive prejudicial to the interests of their country? As well might it be argued that Scotland or England were not entitled to Reform, because certain Members belonging to these countries might have opposed certain projects of Government of which they did not approve. It was most unfair to attribute motives to Irish gentlemen such as had been ascribed to them by hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House. Notwithstanding their taunts, he would tell these hon. Members, that he should not be deterred from discharging his duty to his constituency and his country, even although such opposition might be termed factious. For his own part, he could fearlessly assert that he had never bowed down before the idol of power. He had neither taste nor desire for it. Any observation or insinuation such as he had alluded to could not, therefore, affect him. But the Irish Members had given the strongest proof that could possibly be adduced, that they were not influenced by party or sectarian feelings, for, notwithstanding the treatment they had received upon the tithe, and other questions, they did not on that account resent, but, on the contrary, they gave their undivided support to the English and Scotch Reform Bills. It had been said, that this measure would put an end to the Church Establishment in Ireland. Now, he would maintain, on the other hand, that unless a Reform was effected in Ireland, and unless regulations were made with regard to the Church Establishment there, embracing a due modification of the Church property, consistent with justice, equity, and common sense, a separation of the two countries would inevitably take place. The noble Lord (Castlereagh) had denied that any case was made out to justify Reform; but if the noble Lord had looked to the town of Belfast, near which his own property was, he would have found an illustration of the necessity of Reform. That town alone was a proof that the system required to be changed and amended. He implored the House, as it valued the peace of Ireland, not to dash the cup of hope from the lips of the people, by rejecting the Reform Bill.

Colonel Conolly

considered the Bill as unnecessary, untimely, and most injurious. If any one measure could have been devised to fill the cup of Ireland's misery to the full, this Bill was that measure. It would enable the agitators to pursue the conspiracy which had been formed against the Established Church, and aid the plans of the hon. member for Kerry in obtaining a separation between the two countries.

Mr. O'Connell

called the hon. Member to order. He denied that he ever sought to separate the two countries. Any such attempt would be an act of treason.

Colonel Conolly

continued. The Bill would be subversive of British connexion, and destructive of the Protestant interests. When large concessions were granted to the Catholics, it was hoped they would inspire that class of the community with gratitude. There had, however, been none. The priesthood of that religion, instead of making good their pledges, had combined the Roman Catholics for the purpose of destroying the Established Church. He opposed the measure also in its details. It would establish a miserably dependent, and not an intelligent, thinking constituency. The 10l. franchise would be most injurious. It would degrade the character both of electors and elected, and tend to no one good end. The effect of the Bill would be to increase, if possible, the acrimony of feeling which already existed. With respect to the boroughs, he must remind the House that they were still used for the purposes for which they were instituted by James 1st. Those purposes were, the maintenance of the Prostestant Church and Protestant interests. Those were legitimate objects, and every Member of that House was bound to maintain them. What the Bill would effect was this—it would convert the boroughs into nomination boroughs under the influence of the hon. member for Kerry. He considered that the connexion between the countries depended essentially upon the maintenance of those boroughs, and also that they were essential to the security of property. Those points had been fearfully overlooked by the Government, who had left the Protestant population in a miserable state of exposure and insecurity. In every point of view this measure was fraught with destruction and danger, and by bringing it forward, the Government seemed to have completed the course of wrong and injury they had pursued with respect to Ireland. Further than this measure mischief could not go, and all the miseries which would follow, anarchy, desolation, and bloodshed, or an odious tyranny, would be its natural and necessary consequences. The measure would give power to the hon. member for Kerry, who would, upon his own showing, exercise that power to the prejudice of British connexion and the Established Church. On all these accounts he would give to the Bill his most uncompromising hostility.

Mr. O'Connell

said, upon such an occasion as the present, one of such deep importance to the country, and of such vital interest as affects the question of Reform, I cannot indeed but feel indebted to the gallant and hon. Member for provoking me to meet him in the field of politics. Mighty and powerful a champion as he is, I do not fear to encounter him. I feel obliged to him for the challenge he has given me—and I feel, too, still more obliged for his having afforded me, by the violence of his opposition to Reform, an additional argument in its favour. I have gathered from the opposition of that Member much useful matter, and one that he may be assured I shall avail myself of—fas est ab hoste doceri. The lesson he has taught shall not be forgotten. I trust I shall be able to make it a profitable one for Ireland. I should, indeed, be truly ungrateful if I did not treasure with thankfulness the trust that he has given me, that the union between this country and Ireland is solely dependent upon, and is solely connected by, thirteen little rotten, paltry, and corrupt boroughs! For the insinuations respecting me with which the gallant Member has thought fit to interlard his discourse, I feel obliged to him, and I am truly indebted to him for the power which he has conferred upon, and which he has assured me I shall possess, under the Bill which is now before the House. He has prophesied great things of me; assuredly I should, at least, be not the first to doubt his powers of divination. Let us now, however, look to the arguments put forward by the hon. and gallant Member. Of the Protestantism of that gallant Member no one can doubt, for he has himself assured us of its purity; and yet what does he say of his Protestantism, or what kind of religion does he seem to regard it? Why, he assures us that his Protestantism will be destroyed, that it will be for ever annihilated, if you destroy thirteen rotten boroughs! The gallant Member's Protestantism is not "built upon a rock," but upon thirteen rotten boroughs, and if this House will but allow the waves of Reform to "prevail against it," it will be swept away, and as completely obliterated as if its foundation were of sand, and not thirteen rotten boroughs! Boroughs, too, so rotten that they are sold as openly as beasts in the Smithfield market. Protestantism must, indeed, be a truly sagacious faith, if it depends for existence on thirteen rotten boroughs, each of which boroughs is dependant upon pounds, shillings, and pence. But I deny, Sir, the truth of the assertion; although not a Protestant, I utterly and totally deny, that it has any connexion with corruption, or that its creed is to be bound up with the sale of a seat in Parliament. Such assertions are unworthy of the party even from whom they come, and such observations will, I am certain, be regarded as utterly unworthy of attention from this House. An address has been made to you this evening by the hon. and learned member for Dublin—the Recorder and "upright Judge" of that city. That speech, I own, has surprised me, for the hon. and learned Member has exhibited himself in a new light—an actual and veritable convert to Reform! He has, indeed, spoken of the evils of Reform; he has descanted upon all the calamities of Reform, but then he began and concluded his harangue by assuring the House that he is himself a Reformer. I am sure he is a Reformer; I am certain, too, he would have continued a Reformer, and that he would have thought nothing could be more excellent than Reform, provided only that the last Government had continued three days more in office. In such a case, so convinced am I of the sincerity of the learned Recorder, that I am sure he would have pledged himself to support Reform, even though that support was in opposition to every vote on Reform which the hon. and learned Member has hitherto given. I am aware that I have been called an enemy to the Established Church; I have been called so most unjustly; for, though I am a decided enemy to the imposition of tithes, as unjust and iniquitous, though I am an enemy to them as I am to all other abuses, yet, Sir, I deny that I am the enemy of the Established Church. I am opposed to all abuses; but I am not opposed to the conscientious tenets of any man or body of men, and I defy any hon. Member of this House, or any man out of it, to point out one sentence which I have ever spoken inconsistent with a due respect and tenderness for the conscientious opinions and religious feeling of others. I have laboured to accomplish religious freedom for myself and my Roman Catholic countrymen. I did so because I considered it most unjust that one man should attempt to shackle the conscience of another, or punish him because he would not violate his religious feelings. I have ever shown myself willing and ready to concede to others the fullest extent of the same privileges which I claimed and insisted upon obtaining for myself—full and unrestricted freedom of opinion, and the undoubted and inalienable right of every man to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience. I belong to a Church which has been in Ireland since Christianity was introduced there. It is a Church which has continued perfect in all its gradations—it possesses a hierarchy as exalted as they are pure, and a priesthood whose apostolic life and conduct have rendered them beloved by the people, and who are esteemed by all those who differ from them in religion, and whose estimation is worth preserving. That Church has existed for centuries; it has gone through ages of persecution; but it is still as perfect as when persecution commenced its terrors and its tortures; it has existed, too, without any legal provision for its support; it has been maintained by the affections, the piety, and the respect of the people; and I do trust that never will that Church—the Church to which I belong—be degraded and disgraced by having a legal provision made for it. I never, Sir, shall feel the slightest hesitation in avowing my opinions respecting tithes, respecting church-cess, and respecting vestry-rates. I am opposed to them; but I am not opposed to Protestantism; for I deny that tithes and church-rates constitute Protestantism. Though an enemy to abuses, I am not the enemy of the Protestant Church. I respect the opinions of every sect of Christians. My life has been passed in the presence of the public; my sentiments, whether they were popular or unpopular—whether they were likely to be displeasing or grateful to my auditors, I never concealed; I always spoke them out boldly and distinctly. I have now been for thirty years of my life before the public. I have had an inimical press watching me during all that time, and I defy the hon. and learned Member, I defy any other man, to point out, as has been too frequently and too flippantly asserted, even a newspaper report of any speech of mine, in which can be found one sentiment uttered by me, or even ascribed to me, that is inconsistent with the most perfect respect for the religious opinions of those differing in creed from myself. Much indeed has been spoken in this House to-night, which, if it were spoken out of it, I should not be surprised to hear designated cant and hypocrisy, respecting the introduction of religion into politics. I do not know what connexion religion can have with such a subject as this. Let me tell Gentlemen, that for twenty-five years the people of Ireland had been struggling for an equality of rights, under the influence of various feelings, but, with the exception of Dr. Drumgoole, not a single person who had taken part in the public proceedings of the Catholic body had spoken in bigoted terms of the Protestant religion; and the language which that individual employed, called forth a unanimous vote of censure. Not a second Catholic in Ireland could be found to echo the opinions of Dr. Drumgoole. Why, Sir, do I mention such a circumstance? Because I wish to show, that bigotry is not to be found amongst the Roman Catholics of Ireland; and because the peculiarity of this Debate has led me into such a discussion—because hon. Gentlemen have been talking about religion, when they should be thinking of politics. This, Sir, however, is not the line of conduct which I am disposed to follow. In considering a question of this kind—in fixing my attention upon a measure of Reform, my eyes shall not be diverted either to one side or the other, nor shall I feel at all anxious whether I am upon this side to behold Catholics, and upon that, Protestants. In politics I disavow all such speculations, while I reserve for the temple of my God my religious feelings—to Him I trust my devotion is offered with sincerity, and I believe that it may not be the less acceptable because it is not tinged with a sectarian feeling when mixing in temporal matters. This, Sir, is a subject which should never have been introduced here—it is one that I abandon with alacrity, and which, if it had been possible to avoid it, I should not have touched upon. The right hon. the Secretary for Ireland, has done me the honour of quoting a letter written by me, respecting the Irish Reform Bill. He objects to that letter, because I consider it as calculated to promote an Orange ascendency in Ireland, and that it was, therefore, most likely to receive the support of the Tories. I do not, Sir, object to the right hon. Gentleman quoting my letter; but I have the most decided objection to the manner in which he has thought it fit for his own purposes, to quote it. The right hon. Gentleman was satisfied in quoting a sentence of my letter to suit his own purposes; if he wished to serve the ends of justice, he should have quoted more. It should be recollected, that, in that letter, I stated, that I approved of the principle of the Bill, but that I objected to the details. I ventured to prophesy, too, that the right hon. Secretary would be supported in those very details by the same persons who are opposed to the principle. The only objection, the only shadow of a reason, which they advanced against the principle of the Bill was, an objection to one of the details—namely, the enlargement of the franchise; therefore, the hon. Gentleman must see, that the other details of the Bill would meet with no opposition. No; he might assure himself of the support of all the Tories. The right hon. Secretary knew then very well, though he did not choose to state it to this House, that it was to the details of the Bill that my objections were directed. He knew, too, that in those he would be supported by the Tories. Such is the feeling, and such, too, the opinion of the learned Solicitor General for Ireland; for he admits that the details of the Bill are conservative—that is the fashionable term, the newfangled phrase now used in polite society to designate the Tory ascendency. That they are so is beyond dispute, for you have the high authority of the Irish Solicitor General to assure you of the fact. Is it then with the details of such a Reform Bill that the Irish people will be satisfied? Are they to be satisfied with a Bill which will perpetuate among them the power of the ascendency which has withered up their hopes, and blighted their fairest prospects of peace and prosperity in their country? I tell the right hon. Solicitor General, that he is mistaken if he thinks his conservative measure will satisfy the people of Ireland. They will expect what I, in their name, demand; a Bill, the same in principle, and every way as popular, as the Reform Bill for England. With any other measure, they will not, and ought not to be satisfied; and as an humble individual, so far as I am concerned, with any other measure they shall not be satisfied. If we are to be united, it can only be done by fair and equal dealing: and the only way to amalgamate all countries into one common interest is, to give each equal freedom, and similar institutions. This is what I want; that the people of Ireland should now be amalgamated with the British constituents for the first time since the British Government commenced its sway in Ireland. The right hon. Secretary for Ireland talked of our having a population of 7,000,000; it would be much more correct, if he had said 8,000,000, for I happen to know, that there never was any thing more erroneous than the last census returns. In my own county alone there are twelve parishes not included; and in individual instances, the calculation is very different—many families are entirely omitted; my own, for instance, and I am thankful to Providence that it is not a small one; yet my family has been entirey omitted in the census returns; and I am sure it can't be considered that we are not natives of Ireland. The Irish population, the right hon. Gentleman states to be 7,000,000, I contend, that it is at least 8,000,000. Out of this population the right hon. Gentleman states, there are 52,000 persons entitled to votes.

Mr. Stanley

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman had misconceived him; he had said registered for counties.

Mr. O'Connell

It is no matter; but he has said that 52,000 were entitled to vote; but is not that a very small number for a population of 8,000,000? This is an erroneous calculation, however. The 10l. freeholders are stated at 22,000, whereas they don't amount to 5,000. Besides this (I am confident the right hon. Gentleman has made the statement from want of information) it will be found that this enumeration is totally incorrect. Those entitled to vote in Ireland will, on examination, be found not to be half that number, and certainly do not exceed 25,000. The return includes all those who have been registered since 1790, and makes no allowance for all that have died in the interval. Thus it will appear, from strict examination of statistical documents, that out of a population of 8,000,000, there are not above 25,000 entitled to vote. And when I put forward this fact, and address myself to English Reformers, may I not justly ask, will such a state of things be permitted to continue? I call upon the Reformers of England—I call upon the men who have beaten down the oligarchy in this country—to say whether this is a measure, or this is a state of things, that ought to satisfy the people of Ireland? I now turn to those men who at their orgies toast the memory of King William in association with liberty, who hail him and celebrate him as their deliverer from Popery and slavery. I ask those men who toast William 3rd and the Revolution of 1688, will they now shrink at the very prospect of liberty? Oh! shame upon them if they do. Is it thus that they demonstrate their attachment to liberty, and their recognition of its principles? I do not call those men Protestants—those men are not Protestants—they libel and disgrace the religion of which they profess themselves the members. Those are not Protestants. I should be sorry to call those men Protestants, or at all confound them with the large body of respectable Protestants who, outside this House, are the friends and the advocates of rational liberty. I fearlessly ask, is this a measure that should, or ought to satisfy the people of Ireland? The principle of the Bill is the same for the three countries. England has got her Reform, Scotland is to get her Reform, and am I to be told that this House will be called upon to decide by a majority whether or not Ireland is to have a Reform? I ask the question again, because I feel it is one that ought to be answered. Is Ireland to have no Reform? Is this the proposition of the hon. and learned Recorder of Dublin? Is that the proposition of the noble Lord who seconded the amendment of the hon. and learned member for the University of Dublin? The noble Lord has talked of Sangrado and of bleeding. Oh! does he forget that it is not the first time that Ireland has heard of noble Lords and bleeding? She has experienced it too. If the ghosts of many a murdered victim, many a victim of the salutary system of bleeding, could "burst their cerements," and appear in their winding-sheets, their names might terrify and come with no pleasing sound upon the ears of the relatives and survivors of noble Lords who were remarkable for their love of bleeding. I am sorry that the noble Lord, of all others, has talked of bleeding; the surviving friends of many a mangled victim would scream when they heard the name of the noble Lord mentioned in conjunction with bleeding. The learned members for the University and city of Dublin, and the party by whom they are backed, will give Ireland no Reform, because they say it will throw all the power of the country into the democratical party—it will increase the influence of those who are disturbing the country, and will strengthen the hands of him whom the gallant member for Donegal has been pleased to call the hon. agitator. I will just thank those Gentlemen to look a little at the other side of the question. The best mode of putting an end to discontent is, to do justice to the people. If I know anything upon any subject it is agitation. Indeed, I believe I may be considered a pretty good authority upon the subject of agitation. I, therefore, am admitted to know something of agitation, and I have always found that there never was any real agitation unless where a real grievance existed. I do not speak of the puff and wind of agitation, such as has been raised upon the subject of Irish education, and which will produce no more effect than the wind whistling round the walls of an old house. I speak of real agitation, and I say, that I never knew real agitation to exist, unless when there co-existed, as its cause and essence, a substantial grievance. Let them give me time and place, and I defy them to point out a single instance where a substantial agitation ever existed without a real grievance. Don't grant us Reform, and then we shall have agitation in abundance. The Ministers talk of all they have given up, and the Tories talk of all they have lost. It is the peculiar good fortune of the Whig Government in Ireland that they are more disposed to favour their enemies than their friends. I will take, for instance, the ten northern counties. There they have appointed only nine Clerks of the Peace, who are Orangemen. Indeed, I will do them the justice to say, that in one county out of the ten, in the county which the gallant Colonel represents (the county Donegal), they have appointed a Catholic. There is the county of Tyrone, in which both Members are opposed to his Majesty's Government, and yet, as I understand, in that county, upon the recommendation of those Members, they have appointed as Clerk of the Peace the principal Orangeman in the county. Who have the Government appointed to the high office of Attorney General—one of the highest appointments in the country? They have appointed one of those who have always been opposed to the King's Government —I mean to the reforming Government. What did they do for the late Solicitor General for Ireland, a man always opposed to them? why they gave him a high judicial situation. But I turn back to the Reform Bill, and I ask, will you give us this additional ground of agitation? I ask the Reformers in this House do they so soon forget the services of Ireland? Do they forget that in 1831 it was the Irish Members that carried the second reading of the English Reform Bill? There was a majority of English Members against it—there was a majority of Scotch Members against it—there was a majority of Irish Members in favour of it. Do you forget this? Do you forget, too, that we have left our business, our occupations, and the study of our health, to attend here day after day, and night after night, to watch over every addition to English liberty and Scotch freedom—and do you forget this? Night after night we have been at our stations in this House, giving our most unqualified support to the English Reform Bill, not taking advantage of circumstances to dictate terms for ourselves, but generously and perseveringly giving our untiring and effectual support to every addition to the liberty of England. Do you forget this? Furthermore, when the crisis came, and when the great question arose between the Duke of Wellington and the people of England, what was the conduct of the Irish Members? We thought, indeed, for a moment of our own grievances; but we then threw ourselves manfully into the breach, and generously united heart and hand with the English people, and by our votes in this House we mainly contributed to the restoration of a Government supported by the people, and by that restoration, to the ultimate passing of the English Reform Bill. We have done all this, and after having so acted, will you, English Reformers, send us back to our countrymen to tell them that after all the services we have rendered you, yet an English House of Commons has refused to grant to Ireland the paltry boon of a miserable, jejune, and narrow, niggardly Reform Bill? I do not want to be supposed as using a threat to this House; but this I say, that if you refuse a Reform Bill to Ireland, you will have a Parliament in Dublin before six months. You hear this declaration in silence; but never mind—I prophesied before, and I was not mistaken. There is just as little danger now but that my predictions will be verified. If this House refuse Reform, I will appeal to the people of England—I will appeal to their generosity, to their good sense, and to their spirit of fairness, and I shall be sure of obtaining Reform. From the time of Henry 2nd to the present hour, it has been the constant solicitation of the Irish people to be embodied in the British Constitution. Successive attempts were made to accomplish this object, and, through mistaken motives, they were continually refused and disappointed. It was attempted in the reign of that paltry bigot, Edward 6th; successive Monarchs were applied to, who refused the application. It was attempted reign after reign, and always with the same success, for we always met with the same refusal. From that period religious persecution commenced, and the starless night of a nation's desolation followed. We survived that persecution unbroken in heart and in energy, undiminished in faith and in fortitude, we emerged from that persecution more numerous and more powerful than when we entered it. We struggled on through the gloom of our bondage—we achieved our religious equality; but during the progress of that struggle, we always declared openly and above board, that we had ulterior objects. We never disguised our intentions. I always avowed myself to be an agitator with ulterior objects. The only object of our religious equality was, that we expected it would lead to our political equality. You have admitted us within the pale of the Constitution—we ask from you, and demand that, without which we never shall be satisfied, a full and entire participation in the rights and privileges of that Constitution. What we ask, and what we have a right to ask, is full political equality. You have admitted the principle of Reform, by passing the English Reform Bill; surely you can't refuse to admit the principle, by rejecting the Irish Reform Bill. I listened attentively to the speech in which my hon. and learned friend, the member for the University of Dublin, introduced his Amendment. Indeed, as respects the speech of the noble Lord who seconded the Amendment, Much was not to be expected from him. I did not much mind the rabid argument of the noble Lord, because he is a young man of very little experience, and little skilful in debate. I pass by the discursive and animated speech of the noble Viscount; but I must not avoid adverting to the chivalrous and very curious address which has been made to the House by the evangelical Recorder of the city of Dublin. This most strange specimen of the reforming genus, with eyes of habitual uplifted-ness, bad assured us that he was a Reformer. He is certainly an excellent Reformer, and he acts well upon his theories. He is so firmly persuaded of the necessity of Reform, that he has made up his mind to vote against it. The excellent Member is so well convinced of Reform, and so thoroughly a Reformer, that he does not act upon his own theory. The pious Recorder, with that elevation of his eyes, and that peculiar gesture, which befits his peculiar piety, has assured the House that he belongs to no party. I would beg respectfully to ask, is there no Orange Corporation in Dublin? Has there been no election lately in Dublin? Was there a certain pious Judge a candidate? Were there no placards posted about the city, crying no Priests—no Purgatory—no Popery—Shaw and Ingestrie for ever? Might it not happen that the Judge who stood as candidate to-day would be called upon to try the man that voted against him the next day, or to decide a question between those who voted against him, and those who voted for him. I will not say but that his decisions would be as they have always been: but I must say, that being a bit of a Papist, I should not repose much faith in such a decision. I do not wish, however, to be understood as casting any imputation upon the judicial character of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Has the learned Recorder heard nothing of the Corporation of Dublin—a little wretched knot of the remnant of that faction that have so long cursed Ireland? The other day, when they heard that the Duke of Wellington had returned to power, in a fit of exultation they shipped the state coach to London. If, however, that elegant toy escapes the dangers of the journey, I am sorry to declare my apprehension that it will have to return to Dublin without having performed any of the functions that befit a Corporation state coach. To be sure it would be delightful to see the Recorder driving up in the city state coach to read the dutiful address of the ancient, loyal, and Protestant Corporation of Dublin, to the King, on the appointment of a Tory Administration. Indeed, I heartily pity him that he has been disappointed of a jaunt in the state coach. With reference to the danger to arise from extending the popular franchise by the Bill, I beg to remind the House that the 40s. freeholders have been destroyed. What a great deduction that has been from the popular power in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact, that in Ireland the qualification is half as high again as it ought to be, when we consider the difference between the countries. He proposes to give us the 20l. chattel franchise at a lease of sixty years. The number of freeholders, as returned by the right hon. Secretary, is much above the real number. The chattel franchise of 20l., with a lease of sixty years, I have reason to know is an illusion. I know much of Ireland. I know something of Ulster; I am well acquainted with Connaught; I am completely conversant with Leinster; and I have a perfect acquaintance with Munster, for three counties of which I have been returned. I have also had great experience as a professional man, and have been consulted by a particular class, the mercantile men in Ireland, respecting their purchases of estates; and from my knowledge of the tenure by which land is held in Ireland, I am convinced that this 20l. franchise in chattel interest will be illusory. The Evening Mail, in the Report of the Tithe Committee which it has published, states that there are 700,000 acres of Bishops' lands in Ireland. There are about 12,000,000 of arable acres, so that, including other lands, there may be one-half of the arable surface of the country in the hands of the Church. The College has also a large territory. In the county which I represent there is at least one-seventh in the hands of Trinity College. All these lands are let at no longer leases than twenty-one years, so that the chattel interest of 20l. with a lease of sixty years, is an illusion, for no such tenure will be found in more than one-half of the country. This Bill gives us also the name of the 10l. franchise, which is essentially different in England and Ireland. The tenures are different, for in Ireland we never talk of a freehold in fee. The tenants in Ireland and England are placed in a position essentially different, and the 10l. franchise which may be good for England, will be much too high for Ireland, and instead of being the instrument of Reform, will, in many instances, be the instrument of corruption. The dangers of an enlarged constituency are much overrated. Now, I ask, what is all this foam and fury about? After the Reform Bill passes, if it be to pass, what great alteration will it effect in these boroughs? Let us first see in the nomination boroughs what constituency will it give—Cashel, for example, will have 193 voters, Bandon 233, Coleraine 184, Dungarvon 200, Kinsale 220, Portarlington 180, Tralee 246. Thus there will be 180 to give votes in Portarlington. Now I can see very little difference between the present condition and this. Hon. Members at the other side of the question affect the greatest alarm at the destruction of these boroughs. There is Dungarvon also which has at present 640 electors—these will be reduced by the Bill to 200, whose votes will be in the hands of the Duke of Devonshire—and this, forsooth, is a popular measure of Reform! There is another ground of complaint to which I will advert—namely, the registry of votes. In England no man is called upon to show his title unless by previous notice—in Ireland a scrutinizing Assistant Barrister examines it without any process being served on the man who comes to vote, calling for the production of every deed. The Barrister may put inquisitorial questions to the voter, and, through vexatious litigation, shake his independence. In Ireland 2s. 6d. is the sum paid for registry—in England it is 1s. Is this equality? Is this union? Can this conduce to a continuance of the connexion between the two countries? Above all, is it calculated to support Protestantism in Ireland? Though I find so much to censure in the Bill before the House, still I shall support it for the good it will effect. I will support it, because it will strike down the Corporation of Dublin—that body, despicable in their bankrupt circumstances, and disgusting for their corruption. I will support it, because it will open the borough of Belfast, and give the country the benefit of the commercial intelligence of that enlightened and flourishing town, whose Representative has hitherto been appointed by a noble Marquess (Donegal), like his groom or his footman; although I must acknowledge that this power has been wholesomely exercised in behalf of Reform. It will be delightful, however, to see that great commercial town thrown open; it will be delightful to see the strong Presbyterian good sense which prevails there, fairly represented. Many boroughs, though thrown open, will, in effect, remain still nomination boroughs—as Enniskillen; and I say, most unaffectedly, God forbid that that should not. The noble Lord, who at present influences it, resides in its neighbourhood, spends his fine fortune in his own country, and exercises a liberal hospitality, which will always deservedly give him influence there. Such men will always exercise all the influence property can give them. The Bill may cast out a few speculators—may disappoint a set of men who slander their neighbours—and who, not satisfied with cultivating their own religion, have a ferocious species of charity for ameliorating the religion of others; but it will be the first voluntary attempt, for 700 years, to combine the people of England and Ireland—the first act of real justice, which will not have been dealt out, as emancipation was, in a spirit so paltry, so miserable, as to desire that it should be accompanied by the outlawry of an individual so humble as even myself. The moment, I tell the House, has arrived for conciliating the people, and binding them to you by the links of that brotherhood for which they are as anxious as yourself. It is a period most auspicious to the perfect and perpetual reconciliation of Irishmen and Englishmen. You have done us wrong—the hour is now come when you may, with grace, make the reparation. I appeal to the generosity as well as to the manly feeling and good sense of Englishmen. England is free—Scotland is free; and with all the fervency of my heart, I implore you that Ireland also may be free.

Mr. James E. Gordon

observed, that as he had not assented to the principles of the English Bill, the observation of the right hon. Secretary, to the effect, that unless hon. Members were prepared to contend, that the same principles which in the English Reform Bill were right would in the Irish Bill be wrong, could not in anywise apply to him. The principal objection which he entertained to the Bill was founded on its certain result in regard to the great question of Protestant ascendency in Ireland. He confessed that he was one of those old-fashioned bigots who were prepared at all risks to stand up for the interests of Protestant ascendency in Ireland, as the basis of the Union between the two countries, and as the basis of the integrity of the British empire. Let Protestant ascendency be ever so much stigmatised by the Liberals of the day, aided and abetted by the Radicals and the Revolutionists, he should ever be found ready to stand up as its advocate. The right hon. Secretary for Ireland had alluded to the borough of Dundalk as instancing the necessity of Reform. Without entering then upon the defence of that borough, he would beg leave to tell the right hon. Secretary, that the Representative of Dundalk might be the representative of constitutional principles—and might be a Representative whose opinions as much deserved attention as those of an individual who sat in that House as the avowed organ of the Whitefeet and the Blackfeet, the midnight incendiary and the robber. He could assure the House that the passing of the Bill before them would, while it destroyed the interests of the Protestant body of Ireland, never content the body who were opposed to those interests.

Mr. Sheil

had sympathized most heartily in the endeavours of this great and magnanimous nation to gain the restitution of its rights, and as an Irishman had felt as deep an interest in the success of the English Reform Bill as he did with regard to the measure before the House. What, he would ask, was the state of the Irish Representation? The hon. member for Dundalk (Mr. J. E. Gordon) himself presented a perfect specimen of that Representation. He did not mean to speak disrespectfully of the hon. Member as an individual; he believed he might be quite sincere in his opinions; but he would say, that if he were the concentrated spirit, the aromatic essence of Protestantism, he might have selected a more appropriate place to represent than a town containing 13,000 Catholic inhabitants. What, he would again inquire, was the state of the Irish Representation? Why were eleven boroughs in Ireland represented by Englishmen, not one of whom had the most remote connexion with the land? Ought this system to continue? If Reform were granted to England and denied to Ireland, the effect would be, to raise the price of boroughs in the Irish Parliamentary bazaar. That the hon. member for Dundalk, now that the English Reform Bill might be said to have been passed, was anxious to preserve the close boroughs of Ireland, did not surprise him, since it would render them doubly valuable. They alone would then be in the market. The competition for them would be most animated. Dundalk would then be enhanced in value. Happy Tralee would be inestimable. The question was not whether they would concede Irish Reform, but whether or not they should permit the Irish boroughs to send in nominees to that House, to mingle with the genuine Representatives of the people, and exercise for all practical purposes the same privileges as would be exercised by Members for places in England. It was one advantage derived from the Union, that England could not inflict wrong upon them without injury to herself. The two nations were united by the Siamese knot, and so long as the ligature remained uncut, together they must thrive, and together they must die. That the whole of the boroughs would be thrown into the hands of a Roman Catholic democracy was an assertion without a shadow of proof, and he challenged those who made the assertion to confirm it. Hon. Members talked of maintaining Protestant ascendency; but the ascendency they would maintain was that of an aristocracy less tolerable far than the aristocracy of birth—a religious and sectarian aristocracy. It had been said, that the Protestant interest in Ireland would suffer by the threatened disfranchisement. This was incorrect in fact, as most of the rotten boroughs lay in the north, in the midst of the Protestant population. But on this head he considered that the grossest exaggeration had been indulged in. He would ask whether, after having in that House levelled the pride of the British oligarchy with the dust, they would retain and foster in Ireland that which Adam Smith called the worst of oligarchies—that of religion—of sect? Or would they endeavour to revivify that principle of religions intolerance which had been repudiated by them when the doors of that House had been thrown open to the Roman Catholics? Such, however, was the spirit of the opposition to this Bill. The surest mode of preventing the agitation of the question of the Repeal of the Union would be, to do complete justice to Ireland, in granting her a Reform as extensive as that which had been yielded to the wishes of England. He was sure that there existed among the people of England the wish to do this; that that House and the constituents who had returned them were desirous of granting to Ireland a liberal and ample measure of Reform. From the moment that the Reform Bill for Ireland was passed, there would be no longer that feeling of jealousy that had sometimes been seen to exist been the English and the Irish Members. He trusted, that it would pass, and that the people of England, who had taken so noble an attitude when the abuses of their own Representation were the subject of discussion, would preserve the same attitude when the Reform which Ireland as much required, and as earnestly demanded, was under consideration. He hoped that the course which had been recommended to secure the success of the English Reform Bill, would be adopted to provide for the safety of the Reform Bill for Ireland; that the advice of Eudoxus would be taken, who, when asked how a certain measure intended by her Majesty for the benefit of the people of England, and which was sure to pass the Lower House, was to be carried through the Upper, answered, that the example of Edward 3rd ought to be imitated. That Monarch, when he was crossed by the Lords and the Clergy, was advised, by way of remedy, to have Barons summoned in sufficient numbers to Parliament; and, by taking that advice, her Majesty might curb and cut short those Irish and unruly Lords who stood in the way of these good proceedings. He did not know whether they intended to do so now; but he thought that if a measure similar to that recommended by Eudoxus had been proper and expedient to be adopted with respect to the English Reform Bill, it would be thought to be equally proper and expedient with respect to the Irish Reform Bill. If it became a question of comparative importance, which, he asked, was the more important, to swamp the House of Lords, as it had been called, or to preserve the Constitution entire? There was a deep embodied mass of political partisanship in Ireland, which, if allowed to exist with the power it had hitherto possessed, would stand as a deadly shade between the people and the rights they claimed, and the justice they demanded. Who was it that opposed the measure of Reform? Not the ancient nobility of the empire, but a long marshalled mass of accumulated partisans, composed of ecclesiastics, who wielded the crosier for political purposes—of Scotch Peers, who were influenced wholly by Tory interest—and by a body of nobles who had been created for party purposes by Mr. Pitt and Mr. Perceval. If they member for Kerry endeavoured to excite were permitted, they would trample on the people, and make the Royal authority subservient to their views. He trusted, however, that their efforts would not be suffered to prevail—that a Reform Bill would be granted to Ireland, like that which had passed for England; that it would be the same Bill—not merely analogous, but identical—not similar merely, but the same. He hoped that the people of England would not only be just but generous, and justify the high expectations which had been formed of their noble conduct, at this, he might say, miraculous moment, when a Minister had quitted his place to preserve his honour, and had returned to it to save the country. He called on them to pass this Reform Bill; and, as the Irish people had shared in the peril with them, to allow Ireland also to share in the success.

Mr. Dawson

said, he had listened to the whole speech of the hon. and learned member for Kerry with the greatest attention, and a speech less distinguished by statesmanlike views or feelings he had never heard. It was, throughout, a speech of taunt and sarcasm—a speech in which many of the institutions of the country were attacked. He was sorry to say, that the speech of the hon. and learned member for Louth (Mr. Sheil), partook of the same description of feeling. He was, however, bound to admit the truth of the argument they had both put forth; namely, that if nomination boroughs were destroyed in England, they must, as a necessary consequence, be abolished in Ireland, because, if that were not done, there would be a scene of endless agitation in that country. The hon. and learned member for Louth had, by making an attack on the hon. member for Dundalk, given a species of religious complexion to this question. His observations had nothing to do with the subject before the House; and when the hon. and learned Member accused the hon. member for Dundalk with causing, in a great degree, the agitation which prevailed in Ireland, he (Mr. Dawson) would say, that the cause of that agitation was, in reality, to be traced to the speeches delivered in that House by the hon. members for Louth and Kerry. The hon. member for Kerry did not, however, act with so much discretion as the hon. member for Louth, who confined his labours to that House. No; the hon. and learned member for Kerry endeavoured to excite agitation by speeches in Manchester, and Liverpool, and elsewhere. He was perfectly convinced, that if this Bill were passed, the doom of the Protestant Church in Ireland was sealed. He would allow the Gentlemen opposite to enjoy the triumph which they had gained—a triumph over the good sense of the people, over the House of Lords, and over the Monarch. But he would advise them, in the midst of their exultation, to imitate the example of those ancient conquerors, of whom they read in history, who, when they had gained a victory, were in the habit of directing that certain slaves should stand behind their chairs to warn them against indulging their triumphant feelings too much, since it was not impossible that reverses might finally overtake them. There were slaves behind—he did not mean in that House—and he wished those slaves behind would give the warning to which he had alluded. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman who had introduced this measure had already repented of the step he had taken. He had been baited by the thirty-one Gentlemen who pretended to be his friends, on the occasion of the tithe question, in a manner which induced him (Mr. Dawson) to pity the right hon. Gentleman. But when that number was swelled to sixty, how much more pitiable would be the situation of the right hon. Gentleman. The effort of that party would, undoubtedly, he to establish a Catholic ascendency in Ireland, and then such a state of irritation and of violence would be produced between the two parties as must render the interference of this country indispensable. The Protestants of Ireland were a determined body of men; when once they drew the sword they threw the scabbard away. They had formerly successfully opposed a Roman Catholic King and Ids Roman Catholic forces, although aided by England; and, if ever the time should come when they should be called on to defend their rights, they would be ready to do so. For his own part, he should, at such a moment, be found acting with his Protestant fellow-subjects.

Mr. Henry Grattan

deprecated the tone adopted by the right hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House—a tone calculated to create the greatest degree of agitation. He regretted, that so much irritation had been shown on this, which was, strictly, a constitutional question. He, however, would not discuss the question on any grounds but those for which the Representatives of the people had really been sent to that House. The real question was, whether Members were to be returned to that House by half-a-dozen constituents, or by half-a-thousand. Take the case of the hon. member for Dundalk, for instance; at present the return for that place was made by thirty-two individuals; if this Reform Bill passed, it would be settled by 650; for which reason the hon. Member might well turn pale, and call the Bill unconstitutional. This, too, he would say—that, even if the Bill passed, the Irish people would never rest contented until they had obtained equal justice, by having the same laws as those which prevailed in England. He meant to support the Bill, though he did not think it went far enough; and he should have supported it with more pleasure if it had gone further.

Sir Robert Peel

Although he had opposed the English Reform Bill throughout, and might with perfect consistency oppose the Irish Reform Bill also, as tending to aggravate the general dangers and difficulties which he anticipated from the working of the English Reform Bill, yet it would be inconsistent with truth were he to say, that he had come to the conclusion he had formed without doubt and hesitation. He admitted the full force of the argument, that, having determined to abolish the system or nomination boroughs in England, it was the almost necessary consequence that nomination boroughs should cease to exist in Ireland. As far as the private interests of the individuals connected with these boroughs were concerned, he had not a word to say in favour of them; they must be governed by the principle adopted with respect to similar interests in the English nomination boroughs. So far as these boroughs were advantageous instruments in bringing forward persons of talent and ability—so far as they were advantageous in the practical administration of the Government, by enabling persons to procure seats in the House, who were selected to fill high offices under the Crown, but who had not the means of effecting their return by appeals to popular favour—so far, no doubt., was the evil of their destruction aggravated, by the extinction of these boroughs in Ireland as well as in England. And yet, on the other hand, the anomaly of permitting their continued existence in Ireland, after the forfeiture of the franchise here, was too notorious to be denied for a moment. Having thus stated the apparent necessity for agreeing to the principle of the Bill—if he hoped that, by going into this Committee, his objections to many of the details were likely to be remedied—if he thought that any individual had a plan to propose in Committee which would remove his objections to the measure as it at present stood, he might be content to reserve either his acquiescence in, or opposition to this Bill, until the third reading; but his experience of the English Reform Bill left him no hope that any such course would be pursued. It was vain to conceal from himself the probability that, by dint of a majority similar to that which opposed all amendments in the English Reform Bill, similar amendments would be equally resisted with respect to the Irish Reform Bill. After mature deliberation, and a full consideration of the subject, the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland, had given the House to understand, that the mind of his Majesty's Government was made up as to the principal details of this measure; and that, after eighteen months' consideration, this was the measure of Reform they deliberately and advisedly proposed for Ireland. Without disguising the force of those considerations, which made it difficult to destroy nomination boroughs in England, and continue them in Ireland—difficult to apply Reform to Scotland, and withhold it in Ireland, he still must reserve to himself the power of considering the effect which the adoption of this Bill might have on the means of carrying on the Government in Ireland, and on the state of those institutions in Ireland which it would necessarily affect. It was necessary to bear in mind the state of party in that country, its peculiar position with respect to the established religion, the unequal division of landed property, the circumstances under which the present distribution of that property had taken place—and then to determine whether the provisions of this Bill were in harmony with the religious establishment, the tenure of property, and the existing institutions of Ireland. He feared that they were not; and yet this was a consideration at least as important as that to which he had before adverted, which appeared to require the application of the same principles of Reform to Ireland as had been adopted in England. No man, proposing a new representative system, would think it wise to disregard the actual state of property and the actual constitution of society in the country for which it was intended. In the year 1791, when the French had to form a representative system for the first time, they resorted to certain ingenious devices, by which they might reconcile the influence to be acquired by numbers, with the influence which ought to be exercised by property. They established a different system to that which had formerly existed, and gave to property what they considered its just weight in the representative system. If this Bill passed, there could be no hope that property or the Protestant interest in Ireland would be adequately and fully represented. The learned Gentleman, the member for Kerry, said it was his object that property should be fairly represented, exemplifying, what he meant by a just and liberal remark—Lord Enniskillen lives near such a place, and God forbid that he should not influence, in a certain degree, the return for that place. He is a good landlord and kind man, said the learned Gentleman; he spends his property in that part of the country from which it is drawn, and ought certainly to have an influence in the return for a neighbouring borough, not by direct nomination, but by the indirect influence of property. This was exactly what he (Sir Robert Peel) and his party had always contended for; but they had invariably been met by being told that Peers ought to have no concern in elections, and being reminded of the resolution which this House passed at the commencement of every Session, condemnatory of the interference of Peers. He had always contended, that that resolution was never meant to exclude the exercise of that indirect influence which a Peer must acquire from the possession of property. On the other side it was maintained, that it was meant to exclude altogether both the direct and indirect influence of a Peer in elections. If the learned Gentleman's doctrine was correct in the particular case of Lord Enniskillen, must it not also be correct in the instance of all other Peers? The state of the Representation of Ireland was incidentally explained by the learned Gentleman. He said he had been returned for three counties in Ireland; that was to say, that by the adoption of a political course which had made him popular, he had had such an influence in those three counties as to have been returned by each. Now certainly the learned Gentleman had not been returned for any one of those counties through the influence of property; the very circumstance that he mentioned—namely, that in three counties he had been enabled entirely to overrule the influence of property, and to effect his return indirect opposition to the influence of property, showed that property had not its due weight in determining the county elections of Ireland. He knew, that the evil of which he was speaking arose under the present system; that the objection he was making, if valid, applied, not to the Reform Bill, but to the present state of the law of elections. But the question was, would not the Reform Bill aggravate the evil, and increase the force of the objection? Would it not give new and additional strength to those influences which were, even at present, sufficient to overbear the influence of property? It was no argument in favour of a change to allege that the present system had its dangers, if the tendency of the change was to multiply those dangers. In his opinion, the operation of this Bill would exclude the influence of property, and give additional weight to numbers. Was it his fault that be was alarmed at a measure which gave greater weight to the popular voice? Was it his fault, that he was unwilling to put instruments in the hands of those who avowed, fairly and candidly, that Reform was not their object, but that they had other ends in view? The learned member for Kerry—a man who it would be vain to deny exercised more influence than any other individual in Ireland—the learned member for Kerry said, that with this Reform he never could, and never would be satisfied; that even Reform, pushed to a much wider extent than the present, would not content him. No, within this month he had placed upon record his unaltered and unalterable opinion, that Ireland never could prosper except by a Repeal of the Union—not, indeed, by a total dissolution of the connexion between the two countries, but by a repeal of the legislative union. If the learned Gentleman said, "With the measure of Reform that is proposed we will be satisfied, because it gives to Ireland a fair influence in the representative body," there might be some reason for assenting to this Bill; but when he said, "Give me that measure, not as the end I look for, but as the means by which I can proceed towards the attainment of another object," the learned Gentleman afforded one of the strongest arguments that could be advanced against the Bill. If he really and sincerely believed that that other object, the Repeal of the Union, was essential to the prosperity and well-being of Ireland, he would be an advocate for it; but he saw no prospect whatever of security for this country, no prospect of peace or prosperity to Ireland, in the dissolution of that legislative union which now connected the two countries. The desire of obtaining the Repeal of that Union made the hon. and learned Gentleman so anxious for Reform, and the dread of the consequences of its repeal made him unwilling to increase an influence which was to be directed with all its energies to that as the paramount object. The learned Gentleman said, that if the English House of Commons, were to reject this Bill, the consequence would be, the election of an independent domestic Parliament in Ireland within six months. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last, said, that the House had nothing to do on this occasion with the question of the Repeal of the Union. But, could it be denied that that Question was an essential element of consideration on this occasion, when they were told that this Reform Bill could not be a permanent arrangement, but that it was only useful as leading to the establishment of a domestic legislature in Ireland? The hon. Gentleman who preceded him felt so many difficulties with respect to the Repeal of the Union, that he suggested a measure intended to solve those difficulties, which certainly appeared ten thousand times worse than the re-establishment even of the old Irish Parliament. He would have, it appeared, two domestic Parliaments, one to sit in England, the other in Ireland, which should meet respectively in October in each year, for the purpose of settling the domestic concerns of the two countries; and which, at a later period, were to form, by their Union, an Imperial Parliament, for the purpose of treating upon all those subjects in which legislation for the empire generally may be said to consist. Was ever project so absurd! How would it be possible to have two Parliaments in England, with different degrees of authority, and meeting for different purposes? How could there be an Irish Parliament, tied up against the discussion of any but merely domestic concerns? What constituted domestic concerns? Did they include the national force—the public debt—the public revenue? If they did not, where was the use of a separate Parliament? and if they did, where was the limitation on its powers? What would be the consequence of such a proceeding? Nothing but eternal discord and confusion. Let it not be supposed, after thirty years of Union, that you could replace matters as they stood before that Union. Bad as they were then, they would become tenfold worse in case of its repeal. Suppose the learned Gentleman could carry his plan into execution, and again re-establish a domestic Parliament, did he think that any such measure could tend to the peace and prosperity of the empire? The first question to be settled in such a case would be, the apportionment of the debt between the two countries, because, if the Irish Parliament were to exercise a power of taxation, as an independent Parliament, it would be necessary, in the first instance, to determine what portion of the debt should be borne by England, and what portion should be sustained by Ireland. If Ireland took her just portion of the debt, in consequence of an adjustment between the two countries, did the learned Gentleman think that the taxation which would necessarily be imposed upon the people of Ireland, to defray the interest of that portion, would be for the advantage of that country? How many other questions of separate interest would arise, calculated to provoke the jealousies and conflicts of independent national legislatures. It was said, that the manufactures of Ireland were depressed by the competition of England, and that a domestic Parliament would give redress. What, then, were they to run the race of protecting duties and prohibitions? Was Ireland to interdict the import of cotton goods, and England to retaliate by high duties on Irish corn? He questioned not the motives of the hon. and learned Gentlemen—but, if he succeeded in his plan, instead of being the friend of his country, he would prove himself her very worst enemy. Differing thus completely from the learned Gentleman as to the ultimate mea- sores to which the learned Gentleman looked, it followed as a natural consequence, that he should object to furnish the learned Gentleman with the means of attaining the objects he had in view. By what means did the learned Gentleman propose to carry the measure which would be entirely destructive of the legislative union? The people of Ireland, said the learned Gentleman, will never rest until they obtain it. If Ireland were never to be at peace—if she were to be involved in perpetual agitation—if there were to be clubs in every town and every county—if Irish interests were to be opposed to the English on every occasion, it was impossible to deny, that such a system of agitation might ultimately prevail, and by disgusting each country with the other, end in a dissolution of the Union between them. But why were these interests constantly to be brought before the House as the interests of rival and hostile nations? were they never to lose sight of the distinguishing terms of Protestant and Catholic; never to be at liberty to consider themselves as loyal subjects of the same King, without reference to their religious creeds? The hon. Gentleman who spoke just now said, "Give us the same laws in Ireland as you have in England." This was his complaint—the two countries are under different laws. Now, he begged to ask, in reply, where the difference did exist, was it a difference in favour of England? Would the hon. Gentleman he content to abide by the contract, and have all the laws of England? Would he have the same amount of taxation in the two countries? The hon. Gentleman wished to dry up the ocean that divided us; and he told us to look at the friendly and amicable situation in which France and Spain had been placed, since they overcame the barrier established by the Pyrenees. The wish of the learned member for Kerry, howver, from whom the hon. Gentleman did not express his dissent, was, not to dry up the ocean, but, by a repeal of the legislative union, to oppose a new, an artificial, and an insurmountable obstacle, to the connexion between the two countries. The hon. Gentleman said, give us the same laws as in England; but what course did that hon. Gentleman take upon the law with respect to tithes? Did he propose to place Ireland under the English tithe law? Far from it; his wish was not for identity of tithe law in the two countries, but for no tithe law in Ireland. What became of his complaint that the laws were not the same, when he himself was labouring to establish both in respect to taxation and to tithe, and to twenty other matters, the justice and the necessity of different laws for the two branches of the empire? It was said, that Reform could not endanger the Protestant religion—that the existence of that religion did not depend upon the nomination boroughs; but a Reform that would introduce into that House a vast majority of Representatives with views hostile to that Church, would endanger the Church. The right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland, asked, why should the Church of Ireland be under any alarm? and he had scarcely put that question when, by a somewhat singular coincidence, two Gentlemen from the House of Lords came to the Table with an Act to which the House of Lords had given their assent, entitled, "A Bill to facilitate the recovery of Tithes in certain cases in Ireland, and for the relief of the Clergy of the Established Church." The preamble of the Bill was to this effect:—"Whereas, a combination against the payment of tithe has for some time existed in certain parts of Ireland, and the ordinary remedies provided by law for the recovery thereof have been evaded and defeated; and whereas a great number of the clergy have been, in consequence, reduced to a condition of great distress, by being deprived of their legal maintenance." Why, when they were passing bills with such preambles, could the right hon. Gentleman be very much surprised that the Church of Ireland considered itself in danger? When the laws were defeated by illegal combinations—when Members returned by the popular voice in Ireland denounced the Church of Ireland as a nuisance, could he be surprised that that Church viewed a measure like the present with peculiar sensitiveness and anxiety? The learned Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell) said, "I am not an enemy to the Protestant religion—I never declared myself an enemy to the Protestant Church;" but he added, "though I have not declared myself an enemy to the religion, or to the Church, still I am a decided enemy to the property of the Church." The learned Gentleman said, that religion might exist without such a provision for its support. That the Church, the Established Church, of the empire, that Church which pleaded the prescription of 300 years in favour of the possession of its property—that that Church was to consent to a measure which would deprive it of a portion of its legal subsistence, was a proposition which might be reconcilable to the sense of justice of the hon. Gentleman but which it would be some time before the Church of Ireland could be brought to understand, or which it would submit to without remonstrating against it as an act of the grossest injustice. With regard to the Catholic Relief Bill, and its applicability to Ireland, he heard one hon. Gentleman lament that it had not produced the consequences that were anticipated; and he had been asked, whether his opinion was not changed as to the policy of the removal of the Catholic disabilities. He might lament that all the consequences anticipated from the removal of those disabilities had not been realized; he might lament, and deeply, too, that he had been disappointed as to the course which some persons had pursued; but he was bound to say, that he never could think that it would have been for the advantage of Ireland, or for the interests of the Protestant religion, that the Catholic Question should have remained still unsettled, and that this cause of excitement and agitation should have been added to the others which were disturbing the peace and happiness of Ireland. If he had, with a knowledge of all that had passed, to act, that part over again, and if it were possible for him to foresee all that had occurred since the passing of that Act, not only in Ireland, but in other countries in Europe, he did not hesitate to say, that his opinion of the expediency of settling the question at the time it was settled would be confirmed. At the same time he must say, he did not think that the question would have been settled, if it had been foreseen that such a measure as this Irish Reform Bill was to follow within the period of three years. Changes were then made in the representative system of Ireland, which were put forward as motives for conceding the removal of the Catholic disabilities; and if the people of this country could have known at that time, that in the course of three years the changes to which he referred would be rendered of non-effect by a Reform Bill, the difficulties in the way of the removal of the Catholic disabilities would have been insuperable. When the priesthood of Ireland exercised such overpowering influence over the 40s. freeholders, many persons were induced to consent to the Relief Bill, because it was accompanied by a measure for the reduction of that unjust influence which the 40s. franchise conferred. At that time a great experiment in government was attempted; for the removal of the disabilities of the Catholics was in itself a moral and political revolution; and it would have been of immense importance to have permitted that measure to have a fair trial, without a second experiment which would tend to retard its success, and which would discourage the people of this country from acquiescing in future in any measure to which they have a repugnance. They would find by experience, not only that that measure was not a final one, but that the concurrent measure by which it was accompanied, and which induced them to consent to it, was to be altogether changed by a proceeding entered into three years afterwards. On these grounds, then, he must record by his vote his dissent from this Bill. He thought its provisions not in harmony with the institutions either of religion or of property in the country to which they were to be applied; that their tendency was to increase an influence hostile to the Established Church, and to the Union between the two countries—and that their adoption at the; present, time was inconsistent, if not with a compact, at least with an understanding, that the settlement made in 1829 was not to be disturbed. For these reasons, he must refuse to be a party to the responsibility of adopting this measure, if no material alteration was to be made in it: and being assured that no such alteration was in contemplation, or would be favourably considered, he knew of no better opportunity than the present of giving his vote against the Bill.

Mr. Stanley

replied, and maintained that the Representative system in Ireland could not with any justice be allowed to continue, when a Reform both in the Representative system in England and Scotland had been agreed to by the House. In case the present Motion was rejected by the House, it would afford a ground for the hon. and learned member for Kerry to go back to his constituents, and contend, that though the measure of Reform was agreed to by the House of Commons for England and Scotland, it was refused to Ireland. This would furnish the hon. Member with a strong argument in favour of a Repeal of the Union.

The House divided on the Original Motion:—Ayes 246; Noes 130—Majority 116.

List of the AYES.
ENGLAND. Graham, Rt. Hn. Sir J.
Adeane, H. J. Hawkins, J. H.
Althorp, Viscount Heneage, G. F.
Anson, Sir G. Heywood, B.
Bainbridge, E. T. Hobhouse, Sir J. C.
Barham, J. Hodges, T. L.
Baring, Sir T. Hodgson, J.
Baring, F. T. Horne, Sir W.
Bayntun, S. A. Howard, H.
Benett, J. Howick, Viscount
Bernal, R. Hughes, Colonel
Blake, Sir F. Hughes, Ald. H.
Blamire, W. Hume, J.
Blount, E. Hunt, H.
Blunt, Sir C. James, W.
Bouverie, Hon. D. P. Jerningham, Hon. H.
Bouverie, Hon. P. P. Johnstone, Sir J. B.
Brougham, W. Kemp, T. R.
Buller, J. W. King, E. B.
Burrell, Sir C. Knight, R.
Burton, H. Labouchere, H.
Byng, Sir J. Langston, J. H.
Byng, G. Lawley, F.
Calcraft, G. H. Lee, J. L. H.
Calvert, N. Lefevre, C. S.
Campbell, J. Leigh, T. C.
Carter, J. B. Lemon, Sir C.
Cavendish, Lord Lennard, T. B.
Chaytor, W. R. C. Lennox, Lord G.
Chichester, J. P. B. Lester, B. L.
Clive, E. B. Littleton, E. J.
Cradock, Colonel Lumley, J. S.
Crampton, P. C. Lushington, Dr. S.
Creevey, T. Maberly, Col. W. L.
Clayton, Colonel, Macaulay, T. B.
Curteis, H. B. Maddocks, J. F.
Davies, Colonel T. Macdonald, Sir J.
Denison, W. J. Mangles, J.
Denman, Sir T. Marjoribanks, S.
Dundas, Sir R. L. Marshall, W.
Dundas, Hon. J. Mayhew, W.
Dundas, Hon. T. Milbank, M.
Ebrington, Viscount Morpeth, Viscount
Elice, E. North, F.
Ellis, W. Nugent, Lord
Etwall, R. Ord, W.
Evans, Col. De Lacy Owen, Sir J.
Evans, W. Palmer, C. F.
Evans, W. B. Palmerston, Viscount
Ewart, W. Pendarvis, E. W. W.
Fazakerley, J. N. Penleaze, J. S.
Fellowes, H. A. W. Penhryn, E.
Ferguson, Gen. Sir R. Pepys, C. C.
Foley, Hon. T. H. Pettit, L. H.
Folkes, Sir W. Petre, Hon. E.
Fordwich, Lord Phillipps, C. M.
Fitzgerald, J. Phillips, G. R.
Glynne, Sir S. Ponsonby, Hon. J.
Godson, R. Poyntz, W. S.
Gordon, R. Price, Sir R.
Pryse, P. Johnstone, J.
Rickford, W. Kennedy, T. F.
Ridley, Sir M. W. Loch, J.
Robarts, A. W. Mackenzie, S.
Robinson, Sir G. M'Leod, R.
Rooper, J. B. Ross, H.
Rumbold, C. E. Sinclair, G.
Russell, Lord J. Stewart, E.
Russell, Sir R. G.
Russell, C. IRELAND.
Sanford, E. A. Acheson, Viscount
Schonswar, G. Belfast, Earl of
Scott, Sir E. D. Bellew, Sir P.
Sebright, Sir J. Bernard, T.
Skipwith, Sir G. Bodkin, J. J.
Smith, G. R. Boyle, Hon. J.
Smith, R. V. Brabazon, Viscount
Spencer, Hon. Capt. Brown, J.
Stanley, Lord Browne, D.
Stanley, Rt. Hn. E. G. Brownlow, C.
Stanley, E. J. Burke, Sir J.
Stephenson, H. F. Callaghan, D.
Stewart, P. M. Carew, R. S.
Strickland, G. Chapman, M. L.
Strutt, E. Clifford, Sir A.
Stuart, Lord D. Coote, Sir C. H.
Stuart, Lord P. J. Copeland, Alderman
Talbot, C. R. M. Doyle, Sir J. M.
Tennyson, C. Duncannon, Viscount
Thickness, R. Fergusson, Sir R.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. C. Fitzgibbon, Hon. R.
Thompson, P. B. French, A.
Throckmorton, R. G. Grattan, H.
Tomes, J. Grattan, J.
Torrens, Col. R. Hill, Lord G. A.
Townshend, Lord C. Hort, Sir W.
Tracey, C. H. Howard, R.
Vere, J. J. H. Hutchinson, J. H.
Villiers, T. H. Jephson, C. D. O.
Vincent, Sir F. Killeen, Lord
Waithman, Alderman King, Hon. R.
Warburton, H. Lamb, Hon. G.
Waterpark, Lord Lambert, H.
Wellesley, Hon. W. Lambert, J.
Weyland, Major R. Leader, N. P.
Whitbread, W. H. Macnamara, W.
Whitmore, W. Mullins, F.
Wilbraham, G. Musgrave, Sir R.
Wilde, T. O'Connell, D.
Wilkes, J. O'Connor, Don
Williams, Sir J. O'Ferrall, R. M.
Williams, J. O'Grady, Hon. Col. S.
Williams, W. A. Ossory, Earl of
Williamson, Sir H. Oxmantown, Lord
Wood, C. Parnell, Sir H.
Wood, Alderman Ponsonby, Hon. G.
Wrightson, W. B. Power, R.
Wrottesley, Sir J. Rice, Rt. Hon. T. S.
SCOTLAND. Russell, J.
Adam, Admiral C. Ruthven, E. S.
Agnew, Sir A. Sheil, R. L.
Dixon, J. Walker, C. A.
Fergusson, R. Wallace, T.
Gillon, W. D. Westenra, Hon. H.
Grant, Rt. Hon. C. White, Colonel H.
Haliburton, Hn. D. G. White, S.
Jeffrey, Rt. Hon. F. Wyse, T.
Johnstone, A.
List of the NOES.
ENGLAND. Pemberton, T.
Alexander, J. Perceval, S.
Ashley, Lord Phipps, Hon. Gen. E.
Ashley, Hon. H. Polhill, F.
Ashley, Hon. J. Pollington, Viscount
Astell, W. Porchester, Lord
Attwood, M. Rogers, E.
Baldwin, C. B. Rose, Rt. Hn. Sir G. H.
Bankes, G. Ross, C.
Barne, Capt. J. Ryder, Hon. G. D.
Beresford, Col. M. Sadler, M. T.
Best, Hon. W. S. Sibthorp, Col. C. W.
Brogden, J. Stormont, Viscount
Burge, W. Sugden, Sir E. B.
Burrard, G. Townshend, Hon. Col.
Chandos, Marquis Villiers, Viscount
Cholmondeley, Ld. H. Wall, C. B.
Croker, Rt. Hn. J. W. Walsh, Sir J.
Curzon, Hon. R. Wetherell, Sir C.
Cust, Hon. Col. E. Williams, T. P.
Cust, Hon. Capt. P. Wrangham, D. C.
Dick, Q. Wynne, C. W. G.
Domville, Sir C. Yorke, Captain C. P.
Douro, Marquis of Yorke, J.
Drake, T. T. SCOTLAND.
Drake, Colonel W. T. Arbuthnot, Hon. H.
East, J. B. Bruce, C. C. L.
Encombe, Viscount Clerk, Sir G.
Estcourt, T. H. S. B. Dalrymple, Sir A.
Fane, Col. J. T. Davidson, D.
Fitzroy, Hon. H. Douglas, W. R. K.
Forbes, Sir C. Dundas, R. A.
Forbes, J. Gordon, Hn. Capt. W.
Forester, Hn. G. C. W. Hay, Sir J.
Fox, S. L. Lindsay, Colonel, J.
Goulburn, Rt. Hn. H. Maitland, Hon. A.
Gordon, Col. J. Murray, Rt. Hn. Sir G.
Halse, J. Pringle, A.
Hardinge, Sir H. Scott, H. F.
Hill, Sir R. IRELAND.
Holmes, W. Archdall, General M.
Holmesdale, Viscount Bateson, Sir R.
Hope, H. T. Blaney, Hn. Capt. C.
Hope, J. T. Castlereagh, Viscount
Hotham, Lord Clements, Col. J. M.
Howard, Hon. Col. Cole, Lord
Inglis, Sir R. H. Cole, Hon. A.
Jolliffe, Col H. Conolly, Colonel
Kearsley, J. H. Cooper, E. J.
Kemmis, T. A. Corry, Hon. H. L.
Kenyon, Hon. L. Ferrand, W.
Kilderbee, S. H. Fitzgerald, Sir A.
Knight, J. L. Gordon, J. E.
Lowther, Viscount Hancock, R.
Lowther, Col. H. Hayes, Sir E.
Lowther, J. H. Ingestrie, Viscount
Maitland, Viscount Jones, T.
Mandeville, Viscount Knox, Hon. J. H.
Martin, Sir B. Lefroy, A.
Miles, P. J. Maxwell, H.
Miles, W. Meynell, Captain H.
Mount, W. Perceval, Colonel
Pearse, J. Pusey, P.
Peel, Rt. Hon. Sir R. Rochfort, Colonel G.
Peel, W. Shaw, F.
Stewart, Sir H. Hoskins, K.
Tullamore, Lord Hudson, T.
Wigram, W. Knight, H. G.
Young, J. Milton, Lord
TELLERS. Newport, Sir J.
Dawson, Rt. Hn. R. G. Thompson, Alderman
Lefroy, D. T. Walrond, B.