HC Deb 08 February 1833 vol 15 cc393-458

Lord Althorp moved the Order of the Day for the resumption of the Adjourned Debate.

Mr. Ruthven

said, it was not his intention to trouble the House at that length of which they were, perhaps, apprehensive. He should, however, fail in the duty which he owed to those by whom he was sent into that House if he did not address them. That was his sole motive, for there could be little personal pleasure in addressing them, since he could add little to what had already been said by those who had spoken on the subject of Ireland, especially to what had fallen from his hon. and learned colleague, the member for Dublin. In all that had been said by that hon. and learned Gentlemen he fully concurred, he should not, therefore, dilate on those subjects which he had so ably illustrated, but confine himself to remarks on the observations of the Gentleman who had spoken on the other side of the question. The Irish Members were charged with having brought forward this question for the purpose of attacking his Majesty's Ministers. That, however, was not the case. The King's Speech, which in reality was the speech of the Ministers, exhibited a feeling against Ireland which no honest Irishman, entertaining opinions similar to his, could hear without dissatisfaction. He did not attempt to throw disparagement upon those Gentlemen of his country who differed from him—they were, he believed, influenced by strong-feelings, and honest, but prejudiced minds, but for his Majesty's Ministers there was no excuse, they ought to look honestly and deliberately at the state of Ireland, with a view of lessening' her grievances rather than of exciting additional discontent. They knew, unfortunately, but little of that country, and they appeared to take no steps to gain correct information. How did they expect to obtain correct knowledge from avowed partizans, prejudiced Magistrates, hired policemen, and subordinate placemen, or what was worse, those who were in expectation of places. Was it to be supposed that through such polluted sources Englishmen would have anything like the plain and unvarnished truth? What could Ireland do whilst she was thus treated—what but appeal to the general consideration and calm deliberation of that House? Such, however, was far from the mode intimated by the Speech from the Throne—his Majesty's gracious Speech, he supposed it must be called. In the days of no Reform it was the fashion to bring down to that House a Speech which was supposed to be the Speech of the King, but was, in reality, that of his Ministers, and then that Speech was replied to by an Address—written, brought forward, and supported by the very men who concocted the Speech. But was this fashion to be continued in a Reformed Parliament, was it to be endured that such a system should continue? The Address was not of such a nature as the people of Ireland had a right to expect; and it seemed indeed to be the prelude of a civil war. It looked warlike, too, that it should be moved by a noble Lord in a military costume. He was not one to speak disparagingly of the character of a British officer. The noble Lord's predecessor in the representation of Perthshire, was one of whom he would always speak with respect. Sir George Murray had always spoken in terms of great kindness of the Irish nation, and he was not disposed to forget that right hon. Baronet's conduct towards Ireland. Was Ireland always to continue 4 prey to locusts, that feed upon the people's honey? The question of the Repeal of the Union was one which ought, and which must be agitated; but the Speech from the Throne seemed to put a barrier against the consideration of it. It was impossible to keep Ireland in a state of oppression, such as it had continued for so many centuries. Rather than remain in such a state, the people of Ireland would exemplify the Spanish proverb, and would have "war to the knife." They would have "war to the death." The language which had been addressed to them was not fit to be addressed to men; and he was sure it was not fit to be addressed to Irishmen. They might be convinced, but they would not be easily conquered. Ministers deceived themselves they would never be able to conquer Ireland. He trusted, however, that Ministers would make such a change in their policy in time, that "war to the death" might not be the unhappy lot of his unhappy country. Was it not a lamentable fact that the most unpopular man whom they could have made choice of in England, had been sent to govern Ireland. It was, to say the least of it, a very disrespectful thing to the Irish nation. Was such conduct a way to show their Christian feeling towards their Irish brethren? Was that the way to reconcile the differences which had prevailed in that country? What was the system pursued in Ireland? Had they not found that the Clergy had rendered themselves most unpopular by their collection of tithes? Was it not a known fact that hay, which had been seized from the farmer had been purchased for a trifle, and actually burnt before his face. Who then, he would ask, had been the cause of injury to Ireland? Why his Majesty's Ministers, who, by supporting a system which brought the Church of Ireland into contempt, placed it in array against the feelings and interests of the country. His Majesty's present Ministers, in his opinion, had done more harm to Ireland than any single Administration which had ever preceded them. They had done everything almost that was possible to bring the two countries into hostile collision, and to prolong those dissensions which had already proved so injurious to both countries. They had spoken a great deal about reforming the Church; but they had given but a poor specimen of the manner in which they intended to effect that object. Let them look to the present mode of disposing of Church patronage. The brother or brother-in-law of the Premier had been recently appointed to the see of Derry, without a view to any other consideration than his relationship. He wished to state fairly on that subject that he understood the right reverend Prelate had been appointed to that situation with an understanding that he was to be subject to any new regulations introduced relative to the Church Establishment. This intimation he looked upon as a preparatory step to a reduction of the Church Establishment, which they were told was to take place. The people, the radicals as they were called, were told that they were to have a Church Reform; it was held out to them as a boon, in order that they might the more readily concede to Ministers the powers which they sought for. He would certainly never allow the measures which Ministers contemplated for the oppression of Ireland to be passed in that House, until the people of England were made acquainted with the nature of the plan; but he would tell his Majesty's Ministers that the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act would be of no service to them in a country like Ireland. He could not place that confidence in them which would warrant him in giving such extraordinary powers into their hands. He was sorry to hear one of the house of Russell advocating such measures. After all that had been promised, he heard not one word of kindness towards Ireland uttered by any of the Ministers. Expressions, indeed, which were anything but consolatory had been applied to his hon. and learned colleague, the member for Dublin; and the Repeal of the Union had been objected to, because it would have made him the leader of the Irish Parliament. But he did not see why that should be any argument against him. It was only the more creditable to his hon. and learned colleague, if his talents enabled him to be the leader of the Irish, or of any other Parliament. He would ask why, if his hon. and learned friend possessed talents and abilities for such a situation, and had the confidence of his countrymen, should he not fill it? He wished that certain noble Lords opposite possessed equal talents and ability to fill their stations, as were possessed by his hon. and learned friend, the member for Dublin, to fill his. The right hon. member for Inverness, who last night favoured the House with his opinions on the state of Ireland, had for some time filled the office of Secretary in that country. That right hon. Gentleman had told them of the uniform kindness and regard which he felt for the Irish people, and the sympathy which he felt in their distresses, and yet he (Mr. Ruthven) had to complain that the right hon. Gentleman had never originated one kind act towards that unhappy country. Besides, it was worth remembering that after the right hon. Gentleman had quitted office, no less than 1,400 letters complaining of the distresses of Ireland were found unopened in his office. He must next allude to the punishments inflicted on persons accused of political offences, and particularly to that of Mr. Hodnet; who had been locked up at four o'clock in the day, and kept without pen, ink, or paper. He would say little of Sir George Bingham, the officer who commanded the military employed to disperse the Tithe Meeting, on account of which Mr. Hodnet was imprisoned; he wished to speak of him with respect. Many promises had been made to Ireland, but no attempt had yet been made to improve the system of Irish Juries; and, in his opinion, justice would never be properly administered, unless Jurymen were selected by ballot. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Macaulay) had talked of his hon. and learned colleague (Mr. O'Connell,) skulking from the discussion of the Repeal Question, but if such expressions were again used, the individual using them would learn a lesson which would prevent their being repeated a third time. He observed, that it was to agitation they owed Reform, and that the Ministers had themselves been agitators. They owed the Reform Bill to the votes of the members for Ireland. It was a curious way to reconcile Ireland, by letting loose the Attorney General, his devil, and his inferior imps upon her. Did the right hon. Chief Secretary suppose that the danger of complete disorganization to which Ireland was exposed could be averted by any Act of Parliament such as he intended to propose? The most laborious inquiry ought to be instituted into the state of Ireland, for the purpose of applying the best remedies to the various evils by which she was afflicted; for his Majesty's Government were bound to prove that this United Parliament was better calculated to do justice to the Irish people than an independent Irish Parliament. It was painful to observe the manner in which the House had received the statements of the condition of Ireland. For instance, he was sorry to hear the laughter occasioned by the story told the other evening by the hon. member for Knaresborough, of his having met in the coach from Liverpool to London, an Irish Protestant Clergyman, who had been compelled to leave Ireland, and take up his residence in the neighbourhood of London, in consequence of having been twice shot at in his neighbourhood.

Mr. Richards

The House laughed at me, not at the story.

Mr. Ruthven

was by no means inclined to charge the House with a want of kind feeling. Adverting to the speech which had been made last night by a right hon. Baronet who had formerly held a high situation in his Majesty's Councils, he confessed his conviction, that the greater part of that speech was calculated to be more generally beneficial, and to do that right hon. Baronet more credit than any speech which he had made while he sat on the Treasury Bench. The statements of the right hon. Baronet were greatly in favour of the Parliamentary Reform which had just been effected; for he had observed that the House was formerly divided into two contending parties—Whigs and Tories, each of which took up a kind of military position, and contended for the possession of the loaves and fishes. The right hon. Baronet now, however, described himself as an independent Member, whose duty it was to support the Crown, when, in his opinion, the Crown ought to be supported, and to defend the rights of the people when those rights were attacked. Nothing could be more laudable. The right hon. Baronet, however, fell into a mistake when he spoke of attempts being made to ruin the character of the right hon. Chief Secretary for Ireland. He denied that such an attempt was made by his hon. and learned colleague or his friends. They entertained a great respect for the talents of the right hon. Gentleman, and for the rank and large possessions of his family; but they regretted that, notwithstanding those talents, and notwithstanding the rank and property of his family, the right hon. Gentleman had adopted the doctrines which he professed—doctrines which would approximate him to the character of the Minister of a tyrant, if the Viceroy of Ireland could be a tyrant.

Mr. Fitzgerald

said: Much as I feel it my duty to my constituents not to give a silent vote on the present occasion, I should not, perhaps, at this advanced state of the debate, trespass on the time of the House, were it not for the observations which fell from the noble Lord, the member for Devonshire, last night when he fairly enough called on the Irish Members to state, in an explicit manner, what they considered the grievances of that country, and the remedies for them. I shall endeavour to do this in as concise a manner as I can; but I must first observe, that I was in hopes that the notoriety of these grievances was such that his Majesty's Ministers would have stated their determination to remove them before they called for extraordinary powers to put down the discontent and disorder naturally arising from the very existence of such grievances. If they had done so they should have had ray support, and they would have insured, I dare say, the unanimous feeling of this House, in the Address now before us. I consider, Sir, the great grievances of Ireland are to be found in the payment of the tithes, in the want of employment, and destitute state of the poor, in the mal-administration of justice in many cases, and in absenteeism. From the great bulk of the people differing in religious tenets from those of the Irish Church, the payment of tithes is generally resisted, and is looked upon as a tax so unjust in its principle, so unnatural in its operation, and so vexatious in its details, that no man who wished the contentment of a people, but would desire its extinction. But let it not be supposed I would wish it to be transferred from the parsons to the pocket of the landlord. No such thing; I would have a certain fixed rate substituted on the land, to be applied as a provision for the infirm and destitute poor, as may be arranged hereafter. As to the administration of justice I would say, that giving us the certain method of having impartial and unprejudiced Juries is the grand point, as minor details would soon follow. These, in my mind, would be the grand panacea for the great evils of Ireland, and would soon restore tranquillity to that distracted country. The noble mover of the Address has stated (and truly I am sure) his satisfaction, as a Scotch gentleman, and that of his countrymen, at their present connexion with England, and thereby he infers that we of Ireland should be equally so; but I will put it to the candour of the noble Lord to say, is the comparison a fair one, or are the people of the two countries similarly circumstanced? There is this, indeed, in common between them, that the great bulk of the inhabitants of both countries dissent from the tenets of the Church of England, whose members are thinly scattered, and who, in some districts, are not to be found at all. I wish I could push the analogy further. I would ask the noble Lord, do the Presbyterians of Scotland pay the tithe of their land to maintain the ministers of the few Episcopalians that are amongst them, or is there an enormous extent of Church lands applied to a similar purpose? He must answer both in the negative, and yet both are the case in Ireland. Again, I would ask him, does not Scotland enjoy the full benefit of the British laws? Is there one Habeas Corpus Act for England and another for Scotland? No, there is not;* it is only for unfortunate Ireland that this distinction is reserved, and of which degrading circumstance we were reminded last Session by a noble Lord high in office. Can it be wondered, therefore, that the people of Ireland are discontented? Put them on an equal footing with their fellow-subjects, as reason points out they should be, and then I will venture to say they will be as content as their good neighbours of Scotland are. And with respect to the Repeal of the Union. I will only say this, that if his Majesty's Ministers are astonished and displeased at the extraordinary rapid progress this question has made of late in Ireland, they have only to lay much of the blame to themselves, for it is beyond a doubt, that owing to their measures of late, and particularly those of the last Session, many entertained the subject that never before did so. In the first place, the Arms Bill aroused the indignation of many; then the Venue Bill, which, with some of the measures of the Executive in Ireland, * The hon. Member in this passage, labours under a slight mistake, the English Habeas Corpus Act does not extend to Scotland. The Scotch have their "Act anent Wrongous Imprisonment" which is somewhat similar to the Habeas Corpus Act, but not the same; By some Scotchmen it is preferred to the English Act. did, to my own knowledge, make many wish for a change of legislation who would not otherwise have thought of it. Why, Sir, there were two highly respectable Gentlemen of the country, with title, station, property and worth, who were deprived of their Commissions of the Peace and Deputy Lieutenancies of their respective counties, for no other offence than that they presided at a meeting to petition this House for redress of grievances. These are the kind of acts that have spread wide the wish for domestic legislation. Let the Government do justice fully and effectually; let them regain the confidence of the people, and it may stop at least its further progress, and perhaps bring back many to their former opinions. I regret being opposed to the present Government, for of their general policy I approve. I am thankful for the great improvement our Representative system has received from them. The noble Lord at its head has been the friend of public liberty, and the frank and honest assurance of the noble Chancellor of the Exchequer, that we should have the benefit of the Jury Bill, as well as his general character, entitles them so far to my gratitude. But I should not do my duty to my country if I did not also say, and I do it with every respect for the talents of the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, that I do not think he is the fittest man to hold the charge of the affairs of that country. He has been promoted, and justly I dare say, to a seat in his Majesty's Cabinet, which opens such a field for an honourable ambition, that it is natural to think he cannot give a due attention to the affairs of Ireland; and I will put it to this House if they are not of sufficient importance to call for the undivided attention of any man? The hon. member for Middlesex justly said, that the more circuitous the route was to arrive at justice, the greater the probability that the result would not be satisfactory. I am come here as a country Gentleman to support what I may conceive to be best for the general interests of the country. I care not from what side of the House such measures emanate, I will vote for them, and in like manner oppose what I may conceive to be prejudicial. I shall be glad when the measures of Government are such that I may give them my feeble support. The present is not, in my mind, of that description, and therefore I vote against it; for though I approve of a portion of the Address, I never can give my aid, but, on the contrary, must most solemnly protest against coercive measures beyond the ordinary power of the law being applied towards Ireland, or indeed to any other portion of the realm, until I see that the just and proper remedies are applied to remove the existing grievances.

Mr. John Browne

said, that he had listened with the greatest attention to all that had fallen from the opponents of the Address during the three evenings on which the House had been engaged in the discussion, but that he had heard nothing from them to induce him to give any countenance or support to the Amendment which they proposed. He could not support it, because it appeared to him that the hon. and learned member for Dublin had not laid any ground for it. The hon. and learned Member had enumerated the grievances under which Ireland laboured, but his remedies were quite insufficient. The hon. member for Waterford (Mr. Barron), who, in his excellent speech, had described the heart rending distresses of the Irish people, had also suggested a remedy which was very different from the remedy of the hon. and learned member for Dublin. The learned Gentleman urged Repeal of the Union as the specific for all Irish grievances. But the hon. member for Waterford, with greater reason, contended that the only remedy for the distress of the Irish peasant must come from the first contributions of the Irish landlord to provide for his employment and support—in a word, must come from the establishment of a system of Poor-laws. He, for one, cordially concurred with the hon. member for Waterford, and was ready to apply, as speedily as might be, a system of Poor-laws to Ireland, to which it appeared to him most extraordinary that the hon. and learned member for Dublin was opposed. It would seem, then, that there was some inconsistency among the hon. Gentlemen opposite. They all admitted the evil, but they differed as to the remedy. He certainly did not approve of coercive measures in the abstract, but there might be exceptions to this feeling. When hon. Members talked of suspending the Constitution, the House should see which party it was that had really suspended the Constitution, The people of Ireland had, he lamented to say, already suspended all that was valuable in the Constitution—the Trial by Jury—the protection that law should afford to life and property. Trial by Jury was now a mockery in that unhappy land; and all crimes, even the most obnoxious in the eyes of God and man, were left unpunished, because Trial by Jury had been made a mockery. He knew these doctrines were not palatable here, and were not likely to be favourably received; but he would never bend before the storm. He would not shrink from proclaiming himself a friend to the connexion between the two countries. And, to gain an idle popularity, he was not prepared to do that which he felt would be injurious to the best interests of his country. Those hon. Gentlemen who said that they conceived the present laws sufficient to restore tranquillity, did yet, with a signal inconsistency thus, in the same breath, protest against the constabulary force by which these laws were put in execution. He had, in circumstances of difficulty and danger, frequently acted with the police in his Magisterial capacity, and he felt it his duty to say of the police, that in the execution of the law they had acted with discretion, humanity, forbearance, and all the other virtues belonging to persons to whom powers such as they held were committed. In the county which he represented (Mayo), a system of terror and disturbance prevailed to the most dreadful extent; and the hostility was not directed, as some would insinuate, solely against the gentry; but in a still stronger degree against the poor peasant, who was honest and industrious, and obedient to the law. For a freeholder to exercise his franchise in favour of a candidate not supported by the friends of discord was a sin of the deepest dye in the eyes of those who were driving the country into rebellion. He could state one case, in which a peasant near him was, for the mode in which he voted at the late elections, so harassed, so worried with apprehensions for his life, that at night he was compelled to abandon his house, and take refuge in the woods and caverns. Some time before he (Mr. Browne) left Ireland, this man called on him, and said: "I do not know what to do. I have not got money to go to America—and I am in constant terror for my life. Last night I was obliged to sleep in the vestry-room of the Church." He could make very many statements of this kind, which would fully justify any suspension of the present mockery of the Constitution which prevailed in Ireland—for such it must be considered, when no man was protected by it' He uttered these opinions not with any view of sharing in the loaves and fishes (to use the words of an hon. Member), but because he considered that, in the present disorganised state of the country, it was the duty of every Representative to state that some strong measures must be taken to restore tranquillity. Coming, as he did, from Mayo—a county suffering under a horrible system of terror and excitement—he conceived himself bound to stand forward on the present occasion. He admitted that penal laws never would attach the people to the Constitution; but this was a general proposition; and here, it must be admitted, there was a great exception to it. Trial by Jury, and the protection to the people growing out of it, was, as he had before stated, a mere mockery. He felt that a time had come when the Legislature must interpose, and introduce strong measures, in order that they might be temporary.

Mr. Rorke

complained of the inconsistency of the members of his Majesty's Government and their supporters since they had taken their seats on the opposite benches. In England they were Reformers—in Ireland coercionists. During the recent election for the city of Dublin, they supported two Conservatives, while, at the same time, they patronised two reforming candidates for the University; and he rejoiced to say, that in both cases they received their defeat. They adopted an anti-union policy abroad. In Belgium they were anti-unionists, while they were unionists at home. Abroad they were anti-unionists even to the death—they were unionists at home even to the death. When the right hon. Secretary for Ireland pleased again to indulge in the expression of such sentiments as those to which he had given utterance the other night, he ought to reflect that he was a member of a Government which set an example of the doctrine of mediation to the rest of Europe. They were the prime mediators. They set the example of mediation to the other European states, and they knew not how soon their conduct might be followed up by their allies. The question of the Repeal of the Union had been attempted to be brought forward for discussion by the Ministers themselves. They had attempted to drag the hon. and learned member for Dublin into the arena for the discussion of that question. As it appeared to him that the question was likely to become a fashionable one, and as he had been a repealer for the last few months, he would read an extract from the speech of a noble Lord in the other House, which might have more weight than any arguments which he could use. The speech from which he was about to make a quotation was one made by Lord Byron, in the debate on Lord Donoughmore's motion for a Committee on the Roman Catholic claims, April 21, 1812. In that speech the noble Lord said: "Upon the consequence of your not acceding to the claims of the petitioners I shall not expatiate; you know them; you will feel them; and your children's children, when you are passed away. Adieu to that union, so called, as lucus a non lucendo—a union from never uniting, which, in its first operation, gave a death blow to the independence of Ireland, and in its last may be the cause of her eternal separation from this country. If it must be called a union, it is the union of the shark with his prey; the spoiler swallows up his victim and thus they become one and indivisible. Thus has Great Britain swallowed up the Parliament, the constitution, the independence of Ireland, and refuses to disgorge even a single privilege, although for the relief of her swollen and distempered body politic."* After the brilliant campaign of 1832, the army having retired to winter quarters, and the conquerors resting from their fatigues of triumph, his Majesty's Ministers came to that House to ask for new reinforcements, in the shape of coercive measures, to enable them to take the field again, and enter upon another career of glory to defeat the poor and wretched people of Ireland. He agreed with the hon. member for Middlesex that the arch-repealer was the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland. He regretted that the King's speech, in asking for new powers, had not added a few lines of an encouraging nature as regarded the future. He should have voted for the Address if the Speech had accompanied the demand for additional powers with promises of some measures of conciliation and redress. As it was, he must vote against it.

Mr. Peter

meant to vote for the Address, which he most certainly would not do, were he not convinced that measures for the redress of the grievances of Ireland * Hansard (first Series) xxxii. p. 651. would go hand in hand with unavoidable measures of coercion; but believing, on his soul and honour, that the one was as necessary to its present state as the other to its future peace, he felt himself bound to support Ministers in their intended measures. He did not form his judgment on the state of Ireland by the reports of newspapers, but on the evidence of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and the friends who surrounded him; and, in that evidence, there was enough to satisfy him of the correctness of the vote he purported to give. He was impressed with a deep sense of the wrongs of Ireland, and was prepared to go as far as any man to redress them. No honest man who knew any thing of the facts could deny that the Grand Jury system, the Vestry-cess system, and the magistracy of that country, respectively, demanded inquiry and redress. That a whole nation should be taxed for the support of a hierarchy foreign from the religion of an overwhelming majority of its inhabitants—that a half-starving peasant should be compelled to give up his tenth potato for the support of a Church he never entered—was an imposition, which, disguise or palliate it as they would, was flagrant injustice. He feared that it was too true, that the channels of justice in Ireland were poisoned at their source, and that the complaints of the frequent corrupt conduct of its Magistrates was but too well founded. He believed that the party spirit by which some of the Irish Magistrates were too often influenced, had been productive of the most mischievous consequences; that many lives were lost unnecessarily; and that if more blood was not spilled, it was much more owing to the forbearance of the military, than to the discretion of the Magistrates. It was, however, unfortunately much more easy to point out the corruptions of the magisterial system in Ireland, than to remedy them; for such was the prevalence of party influence in Ireland, that it was impossible to find persons free from the prevalent spirit of faction fitted for the magistracy, should the present corrupt holders be removed from their offices. But neither the abuses of the Church Establishment, nor those he had just alluded to constituted, as had been observed by the noble member for Devonshire and the hon. member for Banbury, the only grievance of Ireland. There were other ills, which, unless remedied, all the coercion in the world would be worse than vain. He would ask the hon. members for Ireland what was the condition of the Irish peasant? What was the amount of the wages they paid their labourers? What proportion did the numbers employed bear to the aggregate of the population? If the Irish Members were anxious to remove the discontent of their countrymen, they must earnestly apply themselves to improving their moral and physical condition; they must develope and cherish in the working poor man the hopes of a better state of existence; they must raise his standard of comfort—must teach him to respect himself, and thence the Government he lived under, by giving him a personal stake in its integrity, and a personal interest in preserving the public tranquillity. But while he admitted the existence of several serious ills and grievances in the political condition of Ireland, he begged to be understood as not for a moment concurring with the learned member for Dublin in attributing those grievances to the Government. Apart from other considerations, he would ask, how could an Administration which had been only two years in existence, be answerable for the accumulated ills of centuries? To believe the hon. and learned member for Dublin, and his party, that Administration had not even attempted to remedy the evils of Ireland, for-, with a single exception (an hon. Member, who expressed his grateful thanks to Ministers for their most praiseworthy efforts to spread the blessings of education among the Irish peasantry, without religious distinction), they all asserted that nothing had been done for Ireland. He would ask those who had attended to public events since the accession of Ministers to office, whether, all things considered, it was possible for them to do more? Let the querulists recollect the circumstances under which the present Administration had been formed, the unparalleled difficulties they had to encounter. Was it possible for them to attempt, till they had previously obtained a Reformed Parliament, with any chance of success, a Reform of the Church Establishment, however important might be that Reform to the very welfare of the Empire? The hon. Member who opened the Debate that evening had dwelt much on the benefits which had sprung to public liberty from agitation. He did not mean to deny that there were circumstances which not only justified agitation, but, as the only means of redress left, rendered it necessary; but they were extreme cases, a choice of evils, agitation being ever an evil per se. For example, agitation might have been expedient in 1782, when Mr. Grattan and Lord Charlemont extorted redress for their country's grievance at the head of 100,000 volunteers. Such, too, was the case when the learned member for Dublin, at the head of the Catholic Association, agitated till he forced from a reluctant government those political rights which had been too, too long denied the Catholics. And such might, too, have been the case when that great measure which he would ever designate as the great charter of our liberties—the Reform Bill—was in danger on its progress through the other branch of the Legislature. In all these instances agitation, though an evil, was proper, because necessary; that is, it was the only safe means left the people of obtaining redress. But did such necessity exist at present, now that they had obtained a Reformed Parliament, with a liberal Government^ he would repeat, a most liberal Government—a Government pledged to the practical redress of all grievances? With such a Parliament and such a Government, was agitation necessary? The storm which purified the atmosphere should not be the daily breath of life. Extreme remedies should be reserved for extreme cases. In saying this he did not mean to attribute all the crimes which disfigured the face of Ireland to agitation; he was aware that at all times there were persons desperate in fortune and disposition who, like smugglers in a storm, greedily took advantage of all commotion and civil confusion, in which their nefarious practices might pass unpunished. And so it was now in Ireland. But the master grievance of Ireland, and the great obstacle in the way of its political improvement, was most certainly the mischievous and unnecessary, and therefore most indefensible agitation, which had been kept up in it since the accession of the present Ministers to power. He would, therefore, beseech every hon. Member connected with that country to use his best efforts to allay the mischievous spirit; he would implore them to do so, without distinction of sect or party—Catholic and Orangeman (for unfortunately agitation was not confined to either)—to forbear, by all the motives that must be dear and sacred to the heart—by their love of their common country—to forbear their dreadful efforts to embroil it in intestine confusion. ——"Ne tanta animis assuescite bella; Neu patriæ validas in viscera vertite vires. Túque prior, tu parce. Let them at least suspend their task till they had given Ministers, who could have no interest not involving the welfare of Ireland, time to promote a fair trial. If, after trial, the measures of the Government be found inadequate as a remedy of the national grievances, let them come forward and specify, one by one, their grievances, with their plan of redress, and they might depend upon it they would not in vain appeal to a Reformed House of Commons. But let them in the mean time stay their fierce efforts at agitating a question which was essentially impracticable—at least, that could not be carried without scenes of blood which would be fatal to the well-being of both countries. Let them intrust an Administration whose past conduct was the best guarantee that additional powers would not be abused, with the necessary means of restoring the empire of the law in Ireland. They had the evidence of men of all parties, that lawlessness prevailed in Ireland; they had the evidence of common sense and experience to convince them, that till, such a state of things was at an end, it would be vain to apply remedial measures to the real grievances of Ireland. They were told on all hands, that murder was a common occurrence—that rapine and insubordination were perpetrated in open day—that jurymen could not be found to deliver honest verdicts—that the law was a dead letter—that neither rich nor poor, particularly the latter, were in a slate of security, either as respected their lives or their property. He need hardly say, that if such things should be allowed to continue, the result would be appalling anarchy. He said to the hon. and learned Member, therefore: enable Ministers to restore that respect for the law and internal tranquillity, without which there could be no remedy for the admitted ills of Ireland; and on the other hand he would say to Ministers, and to Parliament at large: let the remedy go hand in hand with the coercion, and do justice to Ireland. Alas! the good effects of justice were of slow growth; the accumulated wrongs of centuries of gross misrule could not be remedied in a single Session; but though time was necessary for a perfect cure of the ills of Ireland, he need not say that murder and rapine and lawlessness must not be permitted to stalk through the land till time had produced its fruits. No; person and property must be protected; and if additional power be intrusted to the Government for that purpose, it should be recollected it was solely ne quid detrimenii respublica caperet.

Mr. Rotch

regretted that the Irish people had been so much misled on the question of the Repeal of the Union, as they had formerly been on the Catholic question, by being assured that its settlement would extricate them from all their difficulties. The Irish were a grateful people, and he had too much confidence in his Majesty's Ministers not to believe that they would have great cause for gratitude for the measures which would be proposed for their relief. Although the speech of the nobler mover of the Address had caused some degree of irritation to the hon. members for Ireland, he thought they had done little justice to their country by allowing themselves to be led away, by a momentary irritation, so far as to forget that they were statesmen, and that they had other duties to discharge than merely to retaliate upon those whom they conceived to have offered them offence. He confessed he should have expected otherwise from Gentlemen who must have convinced every one who heard them that they were patriots, and had the interest of their country at heart—for he did not listen to the tale which was circulated out of doors, that the Members for Ireland were the mere creatures of the hon. and learned member for Dublin. He looked upon them as independent Members, sent by constituencies which were formed by that great measure which had been lately carried. The House was called upon to consider whether the additional powers demanded by his Majesty's Ministers were necessary or not. If not, it rested with the House not to grant them. He was told by an hon. Member, that there were no words in the Address to that effect. Either that hon. Gentleman or he must be in error. On referring to the Address he found this passage: "And we shall be ready to adopt such measures of salutary precaution, and to intrust to his Majesty such additional powers, as may be found necessary." Therefore he conceived that, if the House should not judge those measures necessary when they were proposed, it would rest with the House to withhold them. Putting that interpretation upon the words of the Address, he should certainly support it. Although he might, perhaps, have been better pleased if a less degree of irritation had been evinced by the noble mover of the Address, yet he must forgive him, for he could not but feel that it was impossible to consider the question of the state of Ireland as entirely unconnected with the conduct of the hon. and learned member for Dublin; and, however painful to his feelings it might be to hear personal observations made upon himself, and however painful it might be to Members at that side of the House to make such observations, yet, if the hon. and learned Member would put himself foremost in every agitation in Ireland the moment he left that House, how was it possible for him to call upon the House, not to name him when the state of Ireland was brought into consideration? In that House the learned Gentleman never once lent a helping hand to the passing or carrying into operation any measure proposed by Ministers for the relief of Ireland—no, not one. His sole occupation was prophesying evil consequences as sure to follow from the measure, be its character what it might. Yes, be the measure what it might, the learned Gentleman was sure to prophesy that it would not give satisfaction to the people of Ireland; his next step being to take care, from the moment he left that House, that no efforts should be wanting on his part to have his prophecies realized. And after thus invariably doing his best to oppose the beneficial measures of the Government, he turned round and denounced them for not having done any thing for Ireland, and the House for entertaining harsh language respecting his conduct. As the hon. Member who spoke last truly observed, the accumulated ills of centuries could not be remedied all at once; and as the learned member for Dublin was compelled, though perhaps unintentionally, to admit, that the time of public men had been, for the last two or three years—that was since the accession of the present Administration—so engaged with the Reform Bill, that no other great measure could be thought of. The learned Gentleman alleged, as an excuse for not having himself proposed some measure of relief for Ireland during the last two years, that his time was wholly occupied with the Reform Bill. If that excuse be valid, as it ought to be with him, why not extend it to those Ministers who night and day had to watch the progress of that measure, and who had to contend with an unparalleled tenacity of opposition? He regretted that so much of the time of the House had been so engrossed by that part of the King's Speech which alluded to Ireland, to the total neglect of that which referred to the Church Establishment in this country, and without any reference to the state of the English poor. He was glad, however, that the Poor-law inquiry which was instituted last Session was in progress, as he expected much benefit from its labours. With respect to the Church of England, which had been, with two exceptions, very different in tone and spirit—the speeches of the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), and of the hon. member for Middlesex (Mr. Hume)—wholly overlooked in the present Debate, the promised Reform in that institution was intimately connected with our agricultural interests. If the hon. members for Ireland were eloquent in depicting the sufferings of the Irish poor, the English Members might have rivalled them in holding up the wretchedness to be found among the English poor; but such eloquence was ill fitted for a deliberative senate. He trusted that the Reform of the Church of England pointed at in the King's Speech would be of such character as to confound its bitterest enemies with those who panted after its total subversion, and who so often vaunted that to touch the fabric was to pull it down. Let them, by their careful and anxious legislation, confound its enemies, and convince the members of the Church of England that its best friends were those who would lop off its abuses, and show that alteration was not synonymous with destruction. With respect to the question of the Repeal of the Union, all he would then say was, that he entirely subscribed to the arguments so eloquently adduced against it by the hon. member for Leeds, and that he thought them unassailable.

Colonel Torrens

rose, with great reluctance and with considerable pain, to state in a few words the reasons which rendered it impossible for him to vote for the Address. The House had been frequently told that Mr. Canning's beau ideal of a Speech from the Throne was, that it should be couched in language so indefinite and vague as to convey no meaning. On this the third night of the debate upon the Address, he began to regret that on the present occasion, the Speech had not been so framed as to realize Mr. Canning's conception of the perfection of such compositions. It was to be lamented that topics calculated to occasion so much difference of opinion had been introduced. To him it would have appeared more seemly, more becoming, more auspicious, had the Speech been so framed, that, without discussion and contention, the first Reformed Parliament, on its first meeting, might have come at once to a unanimous expression of affectionate and grateful loyalty to the first reforming monarch. However widely the different grades of reformers might differ from each other in opinion, yet surely there was one feeling common to them all—a feeling of affectionate and grateful loyalty to his gracious Majesty for the sanction and assent of the Crown to that great measure of Reform, under which, for the first time, a real Commons House of Parliament was now assembled. Though some might be of opinion that the Reform Bill had not gone far enough, while others might be disposed to say: "Thus far shall it go, and no further"—though some might regard the Reform Bill, as a machine to which additional wheels and increased momentum should be given, while others, with the right hon. the Secretary for Ireland, might contend that it was an improving but not an improve able machine, yet, amid all this difference of opinion, all real reformers must agree in this, that the Reform they had obtained was better, beyond all comparison, than the nomination system which it had superseded. However great the interval hereafter might become between the halting and the movement parties, yet up to the present time they had marched abreast and combated side by side, and now, on the consummation of their triumph, and before the final separation, might they not have paused for a moment, and united in congratulating the Throne upon the achievement of the greatest improvement in the political institutions of the country which had been effected since the days of our Saxon ancestors? He regretted that this had not been the case; and he would state as briefly as he could the reason why he could not vote for the address. Great depression and distress existed in the country, and a confident expectation was entertained that the Reformed Parliament would proceed immediately to the consideration of the means by which that distress might be relieved. Now the Address which had been proposed said nothing of the distress of the people, and made no mention of contemplated measures for their relief. For such an Address he could not vote. He feared that when the Speech from the Throne, and the Address which embodied it went forth into our great seats of industry, the deepest disappointment and dissatisfaction would be felt. He entreated Ministers to consider one important matter. The evidence given before Mr. Sadler's Committee went to establish an irresistible case. After considering that evidence, he (Colonel Torrens) was convinced that it would be imperative on Parliament to pass a "short time bill." Now, had his Majesty's Government considered the consequences which must follow a short time bill, and were they prepared with measures to meet those consequences? Humanity required that the hours of labour should be shortened; but when this was done, production would be diminished, and the important question was, where should the loss occasioned by the diminished production fall? If the manufacturer endeavoured to indemnify himself for the reduced quantity of work performed by raising the price of his goods, the consumption of his goods in the foreign market would decrease, the demand for the products of British labour would diminish, and the want of employment would inflict upon the operatives evils as great as those which the short time bill had removed. It might be said, that if prices could not be raised, the difficulty might be met by submitting to a reduction of profits. But this again was impossible, because profits were already so reduced, that any further depression would, in many instances, cause business to be suspended altogether. What, then, was to be done? Were wages to be brought down in the same proportion as the working hours were reduced? This, in the actual state of wages, would produce starvation. Here then was a great difficulty which the Legislature had to meet. Humanity demanded a short time bill, and we could not refuse to pass one; while the loss occasioned by the diminished production could not be prevented by a rise of prices, and could not, without stopping business and creating starvation, fall either upon the profits of the master or on the wages of the labourer. To escape from this difficulty, there was only one thing to be done, and that was by diminishing the cost of production, by taking off taxes, and giving cheaper food. These, and these alone, would create a margin on which your short time might safely stand; these, and these alone, would enable you to diminish the hours of toil without diminishing in the same proportion the comforts of the labourer. But to these vitally important measures the Speech from the Throne made no allusion, and therefore he (Colonel Torrens) could not vote for the Address. Before he sat down he wished to say a few words with respect to Ireland. It was impossible for him to conceive that Earl Grey and his enlightened colleagues entertained any feeling of a hostile nature towards Ireland; on the contrary, he believed them to be actuated by an anxious desire to promote the peace, happiness, and prosperity of that country. Yet, while in office, they had committed many mistakes, unintentional he was ready to admit them to be—the first, and, perhaps, the worst of which was, the mode in which the Cabinet was constituted. When the system of exclusion was pronounced to be at an end by the Legislature, why was it continued in the practice of the Government? Was it wonderful that Catholic relief had not been productive of peace and contentment in Ireland, when those very men who so earnestly and zealously contended for it had not introduced one Catholic of rank or influence into the Cabinet? They had not drawn around them men who were well acquainted with Ireland, and the necessary consequence was, they remained in ignorance of its condition. Ireland, before the Union, was partly an agricultural and partly a manufacturing country; since the Union, it had ceased to be a manufacturing, and had become an entirely agricultural country. This transition had produced the greatest distress, and had aggravated all the former miseries of Ireland. The cultivation of the soil required less labour and fewer hands than the manufacture of its produce. If one-fourth of the population of Ireland was sufficient to raise food for the whole, what were the other three-fourths to do if there existed no manufactures in the country to employ them? The hon. member for Banbury (Mr. Tancred) had proposed a remedy for this evil, and that was, the introduction of capital into Ireland; but that, instead of making matters better, would only make them worse. He broadly asserted and lie was prepared to prove the assertion, that the introduction of capital into Ireland, instead of making things better, would make them worse. No person was so absurd as to suppose that any capital, however large in amount, would be able to create manufactures in Kent and Sussex that could compete with those of Lancashire and Yorkshire. There could be no manufactures, except in places where fuel was cheap, and where they had been established by the habits of the people. Apply, then, this argument to Ireland, and the conclusion was, that while coal was cheap in Lancashire, and while Ireland was subject to the competition of England, manufactures could not be established there. If capital were introduced into that country, it must be employed in the cultivation of the soil, and the consequence would be an improved mode of cultivation, rendering less labour necessary on any given surface of ground, and increasing, in a like proportion, the unemployed surplus population. It was very true that an improved mode of cultivation would raise the value and rent of the land, and would increase the exports and imports of the country; but this, instead of being the measure of increased prosperity, would be a measure of increased misery. What, then, was the remedy for the present condition of Ireland? Some persons proposed the introduction of a system of Poor-law different from that existing in England. If any Poor-law was applied to Ireland, it must indeed be different from the English Poor-law. It must be such a modification of it as would be produced in this country supposing the whole of the manufacturers were thrown out of employ, and supported by a Poor-rate levied on the land. If the Poor-law was necessary to save the Irish from starving, they ought to have it; but he should like to know what sort of system it was to be. Was it to be one tantamount to the Spencean system of converting the country into the people's farm? Another remedy that had been proposed was to cultivate the bogs and the mountains. That would be a remedy, provided a greater quantity of food could be raised from those places than was consumed in the operation of cultivating them. A farther remedy was, to raise a wall of Custom house duties round the country. That, he admitted, would for a time, cause a portion of the surplus population to be employed in manufactures, but he would tell the Irish landlords that it would reduce the value of their estates fifty per cent. The great evil in Ireland was the large surplus population that could not be employed in manufactures. Now, there was another remedy for this evil. In Ireland there was more labour than was necessary to cultivate the soil, and in Canada and other British possessions, there were vast districts of land which could not be cultivated from the want of labour. It had been proposed, therefore, as a remedy for the evils of Ireland, that that portion of her population which could not get farms to cultivate, and which could not be employed in manufactures, should be planted on the fertile lands of the colonies, where labour was deficient and in great demand. Such were the remedies which had, at various times, been proposed, as calculated to remove the frightful evils which afflicted Ireland. He did not wish to discuss, or even to pronounce an opinion upon them. It must be plain, however, that for those evils coercion was not the appropriate remedy. In that unhappy land, there was a rebellion of the stomach, which force could not put down, and which even Church Reform and improvements in the administration of justice could not abate. These were the views, imperfectly stated and inadequately explained, which he took respecting the state and condition of the people throughout the United Kingdom; and as these views did not appear to be involved or recognized in the Address, he felt that he could not conscientiously support it. Neither would he vote for the Amendments which had been proposed. It was his object respectfully to press upon the attention of his Majesty's Ministers and of the House, principles which he deemed of vital importance to the prosperity and to the peace of the country; and it was not his object to engage in factious debate, to impede the public business, or in any way to increase the difficulties which a liberal Government had to overcome. The people were dissatisfied from long endured distress; their expectations of relief had been strong, and disappointment, or even delay, might be productive of consequences which he felt reluctant to describe. Ministers had much to do, and they had short time in which to do it: let them work while it was yet day, for the cloud, which was at first no bigger than a man's hand was beginning to spread darkness through the heavens. Let them bind up the wounds of the country before the inflammation became a deadly gangrene. The waters of discontent, which had been gathering long, were not yet let loose. Open wide the floodgates of relief before they rise, and press, and burst, and sweep away the mounds and the landmarks of our ancient institutions.

Mr. Briscoe

had determined, on the whole, to support the Address; but in doing so he could not refrain from saying that there were omissions in the Royal Speech, which, however, he trusted would be amply compensated by the labours of his Majesty's Ministers. There was no allusion in the Speech to the great grievance of Colonial Slavery, nor to those measures from which, above all, the people expected relief from their burthens, the measures for ensuring a diminished expenditure. Neither was there in the Speech any expression of sympathy with the distress of the people of this realm, and for those privations which it was the hard lot of the lower classes and of some of the middle classes to endure. He hoped that the promise in the Speech to remove the causes of complaint included the introduction of improvements. He had been assured by the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it was the intention of the Government to redress the wrongs of Ireland; and were it not for the statement in the Speech, that the Church of Ireland should receive a separate consideration, he could not have supported the Address. If coercion should ultimately be proved to be absolutely necessary, he should reserve to himself the right of judging of the amount of that coercion, of the manner in which it was to be applied, and of the time for which it was to continue; and as he was satisfied on these points he would vote. He considered the suspension of the ordinary administration of justice as one of the greatest political evils, and as one which should not be resorted to but in the extremity of danger, and to stay the dissolution of the frame-work of society. He should give his support to the Address only from the confidence he placed in the Ministers that they were determined to redress the wrongs of much-injured Ireland; and he was convinced that if that was honestly and effectually done, many of those who now called for the Repeal of the Union, would no longer agitate that question.

Mr. O'Dwyer

said, that the Speech of the hon. and learned member for Knaresborough was the most extraordinary that had been delivered during the debate. The hon. Member had deprecated the personalities that had occurred during the debate, and the whole Speech of the hon. Member was distinguished by the expression of the most arrogant personalities that had been interchanged on either side of the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman had assumed to himself a duty rather novel in that House; he was the corrector of manners and the teacher of elocution; the hon. Member quarrelled with the politics of some hon. Members from Ireland, with the manners of others, and the elocution of all. The hon. Member had been unsparing of his vituperation of the hon. and learned member for Dublin. Probably it would surprise the hon. and learned member for Knaresborough to be informed that, in the course of his agitating career, the hon. member for Dublin had been subject to the attacks of many antagonists not inferior in power even to the hon. member for Knaresborough, and still, as the House could bear witness, the member for Dublin survived the assaults, and, to all appearance, disregarded them. He could assure the hon. Member, and the Government which that hon. Member supported, that the more violently his hon. and learned friend was attacked, the more he rose in the estimation of the people of Ireland. The hon. Member had charged his hon. and learned friend with being difficult to be satisfied. Truly, he was difficult to be satisfied. They had passed an Insurrection Act, and they now proposed to pass a Gagging Act; and yet his hon. and learned friend was so unreasonable as not to be contented. His hon. and learned friend was also charged with agitation—agitation, which the hon. member for Bodmin had admitted might be very proper under certain circumstances. What circumstances were they? He supposed he should be told, that when a Whig Ministry were about to be dismissed from office, and the Tories likely to resume power, when the nobles and bishops of the country were insulted, and when their towns were in the hands of incendiaries, then agitation was proper enough; but it was to be deprecated and denounced when the people were oppressed by misgovernment. He would not pretend to follow through all his details the right hon. Baronet, who, in his Speech against the Repeal of the Union last night, had displayed all the ingenuity of an accomplished rhetorician; he would only congratulate his Majesty's Ministers upon the unexpected ally they had found in that right hon. Baronet. To some of them the assistance of such an ally might be a ground of triumph, but to one of them, at least, he thought that it would prove anything but a subject of joy. Indeed, he could not but offer his commiseration to the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, when he saw him writhing under the eulogies of the right hon. Baronet. The scene of last night reminded him of an expression of Racine, who said of some tyrant, "that he always embraced those whom he wanted to destroy." The right hon. Baronet had called upon the right hon. Secretary to say whether he would preserve or destroy the Church of Ireland. If the right hon. Secretary should answer, that he would preserve it, then the ill-assorted alliance between them might last a little longer; but if he should reply, as he ought, that he would destroy the present system, then, in spite of his last night's eulogy, the right hon. Baronet would exercise all his energies to destroy him. The right hon. Baronet had described, in melancholy terms, the situation of Ireland before the Union, and so, too, had the hon. and learned member for Leeds, who had said, "that up to that period, Ireland had been nothing more than the bonds maid of England." He would not himself pretend to describe the situation of Ireland when she possessed an independent legislature of her own, but he would give them a description of it in the words of a distinguished individual, who was now a colleague of the right hon. Secretary in the Government of Ireland, but who then opposed the Union with all the weight of his powerful abilities. That "learned individual described Ireland as a little island with 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 of inhabitants, hardy, quiet, and enthusiastic, possessed of all the means of agriculture and commerce, enjoying laws well-arranged and well-administered, a revenue constantly increasing, manufactures thriving beyond all former example, and advancing to prosperity with a rapidity astonishing to herself." This was the language of Mr. Plunkett in 1799—of that Mr. Plunkett who was now the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. It was inconvenient that the written letter should remain, for it showed the rapidity with which a patriot bursting with heroic rage could change into a placeman all tranquillity. The right hon. Baronet had asked why should England have an interest adverse to Ireland? He, too, asked why?—asserting, however, at the same time, that England had ever been the oppressor of his country. Did the right hon. Baronet want any authority to prove that England always made the interest of Ireland subsidiary to her own? He would give the right hon. Baronet authority, which he, at least, must deem conclusive—he would give him the authority of Mr. Pitt, who, on bringing forward his sixteen commercial propositions, had declared that Ireland had always been subsidiary to the opulence of England. What, he would ask, was the reason which had induced the right hon. Baronet to give his support to an Administration which he had uniformly opposed ever since he had resigned office? Would the right hon. Baronet mention any point of agreement between himself and the present Government except one? The right hon. Baronet quarrelled with the foreign relations of the Government, and could not approve of the domestic policy. The right hon. Baronet reprobated the treatment of Portugal, and execrated the settlement of the Dutch question. The right hon. Baronet deplored the absence of all fiscal information in his Majesty's Speech, and, above all, he lamented the fruits that the measure of Reform had produced. Upon what subject then was there a sympathy of feeling, and a concurrence of action, between the right hon. Baronet and the Secretary for Ireland? He would explain the terms of the monstrous coalition between the right hon. Gentlemen—differing on every other point, as widely as the poles, they agreed cordially in a treaty to maintain the Church Establishment, and to oppress and degrade wretched, unhappy, misgoverned Ireland. [No.] He (Mr. O'Dwyer) would say yes; this alone was the basis of the treaty. He did not wish to accuse the right hon. Baronet of inconsistency, but he wondered how the right hon. Baronet, with his peculiar sentiments, could agree to an Address expressive of his firm reliance that the negotiations now commenced with Holland would be conducted with the single view of ensuring to Holland and Belgium a separate existence. By what authority, he would ask, did those who conducted those negotiations presume to interfere in the affairs of Holland? How could they support the revolutionists of Brussels against their legitimate sovereign, and yet threaten the people of Ireland with a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, because they sought, not a separate existence from England, but a federal Union with it, still retaining full allegiance to the King of Great Britain? With regard to any alteration in the mode of administering the Church property in England, he frankly admitted that he would have nothing to do with it. It was a mere matter of taste whether Gentlemen liked it or not. If English Gentlemen liked an expensive Church Establishment, in God's name let them have it. He would not complain of their having it in England, but he protested against their continuing a similar Establishment in Ireland. In the name of the people of Ireland he called upon them to get rid of it, and destroy the system. In saying this, he wished it to be understood that he was not devoid of sympathy for the Protestant clergy. He thought that the present incumbents ought to be provided for. He lamented exceedingly their present state of destitution; but he would ask the right hon. Secretary, was all the sympathy of the House to be bestowed upon them, and none of it upon the suffering people of Ireland? He should perhaps excite the sympathy of the House by reading an abstract which he had received from a professional friend of his, of the decrees which had been granted at a single Quarter Sessions in Tipperary, against the people, for tithes. The hon. Member then read the document, from which it appeared that two men had been processed for a penny—that, at the Quarter Sessions, they had produced a receipt for that sum, and that, in consequence, the complaint had been dismissed, but without costs. It also appeared that for a sum of 5½d., there had been eleven decrees issued against as many different persons. Would the House, after that heart-rending statement, give unexplained, undefined, and unlimited powers to a Government which could institute in one year 9,551 processes like those? Why were they instituted at all?—why, but to provide for the connexions of a Tory Attorney General, appointed under a Whig Ministry? He felt grateful to the House for its attention; he was unwilling to be tedious; but he would not permit any inappropriate feeling of diffidence to prevent him from giving the strongest expression to his feelings on this most important occasion. Hon. Members, and Ministers themselves, had taunted hon. Members at his side of the House with an unwillingness to bring forward specifically the question of the Repeal of the Union. Bring forward the question forsooth! To what good purpose could that tend—he repeated, what good purpose could it answer, in the present state of feeling in that House, where every hon. Member had expressed his determination to resist all argument, to suppress all discussion, and to seal, if necessary, the parchment bond that now united the countries with an incrustation of Irish blood? The right hon. Baronet, who had given his support to a fractional part of the Address to his Majesty, recommended the exercise of unmitigated severity—these were the words. The right hon. Secretary cried war to the knife, or to the death, or expressed his meaning by some such truculent figure. The right hon. Secretary, further inverting the order of good Government, had declared, that the Government should be feared before it was loved. A noble Lord, an ardent supporter of his Majesty's Ministers, declared his preference of civil war to a Repeal of an Act of Parliament, whilst the noble Paymaster of the Forces spoke of the necessity of appointing responsible agents in the establishment of a system of terror. The hon. and learned member for Banbury recommended the appointment of a Military Dictatorship in Ireland; and in return for this suggestion, proceeding from one who should have better understood the Constitution, he would recommend that the hon. and learned Member should be appointed to the Chancellorship under the proposed stratocracy, or he much feared that the military propensities of the hon. and learned Member might interfere, in this free country, with the forensic elevation to which no doubt his eminent abilities entitled him. Ministers, after their expressions of unchangeable opinion, after their adjurations, after their threats, turned round upon Irish Members, and demanded to know why they did not introduce a discussion that must be unsuccessful in its object. If the Cabinet should determine to act upon the principles thus publicly avowed by themselves and their supporters, the consequences would be fatal, not only to themselves, but also to the empire. Charles 10th had called for war to the death against the people of Paris. So, too, had the king of Holland called for war to the death against the people of Brussels. What had been the result? He need not inform them. Let him caution the right hon. Secretary against repeating the same cry, for the people of England would not sanction, and the people of Ireland would despise it.

Mr. Stanley

[interrupting the hon. Member]: I am too much in the habit of having my expressions misrepresented to be surprised at what has just, occurred. However often those misrepresentations may be explained, however often they may be refuted, they are still repeated, until I am almost tempted to believe that those who repeat them absolutely believe that they heard me make use of the expressions on which they have placed their own misconstructions. Though I have been much used, too much used, to this practice, I cannot allow myself to remain silent under the present charge; and I here assert that I never used the expression which the hon. Gentleman has attributed to me—that I never called either for war to the knife, or for war to the death. It may be very convenient to publish in the Irish newspapers—it may be very convenient to repeat in harangues in Ireland—that the Secretary for Ireland is a person who has threatened the people of that country with war to the knife, or with war to the death. Therefore here, before all the assembled Representatives of England, Scotland, and Ireland, who heard what I did say, I repeat again that I never made use of the expression which the hon. Member has attributed to me. What I did say was this—that considering, as I did, the Repeal of the Legislative Union between the two countries to be equivalent to the dismemberment and destruction of the empire, I would, if need were, resist it to the death.

Mr. O' Dwyer

then continued: "I make the right hon. Secretary a present of his explanation. Probably it may proceed from the obtuseness of my Hibernian intellect; but I cannot understand the distinction which the right hon. Secretary has drawn. I take the right hon. Secretary upon his own words, and I tell him that his experiments in despotism may not succeed. Coming as I do from a country of oppression, where no one can speak the truth—[Laughter.] Admirable Englishmen! courteous and compassionate, too, when the relation of despotic aggressions upon the liberty of the subject is interrupted unfairly and uncandidly, for the purpose of indulging in a silly pleasantry that the words did not justify. It is a pleasure to know and to feel that I can regard with complacency both the ridicule which is attempted to be cast upon my country, and the laughter which is excited by the interruption. The indulging in a horse laugh here may be considered as an act of courtesy; but if it occurred in the course of an argument between two individuals, at least in Ireland, it would be treated in a manner that could admit of no misconception. I was about to say, that no man dared to speak, that no printer dared to publish the truth, respecting the atrocities and oppressions exercised by Ministers in my country. There are now a greater number of prosecutions for libel than there were even when the right hon. Baronet was at the head of affairs." [A Member: There were none under Sir Robert Peel.] Mr. O'Dwyer was glad to be reminded that there were none then. He wished that the right hon. Baronet would forego the pleasures of English society, and come amongst the people of Ireland once more, for he could assure him that any change would be deemed better than the continuance of the present Secretary in Ireland. He warned that right hon. Secretary that his experiments in despotism might fail. He would tell the Thraso-like statesmen of the right hon. Secretary's school, that in the Rebellion of 1798 (and no man could deplore that Rebellion more than he did), a single county in Ireland engaged all the disposable force of the English Cabinet. He would tell them, not in menace, but in friendly warning, that the conclusion of the struggle with the people of Ireland, if the people of Ireland should be driven by oppression to the melancholy necessity of a struggle, might not be so happy as they could wish.

Dr. Lushington

and several other Members rose together. Having caught the Speaker's eye, the learned Gentleman proceeded to say, that he deeply regretted the tone and temper which had pervaded a considerable part of the present debate. He regretted that the Irish Members thought fit to hold out the language of intimidation to the English portion of the House. It would produce but one effect—it would induce the English Members to look with suspicion at, instead of lending their support to any proposition coming from that body of Gentlemen. He regretted that the hon. Member who had just sat down spoke with so much vituperation of his Majesty's Government, and particularly of his right hon. friend, the Secretary for Ireland. As to his Majesty's Government, such observations could have little effect on it, and that kind of vituperation was amongst the last of those things which his right hon. friend had to dread. The hon. Member used one expression, which struck particularly on his (Dr. Lushington's) ear—he spoke of destroying the Protestant Church in Ireland. What did the hon. Member mean by that expression? Did he intend to adhere to it?

Mr. O'Dwyer

rose to explain. When he spoke of interference with the Church, he meant only with its temporalities.

Dr. Lushington

resumed. The explanation of the hon. Member was not more satisfactory than his original declaration. However anxious hon. Members might be to correct irregularities, and purify the Church—and no Member was more anxious than he (Dr. Lushington) to effect those objects—yet he had thought that every Member in that House was bound by a solemn obligation to uphold the Established Church. He had hoped that the Oath taken by the Catholic Members on entering that House made a deep impression on their minds. With the leave of the House he should read the Oath taken by Catholics. It was as follows: "I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure, any intention of subverting the present Church Establishment, as settled by law." He would read the conclusion of the Oath, which was, "and I do solemnly, and in the presence of God, declare, that I make this declaration in the plain and ordinary sense of the words, without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatsoever." [Loud cries of "hear, hear," from Mr. O'Connell.] If the hon. and learned member for Dublin, supposed that by his ejaculations he should disturb him (Dr. Lushington)— if the hon. and learned Member imagined, for a single instant, that he could intimidate him from the straight course which his duty, as he conceived, pointed out—if the hon. and learned Member supposed that he could be prime agitator in that House—or if he thought, that the character which he assumed in Ireland could be assumed by him, even with the support of a petty minority, in that House—the hon. and learned Member was grievously mistaken. He repeated, that when the hon. Gentleman (Mr. O'Dwyer) asked the question, "Are you for supporting or destroying the Church?" he (Dr. Lushiugton) felt in his conscience the greatest possible wish to reconcile the interrogatory with the solemn obligation he had read. Others might be more ingenious in defining the scope and extent of the obligation of the Oath; but betook the plain and intelligible meaning of it to be, that those who entered the House would never lend themselves to any attempt to weaken or destroy the Protestant Establishment. Although he (Dr. Lushington) was an advocate for the Reform of the Church, and for the remedy of its abuses, yet he was determined, as far as his own humble endeavours would go, to maintain it inviolate even unto the end. As to the prosecutions for tithes mentioned by the hon. Member, they were instituted in pursuance of a general process into which Government had been forced; and with regard to costs, he might be permitted to state, that the Attorney and Solicitor General for Ireland had refused to receive a shilling in the shape of fees. There was no Gentleman in the House who could not bear testimony to the fact, that during the whole of the discussion which had taken place on the present question, there had not been the slightest attempt made to deny the existence of disturbance in Ireland—in fact, the admission was unanimous, that the country was in a condition scarcely habitable; there was, therefore, no other conclusion to be arrived at than this, that instant means must be adopted for the protection of person and property. The question, then, which the House had to decide was, was the proper remedy to be, under such circumstances, resorted to? On the one side, they heard the often repeated cry of "do justice"—but unless the grievous, the calamitous system which desolated Ireland, were, in the first instance, suppressed, no approach could be made towards that measure of justice which, on the one side, was so loudly demanded, and which, certainly, on the other, was not refused. For himself, he had always upon the subject of Irish affairs been a follower of Mr. Grattan, and he found that that distinguished man had, on different occasions, expressed sentiments which, if applied to the present posture of affairs, would be an exertion of the soundest political wisdom. In the year 1808, what was the language of that great man? He said, "In pity to Ireland, arm the Government with powers to save the unhappy people of that country from each other—in humanity, save the lives and properties of the unoffending portion of his Majesty's subjects in that country." He had not the slightest hesitation in saying, that he, for one, should not have been found amongst the supporters of the Address, if he had seen the slightest reason to think that any measures were contemplated towards Ireland of greater severity than were absolutely necessary for the repression of disturbance, and accompanied at the same time with such measures of conciliation, and such a meed of justice, as the necessities of the country and the suggestions of an enlarged humanity and a wise policy might recommend. The Ministers did, in truth, deserve the confidence which they sought at the hands of the Irish Members—first, on account of their professions towards Ireland during a long series of years, when they were totally powerless; and, secondly, because their whole conduct since they had been in office proved, that they had no desire to abandon those professions. Having said thus much upon the subject of Irish affairs, he should make one remark on another topic of the Address—namely, that which had reference to our foreign relations. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) who spoke last night, said, with respect to the affairs of Holland and Belgium, that he should not at that time express his opinion of the conduct of Government with respect to those states; he should follow the example of the right hon. Baronet, because there were no documents before the House by which he was enabled to form a correct and comprehensive judgment. The right hon. Baronet had, however, made an observation, the truth of which he considered it to be his duty to deny. He had stated, that in his opinion, the embargo which had been put on the Dutch vessels was an illegal act. Now, in his (Dr. Lushington's) opinion, the embargo was strictly legal. The right hon. Baronet had supported his view of the case by stating, that Holland had committed no act towards England by which England could be justified in laying an embargo on Dutch vessels, nor was that country in a position to sanction the act. Now he (Dr. Lushington) maintained, that on various former occasions, this country had resorted to that measure under circumstances which were not widely dissimilar from those of the present case; and a judgment of Lord Stowell, wherein that learned civilian declared, that losses of this kind—meaning losses sustained in consequence of an embargo-were frequently caused by the acts of nations, without any immediate hostilities having passed between them. He could quote other instances in support of this view of the case—that, namely, of the embargo on Prussian vessels in 1806; the only words of the Order in Council, in justification of which, were a declaration that, "Whereas, Prussia having invaded the dominions of the Elector of Hanover"—and no man would pretend to say, that the invasion of Hanover by Prussia formed a more cogent reason for England to lay the same embargo on Prussian vessels, than for her to lay an embargo on Dutch vessels, under the circumstances in which that measure had been lately enforced. He must be suffered to say a word or two with respect to the affairs of Portugal before he sat down. The right hon. Baronet asked last night, why the Government had not thought proper to recognize Don Miguel, who, said the right hon. Baronet, had been for five years on the throne of Portugal? Now, two of those five years the present Government had been in office; and the preceding three years of the period had been passed under the Ministry of the right hon. Baronet; he was at a loss, therefore, to understand why a Ministry which had been established for the shorter period of two years, was to be placed under different obligations towards a foreign state to those which were incurred by the Ministry which had preceded them. But he would also ask, were five years to be the utmost limit to which a delay in acknowledging the sovereignty of a state was to be extended? How many years elapsed before Mr. Canning acknowledged the independence of the South American States? Why should a preference be given to Don Miguel? He would rather say, that when once the sovereignty of a state was acknowledged, whether it was the most absolute despotism or the most unlimited democracy, if either were established firmly, no other state had a right to question the people as to the manner in which they had chosen to be ruled. But he did deny that, because a Government was disposed to be peculiarly despotic, and because Don Miguel had chosen to break through all established rules of conduct, and to deceive all parties by unmeaning protestations, the right hon. Baronet had any right to call upon the Ministers to recognize him as an independent prince. Approving of the Address, he wished to add, that he came into Parliament determined to advocate every judicious reform. He knew that something final was called for, but he could not say that such a term was applicable to any measure—not even to the Reform Bill; for though he was at present disposed to see how the right of voting as at present established was suited to the wants of the people, and though he was disposed to set his face against the cry for Universal Suffrage, yet he could not say, after the experience he had had of the wishes of the people, that if any proposition were brought forward in that House to establish the Vote by Ballot, he could conscientiously refuse to give his vote in favour of it. Let not the House proceed in legislation so as to have to undo one year what was done in the preceding; but let them take those subjects which were the most important, and, after thorough and patient investigation, settle them in a manner that would render the settlement least likely to be disturbed. But, above all, it was necessary for them to lay open the abuses to which they were to apply remedies to their very roots; for they might be assured by experience, that unless that were done, it was but a waste of time to endeavour to apply a partial remedy to an evil which was only partially exposed.

Mr. Walter

said, that he could not allow himself to give a silent vote, though he should not trespass long on the attention of the House. Not with standing the number of topics contained in his Majesty's Speech, the debate had almost wholly turned upon a single topic—namely, the Union with Ireland, On that head all he should then say was, that he cordially agreed with the sentiment expressed in the Speech; he should ever oppose a separation of the two countries, and every idea of difference between the people who inhabited them. With respect to the original Motion of the noble Lord, the most interesting, but also the most perplexing part of it related to Ireland. The state of that country demanded the most speedy and earnest attention; and they were now to decide whether that attention could be bestowed most beneficially by adopting the course suggested by the hon. member for Dublin, or by proceeding—so far as they could, under existing circumstances—by the usual method of replying to the Speech, and then entering, with the utmost promptitude, upon the consideration of the proper remedies to be applied for the removal of those evils, which every body must admit to exist. It had been said, that the Speech was couched in too strong terms of menace against the disturbers of the public peace in Ireland. He contended that menaces were justly employed against the violators of the law, mingled with assurances of the redress of wrongs, and relief of suffering. On this subject of suffering, he was more strongly impressed by what had fallen on the first night from the member for Knaresborough, than by anything that had been said on the other side about political degradation, and the partial administration of justice. Want of employment, and starvation, which was the consequence, were sufficient to account for the substantial evils which affected the happiness of the Irish people; and he hoped that due provision for the poor would be among the remedies that were to be applied. He was far from wishing to impute a desire for agitation to any individual; a population so destitute as the Irish peasantry were admitted to be, would always be ready for the commission of crime, and would never want a leader. Having given this explanation, and hoping that effectual measures would be adopted by the Government, he should support the original Motion. Having said thus much concerning Ireland, he hoped he might be permitted to say a few words respecting England. He wished for the adoption of every measure of real reform, as anxiously as any one; he wished for the relief of the middle and industrious classes of society; and, as a means, for a revised system of taxation. He thought this was a subject of such importance that it might well have formed one of the topics of the Speech. Notwithstanding the pressure of taxation, which was so strongly felt every where, and particularly of the Assessed-taxes, the agents of the Tax-office had of late displayed a most mischievous alacrity, by which, however, little was gained to the revenue, but much ill-humour had been engendered against the Government. He indulged the firm belief, however, that the same spirit in the Ministry which had given birth to the Reform Bill, and had carried it on to such a happy conclusion, would unite with the spirit of that House, and enable them to carry every measure of practical reform that would relieve the existing distress, and place the people in a state of comfort. All their grievances, however, had not been the growth of a single day, neither could the cure of them be effected by too hasty measures. He expressed himself sorry for any appearance of division between the friends of Reform and those Ministers who had already done so much, and by whom it was to be hoped so many other important measures of Reform would be carried in a constitutional manner.

Mr. Maurice O'Connell

deprecated the extreme severity which the hon. and learned member for the Tower Hamlets had displayed towards the hon. member for Drogheda (Mr. O'Dwyer), who, as a young Member of that House, was entitled to some degree of lenity. When the power of the hon. and learned member for Dublin to agitate was complained of, let it be remembered that he derived that power from an act of the Government, and could be deprived of it only by taking away the causes in which it originated. The accusation which had been brought against the hon. member for Drogheda, with respect to the Oath of Allegiance, was not a new one; the right hon. Secretary for Ireland brought it forward last Session against the hon. member for Tipperary (Mr. Shell) during the debate on the Tithe Bill. For his own part he denied any intention to subvert the Protestant Church of Ireland as by law established, but he claimed, as a legislator from the sister kingdom, the right to interfere, in common with every Protestant Member, in the settlement of the temporalities of the Irish Church, Was the present the first occasion on which the Church Establishment in Ireland had been brought before both Houses of Parliament? Was not the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets, who contended that the King was bound by his Coronation Oath to protect the Establishment of the Protestant Church, bound by the Acts of the Parliament to consent to such changes as were thereby resolved on? And the right hon. Secretary for Ireland had, therefore, no right last Session to twit the hon. member for Tipperary with a breach of conscience. He might refer the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets to the Oath of Supremacy, which he took on entering that House, and ask him how he, who had ventured to twit Catholic Members with a breach of conscience by mentally violating the oath which they took to maintain the Protestant Church—he who was one of the Ecclesiastical Judges of the kingdom—he who was one of the authorities on the canon law—how could he reconcile it to his conscience to swear, on coming into the House, that no foreign Prelate, or Priest, should possess any spiritual power in the kingdom? Did the hon. and learned Member mean to swear that no foreign Prelate had spiritual power within this realm? for if so, the hon. and learned Member must be one of the most ignorant of men. The hon. Member might explain this inconsistency away; he might split hairs upon the intricacies of the canon law, but take the words of the Oath of Supremacy in their ordinary sense, and no one could deny that the hon. Member committed to the full as great—aye, and a greater violation of an oath—a breach of conscience, as that of which he had accused the hon. and learned member for Dublin. He and those he acted with had, throughout the discussion on the Reform question, given the utmost credit to the promises and assurances of his Majesty's Ministers, and even assented to postpone the consideration of their own country and its justly-founded complaints, in order to let the measure of Reform be carried, and the rights and independence of Englishmen be secured, trusting that those of Ireland would, in their turn, be secured also. But what had been the result? What the return made by those Ministers in whom they so reposed their confidence? Had not the right hon. Secretary promised that there should be an extinction of tithes, or that tithes—for he would not dispute as to the precise phrase—should be extinguished?

Mr. Stanley

wished to explain what he had then stated; and he reminded them that the expression fell from him in answer to a question from a right hon. Gentleman not now in Parliament (Mr. Croker), whether the Government intended to extinguish tithe, or to effect an alteration in the mode of collecting tithe. His (Mr. Stanley's) answer applied to the system.—["No, no," from Mr. O'Connell and others]. He would repeat that it did so, and he then said, they intended that the measure should not be confined to the alteration of the mode of collecting tithe, but that it was intended to effect, by the measure they had in view, the extinction of the system of tithes; the extinction, he would repeat it, of the system of tithes, always to be coupled with, or to be accompanied by a commutation of tithes.*

Mr. Maurice O'Connell

resumed, by observing that he had often thought that it would be most desirable that, to the usual oaths taken by Members, another should be added, that they would use expressions in the ordinary sense attached by people in general to such expressions. He could not see the propriety of the use of the word extinction in the instance alluded to, if it was to mean that the receipt of the tithe was merely to be shifted from one to another, from a tithe-proctor to a tax-collector. He would, after this specimen of the shifting of words from their obvious meaning, to suit an occasion, and avoid a consequence not foreseen, ask the hon. and learned civilian, member for the Tower Hamlets, what confidence could those, who like him were interested so deeply in the promise of the extinction of tithes, ever repose in that right hon. Gentleman, or the Ministry, of which he formed a part? When it was recollected that the right hon. Gentleman had taken a twelvemonth to think how he should explain away that positive assurance, what confidence could any man place in his words? Since then what had the right hon. Gentleman done in Ireland, as to the extinction of tithes? Why, he had sent the Attorney General on an ambulatory circuit, to enforce the tithes of 1831, and in ten cases at Clonnel, * See Hansard's Parl. Debates (Third Series) Vol. x. p. 322. that Attorney-General had obtained decrees against the poor peasants there, for the value of one halfpenny each, making altogether 5d. to the fund thus extorted, by process of law, from the poor. But it was all of a piece; had not he promised, or his colleagues for him, that there was to be a remission of the taxes on knowledge, in order to permit its diffusion ail over the Empire? And how had he followed this up? Why, by un-precedentedly numerous indictments for libel. The editor of the Tipperary Free Press, had even been persecuted by him so relentlessly, that for one alleged libel he had been arrested three times in one day! To show what that right hon. Gentleman dared to do with expected impunity in Ireland, and the different mode of treating political publications in this country and in Ireland, he would allude to a well-known circumstance. The House would recollect a letter, not long since written by the hon. and learned member for Dublin to the people of Ireland. That letter no printer in Ireland would dare to publish, until it had appeared in all the London papers, without drawing down any prosecution by Government. But no sooner did they, encouraged by seeing this impunity, publish it in the Irish papers, than within forty-eight hours the right hon. Gentleman commenced prosecuting those printers in Ireland. what confidence could be reposed in such men after this conduct? The Repealers were not to be driven from their high ground, by either the right hon. Gentleman, or his hon. friend the member for Leeds—by the extempore invective of the one, or the prepared impromptu of the other. The hon. Member concluded his speech by a reference to calculations of returns of imports and exports, founded on official values, which were but imperfect proofs, in his opinion, of the prosperity or condition of any country. It was clear, he said, that unless such tables were accompanied by some accounts of the number of the people, and the mode in which the commodities spoken of were distributed amongst them, the mere enumeration of quantities might lead to the most fallacious conclusions.

Mr. Shaw

said, that it was with the utmost reluctance he took part in that debate. For the three preceding nights he had not attempted nor intended it; and on the night before he had voted against the adjournment. He was very conscious of the unreasonable proportion of time that had been already consumed by the members from Ireland; and so far from agreeing in their complaints, that a fair share of attention was not paid to the concerns of that part of the United Kingdom, he was bound to acknowledge, that so far as his experience went, in this, as well as in the last two Parliaments, he had uniformly observed that Irish subjects, and Irish Members were treated with the greatest courtesy, attention, and kindness. He was, therefore, the more anxious to evince his respect for the House, by not suffering the minds of hon. Members who were personally unacquainted with Ireland to be abused by the unjust statements which the Irish Members around him had made with respect to the condition of that country, and the aspersions which they had cast upon individuals and classes of persons, wholly undeserving of them. This feeling alone had induced him to rise. He was happy in being able to agree in the general tenor of his Majesty's Speech. There were passages in it relating to the Church which were not altogether satisfactory to him—particularly where "a separate consideration" was spoken of with regard to the Church in Ireland. Were he to put upon those words the construction sought to be given by some hon. Members unconnected with his Majesty's Ministers, who had spoken on the other side of the House, he should be constrained to oppose the Address; but while he held himself perfectly free as to the course he might feel it his duty to take upon any particular measures which might be introduced respecting the Church, and considered that, in law, as well as in all their essential interests, the Established Church of England and Ireland were perfectly identical; yet, as he had confidence in the long and openly declared sentiments of the right hon. Secretary as to Church property—and that confidence was rather increased by the observations of those connected with the Government made in that House and elsewhere since the delivery of his Majesty's Speech—he was willing for the present to infer from the expression of "a separate consideration" no more than the peculiar circumstances, and a difference in the statute law as regarded the collections of the revenues, and other matters of detail in the respective branches of the Established Church might render convenient. And he so fully concurred in that important portion of the Speech from the Throne, which stated that the disturbances of Ireland had greatly increased—that the spirit of insubordination and violence had risen to the most fearful height, rendering life and property insecure, defying the authority of the law, and threatening the most fatal consequences if not speedily and effectually repressed—that while he could not hold Ministers blameless as to the cause of those evils, yet if it was then their determination vigorously to redress them, he was happy to find himself at liberty in that respect to give them his independent support. Upon the question of the increase of crime—of the alarming state of outrage and insubordination in Ireland, they were all agreed. It did not indeed admit of a doubt, but the right hon. Secretary and the hon. and learned member for Dublin, were at issue as to the cause; the right hon. Gentleman, attributing the present state of that country to the agitation of the hon. and learned Member, while the hon. and learned Member ascribed it all to the misgovernment of the present Administration. Now he neither entirely differed from, nor altogether concurred with, either. That agitation was the proximate cause, he had no hesitation in declaring; but that could not sufficiently account for the great increase of crime and disturbance which had taken place within the last two years—for it was but justice to the hon. and learned member for Dublin to say, that he had been as great an agitator for the last ten years as for the last two. The real cause was, that he had acquired great additional power to agitate. He did not wish to speak harshly or intemperately of the measures of his Majesty's Government as regarded Ireland; if he had done so during the last Parliament it was because he had, at the time, foreseen and predicted the consequences which he humbly thought had since arisen; but, to use the mildest language, it seemed to him a mistaken policy towards a country circumstanced as that was, to increase the spirit of democracy—to take influence from the scale of property, and place it in the already preponderating one of population—and thus, by pouring fresh causes of excitement upon an over-excited and too ardent people, to invest with an almost despotic sway over them those who were accustomed to agitate and misdirect their passions. However, the evil was admitted to exist even by the hon. and learned member for Dublin himself, and the urgent and important consideration was, not how it was caused, but in what way it could be remedied. The hon. Member said: "Do justice to Ireland." So said he, but then arose the question—what, in the critical and alarming condition of that country, was doing justice? The hon. and learned Member produced to that House a long list of plausible grievances, and would persuade hon. Members who heard him there, that if those were redressed, he would cease to agitate—but it did so happen, that the hon. and learned Member sometimes spoke out of that House; and having said a few words upon the grievances relied upon by the hon. and learned Member, he would take leave to recal to his recollection the remedies for those various grievances, which he had proposed within the last few weeks, in a kind of anticipatory Irish Parliament, for which the hon. Member had issued writs, and which he had held in Dublin. First, the hon. Member impeached the magistracy of Ireland. It was not for him to say, that every individual amongst them was impeccable; but he did not hesitate to affirm that they were upon the whole a most valuable, active, and upright magistracy; and this was the more remarkable when the peculiar circumstances of Ireland were borne in mind, especially the circumstance that there were few resident gentry in Ireland as compared to England [cheers]. He understood that cheer; it had reference to absenteeism, which he as much deplored as any of those Gentlemen who cheered; but he thought it not very consistent that the hon. and learned member for Dublin and his followers in that House and out of it, should, in words, clamour for absentees to become residents, while, by their acts, they forced residents to become absentees. The hon. Member's next attack was upon the Bench and officers of justice in Ireland. In the case of the magistracy, the hon. Gentleman's charges being, as usual, vague and indefinite, it was not easy to grapple with them in detail, and he (Mr. Shaw) was therefore obliged to give them a mere general answer. But as to the Irish Judges, he knew them individually and personally, and he was bold to declare that there did not, nor could there exist a purer, a nobler, or more incorruptible body of men. The only specific accusation the hon. and learned Member brought against them was unsustained by fact. He said, that although they were independent in respect of their salaries and the tenures of their office, yet that they were bribed by having sons and relatives provided for in the way of patronage. This he would take upon himself to deny, and he challenged the hon. Member to the proof; with the exception of the Lord Chancellor, he could not call to mind a single instance of an Irish Judge who had sons or relations provided for by Government, and, as regarded the Lord Chancellor, the case was inapplicable to the assertion, for it was made with reference to the independence of the Judges, and all knew that the Chancellor was not independent, but that he was removable at the pleasure of the Crown. Neither was he making any complaint in that respect against the Lord Chancellor; it was not unnatural that he should provide for the members of his own family; and though they were politically opposed to him, he (Mr. Shaw) believed them to be all very competent to perform the duties of the offices they held. The truth was, that the hon. and learned Member was jealous of all authority in Ireland but his own—and the whole head and front of the Judges' offending was, that they would not suffer the law to be violated, nor its authority to be set at defiance with impunity. They were not to be mocked by the flimsy sophistry of the doctrine of "passive resistance." A passive resistance would always be sufficient to interrupt the plain exercise of a right; but it would be brought to the test of its real tendency, when that right came to be enforced by the appropriate remedy the law provided; and in that way was it that the exhortations of Roman Catholic priests and agitators in Ireland of "passive resistance" to legal rights, when legal remedies came to be applied, resulted in one general scene of outrage and bloodshed. The House would then perhaps allow him to call their attention to a sample of the sort of inconsiderate and unmerited attacks that were made there against individuals, no matter how high their characters, or in what consideration they were held by those really acquainted with them—to a charge brought the night before by the hon. member for Middlesex (Mr. Hume), against one of the most eminent men in Ireland—he alluded to Baron Penne-father. He owned, that he felt much indignation when he heard it, and the hon. Member must pardon him if he showed too much warmth in repelling it. First, he would put it to every hon. Member connected with Ireland in that House, let his party or politics be what they might, whether there ever sat upon a bench of justice an abler Judge, a profounder lawyer, or a more incorruptible man than Baron Penne father. The breath of suspicion never dared to rest upon him, and yet the hon. member for Middlesex, knowing (he, Mr. Shaw, solemnly declared) as little what was the decision that Judge had made, or what were the grounds upon which he made it, as the post by which the hon. Member always sat—denounced that upright and enlightened Judge for corruption, and as deserving of impeachment, for calmly deciding a question of new light construction upon an Act of Parliament, according to the best of his judgment. The hon. Member thought the decision was, that non-resident freemen should vote in cities, towns, and boroughs; but it was no such thing. The decision was, that they received that right in counties of cities, and counties of towns, as distinguished from cities and towns, that were not counties in themselves; and the grounds of the decision were, that the words, "counties of cities and counties of towns" were omitted from the clause of the Reform Act—an extremely obscure one, by the way, in many points, which took away the rights of nonresident freemen; both classes of places having been mentioned in a preceding part of the Act. He was not now discussing whether the opinion was right or wrong; but was it not a monstrous thing, that, because one of the best-informed and most experienced Judges in the United Kingdom gave it as his deliberate opinion that words which operated in the nature of a penal enactment should not be extended beyond their express import, he was to be held up in the British House of Commons as an object of scorn and contempt; and the House to be told by the hon. member for Middlesex, that to have such a Judge upon the Bench was enough to justify all the outrage and insubordination which was prevailing in Ireland at that moment. To return to the grievances of the hon. and learned member (Mr. O'Connell); he (Mr. O'Connell) assured the House that if these were redressed he would no longer continue to agitate. Let them pause for a moment, and he would inform them from speeches made by the hon. Member within the last few weeks, what was the redress which alone would satisfy him. He complained of the Magistrates of Ireland—and he had told his Irish hearers that they must be altogether discarded, and in their stead he was to appoint what he termed "pacificators." One, a Mr. Steele, had already received his credentials, as Pacificator General, he believed, from the hon. and learned Member—an apostle of his own, brought up at the feet of the great agitator. This gentleman was sent forth with a sort of travelling commission, to supersede the Magistracy, and pacify the country. Next, as to Jurors, these were to give place to what the hon. Member called "arbitrators,"—officers to be elected by the very class of persons amongst whom crime was most prevalent, and then to try them. And who did the House think were to assist those newly created and strangely chosen Jurors, in the capacity of Judges? Not, of course, the present Irish Judges, whom the hon. Member so much reviled—no! But the hon. Member would have them regulated and assisted by the Roman Catholic priesthood. The police and constabulary were to be altogether got rid of, and the "armed volunteers" of the hon. and learned Member to keep the peace. The hon. and learned Member complained of the present police being armed in Ireland [hear]. If that cheer had proceeded from English Members it would not have surprised him; but little did they know the extraordinary difference between an English and an Irish populace. The hon. member for Dublin asked, why not let the Irish police constable be armed as the English, with his constable's staff alone? He would tell him; because in England the symbol of legal authority at once attained respect for the land; whereas, with pain and sorrow he must bear that testimony against his poor deluded countrymen—in Ireland it would, in nine cases out of ten, where disturbance prevailed, serve but as the signal of destruction to the man who bore it, unless he was also armed in his own defence. So much, then, for the charges of the hon. Member as related to the administration of justice. Next, as to his intended distribution of property and liberty of person, he declared, "that no man should have two estates in different countries; they would oblige them either to remain in Ireland or to sell their estates;" and be (Mr. Shaw) had that morning cut out of a Dublin newspaper, high in favour of the hon. Member, a letter as to what would be the probable terms of sale in such cases. The letter ran thus;—'The Sun newspaper says, if tithes were abolished, the country rid of the locusts which feed and devour the produce of the soil, the magistracy reformed, the grand jury laws remodelled, and a thousand etceteras—that then Ireland would no longer bellow for a Repeal of the Union; but let me tell The Sun they never were more astray in their conclusion—allow me to give you ray plain ideas as to the question of Repeal—one instance will answer for all Ireland's bane. The Marquess of Lansdown receives something about 40,000l. a-year out of this unfortunate country (an excellent landlord no doubt), all of which he spends in England without leaving a shilling towards our taxes. Will an English Parliament put a tax of 75l. per cent on that property, (for no less will do the business) and let him only receive 25l. instead of 100l.?' These, then, and many other projects of a similar kind, constituted, as openly avowed by himself, the sort of Irish justice, which the hon. and learned Member would have Englishmen to do towards Ireland. The hon. and learned Member having given this definition of justice in Ireland, next told hon. Members in that House, that the Irish Catholics were generally armed, and that they would not lay their arms down until "justice" was done to them. If it was such "justice" as he demanded, when that was granted it little mattered whether they laid them down or not, for where was the man possessing one particle of spirit or love of real freedom, who would not rather at once perish by the bayonet or the bullet, than subject his property, his liberty, and his life to the mad tyranny of an ignorant and deluded democracy, and the torturing inquisition of a Roman Catholic priesthood in the full plenitude of absolute power. The hon. and learned Member further assured the House, that if all he called "justice" were done to Ireland by an Imperial Parliament, he would cease to agitate, but some of his last words to Ireland, made at a public meeting within the last fortnight were these: "There is but one way to stop me in my career of agitation, and that is, by allowing me to put my foot across the threshold of the House of Commons in College-green, and permitting me to take my seat in an Irish Parliament." If then, he (Mr. Shaw) had persuaded the House that no reasonable concessions, that no attempts at conciliation, could satisfy the demands of the hon. and learned member for Dublin's "justice", and through his means repress the crimes of Ireland, they must turn to other remedies. The hon. member for Drogheda (Mr. O'Dwyer) cried out: "Destroy the Protestant Church Establishment, nothing else will satisfy me." He wished not to speak with unnecessary harshness of a young and inexperienced Member of that House, but he trusted that the salutary severity with which the learned Gentleman opposite (Dr. Lushington) had referred the hon. member for Drogheda to the oath which he had taken within the last few days, would not be lost on him and others similarly circumstanced. He was sorry to hear murmurs of disapprobation from hon. Members who sat near him, when the hon. and learned Gentleman (Dr. Lushington) was putting the plain and common sense interpretation of the words that they had sworn, before them. He lamented the absence of a noble lord (Lord Killeen) from that House, in whose mind, he understood, these words had always borne their obvious and literal meaning; and if such a construction were to be put upon them by those hon. Members who had taken the oath, and to be tolerated by that House, as that an avowed intention to destroy that Church was consistent with a solemn abjuration of all intention to "subvert" it, then he for one would consider that it would better consist with the honour and dignity of the House altogether to abolish the oath as worse than useless. He now came, on his part, to demand real justice for his unhappy country. The hon. member for Colchester, and some other English Members, asked how it appeared that insubordination was general, or that the law required additional powers? It might be sufficient to refer to the long and fearful catalogue of crimes brought forward by the right hon. Secretary, and to the undisputed fact stated by him as the gravamen of his complaint—that no juror could convict a criminal without rendering his own property and life insecure, and that those who acquitted them were made the objects of popular gratitude and applause; but the case was abundantly proved by the evidence of those who had spoken against it. The hon. member for Water-ford (Mr. Barron) had proved that he, even a Roman Catholic gentleman, was not free from the effects of the general system of insubordination which pervaded his neighbourhood, and that he was ordered, under penalty of his place being made a scene of blood, to discharge, within five days, a steward from his employment, because that person was a Scotchman. Did not this clearly prove that the ordinary laws were suspended under a system of terror—not exclusive in its operation, but extending to persons of all religions and all politics? And surely it was not sought that the remedy should be exclusive either, but one affording protection and security to all the peaceable and well-disposed inhabitants of the country. The occurrence which that hon. Member brought under the attention of the House, in his own case, might, however, afford that hon. Gentleman (who he believed had encouraged agitation when it served his own purpose) a useful lesson, as, indeed, it might also to persons in still higher quarters—that it was easier to set a wheel in motion than to stop it—that it was one thing to create a power, and another to control it. So, in the very humorous picture which the hon. and learned member for Tipperary (Mr. Shell) had drawn of a large body of military attending the sale of a pig—very comical, no doubt, when comically told—but still proving to demonstration this simple proposition as to the state of the country, that even that pig could not be sold in the ordinary course of the law without the presence of a large body of military. Likewise with respect to the 10,000 processes for tithe at one sessions mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, and the 9,000 others referred to by the hon. member for Drogheda, many for very small sums indeed. But what did the very smallness of those sums, mentioned in order to bring the law into disrespect, prove?—why, not the inability of the various persons processed to pay them, but their unwillingness to do so, arising from an obstinate determination to resist a legal payment, and a wide-spread conspiracy against the law of the land. As to the general state of insubordination and violence in which a great portion of the south and west of Ireland were at that moment, it would harrow the feelings of the House were he to detail to them half the facts within his own knowledge to sustain the statements in the Address bearing upon that subject. His hon. friend, the member for Mayo (Mr. Browne), had given his testimony from personal and local knowledge of the facts he laid before them—he read but a few of the letters of a single post—the current intelligence of the day, to prove it beyond controversy. One of them stated: 'The state of the country is daily becoming worse; a brutal murder was committed on Friday night, in the county of Waterford; an old man was dragged from his bed, and because he refused to swear to give up two acres of land, his brains were blown out before his door.' Another was from a clergyman, who, after describing the state of the country to be such, that the properties of the clergy had ceased to be thought of, and that their lives alone were now the object, be continued: 'Though our county is placed under the Peace-preservation Act, and that we have several stipendiary Magistrates, with a large body of constabulary, who are out every night scouring the country, but can effect little, as the moment they leave their barracks notice is given, by placing bundles of lighted straw on poles along their line of march, so that they return home after a fatiguing and useless search, laughed at by the people, who become the more daring, from every unsuccessful attempt made to redress their outrages or discover their haunts. Scarcely a house in this neighbourhood has escaped without an attack; mine was visited by a large party a few nights since; but not finding any fire-arms they departed without doing me any personal injury: in fact, it is impossible to conceive the horrors of our situation, and God only knows where all will end.' He had also received that day a letter from an intimate friend of his own, a clergyman advanced in life, and who for thirty years had lived on the happiest terms both with his Protestant and Roman Catholic parishioners—but a few months ago he had been obliged to leave his family and his home in consequence of some information he had given with regard to a murder that had occurred in his neighbourhood. Being anxious to see his family, even for a day, he had gone with that view to Liverpool, but as he was about to embark there within the last few days, he was met by a letter from his daughter, entreating him to stay away, and adding, that much as they longed to see him, they would not for twenty thousand pounds, (although he left them living on potatoes and milk) that he ventured for one hour to his home, as for that hour his life would not be safe. He knew hundreds of cases of clergymen who had sold their books, their furniture, taken their children from school, had been forced to let the insurances on their lives drop, and had no resource left; who were literally exemplifying the description of "not being able to dig, and being ashamed to beg"—they were too high-minded to complain, and many of them hid their sorrows in their own bosoms, and those of their suffering families. Yet these were the men who were maligned as persecutors and covetous. He did not say, that they were without the faults of human nature; but it was cruel to trample on them in their present state of destitution and misery; and while he grieved that so many of the Irish Members followed that course, he must, in candour to those of the Roman Catholic Religion, allow that the hon. member for Meath (Mr. Grattan) exceeded them all in the bitterness of his invective against the clergy of his own persuasion. It was scarcely necessary to refute these calumnies; but, even within the last week, he had read the second Report of the Lords' Committee on tithes, which stated, "that it appears, from the concurrent testimony of the witnesses examined, that the demands of the clergy, both as to the amount and the strictness with which they have been enforced, have been generally characterized by great moderation." The gentry of the disturbed parts of Ireland were not in a much better condition, and he felt that, returned as he was, to that House, he had some little right to speak on their behalf. The fact was, that the relations of society were suspended, and the elements of civilization seemed resolving themselves into the wildest disorder. Gentlemen could not go out to dine with their neighbours, and in their own houses I dined with fire-arms on the table; when they went out of their houses their families watched with breathless anxiety for their return; they were in hourly danger of the mid-day murderer and the nightly burglar and assassin. That state of things could not continue; it was more than human nature could endure—Men inured to risk, and long accustomed to brave it, though in a much less degree, unwilling to forsake their post of duty, might bear it somewhat longer; but he verily believed that in innumerable cases, the wives and families of those persons would, at that moment, gladly exchange the demesnes and the mansions associated with their earliest and happiest recollections, and where they had hoped to spend their lives in safety—for the peaceful habitation of the humblest peasant in Great Britain. Could those hon. Members who dissented deny the fact? He (Mr. Shaw) happily did not live in a disturbed part of the country—but from the experience of his own household he would say, that for many months, each morning as the post arrived, the members of his family opened their letters with trembling haste, to learn of their relatives, their friends, and acquaintances, whether their habitations were safe and they all alive. One morning's post brought him a letter from a friend, informing him that he should see him the following day, and the coach by which he was to have travelled conveyed the intelligence of his having been murdered as he was driving to meet it, on the public road in broad day light; his head was so battered with stones, that his friends could not recognise it! And this savage deed was committed in the presence of many persons. Hundreds soon collected in a sort of fiendish triumph, and not one of them could be found to give evidence against the murderers. He would appeal then to the just feelings of the British nation, now said to be more than ever represented there, to do justice to his distracted country. Was it not justice to put down by every means necessary for the purpose the outrageous violators of the peace?—to stay the hand of murder—to punish the guilty, and protect the innocent? The blood of many an unoffending victim of the present disorganized state of society in Ireland cried to them for justice. The loyal and faithful subjects of the King called aloud to them for justice—to save them from the petty tyrants who surrounded them—and who would force them to be the perpetrators, on pain of their becoming the objects, of their savage wickedness. He would lay aside all party spirit; his desire was to allay every feeling of rancour and acerbity, and to submit to the calm sense, the good feeling, and the uprightness of English gentlemen, the case of the gentry and the poor Protestants of Ireland. A slender thread now held them to that country—but it was the same which connected Ireland with these countries. It might be easy to get rid of that little band—and, (continued the hon. Member)—"if with them you could for ever part with their ill-fated country, God knows I should not wonder at your willingness to do so; but you cannot. Ireland must ever be to you a source of either good or evil—of strength or of weakness—it must either supply you with some of the principles of vitality, or expose you to mortal danger. To the utmost do I concur with the gracious words of his Majesty, that the Union of the two countries—the Union of their Legislatures—the Union of their Churches—and the Union of all their interests—is indissolubly connected with the peace, the security, and the welfare of his Majesty's dominions." He begged pardon of the House for the long trespass he had made upon them; he thanked them for their great kindness and attention; assured them of his willingness to redress all real grievances, and reform abuses where they were proved to exist. But, in reference to the present state of Ireland, he would conclude by impressing upon them this obvious truth—that when a house was on fire it was not the time to enter into an angry and tedious discussion upon the cause of the conflagration. The common interest, and the plain duty of all was, first to extinguish it.

Mr. Walker

did not mean to deny, that excesses had been committed in Ireland, and that the law must be put in vigorous execution in order to suppress them. The difference between himself and the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last was, that he considered the existing law was sufficient for the purpose, and that that hon. Gentleman wanted a vigour beyond the law to be exerted. But, because excesses were committed, were they to surrender the Constitution? As the Union did exist, let the Irish have its benefits—let them be treated like British subjects, and not outlawed. Because there were miscreants in Ireland, was every Irishman to be put out of the pale of the law? And was Trial by Jury to be abolished? The hon. and learned member for Dublin University had drawn a moving picture of the excesses committed against innocent persons, but he had not said one word with regard to those oppressions which had driven the people to madness. He had not said one word about the excesses committed by the police, who shot human beings as if they were so many dogs. He (Mr. Walker) knew the Irish people well, and would never be afraid to trust himself among them. Though a Protestant, he apprehended no danger whatever from his countrymen. On the contrary, he would rely upon them to the last moment of his existence. There were, however, certain men who arrogated to themselves the merit of exclusive loyalty—men who alone claimed the designation of Protestants; and to them, he would say, the evil was to be mainly attributed. What was the conduct of those landlords who were called "Conservatives?" Did they not threaten to eject men from their tenures, because they had dared to prove themselves honest—because they had dared to return liberal men to that House? It was only since they had been guilty of these outrages against liberty, that they had become so fearful of the peasantry—only since they had turned out tenants for doing what the Reform Bill gave them a right to do, that Protestant landlords had become afraid. He had been astonished to hear the hon. and learned Member praise the clergy for their moderation, when so many instances of most grinding oppression on their parts might be brought forward. It was true the sum sued for might be sometimes only 2d. or 3d. but it must be borne in mind that it was wrung from widows and orphans—from men with nothing but the potatoes I from only a quarter of an acre of ground wherewith to support themselves and families. Some Gentlemen appeared to wonder at the dislike of the people for the police; but it was natural. The peasantry did not object to regular soldiers, who did their duty without any reference to the religion of parties; but they objected to the police force, because it was composed of Orangemen, with hardly a Catholic in it. The Returns upon this subject were most scandalously got up. The Inspector-general of Police, in sending round forms to be filled up by the chief constables, directed them to fill up all the particulars, truly, except that relating to the religion of the policemen, which he would fill up himself. He knew the truth of this, for the chief constable of the town he represented having fled, the papers of the officer had come under his inspection. They were carried off by some friends of the chief constable; and in conjunction with two other Magistrates, he had issued a warrant for their recovery. A part was recovered, but the rest were burnt. The House might imagine, from this, under what kind of system the police was constituted. He would now state some particulars of its conduct. Directly a man was arrested, although it were for the most trifling offence, he was put into handcuffs so tight, that the hands swelled in a manner which rendered it impossible for the poor victim to use them for weeks afterwards. A policeman was brought to trial, at the Assizes near him, for having shot a man. It appeared that he went in the night to arrest a man; he broke open the door of the house, and directly he had done so, a naked man started out and ran. The policeman asked if that was the man, levelled his piece at him, and shot him dead, by the light of the moon, as he was getting over a stile. The man, it was true, was charged with a rape; but there was no charge of which persons were more frequently acquitted in Ireland: and at any rate, the policeman had no right to shoot him. Judge Moore thought the act of the policeman murder; the Jury found him guilty; but he was reprieved, pardoned, and was, he supposed, a policeman to this day. The next case he would mention, was that of a man who was, with others, turned out of a public-house in which he had been drinking. He reentered; upon which the police made a prisoner of him, and he was carried away. He found means to escape into a house, which the police, however, broke into. In the mean time, the mob collected out of doors and threw some stones, upon which the Serjeant of the police said, he would shoot some of them, and then they would be quiet. He did, accordingly, shoot a man who happened to be passing at the moment, and who was eating a pennyworth of bread which he had just bought. Bills of indictment were sent up to the Grand Jury and were ignored. He begged of the Grand Jury not to give the people a handle to say that they were trampled upon without any opportunity of obtaining redress. He could not explain what passed in the Grand Jury room; but he had no hesitation in saying, that he believed the reason was, lest two Magistrates, who were on the Grand Jury, should receive a lecture. The man was not even turned out of the police, nor was he even reduced to the ranks. [Mr. Stanley: When, when?] He said he had no wish to cast unmerited imputations upon the present Ministers, and he had, therefore, no hesitation in saying that it was before they took office. Still his argument went to show the necessity of remodelling the police; and if the present Government, in the face of such facts, would not do it, he trusted that that House would force them. Though he acquitted Ministers of these things, yet he could not avoid execrating some of the measures proposed. The third case was that of a man who was returning from a funeral, which was also attended by two policemen. A dispute arose, unprovoked on the part of the unfortunate man, and he was beaten very cruelly by them. His hat was knocked off, and when at last they were willing to let him go, he asked to be allowed to take his hat, which was behind the policemen. They crossed their bayonets to prevent him, whereupon two of his friends came up, One of whom attempted to pass the policemen to get the hat. The Serjeant immediately drove his bayonet into his back and out through his breast. [Mr. Stanley: When?] He was not impeaching the present Ministers; he was only showing why it was, that the police were disliked by the people, and exemplifying the nature of the oppressions which pressed upon the people in consequence of the constitution of the police force. An inquest was held, and the Jury returned a verdict of murder, but the coroner refused to issue his warrant for the apprehension of the murderer; and when the Magistrates were subsequently applied to, they also refused to issue warrants against him. He had no objection to name the Magistrates. One of them was a friend of his own, the reverend Richard Inch. The other, he believed, was Mr. Wm. Bolton. Application was made to the Court of King's Bench, and in consequence of that application, a bill of indictment was preferred and found for murder, but the Grand Jury found the bill against the wrong man—they found the bill against the man who did not commit the murder, and threw the bill out against the man who did commit it. He imagined that this was a mistake—but at all events, on the trial, all the facts were proved except that of identity; and when the witness was asked to identify the party he said: "No, that is not the man at all; there is the man who did it in the lower end of the dock." He immediately said to the Officers of the Crown: "Surely you will not suffer the real offender thus identified to escape?" But escape he did—and not only that, but he was still retained in the police, and was most likely now committing murders elsewhere. In addition to this, the police were obliged to subscribe one day's pay each to enable him to employ counsel, and the Government, after his acquittal, refunded to them this money. He mentioned this, because a Judge at the trial of the Carrickshock affair, had found fault with the country people for subscribing to fee counsel for the accused. If, therefore, it was blameable on the part of the people to do so, how much more so must it have been on the part of the Government. He thanked the House for the patience with which they had heard him, and should trespass no further on their attention.

Mr. Fergus O'Connor

could not, representing, as he did, the largest county in Ireland, refrain from offering a few observations on that occasion. The hon. and learned member for the University of Dublin appeared to have the greatest sympathy for the distressed condition of the clergy of Ireland; but he appeared to have so far exhausted his benevolent and humane feelings towards them, that he had none left for the suffering peasantry. They had heard the facts stated by the hon. member for Wexford, in reply to the hon. member for the University; and he would ask them if they could consent to arm the most unpopular Government that had ever existed in Ireland with such powers as appeared to be contemplated? They were told by certain Members that the clergy were under the necessity of selling their carriages and horses, and other luxuries in order to buy food; but those Members never told them of the manner in which the last blanket was stripped from the widow and the orphan. The hon. member for Wexford had been stating circumstances which had taken place prior to the present Ministry taking office: but he could say that he had recently prosecuted a chief constable of police. 'The charge against him was, that he had, without any authority, proceeded to arrest a man. Upon getting to the man's house, he asked for a light, but there was no candle or five, or even a fire place in the house, in which, however, a new-married couple had retired to rest. He ordered the men to fire. They did so; and one of the balls went very near the young people. He then handcuffed the man, and took him away. All these facts had been proved before the Magistrates; and it had also been proved that the policeman was tipsy; but the Magistrates, six in number, declared the charge to be frivolous and vexatious, and discharged the culprit. He mentioned the circumstance to Mr. Miller, of the police, who transmitted the case to the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, with an opinion that a new investigation should take place; but he had, at that time, received no answer from the right hon. Secretary, and did not expect that his opinion would be adopted. Add to all this the case of Kanturk. The fact was, that when the police were accused, the Magistrates always sympathized, and were willing to go bail for them; and yet these men, who had drunk of the very lees of faction, were those who were now to be intrusted with additional powers. In the county which he represented, there had not been recently a single outrage, except those of which the police had been the occasion. He trusted that they would exercise the greatest caution before they went the length of arming the worst description of men—the gentry of Ireland—with additional power. They had already driven the people of Ireland to madness, and now they were feeling the reaction resulting from their own conduct. They had waited for two years for redress of grievances from the present Ministry; and he would ask if they were to wait for ever, or for what indefinite period they were to wait? There was sympathy for the Pole when he rose against his great northern oppressor. He was a hero, as was also the Belgian; but the Irishman who rose against oppression was stigmatized as a traitor. If it was not to be a Union, the sooner it was severed the better. The right hon. Secretary for Ireland had Stated that he would rather expose himself to be bayoneted or pistoled than agree to the Repeal of the Union; but he (Mr. O'Connor), rather than see his country oppressed, would expose himself to pistols, guns, bayonets, or blunderbusses. The House might proceed to heap additional oppression on Ireland; but he would tell the House that it did not know how soon the application of arbitrary measures, of the same strength, might be made to the people of England. He conjured them, rather than coerce the people of Ireland, to redress their grievances, and by that means alone could the Legislature render them contented and tranquil. The Session was not far advanced—the Ballot remained to be introduced—the Assessed Taxes to be repealed—Triennial Parliaments to be restored, all these were before the House, and it would have Ireland also, unless it did justice, continually before it.

Captain York

said, that the arguments urged by the hon. Member who had just sat down were the precise cause of his rising to address the House. That hon. Gentleman said, there were a variety of Motions to be brought forward which, alone, would occupy Parliament for a year; and these Motions were of such a description that they tended to overwhelm the Constitution. At such a moment, when a feeling was abroad likely to excite the public mind, he thought it his duty to support the Government, in order to strengthen the Administration; but he by no means pledged himself to the approval of all the sentiments contained in the Address. Looking to the foreign policy of Ministers, he could not agree with them. As to that part also which related to the Irish Church, anything tending to separate Irish Protestant interests from English Protestant interests should never meet with support from him. He was sent, by a large and respectable constituency, a free, unshackled Member to Parliament; and he should best consult their feelings and his own when he supported law and order, and on every occasion strengthened the Administration when it was oppressed by hon. Members of principles similar to those held by the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken.

Mr. Emerson Tennant

said, it was with extreme reluctance he rose on this occasion, but his duty as an Irish Representative would not allow him to give a silent support to the original Motion. A complaint had been made, that Ministers did not detail the Measures intended for the relief of Ireland; but the contrary was the fact, for the King's Speech not only contained a recommendation to reform the abuses of the Church—to correct the vicious system of tithes—but that these measures should be accompanied with such others as might be deemed beneficial to Ireland. He denied therefore, that the King's Speech was the meagre, barren document it was represented to be. When Ministers, at the time they required additional powers, announced that they were to be brought forward in conjunction with salutary measures, he did not think that the former could be said to be rashly and mischievously conceded. The hon. member for Kilkenny asserted that the Ulster Representatives were Conservatives, and prepared to pass over, on the first opportunity, to the ranks arrayed against Ministers; but this was a mistake. He (Mr. Tennant) amidst a northern Protestant constituency (Belfast) had avowed his intention—and the announcement was received with applause—of aiding, with all his energies, in the thorough reform of the abuses of the Church. His resolution, however, was to amend, not destroy, and that by securing two great objects—the relief of a wretched oppressed people, and the rescue of a meritorious clergy from destruction and misery. He was not a Conservative: the numerous and enlightened constituency that sent him to the House, knew that the present anomalous condition of Ireland was a barrier to all improvement. As to the Repeal of the Union, he could declare that the northern and eastern parts of Ulster regarded it with the deepest detestation. It was viewed as no more than a means of continuing agitation when all others had failed, or as the instrument of extorting new concessions. The people of Ulster saw the necessity of Reform in every branch of the State; but they did not propose as a remedy for existing evils a chimerical and impracticable project.

The House divided on Mr. O'Connell's Amendment: Ayes 40; Noes 428; Majority 388.

Mr. Tennyson

then said, that the people of Ireland were looking anxiously towards the Reformed Parliament for some measures of relief, and he thought the House was bound to give them some assurance, that their expectations would not be disappointed, and that a favourable disposition existed in the House towards that much oppressed people. After the statement, however, made by several hon. Members, he was afraid the condition of Ireland would be found such, that, in mercy to the people of that country, it might be right to strengthen, for a period, the Executive authority. It would, however, in his opinion, be expedient for the House to show distinctly, upon the face of their Address, that this would depend upon the facts disclosed to a Parliamentary Committee. It would also be just that the Reformed House of Commons, to which Ireland had been looking with intense anxiety for a redress of her grievances, should express a determination to investigate and redress them. He had a perfect reliance upon the intentions of his Majesty and of his Ministers; but the House of Commons ought to assume a position and language of their own; and justify, by the first act of their existence, that confidence which the people of Ireland were inclined to repose in the Reformed Legislature. Every Gentleman who had spoken had shown a disposition to institute such an inquiry, and it must be instituted. Why then should they not soothe the excited feelings of that distracted country by expressing this, and by such an assurance qualify the probable infliction of those extraordinary powers which were demanded? He was quite certain it would do much to soften the irritation which existed. With regard to the Repeal of the Union he had stated his own disposition to maintain it. But they were upon this and every other question bound to keep their doors open to the petittons of the people, and not to pledge themselves so as to preclude them from deciding all matters brought before them upon their real merits. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) and other hon. Members had said, they should be ready to do so whenever the question of Repeal might be brought forward, but how could they remain free and unpledged so as to come to a conscientious conclusion, when they should have concurred in this Address? If the House determined to preclude all fair discussion upon the subject, they would increase the disorders, to repress which, extraordinary powers were now called for; whereas if this Reformed House should really show a disposition to hear any case which might be made in favour of Repeal, and after fairly discussing it on its merits, should decide against it, they would be likely to set the matter at rest. Thus, at the same time that the language of his Amendment would assure his Majesty of their readiness to assist him in maintaining the Union against all lawless attempts to dissolve it, or to disturb the peace of the country, their assurances of a determination to apply themselves to remedy existing evils, and to hear patiently and decide upon its merits every subject legitimately submitted to their consideration, would be more consistent with their own constitutional duty, and would tend to soften instead of increasing the frightful irritation which now existed amongst the people of Ireland. The right hon. Member then moved, as an Amendment, "That all the words in that clause of the Address, relating to the grant of additional powers in Ireland, should be left out after the word "precaution;" and that the following words be substituted:—"As may be found necessary; but if, under the circumstances which may be disclosed to us, we should be induced to intrust his Majesty with additional powers, we shall feel it our duty to accompany that acquiescence by a close and diligent investigation into the causes of discontent in Ireland, with a view to the application of prompt and effectual remedies; and that, although it is our duty to receive the petitions of the people of Ireland, with regard to the Legislative Union between the two countries, and to leave ourselves free to consider that subject—yet we are ready to support his Majesty in maintaining that Union against all lawless attempts to defeat it, or to invade the peace, security, and welfare of his Majesty's dominions."

Mr. Hume

seconded the Motion. He was anxious that the first act of the Reformed Parliament towards Ireland should be of a soothing character. Now, the Address was a denunciation against the whole people of Ireland. Every man who wished to soothe Ireland and prevent the bitter disappointment which must otherwise inevitably ensue, would cordially support this Amendment.

Lord Althorp

said, there was one very material objection which he had to the Amendment, that by the Address, as originally proposed, the House declared its opinion on the question of Repealing the Legislative Union, where as the Amendment left it altogether open. He could not agree with the hon. member for Middlesex, that those who did not vote for the Amendment would be wanting in sympathy towards Ireland. He thought the House might, at least, put confidence in the Ministers till they heard what were their plans of relief for that country, and then if Members did not think those plans sufficient, it would be quite time enough for them to come forward and propose such measures as should seem to them most fitting. He felt it his duty to oppose the adoption of this Amendment.

The House again divided on Mr. Tennyson's Amendment.

Ayes 393; Noes 60—Majority 333.

The Motion for the Address agreed to.

List of the NOES on Mr. O'Connell's Amendment.

Abercromby, rt. hon. J. Bulkeley, Sir R. W.
Adam, Admiral C. Buller, J. W.
Adams, E. H. Buller, E.
Aglionby, H. A. Buller, C.
Agnew, Sir A. Bulteel, J. C.
Althorp, Viscount Bulwer, E. L.
Andover, Viscount Burdett, Sir F.
Anson, Sir G. Burton, H.
Anson, hon. G. Buxton, T. F.
Apsley, Lord Byng, G.
Arbuthnot, hn. Gen. H. Byng, Sir J.
Ashley, Lord Callender, J. H.
Attwood, M. Calvert, N.
Baillie, J. E. Campbell, Sir J.
Baillie, Colonel J. Carter, J. B.
Bainbridge, E. T. Cartwright, W. R.
Bankes, W. J. Castlereagh, Viscount
Baring, H. B. Cavendish, hon. C. C.
Baring, W. B. Cavendish, Lord
Baring, A. Cavendish, hon. Col. H. F.
Baring, F. T.
Barnard, E. G. Cayley, Sir G.
Barnett, C. J. Cayley, E. S.
Bayntun, Capt. S. A. Chapman, A.
Beauclerk, Maj. A. W. Chaytor, W. R. C.
Beaumont, T. W. Chaytor, Sir William
Belfast, Earl of Chetwynd, Capt. W. F.
Benett, J. Chichester, J. P. B.
Bentinck, Lord G. Childers, J. W.
Berkeley, Capt. M. F. Christmas, W.
Berkeley, hon. C. F. Clay, W.
Bernal, R. Clayton, Col. W. R.
Bethell, R. Codrington, Sir E.
Bewes, T. Collier, J.
Biddulph, R. M. Colquhoun, J. C.
Biddulph, R. Conolly, Col. E.
Bish, T. Cookes, T. H.
Blackstone, W. S. Coote, Sir C. H.
Blake, Sir F. Corry, hon. H. L.
Blaney, hon. Capt. C. Cotes, J.
Blunt, Sir C. Crawley, S.
Bolling, W. Crompton, J. S.
Boss, Captain J. G. Curteis, H. B.
Bowes, J. Curteis, Capt. E. B.
Briggs, R. Dalmeny, Lord
Brigstock, W. P. Dalrymple, Sir J. H.
Briscoe, J. I. Darlington, Earl of
Brocklehurst, J. Dashwood, G. H.
Brodie, W. B. Davenport, J.
Brotherton, J. Davies, Col. T. H.
Brougham, W. Dawson, E.
Brougham, J. Denison, J. E.
Browne, J. D. Denison, W. J.
Browne, D. Dick, Q.
Bruce, Lord E. Dilwyn, L. W.
Buckingham, J. S. Divett, E.
Dobbin, L. Hall, B.
Dobbs, C. R. Handley, W. F.
Donkin, Sir R. S. Handley, B.
Duncombe, hon. W. Handley, H.
Dundas, Capt. J. W. Hanmer, Sir J.
Dundas, hn. Sir R. L. Harcourt, G. V.
Dundas, hon. J. C. Hardy, J.
Dunlop, Capt. J. Harland, W. C.
Dykes, F. L. Harvey, Daniel W.
Ebrington, Viscount Hawes, B.
Egerton, W. T. Hawkins, J. H.
Ellis, W. Hay, Sir J.
Elliot, hon. Capt. G. Hay, Col. A. L.
Evans, G. Hayes, Sir E.
Evans, W. Heathcote, Sir G.
Ewart, W. Henniker, Lord
Ewing, J. Herbert, hon. S.
Fancourt, Major Hill, Lord M.
Fazakerley, J. N. Hill Sir R.
Fenton, J. Hill, M. D.
Fenton, Capt. L. Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J. C.
Ferguson, Capt. G.
Ferguson, R. Hodgson, J.
Ferguson, Sir R. A. Hornby, E. G.
Ferguson, Sir R. C. Horne, Sir W.
Fielden, W. Hoskins, K.
Finch, G. Hotham, Lord
Fitzgibbon, hon. R. Houldsworth, T.
Fitzroy, Lord C. Howard, hon. F. G.
Fitzroy, Lord J. Howick, Viscount
Fleming, hon. A. C. Hoy, J. B.
Foley, E. T. Hudson, T.
Foley, J. H. Hume, J.
Foley, hon. T. H. Humphery, J.
Folkes, Sir W. Hurst, R. H.
Fordwich, Viscount Hutt, W.
Forester, hon. G. C. W. Hyett, W. II.
Forster, C. S. Ingham, R.
Fox, S. L. Ingilby, Sir W. A.
Fox, Lieut.-Col. C. R. Inglis, Sir R. H.
Fremantle, Sir T. Jeffrey, right hon. F.
French, F. Jerningham, hon. H.
Fryer, R. Jervis, J.
Gaskell, D. Johnston, A.
Gaskell, J. M. Johnstone, Sir F.
Gillon, W. D. Jones, Captain T.
Gisborne, T. Kemp, T. R.
Gladstone, T. Kennedy, T. F.
Gladstone, W. F. Kerry, Earl of
Glynne, Sir S. R. Key, Sir J.
Godson, R. King, B.
Gordon, R. Knatchbull, Sir E.
Gore, M. Labouchere, H.
Goring, H. D. Lamb, hon. G.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. R. G. Lambton, H.
Lamont, Captain N.
Grant, right hon. C. Langdale, hon. C.
Grant, hon. Col. F. W. Langsten, J. H.
Grey, hon. Colonel Langton, Colonel G.
Grey, Sir G. Lefevre, C. S.
Grimston, Viscount Lefevre, J. G. S.
Gronow, Capt. R. H. Lemon, Sir C.
Grosvenor, rt. hn. Lord Robert Lennard, T. B.
Lennard, Sir T. B.
Grote, George Lennox, Lord W.
Guest, J. J. Lennox, Lord J. G.
Halford, H. Lennox, Lord A.
Lester, B. L. Petre, hon. E.
Lister, E. C. Philips, Sir G.
Littleton, E. J. Philips, M.
Lloyd, J. H. Phillips, C. M.
Loch, J. Phillpotts, J.
Locke, W. Plumptre, J.
Lumley, Viscount Pollock, F.
Lushington, Dr. S. Ponsonby, hon. W. F.
Lygon, hon. Col. H. B. Potter, R.
Maberly, Col. W. L. Poulter, J.
Macaulay, T. B. Price, Sir R.
Mackenzie, J. A. S. Pringle, R.
Macleod, R. Pryme, G.
Madocks, J. Pugh, D.
Mangles, J. Ramsbottom, J.
Manners, Lord R. Reid, Sir J. R.
Majoribanks, S. Richards, J.
Marryatt, J. Ricardo, D.
Marshall, J. Rickford, W.
Marsland, T. Rider, T.
Martin, J. Ridley, Sir M. W.
Martin, T. B. Rippon, C.
Maxwell, H. Robarts, A. W.
Maxwell, J. Robinson, G. R.
Maxwell, J. W. Roebuck, J. A.
Methuen, P. Rolfe, R. M.
Meynell, H. Romilly, J.
Mildmay, P. St. J. Romilly, E.
Miller, W. H. Ross, Captain H.
Molesworth, Sir W. Ross, C.
Molyneux, Lord Rotch, B.
Moreton, hon. A. H. Rumbold, C. E.
Moreton, hon. H. G. F. Russell, rt. hon. Lord J.
Morpeth, Viscount Russell, Lord
Morrison, J. Russell, Lord C. J. F.
Mosley, Sir O. Russell, W. C.
Mostyn, hon. E. M. L. Ryle, J.
Murray, J. A. Sandon, Viscount
Neeld, J. Sanford, E. A.
Newark, Viscount Scarlett, Sir J.
Noel, Sir G. Scholefield, J.
Norreys, Lord Scott, J. W.
North, F. Scott, Sir E. D.
O'Callaghan, hon. C. Seale, Colonel
O'Grady, hon. Col. S. Sebright, Sir J.
Oliphant, L. Sharpe, General M.
Ord, W. H. Shaw, F.
O'Reilly, W. Shawe, R. N.
Ormelie, Earl of Sheppard, T.
Ossulston, Lord Simeon, Sir R.
Oswald, R. A. Sinclair, G.
Oswald, J. Smith, J. A.
Owen, H. O. Smith, R. V.
Paget, Sir C. Smith, hon. R. S.
Paget, F. Somerset, Lord G.
Palmer, General C. Spankie, Mr. Sergeant
Palmer, R. Spencer, hon. Capt. F.
Palmerston, Viscount Spry, S. T.
Parker, J. Stanley, E.
Parker, Sir Hyde Stanley, rt. hn. E. G. S.
Parrot, Jasper Stanley, hon. H. T.
Patten, J. W. Stanley, E. J.
Pechell, Sir S. J. B. Staunton, Sir G. T.
Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. Staveley, J. K.
Pelham, hon. C. A. Stawell, Colonel
Pendarves, E. W. Steuart, R.
Peter, W. Stewart, E.
Stewart, P. M. Vyvyan, Sir R. R.
Stonor, T. Walker, R.
Stormont, Viscount Wall, C. B.
Strickland, G. Walsh, Sir J. B.
Strutt, E. Walter, J.
Stuart, Lord D. E. Warburton, H.
Stuart, W. Ward, H. G.
Surrey, Earl of Warre, J. A.
Talbot, C. R. M. Wason, R.
Talbot, W. H. F. Waterpark, Lord
Talbot, J. Watkins, J. L.
Tancred, H. W. Watson, hon. R.
Tapps, G. W. Wedgewood, J.
Tayleur, W. Wemyss, Capt. J.
Taylor, rt. hon. M. A. Weyland, Major R.
Tennant, J. E. Whitbread, W. H.
Tennyson, rt. hon. C. White, S.
Thompson, P. B. Wilbraham, G.
Thompson, rt. hn. C. P. Wilks, J.
Throckmorton, R. G. Williams, W. A.
Todd, J. R. Williams, R.
Tooke, W. Willoughby, Sir H.
Tracey, C. A. Wilmot, Sir J. E.
Trelawney, W. L. S. Windham, W.
Trevor, hon. G. R. Wood, G. W.
Troubridge, Sir E. T. Wood, M.
Turner, W. Wood, Colonel T.
Tynte, C. K. K. Wrottesley, Sir J.
Tynte, C. J. K. Wynn, Sir W. W.
Tyrell, Sir J. T. Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.
Tyrell, C. Yelverton, hon. W. H.
Verner, W. Yorke, Capt. C. P.
Verney, Sir H. Young, J.
Vernon, hon. G. J. Young, G. F.
Villiers, Viscount TELLERS.
Vincent, Sir F. Rice, hon. T. S.
Vivian, J. H. Wood, C.
List of the Ayes.
ENGLAND. Maclauhlin, L.
Attwood, T. Nagle, Sir R.
Cobbett, W. O'Brien, Cornelius
Faithful, G. O'Connell, Maurice
Fielden, John O'Connell, John
Hume, J. O'Connell, Morgan
Kennedy, James O'Connor, Fergus
SCOTLAND. O'Dwyer, A. C.
Kinlock, George Roche, W.
Wallace, R. Roche, David
IRELAND. Roe, James
Baldwin, Dr. Rorke, J. H.
Barron, H. W. Ruthven, E.
Butler, hon. P. Sheil, R. L.
Chapman, M. L. Sullivan, R.
Finn, W. F. Talbot, J. H.
Fitzsimon, N. Walker, C. A.
Fitzsimon, C. Wallace, T.
Fitzgerald, T. White, L.
Grattan, Henry Vigors, N. A.
Keane, Sir R. TELLERS.
Lalor, Patrick O'Connell, D.
Lynch, A. H. Ruthven, E. S.

In addition to the above, the following voted for the Amendment of Mr. Tennyson:—

ENGLAND. Butler, Charles
Beauclerk, Major E. Fryer, R.
Brotherton, Joseph Gaskell, D.
Grote, G. Roebuck, J. A.
Harvey, D. W. Warburton, Henry
Humphery, J.
Hutt, William IRELAND.
Lloyd, J. H. French, F.
Molesworth, Sir W. O'Reilly, W.
Palmer, General TELLERS.
Philips, Mark Bulwer, E. L.
Potter, Richard Tennyson, C.