Commons Sitting of 3 July 1834

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a second time:—Roman Catholic Marriages.
Petitions presented. By Mr. BRIGGS, from Halifax, for the Repeal of the Duty on Olive Oil.—By Mr. HUGHES HUGHES, from Proprietors of Stage Coaches, against the Hackney and Stage Coaches Bill; from Commissioners of the Court of Requests, against the Imprisonment for Debt Bill.—By the Earl of GROSVENOR, from Nantwich, for the Repeal of the Sale of Beer Act.—By Mr. HALL DARE, from two Places, against the Claims of the Dissenters.—By the Earl of GROSVENOR, from four Places, for Protection to the Established Church.

PUNISHMENT OF DEATH.
Upon the Motion of Mr. Lennard, the House resolved itself into a Committee upon the Punishment of Death Bill.
Upon the second Clause being read,
Lord Howickproposed an Amendment, to the effect that the punishment of death should not be abolished where any violence was committed, or bodily harm inflicted.
Mr. Lennardobjected to the Amendment, as it would in effect destroy the whole value and efficacy of the Bill. If it were recollected that, for offences which had lately ceased to be capital, there no longer existed the same reluctance to
1096
prosecute as formerly, it must be admitted that the slight increase of two per cent which had taken place in the commitments was a virtual diminution; and this was the more worthy of notice, because, in the other two classes, the commitments had increased in a much greater ratio. The capital commitments in the same period had undergone an increase of forty-four per cent! and this, too, notwithstanding undiminished rigour in the execution of the law; for the number who suffered death increased from 110 in the first period, to 126 in the second period, for those offences which are still punished with death. He, therefore, felt bound to resist the Amendment.
Mr. Hardythought that, for the purpose of preserving uniformity with the other Acts of Parliament, it was necessary that the Amendment should be adopted.
Lord Howicksaid, the object he had in view in proposing the Amendment to the House was to give persons who should be guilty of robbery an inducement to abstain from the further commission of crime. The existing law was quite at variance with the practice that had prevailed for many years past, and his object in proposing the Amendment was, to reconcile the law to the prevailing practice as far as it was practicable.
Mr. Roebucksaid, that the Amendment, far from effecting the object the noble Lord had in view, held out an inducement to the robber to commit murder. If in the scuffle which naturally ensued when a robbery was committed the person robbed should receive any bodily harm from the thief, the latter, knowing himself to be guilty of an equal crime with the murderer, would have a strong inducement to commit the greater crime to facilitate his escape or prevent detection.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the Criminal-Law of England was a bloody and barbarous code, and very badly administered. It was lamentable to see a country excelling every other in science and art so backward in the progress toward civilization in her criminal laws. What did the noble Lord mean by bodily harm? A mere bruise or discolouring of the skin was included in the words of the Amendment, and this was to be as great a crime as murder in the eye of the law. What else could be meant by "bodily harm?" They knew that "grievous bodily harm" was

1097
already a capital offence; every case of cutting was provided for by the bloody Act of Lord Ellenborough. This reminded him of three deaths which had recently taken place from boxing-matches. He contended that all the persons engaged in these barbarous practices were guilty of murder. He would have all those who backed the pugilists, as well as the lookers on, and those who encouraged such acts of inhumanity, punished as murderers. It was easy to show they were guilty of murder. The law was clear, that if any persons went out to fight with weapons likely to cause death, and death should ensue, they were guilty of murder. It could easily be shown that the weapons used at a prize-fight did produce death, for death had taken place in several instances. There could, therefore, be no doubt they were murderers, and should be punished as such. He thought if a batch of the noble Lords, Magistrates, and gentry who were present, and gave encouragement to such inhuman scenes, were sent to Botany Bay, it would have a tendency to put an end to them. He should oppose the Amendment of the noble Lord.
Amendment withdrawn, and Clause agreed to.
The remaining Clauses were agreed to, with verbal amendments, and the House resumed.

COUNSEL FOR PRISONERS.
On the motion of Mr. Ewart, the House went into Committee on the Prisoners' Counsel Bill.
The first and second Clauses were agreed to.
On the third Clause being put, which enacts, that in all cases where prisoners shall be unable to employ Counsel by reason of poverty, Counsel shall be assigned to them by the Court,
Lord Howickexpressed a hope, that the Clause would be withdrawn. He knew that a strong feeling was entertained against it.
Mr. Roebuckobjected to the clause being withdrawn, as it involved one of the most important principles of the Bill.
Mr. Aglionbyadmitted, that the clause was suggested by the best feelings of humanity, but was afraid that to carry it into effect would be impracticable. If Counsel were assigned to every prisoner for every offence, however trivial, that came before the Court, there were so many
1098
young Barristers who would take that opportunity to make long speeches to the Court, that the sittings would extend from one quarter sessions to the other, and no business would be got through. Legislation on this subject was unnecessary, as the Judge already possessed the power of assigning Counsel to a prisoner, and he never knew of an instance of any Counsel refusing to perform the duty assigned to him by the Judge. The present clause was therefore superfluous, and he hoped the hon. Member would consent to withdraw it.
Mr. O'Connellopposed the clause, because he was unwiling to increase the patronage of the Bench, over that possessed by the Bar. He knew in theory this clause diminished the patronage of the Judge, but it did not in practice. The Judge would still have the power to appoint the Counsel, and he would tell the House how that power had been exercised in Ireland. He had known a Judge go the same circuit twelve successive assizes, merely because he had sons or brothers, or nephews, who practised on that circuit. He did not allude to a Judge whose conduct had come under the consideration of that House. The clause would increase this evil, and therefore he should vote against it.
Mr. Hardywas of opinion the clause as it stood would be much better out of the Bill.
Mr. Roebucksaid, the injustice that would result from withdrawing the clause was this—that the man who had a guinea in his pocket would be able to avail himself of the benefit of Counsel, while the poor man without a farthing in the world might be condemned, from his inability to procure Counsel.
The Committee divided on the Clause. Ayes 33; Noes 25—Majority, 8.
The Clause was agreed to, as was Clause 4.
Mr. O'Dwyersaid, it was now the proper time to propose the insertion of the clause of which he had given notice—"That from and after the passing of this Act, every prisoner to be tried shall be entitled to a fair copy of the depositions sworn against him on which the indictment has been grounded, on payment of a fee to the Clerk of the Peace of the district in which the trial may take place of 6d. a-folio."
Mr. Benettobjected to the clause.

1099
depositions were taken in the presence of the prisoner by the present law, and therefore such a provision was unnecessary.
Mr. O'Connellwas glad to hear that such was the case in England. He could assure the House the practice was diametrically opposite in Ireland, for there the prisoner knew nothing of the charge to be brought against him but the short abstract contained in the commitment, and it not unfrequently happened, that depositions taken on a subsequent charge were exhibited against him.
Mr. O'Dwyerwithdrew the Clause.
The House resumed.

SUPPRESSION OF DISTURBANCES (IRELAND).
Mr. O'Connell: I wish to know from the right hon. Gentleman, whether the statement in the newspapers, that the renewal of the Irish Coercion Bill in its present shape, had been advised and called for by the Irish Government, was correct? I ask the right hon. Secretary whether the fact was so, and if the statement be true?
Mr. Littleton: It is not usual to make such an inquiry with respect to a Bill that is not before the House, but I have no hesitation or difficulty in telling the hon. and learned Gentleman, that the introduction of the Bill has the entire sanction of the Irish Government.
Mr. O'Connell: That is no answer to my question. The question which I asked was, whether the Bill, in its present shape, was advised and called fur by the Irish Government?
Mr. Littleton: I have no other answer to give than that which I have already offered, especially with respect to a measure not now before the House.
Mr. O'Connell: That is a very safe course for the right hon. Gentleman to pursue. I now ask him if it is his intention to bring the Bill forward in this House?
Mr. Littleton: That is a question that cannot yet arise. The Bill is now before the House of Lords. When the proper time arrives, it will be for the Government to decide as to its introduction here. I can tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that whoever may bring the Bill in, I shall vote for it.
Mr. O'Connell: Then I have been exceedingly deceived by the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Littleton: The observation which
1100
the hon. Gentleman has now made, renders it absolutely incumbent on me to trespass, for a short time on the patience and attention of the House. I do it with the utmost confidence that, although called on thus suddenly, I shall experience the indulgence of the House: for whatever may be the occasional prevalence of party feeling, and however hon. Members may be carried away by it in some instances, I am confident that there exists a permanent sense of honour and gentlemanly feeling which must make the House a safe tribunal for any man, no matter whether connected with party or not, to address it in his own vindication, and that, in all such cases, an individual will obtain a fair and candid hearing. I need hardly tell the House what are the circumstances of the case which the hon. Gentleman alludes to. He refers to the recent introduction of the Irish Coercion Bill. I have "a plain unvarnished tale" to deliver, and I have no doubt that when I have explained it, the result, as regards myself, will be, that I shall be accused of having acted with gross indiscretion; what the result may be as regards other parties it is not for me, but, after hearing the particulars, it will be for the House to judge. The House is aware, that frequent applications were made, and numerous attempts resorted to, by means of questions put by individuals, with a view to elicit a premature declaration of the intentions of the Government relative to the renewal of the Coercion Bill. That course not being found to answer here, means were taken elsewhere to draw forth a premature declaration on the subject. I may now state, that the intention of Government then was, to recommend a renewal of the Coercion Bill with certain limitations; and I may also state, that up to within a short time of the introduction of the measure, Government, thinking it prudent to avail themselves of as long a retrospection as they could, did not deem it expedient to determine the precise extent to which the provisions of the Bill should go. I saw, from the earliest announcement of the intention to renew the measure, that the hon. Gentleman was exceedingly ill-disposed towards it. I perceived that he was inclined to a violent course of opposition in reference to a matter on which he seemed to feel great excitement. I need not say, that I felt it to be a matter of interest to the Government, of import-

1101
ance to the country, and, I may add, of kindness to the hon. Gentleman himself, to caution him as to the course he seemed about to take—to beg him not to act prematurely or rashly, and while the extent of the measure remained undecided, to request the hon. Gentleman not to indulge his feelings in relation to it. Therefore it was that, after consulting friends on whose judgment I relied, I did proceed in the matter, and under an authority which I considered sufficient, I was led to seek an opportunity of communicating with the hon. Gentleman through the instrumentality of a common friend. Some hours after I had made this communication, the hon. Gentleman came to the Irish Secretary's office, where I then was. I told him, that the communication I had to make, was one which I thought he would hear with pleasure, but that it must be considered and received by him as entirely secret and confidential. I imposed on the hon. Gentleman the seal of secrecy with respect to my communication—an injunction which he received and acknowledged. If the hon. Gentleman did not, he had better contradict me.
Mr. O'Connell: I shall answer the right hon. Gentleman's statement. I shall have so much to explain, if not to contradict, that it will be better to take that course.
Mr. Littleton: Under the injunction which I have mentioned, I proceeded to communicate with the hon. Gentleman. I expressed my regret at the letter which he had written to the electors of Wexford, recommending the adoption of violent conduct. I knew how inconvenient it was to the Government that the hon. Gentleman should persist in the course he was pursuing. I knew the importance of his opinion from the great influence he possessed in Ireland, and I saw the advantage of dissuading the hon. Gentleman from so violently opposing a measure, the extent of which, was as yet undetermined. I hope I shall be thought to be, in some degree, justified in the course I adopted by those considerations. I told the hon. Gentleman, he having frequently applied to me to know whether the Government would recommend the Coercion Bill to be renewed, that, although the renewal of the measure was intended under certain limitations, yet, that those limitations were not then decided upon, and I mentioned a probable day by which time I thought they would be determined, I am bound to
1102
add, in justification of my own character, which is more important to me than any other consideration, that I told the hon. Gentleman I had the strongest feeling of aversion to the renewal of that part of the Coercion Bill which prohibited public meetings, and I further told him, that I did not think it likely that portion of the measure would be renewed. In reference to this, I used a strong expression, but the same consideration which rendered it improper for the hon. Gentleman to divulge the communication, renders it equally improper for me to mention all the particulars of the conversation. The House must perceive the painful situation in which I am placed. It will make allowance for my embarrassment and understand the delicacy of my position. Much that may have passed in my communication with the hon. Gentleman I am prevented from stating, by the duties of the office which I hold. I expressed my opinion to the hon. Gentleman as to some parts of the Bill which I thought would not be renewed; and I told him, that he should receive from me the earliest intimation as to what was intended to be done. I heard in a few days after this interview, of rumours which were in circulation about the House and elsewhere, and which rendered it impossible for me not to believe, that the learned Gentleman had divulged my communication. I did nothing in consequence of this, but I came to a determination not to hold any further communication with the hon. Gentleman. However, when I found that decision conic to contrary to what I had supposed might have been the case, I consulted with the same individual as before, and told him that, notwithstanding what had occurred, I thought it incumbent on me, in point of honour, to communicate the state of things to the hon. Gentleman. I knew all the inconvenient consequences that were likely to arise from such a communication; I knew that the Irish Tithe Bill stood for discussion on that very evening (Friday), and how important it would be to Government to have the advantage of the hon. Gentleman's co-operation, which I thought we should have had under ordinary circumstances. Still, I felt bound in honour, to inform the hon. Gentleman, of what had occurred; and I requested a common friend to wait on him for the purpose of communicating it. Not satisfied with that, I went across the House on

1103
the same evening, and asked the hon. Gentleman if he had seen the individual whom I had requested to communicate with him? The hon. Gentleman told me that he had. I begged the hon. Gentleman to refrain from disclosing my communication till a public announcement was made on the subject, and he had heard what would be proposed in the other House of Parliament. I own, I think the House will be of opinion, after what I have stated as to the secrecy of the original communication, that this was not asking too much. I admit, that I committed a gross indiscretion in the communication which I made to the hon. Gentleman; but I know not in what manner he will attempt to justify his breach of confidence with respect to that communication; nor is it indeed a matter of any importance to me how the hon. Gentleman may seek to excuse his conduct. I am not conscious of any inaccuracy in my statement of what occurred. I have only to add, that I was actuated in the course which I adopted by a desire to fulfil a public duty, and by kindness to the hon. Gentleman himself. I wished to prevent him from pursuing a course which he might be sorry for, which the Government might have cause to regret, and which might prove injurious to the country. My hopes and wishes have been cruelly disappointed, and the hon. Gentleman has convinced me by his conduct, that henceforth with him it will be unsafe for me to communicate on public matters, except across the Table.
Mr. O'Connell: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly safe in saying that, for it will be utterly impossible for me, after what has taken place, to place confidence in anything but his public statements. The right hon. Gentleman has cautiously abstained from dates in his statement, and he has been equally prudent in suppressing a great deal of what occurred between us at the interview of which he speaks. I shall follow the right hon. Gentleman's example in some degree, because I do not wish to involve other parties in the discussion, especially where it is unnecessary to do so. The right hon. Gentleman began by saying, that many premature questions had been put on the subject of the renewal of the Coercion Bill. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that I, or any individuals connected with me, asked those questions? The contrary was the fact.
1104
We never acted thus; but several gentlemen of another way of thinking on political subjects did, before the Cambridge and Edinburgh elections, press for an answer on this head; and they urged, that Ministers ought to make up and know their own mind. I asked no question on the subject; neither I, nor any one connected with me, put any question till it was announced that Lord Grey had mentioned the matter in the other House of Parliament; so that, if the right hon. Gentleman has made an impression on the House, in reference to premature questions, so far as that point is concerned, it was upon erroneous grounds. I had announced the experiment I was making for the total cessation of agitation in Ireland; and with a view to press no longer during the present Session the question of Repeal of the Union. It is true, there was an election coming on for the county of Wexford, and in reference to it I published a letter, and took a part not consulting the right hon. Gentleman on the subject, and having no reason to consult him. The right hon. Gentleman talks of being actuated by motives of kindness towards me. What kindness can the right hon. Gentleman do me? None in the world. I did not go to the right hon. Gentleman's office of my own accord to seek kindness or patronage,—to ask for places in the police for my friends, or for anything else. Some gentlemen were reminded the other night, of places in the police obtained or applied for; but no such application could be laid to my charge. I asked the right hon. Gentleman for no favour. I did not seek him. I published a letter to the electors of Wexford, and grounded it on the determination of Government to renew the Coercion Bill. I had, at the time, in the Press, an address to the Reformers of England on the subject of the Coercion Bill. That address I had sent to a newspaper to be published. It was in print; it was on the point of being published. Let the House now mark what occurred. Just at that moment, my letter to the people of Wexford having been already published, my address to the Reformers of England being on the point of publication, while I was sitting as Chairman on the Committee on the Inns of Court, the right hon. Gentleman sent to me a most respectable Gentleman, the hon. member for Kildare, to beg that I would go over

1105
to him to the Irish-office, stating, that he had something of great importance to communicate to me. I was sought by him. I never sought, I never would seek him. I had nothing to ask from him, I had nothing to seek from him. He sent for me. He had no right to send for me to go to his office. I did not want him. If he wanted me, he knew where I lived. If he did not know my residence, he could ascertain it in the Vote-office. I went to him at his request. I was aware, that the right hon. Gentleman did not send for me in my private individual capacity, but as a person representing a party in this House, and a party out of this House, a large party in Ireland. The election for the county of Wexford was coming on. The House will bear in mind, that one of the candidates at that election was a Whig candidate—a rare thing in Ireland. I thought it my duty to set up a repeal candidate. Such was the situation in which things were when the right hon. Gentleman sent for me. The conversation that then took place between him and me I certainly never would have repeated, if it had not been that by means of it, he tricked me—I do not say intentionally—he deceived me, and he obtained a decided advantage over me. The conversation which then took place between me and the right hon. Gentleman was, I will admit, of a confidential nature; but that confidence was limited. The understood secrecy was suspended by his practising—I do not say designedly—but by his actually practising a deceit upon me, and by that means obtaining an advantage over me. If such had not been the case, I never would have alluded to this conversation. The first thing that he said to me was, that he had seen my letter to the electors of the county of Wexford, and that he was anxious to speak with me upon a subject of great importance to the country; but that he expected that any communication that took place between us would be secret and confidential. My reply was, that there was no occasion to make such a request,—that whatever occurred should be considered by me secret and confidential. And so I was determined that it should be. That secrecy would never have been broken if I had not been tricked—if I had not been deceived by the right hon. Gentleman. If such had not been the case, the conversation between us would still have remained
1106
strictly confidential. The right hon. Gentleman then alluded more than once to a communication which the Marquess Wellesley had honoured him with, on a subject of the deepest interest to the country, and he said that he had sent for me as one only of those persons upon whom he could rely with confidence, and to whom he could apply with confidence. I replied, that I was happy to hear him so express himself; and that he would find that confidence not misplaced. I repeat again, that such would have been the case if this conversation had not been made use of afterwards, to obtain an advantage over me. The right hon. Gentleman went on to tell me, that the Irish Government was opposed to the renewal of the Coercion Bill of last year; that those concerned in the Irish Government (meaning, of course, Lord Wellesley and himself,) were opposed to the renewal of that Bill. The House will recollect, that this communication took place after the publication of my letter to the people of Wexford; and let the House mark what use there was made of it. The right hon. Gentleman told me distinctly that the Irish Government, that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and himself, were against the renewal of the Coercion Bill of last year, and that he thought it right, under the circumstances, to make that communication to me. I was going away with the cheerful determination to regulate my conduct, both in the House and out of it, in accordance with the communication that I had just received, when the right hon. Gentleman again repeated to me that the Coercion Bill would not be renewed, but only a short measure for suppressing agrarian disturbances. I told him that no one could be more anxious than I should be to assist the Government in that object, and that he might reckon upon my fullest assistance, and that of the party to which I belonged, for such a purpose. I was going out of the room, when the right hon. Gentleman addressed to me this observation, "that if the Coercion Bill should be brought into that House, it would not be brought in by him." Such was the conversation between me and the right hon. Gentleman. Just let the House see what use has been made of it, and observe what an advantage the right hon. Gentleman has thereby gained over me. In consequence of that conversation I wrote over to the county of

1107
Wexford, and the candidate whom I had started there upon the repeal interest declined the contest. Another Gentleman by no means popular in the county started upon the same interest. He wrote over to me requesting that I would send one of my family to canvass the county with him. I acted upon the right hon. Gentleman's distinct declaration, and I declined interfering, and what was the consequence? The Whig candidate on the first day had a majority of 114 over his opponent; but what has since taken place affords a positive proof that if I had interfered, and if some one connected with me had gone through the country, the majority would have been decidedly on the other side. That election is still going on, and up to the post hour on Monday last the majority of the Whig candidate had been beaten down to eighteen. Was not that a proof that I should have carried that election, if I had not been kept neutral by the delusion—by the deception—practised upon me by the right hon. Gentleman? What right had he to interest himself thus in the election for Wexford? What right had he to make such a statement to me, particularly as related to himself, with a view, as it would now appear, to the carrying of that election? Will he, after perhaps obtaining the return of the Whig candidate for Wexford through such means—will he, I say, be the person to introduce the Coercion Bill into this House—will he do so, after I understood from him, after he distinctly declared to me not more than a fortnight ago, that he would not do any such thing? If I had not been deluded, if I had not been deceived by that statement, I should already have addressed the Reformers of England on the subject. I should have called upon the people of Ireland to present petitions against the Bill, and that address would have been responded to, and at this moment you would have had petitions from them with more than 500,000 of signatures, praying Parliament not to pass such a measure. But the right hon. Gentleman, by the statement he made to me, got a full fortnight's advantage of me. ["No, no."] I say, "Yes, yes." By making that statement he secured an advantage over me, he secured my neutrality in the Wexford election (for I would not be the man to oppose Government if I thought they would do us justice), and he secured an advantage in the debate on the Tithe Bill.
1108
By so deluding me, he prevented me from addressing, as I intended, the Reformers of England, and the Reformers of Scotland too, who I hope are not dead to the cause of liberty. Having so deceived me, what right has the right hon. Gentleman now to attack me for a breach of confidence? I repeat that he deceived me, and that through me he deceived many others. I communicated to a great many Irish Members that there would be no necessity for a call of the House; that no such Bill as the Coercion Bill of last year would be introduced; but that the measure which would be brought forward would be one that every man could support; that the discussions upon it would, therefore, be short, and that we might expect that the Session would soon be at an end. We have been all deceived by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman's version of our conversation, it will be seen, pretty nearly coincides with mine; but there is one important fact which he has omitted in his statement. The right hon. Gentleman now says, that he will support the Bill here; but will he deny that he stated to me, that whatever Member of the Government brought the Bill into this House, he would not be the man? After the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman, no man has a right to call me any more from this place to make to me a communication such as that made by the right hon. Gentleman, for the purpose of deluding and deceiving me, and then to adopt the very line of conduct that he stated so shortly since he would not. I make the right hon. Gentleman, indeed, a present of his conduct in this instance. He may well be proud of it. I know that he is surrounded by his friends. I know that he is strong in their support and in the support of his colleagues in a Government that can easily command the majority of this House. But how will the public view his conduct—what justification can he make to them for what he has done? After the statement which the right hon. Gentleman made to me, and which I have detailed to the House, could I for a moment doubt as to the particular line of conduct which it was the intention of the Government to adopt? He, in fact, gave me to understand that the Government had adopted it; for though he did not say that they had—that the majority of his colleagues had—determined upon pursuing the course he then indicated, what

1109
other interpretation could he reasonably have expected would be put upon his words? He is not so young as not to understand that a Minister holding such a situation as he did, and making such a communication, must be understood as expressing the opinion of the Government to which he belonged. I repeat again and again, that the right hon. Gentleman has deceived me. He has gained one advantage already, and a great one, by his deception; but it would be giving him a great deal too much to give him any longer the advantage of the seal of secrecy. The use that he has made of that communication, the advantage that he has reaped from it, render it necessary that the seal of secrecy should be at length torn away. We are not much at variance, it will be seen, in our respective statements of the conversation in question. I leave the House and the public to form its judgment upon such a species of Government, that is so afraid of acting directly and straightforward that it must descend to means like those—that it must have recourse to such unworthy artifices, and that, finally, it acts directly contrary to, and in the teeth of, its own declarations. I wish the right hon. Gentleman joy upon the success of his deception. Of this he may be certain, that let him send when he will, he will never again succeed in deceiving me.
Mr. Littleton: I do not think it necessary to say much in reply to what has fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman, and indeed I can add but little to what I have already stated to the House. In making the statement that he has just made, of course the hon. and learned Gentleman has availed himself of the opportunity to endeavour to make the House believe that I took the step in question for the purpose of deceiving him. Indeed, he has accused me of a settled determination to deceive him. I am sure that there is not another man in the House who will not feel that I am utterly incapable of having acted from such motives. The whole course and tenour of the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman have been to justify the violation of confidence on his part, by making the House believe that I tricked him in order to vindicate his own wilful breach of confidence. What justification, after all, has the hon. and learned Gentleman exhibited for communicating information given to him under the seal of secrecy? I ask him whether
1110
he should not, in the first instance, before he had torn off that seal, and communicated this information to the public, in consequence, as he alleges, of what took place elsewhere—I ask him whether, before he had done so, he should not have communicated with me on the subject, and seen whether reasons could not be given for the decision to which Government had come? If he had done so, I think that I should have convinced even him of the necessity of adopting such a course; at all events I am sure that the reasons which I could state in support of that decision would be amply sufficient to justify my vote in the eyes of the House and of the public. I admit to the full extent all that the hon. and learned Member has stated as to what occurred in our conversation, with, perhaps, a slight variation as to the expressions used. With that exception I do not deny it. The time that I think it happened was last Monday week. I cannot be quite accurate as to the date, as I never dreamt at the time that this matter would become the subject of public discussion. It was true, that at that time it was not determined upon by the Government to introduce the Coercion Bill, as it has been since brought in; but since that time the question had been unanimously decided upon by the Government, it having received further reasons in the interval to satisfy it that that measure should be renewed. The moment that that determination was come to by the Government, I lost not an instant in seeking to find the hon. and learned Gentleman, in order to communicate to him the change that had taken place in the opinion of the Government. I sent my hon. friend, the member for Bridport, to the hon. and learned Gentleman for that purpose. [Mr. O'Connell: On Friday last.] On Thursday last I sent my hon. friend, the member for Bridport, to the hon. and learned Gentleman, to make that communication to him; and so anxious was I that we should not, through any misapprehension on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman, reap the benefit of a smooth and conciliatory speech from him on the Tithe Bill, which stood for discussion on Friday last, that early in the evening I went over to him, and stated the fact myself to him. I state these facts before the House, and leave the House to form its judgment on them.
Mr. O'Connell: But there is one fact not before the House. I wanted the right hon. Gentleman on Friday last, when this conversation occurred, to let me have the Report of 1832, with respect to the disturbances in Ireland—the Report drawn up by Sir Henry Parnell—printed. He said, emphatically, "There is no occasion for it to be printed, you will be satisfied of that by the announcement made by Lord Grey in the House of Lords to-night." I said, in reply, "There is only one course for you to take—to resign, for, after the manner in which you have acted, you will be otherwise guilty of a deception on me." His reply was, "Say nothing of that to-day."
Mr. Littleton: I beg the attention of the House for a moment. The fact is not as stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Gentleman says, that when he mentioned to me his intention of moving for the Report of 1832, I said there was no occasion for it, and that, in reply to an observation from him as to my resigning, I replied, "Wait until to-morrow." I declare, upon my honour, as a Gentleman, that I said no such thing.
Mr. O'Connell: On my honour, as a Gentleman, you did.
Mr. Littleton: I declare solemnly, before the House, and upon my honour, as a Gentleman, that I never did.
Mr. O'Connell: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to deny that he spoke of resigning?
Mr. Littleton: The hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken. I never said any such thing. I deny solemnly, on the honour of a Gentleman, that I made any statement of the kind.
Mr. O'Connell: Then, why did I not make my Motion for the printing of the Report? I want to know that.
Mr. Littleton: I cannot answer that. I do not know anything about it. It is true that the hon. and learned Gentleman declared his intention of moving that the Report be printed, and that he said something of the Bill. I did not in reply say a word about resigning. To the best of my knowledge, my reply was, as nearly as possible, in these words—"I trust that whatever your feelings or opinions on the subject may be, you will not divulge them to-night, but will wait until to-morrow, when you can ascertain the particular nature of the Bill by Lord Grey's speech,"
Mr. O'Connell: That was not what was said by the right hon. Gentleman, nor anything like it.
After a pause,
Mr. O'Connellagain rose, and said, that he hoped no objection would be made by the right hon. Gentleman or the Government to the production of the correspondence between the Marquess Wellesley and the Government respecting the Coercion Bill. By that it would be seen whether the renewal of that Bill had been opposed at the time stated to him by the right hon. Gentleman by the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland. That was the point of difference between the right hon. Gentleman and himself. With anything else the House had nothing to do. But it was of great importance that it should be ascertained whether at any particular period, the Lord-lieutenant was opposed to the renewal of the Coercion Bill. In a speech made elsewhere, on the introduction of that Bill, it was stated by the noble Earl at the head of the Administration, that the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland had called for the Bill. Now, for the satisfaction of those who had so cheered the right hon. Gentleman to-night, he was anxious to get at the fact whether the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland had called for the Bill as stated elsewhere. He was, also, anxious to ascertain whether the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, so very recently as a fortnight ago, was opposed to the renewal of the Bill, as then stated to him by the right hon. Gentleman; for in that case it would be a curious matter to discover the reasons for Lord Wellesley's change of opinion. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman should have the strongest motives to produce the correspondence of Lord Wellesley up to the period in question, in order that it might be seen whether the inference which he drew from the right hon. Gentleman's statement on that occasion was correct or not. The hon. Member concluded by moving for copies of the correspondence which had taken place between the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland and his Majesty's Government on the subject of the renewal of the Coercion Act.
Mr. Littletonsaid, that the custom of the House in such cases had been so far to trust the Government as to permit it to select such portions of a correspondence as it might consider necessary to justify the introduction of a particular measure.

1113
He had stated a few days ago, that such portions of the correspondence of the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland as might be deemed necessary for the justification of the Government in renewing the Coercion Act would be selected and laid before the House. That correspondence was now ready, and would be laid before the House to-morrow.
Mr. O'Reillyfelt great difficulty in addressing the House after the statements they had heard on the one side, and the contradictions they had heard on the other. He felt bound, however, at once to state to his Majesty's Government that, if they did not justify themselves from the charge made against them by the hon. and learned Gentleman, he should feel bound to adopt a different course towards them from what he had done since he had had the honour of a seat in that House. The House might well believe that he (Mr. O'Reilly) had little in common in politics with the hon. and learned member for Dublin when he stated, that he had not spoken to that hon. and learned Member for upwards of two years. It was not, therefore, to favour that hon. Member that he made these observations, but he felt that it was necessary for the justification of the character of himself and other Irish members, who had supported the Government, that all the documents on the subject should be laid on the Table. He would not say anything as to the motives that might actuate parties in their opposition to Government, but he felt bound at once to state, that he should not hereafter be able to give that entire confidence and support to the Government which he had hitherto given, if a fair statement of the facts which rendered it necessary to renew the Coercion Bill was not laid before the House.
Mr. Henry Grattansaid, that having just arrived from Ireland, he seized the earliest opportunity of stating to the House, that there never was heard any intelligence from this country relative to the intentions of Government as to Ireland with so much astonishment as the Irish people heard that this Government had dared to suggest the renewal of the Coercion Bill, more particularly when it was recollected with what difficulty many English Gentlemen in that House had been at all induced, by the display of professions of kindness generally towards Ireland by his Majesty's Ministers, to
1114
sanction the passing of the Coercion Bill without any previous inquiry, except that could be called an inquiry which was founded on three miserable reports, one of which was signed by only three Magistrates. It was now but too clear, that the House could not follow the Government in giving its sanction to such arbitrary measures as the present Ministers had the hardihood to demand at the hands of the Representatives of the people. Had even Bonaparte, in the fulness of his power, or the Autocrat Nicholas of Russia, attempted to impose such an arbitrary deprivation or suspension of their liberty upon their respective subjects? To risk the concession of such a measure for extinguishing the liberties of that country upon the mere suggestion of the King's Ministers would go far to endanger the separation by force of the two islands. He had prepared a Motion to submit to the approbation of the House, and on that occasion he should move for a Call of the House to ensure a full attendance. That Motion was to this effect—that if any Minister of the Crown should move for a Bill to continue the system of coercion in Ireland, now sanctioned by a Bill about to expire, without having a previous Committee of Inquiry to report upon the propriety of such a step, that Minister was altogether unfit to be the Minister of a free country. Sooner would he abandon his seat in that House, and never again enter St. Stephen's Chapel, than acquiesce in the re-enactment of that infamous measure without the fullest inquiry taking place into the grounds of that alleged expediency for a renewal of coercion. Better would it be, and more consistent with the care which a good Government ought to exercise over a nation's welfare, had the noble Lord set himself about bringing forward a Bread Bill, or at least suggested some means of feeding a famishing people with potatoes, whose wants he had just come from supplying in his neighbourhood with his own hands, and those of a few other charitable resident gentry, than attempt, in this iniquitous way, to silence their complaints by a hateful and unnecessary measure of coercion.
Mr. Sheilstated, that the Marquess Wellesley was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in 1822 and 1823, when the Insurrection Act was brought forward. The Whigs were then in opposition, and they insisted

1115
upon the production of the documents which had induced Government to bring forward the Bill, and they were met with similar excuses to those made by the right hon. Secretary. Lord Wellesley was then the Tory Lord Lieutenant, but he was now the Whig Lord Lieutenant, and surely they were bound to produce the documents called for. But was there not a private reason for the production of these papers? Did not much of the merits of the case between his hon. and learned friend and the right hon. Secretary depend on their production? Was not his hon. and learned friend justified in stating that he had been deceived when he was told, that the Lord Lieutenant was against the renewal of that part of the Coercion Bill which referred to public meetings if the papers were not produced? The right hon. Gentleman was aware that the time was arrived when the House would be called upon to renew this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, then, ought in justification of himself and of the Government to bring forward the reasons which had induced the Lord Lieutenant to change his opinions.
Mr. Feargus O'Connorsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had challenged his hon. and learned friend with a breach of confidence, in stating in public a private conversation; but the truth was, that his hon. and learned friend was very nearly losing the confidence of the people of Ireland in not explaining the reasons for the conduct which he was induced to pursue in consequence of the communication with the right hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Feargus O'Connor) would only add, that he had heard little or nothing on the subject of the Coercion Bill from his hon. and learned friend; but he had heard a great deal from some Gentlemen connected with the Government. He was sorry that his hon. and learned friend had suffered himself to be influenced for a single moment by the communication made to him, for his hon. and learned friend's conduct with regard to the Tithe Bill had not tended to increase his popularity in Ireland.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that he would not divide the House, although the question should be put in order to place his Motion on the Journals. The right hon. Gentleman had succeeded once in deceiving him; but he (Mr. O'Connell) would take care that he should not do so again. The
1116
right hon. Gentleman now refused to bring forward the papers called for, and made the excuse that he was going to bring forward other papers which had nothing to do with the matter in question. He (Mr. O'Connell) did not envy the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman.
The Motion was negatived.

THE CURRENCY.
Mr. Thomas Attwoodrose to bring forward his Motion respecting the Currency, but the hon. Gentleman had not proceeded far in his speech when
Mr. Divett Mr. Divett moved, that the House be counted.
Mr. Thomas Attwoodsaid, that this was a most unfair way to get rid of the Motion.
Forty Members, however, were present, and Mr. Thomas Attwood proceeded.
Mr. Rigby Wason Mr. Rigby Wason moved, that the House be counted, and forty Members not being present, the House adjourned.