THE ADDRESS—KING'S SPEECH.

HC Deb 04 February 1836 vol 31 cc22-104

The Speaker acquainted the House, that he and other Members had attended in the House of Peers, and had heard his Majesty deliver a most gracious Speech, of which; he had procured a copy. This copy he read to the House.

Sir John Wrottesley

rose for the purpose of moving the Address, and in doing so, said, in performing the duty I have undertaken on the present occasion, I cannot plead that inexperience usually urged as a claim on the indulgence of the House. I must rather rest my case upon the importance of the topics there introduced, and the favourable attention they will meet with, particularly when I consider that they are selected from subjects, the introduction of which has heretofore been sanctioned by the House—upon which Bills have been introduced and discussed; and if they have not been perfect and sufficiently satisfactory to the other branch of the Legislature, at least they cannot be deemed measures introduced for the mere purposes of change, but must be considered as attempts to remedy with caution and circumspection just causes of complaint. One recommendation is, indeed, new, but may be considered as the necessary result of the inquiry which has been instituted; and although I admit that the value of the case consists necessarily in details, I expect the measure itself will be characteristic of a generous nation, ever zealous in the cause of benevolence, humanity, and Christian charity. The first point I will bring under your consideration, is the universally acknowledged prosperity of our commerce and manufactures. In that part of the country with which I am best acquainted, never was there a more prosperous moment in all branches of trade connected with the produce and manufacture of iron; and I am happy to learn, from the best sources, that equal prosperity in all the other important manufactures of the country prevails. Cotton, woollen, earthenware, and silk, upon which such melancholy forebodings formerly existed, are in the most flourishing condition; and my satisfaction is increased by the knowledge, that this is not produced by any temporary cause, any over-issue of paper to create delusive prosperity for obtaining some great political object, but is the natural consequence of enterprise and industry, with a currency founded on a solid basis. There is no speculation, but our prosperity arises from a steady and increasing demand, and orders from houses of undoubted credit, more numerous than even our extensive manufactories can furnish. The labourers of England are fully employed at adequate wages, and a bountiful Providence, during three successive years, has provided them with an ample supply of food at prices which now enable them to compete with the artizans of other countries who have the benefit of cheaper food. This circumstance, so favourable to manu- factures, has created some complaints on the part of the landed interest. For myself, nearly ail my fortune is connected with agriculture, both as proprietor and occupier; and if one class of my countrymen could doubt my anxious desire for its prosperity, no assertion on my part could convince the others I was indifferent to it; but no personal motive shall ever induce me to sacrifice one class of my countrymen to another; nor will I, for the sake of casual popularity, hold forth encouragement to the farmer, which I consider delusive, and can only end in disappointment. An interest so important as agriculture, has just claims to prefer its complaints, and call upon the Legislature to consider them. It may, if it conceive itself neglected for want of union, associate; it may bring forth all its strength to further its views, and his Majesty recommends us to listen to them; but I venture to hope, that ere it brings its case before a Committee of this House, this new Agricultural Union will be more agreed as to the remedies it proposes. I must, however, observe with regret, the importance by the members of that Union attached to objects to which I am confident this House will not assent; while they pass over others which appear to me more efficacious and more attainable. A man who at one of their meetings adverted to local taxation, would be treated with contempt; and yet I speak confidently, when I say, relief would be greater from the amendment of the Poor-laws, great diminution of the county-rate, and a most economical and judicious management of the turnpike-tolls—a very considerable burthen upon the agriculturist, who contributes first to the repair of the roads, and is then heavily charged for the use which he makes of them—than from the measures generally proposed. If these appear but a trivial relief to the Unionists, it is for them to bring under the consideration of Parliament better and more efficacious measures. The Reports of the Commission appointed to inquire into the Church of England will soon be presented. It is composed of the Archbishops, Bishops, and principal officers, with other noblemen and gentlemen of dignity, and long experience in high public stations. His Majesty recommends us to act without delay upon these Reports. I have no doubt every attention will be paid to the interests of a body of men, inferior to none in learning, piety, and zeal; and while we provide as largely as the funds will admit for the maintenance of those who have spent large sums in acquiring that knowledge essential to the due discharge of their sacred office, and are expected to preserve their station in society, we shall also require of them a strict attention to those duties, for the discharge of which those funds were originally destined. With this subject is connected the mode of payment of the clergy; and here I find all parties agreed in the necessity of adopting some mode of preventing a collision of interests, where so much harmony ought to prevail. Several attempts have been made to render general a commutation of tithe, and his Majesty's Government have devoted much of their time and attention to that object. The result of their labours will, in due time, be presented to the House and sincerely do I hope it may be so framed as to receive the approbation of the Legislature. The grievances complained of by the Dissenters have been the subject of numerous petitions, and measures for their relief have been introduced into this House. His Majesty called our attention to these in the Speech at the opening of the Session last year, as far as regards marriage. The present recommendation takes a wider view, and proposes to you to embrace other measures, calculated not only to relieve Dissenters, but to provide a better mode of rendering that evidence upon which the succession to property often depends, less precarious and more accessible. Whatever difficulties may have existed in prosecuting those reforms which have hitherto taken place, they fall infinitely short of the obstacles opposed to any alterations affecting a reform of the laws. The expense and delay attending suits in Chancery, often amounting to the absorption of the whole property contended for, frequently depriving persons of the enjoyment of it during their youth and manhood, and restoring it at a period when the mind is no longer able to enjoy it, harassed by vexation, and fast sinking to the grave. If delay and expense injure the suitor, it enriches the profession; and such is the close connexion between its various branches, such the recollection of services performed, that the highest and most influential members of that profession have been suspected of leaning more to those interests than their duty to the public should have suggested. These abuses have continued through centuries, and I can only account for their long continuance, by the fact, that reform could only have been digested by those whose interests must have been injured. There are, however, in modern times, splendid exceptions and the substitution of payment by salary in lieu of fees, gives us a facility to promote reforms which did not previously exist. In this House I anticipate no successful opposition, and if there are in this kingdom any more deeply interested in this measure than others, they are the possessors of a large portion of the landed property of the country. The Report of the Commission on the Irish Poor, which his Majesty has laid before us, cannot fail to have arrested the attention of Members from ail parts of the United Kingdom. Of the state of the poor of Ireland we have often heard complaints, often have we been called upon to relieve temporary distress; but of their actual condition we wanted some correct information as there were contradictory reports. The mode adopted in prosecuting the present inquiry is free from all suspicion: all classes were invited to attend; and the Report adds to the facts disclosed the witnesses and the names of those in whose presence the evidence was given. Had this report been given three years ago, how distressing would have been the reflection, that appalling as the circumstances were, the introduction of the English Poor-law would have aggravated, the distress, and the remedy been worse than the evil itself. But that great measure, the reform of the English Poor-laws, so unjustly stigmatised as oppressive, not only relieved the over-burdened ratepayers, but has afforded comfort to the aged and impotent, for whose benefit it was intended, and released the able-bodied from a state of thraldom and dependence, and placed them in the situation of free labourers, capable of disposing, to whomsoever they choose, their only commodity—the labour of their hands. I contended that there was no surplus labour in England; and the moment you released the able-bodied labourer from being compelled in some measure to reside in his own parish when no work could be found, this fact was established. The case of Ireland is, however, strikingly different; and the distinctions in the state of the labouring poor in the two countries must never be lost sight of, in endeavouring to assimilate their laws. The Act of Elizabeth may perhaps be safely applied taking care not to engraft upon it the laws of settlement; and, above all, never admitting that the poor have a right or claim upon the industry of others for money or work. In Ireland you have not the machinery of England to work the Poor-laws; and if here it has been found necessary to deprive it of some of its powers, and place it under the vigilant control of officers appointed by the Crown, in Ireland it would be most impolitic to create it. What may be the limit of the amount to be raised, with a variety of details, must remain open to the deliberation of the House. All I ask is, that Ireland should no longer be the only country in the civilized world in which a provision of some kind for the relief of the indigent does not exist. Until this great question is settled I will not attempt to define all the causes of those discontents which have occupied so much of the attention of this House, and operated so powerfully upon the events of this country, from the very commencement of the Union to the present time. However, I have little difficulty in pronouncing, that whatever superstructures may have arisen, poverty has been the foundation. Whatever be the cause, the effects are too apparent to leave a doubt on our minds as to the propriety of assuring his Majesty, that we will take them into our consideration. To one measure I can see no objection. You began by altering the Municipal Laws of Scotland. Last Session was employed in framing a measure for placing Municipal Corporations in England and Wales under more vigilant popular control. The success of that Act, and the satisfaction generally evinced throughout the country has fully justified its enactment; and now, when you are called upon to reform Corporations, which are, if possible, worse than those of England, Ireland would, indeed, have just cause to complain of partiality, of which, I trust, the Legislature will never be guilty. The settlement of the Irish tithes has been so fully admitted by both sides of the House, that a recommendation to consider that subject in the very general terms of the Speech, can hardly be disputed. A subject which has created such difference of opinion, not only in Ireland, but between the two branches of the Legislature, I will not venture to discuss in the midst of so many important topics, and at so inconvenient a moment; I must, however, lament that any circumstance should have arisen to prevent the termination of disputes which have given rise to so much bloodshed. It must be highly detrimental to the interests of our Established Church to have a question of so much importance undecided. No man can doubt that some remedy ought to be applied to the present condition of the Irish Clergy—men whose station in life may be conceived to entitle them to be placed above the hardships of poverty, yet who are now supported either by voluntary contributions from this country, or by what little they have been able to collect of that which is undoubtedly their own property. Two Bills have been already sent up from this House for the purpose of effecting their relief. I regret that they did not meet with success, and I trust that any future measure for that purpose will experience a different fate. I never will be the advocate of a great organic change which would alter that Constitution under which I was born, and which has produced such happy results. Great and beneficial changes have, and I trust will, continue to be made; but to be governed by King, Lords, and Commons, is a principle upon which the Constitution of our country rests. I do not complain that the other House of Parliament should take a different view of a subject from ourselves. I am not disposed to state my opinion upon a case which might impede the march of Government; such a case has not arisen. The example of last Session proves that the good of the country being the great aim and object, mutual forbearance, and mutual concession, may be attended with the most beneficial results, without any compromise unworthy of the character of either of the contending parties. It will give satisfaction to the House to learn that the intimate union which subsists between this country and France is a pledge to Europe of the continuance of the general peace. Some persons may suppose that a difference exists between these professions and a desire to increase our naval force: but no Statesman will deny that the best mode of ensuring a continuance of peace is to be prepared for war. This country can gain nothing by war, and in the present state of her prosperous commerce, shared by other Powers, we are possessed of more colonies than we want for our own sake, and retain many of them solely for the purpose of preserving the balance of power in Europe, and preventing those frequent contests which for centuries has devastated parts of Asia. Peace is our great object; and I firmly believe, there are no better means for maintaining peace in Europe, than that we should retain that maritime superiority for which so much blood and treasure has been expended. His Majesty also expresses a wish for the speedy termination of the civil war in Spain, and a hope, "That the authority of the Queen of Spain will soon be established in every part of her dominions, and that the Spanish nation so long connected by friendship with Great Britain, will again enjoy the blessings of internal tranquillity and union." That wish is one to which I am sure every one must heartily respond. His Majesty further intimates a fact which must, I am sure, give unqualified satisfaction to all the friends of humanity—that he has concluded with the Queen of Spain a Treaty for the suppression of the Slave Trade, We must hail with satisfaction a continuance of our close alliance with France. A stronger proof of the sincerity of that country could not have been given, than the readiness with which she has received our proffered mediation with the United States. His Majesty expresses a confident hope of its acceptance by that other Power also, and then we shall perceive the confidence reposed in us by those two most powerful and enlightened nations, so recently our foes and rivals. Proud indeed may this country be when two such nations intrust to it not only their interests, but that of which they are more jealous—their honour. That confidence will not be misplaced. No British Government will ever propose to these nations to adopt a course which their own high principles would deem inconsistent with the dignity of the Sovereign of this country.

The hon. Member concluded by reading an Address, which, as usual, was an echo of the Speech.

Mr. Parker

I rise to second the Address in answer to his Majesty's most gracious Speech. In doing so, if the hon. Baronet, who has attained so considerable a station in this House, had to ask the House for as large a portion of their indulgence as was compatible with its dignity to grant, how much more reason have I to throw myself upon the indulgence of hon. Members, and to assure them that no one ever made the request with more sincerity, or with greater conviction of the degree in which he required it, than the humble individual before you. And, Sir, although I feel the fullest confidence in the ancient and prescriptive kindness of this House, ever extended to those who unostentatiously ask it at their hands, when I look round on the many Gentlemen associated with me on these benches, and consider how inferior I am in Parliamentary standing, and still more how inferior in abilities, I certainly should not have presumed to have come forward on an occasion like the present, did I not feel that I shall speak the sentiments in reference to this most gracious Speech which pervade the intelligent and industrious community which has twice sent me here without expense, and has supported me here with a generous confidence, of which I never can be insensible—and not only the sentiments of that single borough, but of many others of equal character throughout the realm, the inhabitants of which, in peaceful and prosperous commerce, and under the shade of amended social and municipal institutions, feel grateful to the persons, and inalienably attached to the principles, of Lord Grey's and Lord Melbourne's Administrations. Sir, beneath the former of these Governments the Reform Bill became a law, and many great and successful measures were accomplished. The seeds of other measures were also sown; and in his Majesty's most gracious Speech, upon which this House is now debating, the country will see with pleasure that the Reform Bill is not a sealed volume, unproductive of good measures, and sterile in improvement; but, on the contrary, they will see that it is a living letter, and that it will be the pride and glory of the reign under which we live, to have settled, not rashly, but to have satisfactorily settled, on safe, and sound, and constitutional foundations, a greater number of good measures than it was ever before the happy portion of a Sovereign to confer upon a people. But, Sir, if the other measures to which I have alluded have not only been wise in themselves, bat prosperous in their result, for instance, that relating to the East India Monopoly, the Poor-law Amendment Bill, and most of all, that great measure which has annihilated slavery in our colonies, and out of a society so complicated with passions, interests, and prejudices, order is beginning to appear, and success equal to expectation is crowning the humanity of Parliament—have we not equal reason to form expectations equally favourable in respect to other great measures announced in his Majesty's Speech, and ought not this House to entertain them as founded on wise and well deliberated principles. Sir, the House will hear with pleasure that his Majesty still continues to receive from his allies assurances of their anxiety to maintain pacific relations with this country; and when we consider the difficulties with which, at several periods, the preservation of peace has been attended—so grave, indeed, and considerable, as to have induced a distinguished individual, formerly a Member of this House, but now a Member of the House of Peers (I mean Lord Ashburton), to have given it as his opinion that peace could not be preserved for six months from November 1830—I think the House will give great credit to his Majesty's Ministers, and to the noble Lord who presides over that department, for having so managed the diplomacy of the country, as, without any loss of national honour, to have preserved the inestimable blessings of peace. I think, also, there will be but one opinion in respect to the mediatorial character offered by his Majesty, with a view to arrange the unfortunate difference which threatened a rupture between two nations so enlightened and so dear to us as the United States and France. Certainly, Sir, it would have been a painful sight to every Englishman to have seen arrayed against each other nations so connected with us—the one by the bonds of common origin, and the other by the closest alliances. The one, our rival in civilization, but no longer our enemy in the field. A nation full of chivalry and courage, adorned beyond her contemporaries in devotion to the arts; no longer meeting us in any other contests than those of commerce and of peace. The other our kinsmen, bred from English parents, and inheriting the usages of Englishmen—strong in her youthful institutions—and spreading to the widest boundaries of the soil, the language and the name, and the renown of England. I am sure on behalf of two such nations his Majesty could not have used his high authority, as Monarch of these realms, in a manner more gratifying to himself, and more beneficial to civilization than by such an interposition. The House also will sympathise with his Majesty that the civil disturbances unfortunately existing in the Basque provinces of Spain have not yet been brought to a conclusion; but it will hope that by acting up to the Quadripartite Treaty the termination of this struggle, and the establishment of the throne of the Queen of Spain on a constitutional foundation, is not far distant. Then, Sir, I must be permitted, but without giving it a party character, to express my hope and full assurance that the gallant band of Englishmen, now led on by a Member of this House, will reap new laurels on that soil where the British arms, under the command of the Duke of Wellington, have gained such deathless renown; and if it fails to reach the pinnacle of glory, to which the gallant Officer opposite (Sir Henry Hardinge) has attained, still that Vittoria will again ring with the fame of deeds which, though on a smaller scale, and on an issue infinitely less momentous, will add to the reputation of our brave countrymen. His Majesty, too, has been pleased to assure the House that the Estimates will be framed with a view to the closest economy, and in so doing he may no doubt assure himself of the grateful support of the representatives of the people, to whom of all services to be performed by them to their constituents there can be nothing more satisfactory than an alleviation of the public burdens, and a removal of such imposts as the state of the finances will permit. Upon one branch, however, of the Estimates, his Majesty has informed us that he shall have to call upon this House for some increase in his establishment; and when we consider that the naval branch is that which he proposes to strengthen, undoubtedly, from the peculiar attachment of the people of England to that branch of the establishment, it is one which will meet with the most ready acquiescence. No doubt at the proper time explanations will be given as to what has called for this addition, but, in the meantime, reposing as I do, full confidence in the advisers of the Crown, I anticipate the concurrence of this House in the requirement of his Majesty, under the persuasion that such an increase is called for by a corresponding increase on the part of other maritime powers, as well as with a view to protect our increasing commerce, which the House will recollect is extending itself to every corner of the world—and, if need be, to enforce negotiations for a safe and durable settlement of such points of difference, if such there be, as may require adjustment. When the Report of the Commissioners of Ecclesiastical affairs is on the Table of the House, his Majesty will most probably propose measures for such reforms in the state of our establishment as the abases therein existing require. But of these, as no scheme is before us, and as some time may elapse before such a measure is forthcoming, I will only say, that I hope when it is produced, that it will be discussed by the House in a temper fitting the subject-matter, and that the abuses of our establishment will be effectually extirpated. And this House will have heard with pleasure that his Majesty has the cordial desire to relieve all classes of his subjects from all and every disability arising from the right of conscience, being fully persuaded that such restrictions are an usurpation of functions with which Government has no concern. The adjustment, Sir, of these difficult questions I trust is now at hand; and undoubtedly that adjustment will come with some grace, and be received with some thankfulness on the part of the Dissenters, from that party in the State, which, acting always on the wide and comprehensive principle of the right of conscience, and following out the maxims of the greatest of their leaders, the late illustrious Mr. Fox, has already obtained for the Dissenters of Great Britain the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, and for our Irish fellow-countrymen, Catholic Emancipation. There will also, Sir, be shortly, as the House will have learned by the Speech from the Throne, a new Bill to amend Municipal Corporations in Ireland. On the loss of the Bill introduced last Session I will make no remarks; because I am unwilling to revive differences which I trust reason and intermediate reflection may have removed. But I will observe, only, that as Scotland three years ago obtained the blessings of self-government, and has used those blessings in a manner worthy of that great and intelligent people, and as England attained the same last year, having; used it also in a manner not less worthy than the Scotch of the confidence of the legislature, I should be sorry to suppose that either here or in another assembly, any wish will exist to deny or circumscribe an equal extension of the invaluable privileges of self-government to Ireland, believing, as I do, that to have a real union, we must have an equal principle of Government; and that we have no right to expect the acquiescence of Ireland in deprivations of privileges which have been extended to the other kingdoms of the union. So also on the Tithe Question, on which I shall exercise equal moderation, hoping and trusting that the same reason and the same intermediate reflection will have produced similar re-suits. I will, however, say this, and nothing further, that the more I have considered that subject, remembering that Parliament has to deal with a country where the minority is in possession of the Ecclesiastical Temporalities, and the majority absolutely excluded therefrom—whether we view the subject statistically, as between numbers, or morally, as between conflicting passions and interests, or politically, as involving questions of ascendancy, I can come only to one conclusion, viz., that if either party. Catholic or Protestant, have reason to complain of the Bill of last year, most assuredly it is not the Protestant who has the soundest cause of disapproval. I entertain, Sir, however, sincere hopes that by the measures contemplated by his Majesty, and, further, by the introduction of a prudent and well-constructed Poor-law into Ireland, that we shall soon see the noble resources of that island attain a development of which I think I already see the symptoms; and if it pleases his Majesty to continue the administration of affairs in the hands of my Lord Mulgrave, who, to his West-India fame, is adding that of being a benefactor nearer home, associated with my noble Friend, of whom I cannot in his presence say what I think, there is substantial ground to hope that religious differences may be assuaged, that the social habits of the people will improve, and that Ireland, under equal laws, and an impartial Administration, will become the stoutest bulwark and the fairest flower in the vast empire of Great Britain. I must now, Sir, advert to the state of the law to which his Majesty's Speech calls our attention; and, undoubtedly, there has been for so great a length of time so continuous a series of complaints at the evils and delays of the Court of Chancery, that it is high time that something should be attempted on a more comprehensive scale than that which hitherto has been done. It is with no view to blame any of the distinguished persons who have presided in that Court that I make these remarks. It is the system, not the men, who are in fault. Angels could not do what human beings are expected to perform; and the fault hitherto has been, that attempts at reform have only touched at isolated portions of the subject, instead of looking at the system as a whole. There was the Vice-Chancellor's Reform in 1813; the orders of Lord Lyndhurst since; the Court of Review in Bankruptcy, and the Judicial Committee, which in some degree, as a relief to the Lord Chancellor, is connected with it. But these were only local reforms. These are the three portions of a Chancery suit: matters before the hearing, at the hearing, and after the hearing. The clog was removed in the first process by the orders of Lord Lyndhurst; but it exists still at the hearing, and with increased proportions; for at the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor the arrears were 250; at the resignation of the Lords' Commissioners, 850. I am quite willing to admit that a temporary arrangement has produced inconvenience. The appointment, therefore, of a Vice-Chancellor has not removed the clog at the hearing, neither has it in the appeal. The truth is, that the judicial strength must be increased, and there must be an effective Court of Appeal. How this can be done I do not presume to say. It will, however, be well and wisely considered; and it will have the benefit of the deliberations of the present Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls, who are men eminently practical, and who are also men who have had far too much experience in Courts of Justice to lend themselves to any schemes which are attractive merely and illusive, and which in operation will be attended with antagonist disadvantages. I trust, also, that in another place his Majesty's Ministers will have the independent aid of an illustrious man, who, deeply versed in jurisprudence, and having brought in a manner more vivid than any one before the public eye the several defects of our national jurisprudence—I mean Lord Brougham—has pursued the course with increased power, which the comprehensive and sagacious Romilly has often developed in this House, and who has had the place in public which Bentham in the closet has held amongst jurists and great publicists. Sir, I regret that the state of Agriculture continues depressed to a degree painful to those connected with it. Not being myself a representative of that interest, I leave to others the discussion of that important subject; but I trust that, if this House can with justice to other interests, do anything in the behalf of so large a class of our fellow-countrymen, that it will do so. In the settlement of the Tithe question, I think much may be done also by new assessments, taking at their increased value the town and borough population. This has been done in Yorkshire, and no one complains. On the contrary, my learned Friend, Mr. Elsly, the Recorder of York, and the Clerk of the Peace for the West Riding, has informed me that in his late journey over the West Riding of Yorkshire, he met with nothing but the utmost readiness on the part of the trading interest to bear their due proportion. Thus Leeds was doubled, so was Sheffield, so, also, were Bradford and many other towns. But it is from the new Poor Bill that the agriculturists will derive their fullest remedy; and that too with corresponding, and indeed more than equal advantages to the labouring classes, who, from unhappy serfs, adscripli glebœ, have assumed the real position of manly and independent labourers. It will be seen, from the following instances which I have collected from the Reports, that these views are not visionary; on the contrary, that they exceed, as far as they go, the earnest expectations of the framers of the measure; and that too without any pressure on the poorer classes; but, on the contrary, with uniform and progressive improvement of their condition. [Mr. Parker here alluded to, but did not read over seriatim the Returns which follow.] Poor—Pauperised parishes—Battle parish—Average annual expenditure for the three last-years, 13,000l.; joint parochial and union expenditure for last quarter, 870l.: being at the rate of about 3,500l. per annum. Therefore, saving at the rate of 9,500l. per annum, or about 75 per cent.—greatest saving of all. Uckfield Union.—(From Mr. Hawley's Report.)—Old average expenditure of all the parishes united 16,600l. per annum; new half-yearly expenditure, first half-year,3,900l., being at the rate of 5,800l. per annum; saving as the rate of 10,800l. per annum, or about 65 per cent. Midhurst Union, in Sussex.—Reduction from 17,500l. to 5,400l., saving 12,100l. near 70 per cent. West Hampnall Union, Sussex.—From 16,437l. to 8,280l., saving 8,157., 50 per cent. In short, there is reason to anticipate that the saving, in Suffolk alone, from one clear year's full operation of the new system, will repay threefold the expense of the machinery of the new Commission, with all the Assistant Commissioners. Migration.—From 1,000 to 2,000 persons have already migrated from the southern counties to the north, where they have been sup-plied with places at double the rate of wages they had obtained in their own counties. The control of the Commissioners now extends over near 5,000 parishes, and the barriers to the free circulation of labour have in them been broken down—neither do people go to workhouses. From the 23d of September last, there was in the 335 poorhouses, workhouses, and tenements, belonging to the 204 unions already formed, accommodation for 26,443; whereas the actual number of inmates in them at that time, was only 11,137. In the parishes comprised in the Bishop's Stortford, the Dun-mow, Saffron Walden, and Ware Unions, there were, during last year, not less than one thousand able-bodied labourers on the rates. A few- weeks ago, there were only fifty. At Buntingford, not a single able-bodied man on the rates for the last seven weeks. Whigs and Tories have acted in perfect harmony. The clergy have everywhere lent a most valuable assistance in dissipating prejudices. Clergymen, farmers, and every person give testimonals of beneficial operation on morals. Little resistance, except from petty interested shopkeepers. Contentment succeeds disorder. I turn with far different feelings to the state of trade, and certainly never were there such cheering prospects announced by any Sovereign to any people. The King of the French and the American President have both congratulated their several Assemblies on the same cause, and the King of England has ample reason for the same. The business, too, is sound, and not on speculation. Consignments follow, and do not precede orders. Payments are made in cash beyond all former precedent; and activity, different from the inflated state of 1825, is regulated by prudence. Improvements, too, of a most rapid kind, are making everywhere, not only in England, but in all parts of our dominions. In Lancashire, it is calculated by Dr. Raye, that power to the amount of 7,000 horses will be wanted in two years, and 70,000 or 80,000 people to supply that power. What a prospect does not this open to the southern labourer? Then, Sir, there are rail-roads, opening pro- spects which I do not attempt to go into—300 miles have already been sanctioned by Parliament; 500 or 600 more will be asked for this session. The iron trade, of course, will participate largely in these prospects. An iron steam-boat is now working on the Indus—an iron rail-road is projected from Calcutta, to cut off the dangerous navigation of the Hoogly. I shall take the liberty of reading a few figures in illustration of this improvement, up to the latest time I have been able to obtain them; but, first, I must say, that the labouring classes have participated fully in these advantages, and that their wages and employment are much better. The consumption, too, of sugar, in spite of its rise in price, has increased; whilst that of British spirits has fallen. The condition, too, of the savings' banks is most satisfactory. Upon consideration, Sir, and out of respect to the time of the House, I shall not withdraw the attention of hon. Members from the speeches and opinions of the leaders of political parties in the House, by reading over in detail the statistical tables which I have prepared as illustrative of' the prosperity of trade. I shall only say to the House that I have those tables in my hand; for to prove the prosperity of commerce is as unnecessary as to prove a proposition which no one doubts. When an ancient rhetorician was uttering an oration in praise of Hercules, a hearer asked—Quis accusavit Herculem? Excess of deposits in Savings' Banks on 20th November, 1835, as compared wish 20th November, 1834, 1,150,000l., including Ireland.

Total deposits,	1830	£13,507,565	including Ireland.
1831	13,719,495	including Ireland.
1832	13,597,884	including Ireland.
1833	14,337,521	including Ireland.
1834	15,369,844	including Ireland.
1835	16,500,000	including Ireland.

Cotton.—Consumption of Cotton Wool, In 1833, 293,682,976lbs.; 1834, 302,935,657lbs.; 1835, 330,000,000lbs.; being an increased consumption of more than 36,000,000lbs. within the last two years, or 13½ per cent, on the whole quantity. To show the vast increase of the cotton manufacture, within the last ten years, I have obtained from returns to this House the following averages of the exports taken for periods of five years each. Annual average exportation of Cotton Manufactured Goods (exclusive of Hosiery and small wares.)

		Yards.	Yarn.
5 years from	1821 to 1835	310,885,781	28,349,587lbs.
5	1826 to 1830	568,597,024	52,732,156
4	1831 to 1834	483,622,178	71,648,305

The Returns for 1835 are not yet made out, but the House will see little reason to doubt, from the statement I have before made of the increased consumption of cotton wool during that year, that the increased exports have been in a similar proportion. Woollen Manufactures,—Declared value of Exports in 1834, 5,975,415l; and in 1835, 7,050,000l., being an increase in the value of woollen goods exported, of upwards of a million pounds sterling, or 18 per cent. Silk.—Quantity of silk consumed: In 1833, 3,663,679lbs.; 1834, 4,522,352lbs.; 1835, 5,500,000lbs., being an increase of near two million pounds within the two last years. Linen.—Of linen I have been unable to procure a return for the year 1835; but I have averages (as in the case of the cotton trade) of the quantity of linen manufactured goods exported during periods of five years each. Annual average from 1820 to 1824, 50,298,210 yards; from 1825 to 1829, 53,037,255 yards; from 1830 to 1034, 62,350,345 yards. Iron.—Cost and wrought iron and steel exported—Declared value in 1834, 1,406,872l.; in 1835, 1,680,000l., being an increase of 19½ per cent in one year. Annual average—(Five years) l820 to 1824 90,283 tons; 1825 to 1829, 87,237 tons; 1830 to 1834, 142,071 tons;—increase 62¾ per cent. Prices of bar iron at the works in Wales—1835, April 1, 7l. per ton; September 7, 7l 10s. per ton; October 7, 8l. per ton; December 7, 9l. per ton. 1836, January 7, 10l. per ton; January 18, 11l. per ton.

Hardwares exported.	Annual average—5 years.
1820	1824	9,772	tons	£1,248,082
1825	1829	11,635	—	1,345,645
1830	1836	15,649	—	1,483,518

Being an increase in the last ten years of 60 per cent. on quantity—19 per cent. on value. Principal articles of British manufacture exported, not including some minor articles, on which the returns have not yet been received:—

1833 Declared value	£34,489,385
1834	36.541,926
1835	41,000,000 & upwards.

Per centage increase in 1834,	6 percent.
Ditto ditto 1835,	13 per cent.

Now, Sir, I attribute this prosperity to the principles of Free Trade which in their infancy have done so much, and which I trust are to be persevered in, and to the security all traders feel in the just policy of the Government, and the certainty that when they sow they will reap a harvest. The American tariff is dying a natural death, and will cease to exist in a few-years. With France I hope for a more extended intercourse, worthy of the magnitude and wealth of the two kingdoms. The German League is in array against us; and, if I tell the truth, however disagreeable, it arises from our Corn-laws and our Timber Duties. The noble Lord (Palmerston) cannot prevent it. It will conquer all his diplomacy, unless this House arms him with the power of relaxing the taxes on their raw materials. The noble Lord can only preserve for as the arteries and channels of commerce, the Dardanelles, the free navigation of the Euxine, the Danube, and the Rhine, but the Legislature alone can abate that German League. There is one curious thing relative to the state of trade, viz., that formerly machinery could not keep pace with the raw material, whereas now the raw material can not keep pace with our machinery. This is the case in woollens, in silk, and even in cotton. Sismondi was afraid of machinery, but events have proved without cause. In this allusion, however, I desire it to be understood that I only am responsible. My right hon. Friend, the Member for Manchester, may do much if he could reduce duties. It would further advance the activity of trade; indeed, I believe it would produce a state of things of which the world has never seen the like. These opinions may seem chimerical, but it is my firm conviction they are sound. As for the German League, upon the whole, Sir, I am of opinion that the prosperous state of national affairs owes its origin to the two causes I have mentioned, for both of which we have to thank a liberal Administration. The principles of free trade have given a stimulus to the active industry of the country, and the wise reforms of the Government have given men of substance and intelligence confidence in the integrity and sound discretion by which the country is governed. I believe, too, that if we can tranquillize Ireland, by doing justice to its inhabitants, we shall effect a great moral and social change in its character. Capitalists will send over their money, and public and private works will employ the labouring poor. In short, whatever may be the benefits derivable from liberal measures in this country, they ate of less consequence here than they are in Ireland. In order, therefore, to preserve a liberal Government both here and there, and more especially to give Lord Mulgrave the opportunity of developing the energies of that country, I hope the House will vote the Address which I have seconded.

Sir Robert Peel

—The Speech which has been delivered from the Throne this day naturally suggests, as preceding speeches have done, many considerations, which press for the decision or upon the attention of Parliament, connected with the foreign and domestic policy of this country. I will reverse the order in which those great topics for our consideration were referred to in the speech of my hon. Friend, the Member for Staffordshire, who moved the Address, and will briefly direct attention, in the first instance, to those parts of the Royal Speech which refer more immediately to the foreign policy of this country. I rejoice to hear that his Majesty entertains a confident hope of a continued maintenance of peace. I rejoice, also, to hear that his Majesty is enabled to congratulate himself on the continued maintenance of a good understanding with his powerful neighbour the king of the French. I consider the maintenance of that good understanding to be essential to the best interests of both countries, and certainly a great security for the continued tranquillity of Europe. I hope, indeed, that ail the countries of Europe are so deeply impressed with the importance, nay, the moral obligation of maintaining peace, unless war be necessary for the vindication of national honour, or the protection of some essential interest, that, even if the continued good understanding between England and France did not afford a strong guarantee for the continuance of peace, the breaking out of hostilities in Europe would be an event not likely soon to occur. I trust also that the increased commercial intercourse between this country and France will still confirm their common interest in maintaining the relations of peace and amity with each other. Another source of satisfaction to me—which, however, I derive not from the Speech from the Throne, but from intelligence I have lately received in common with the public—in the prospect of an amicable termination of the differences which have for some time existed between France and America. Both those countries ought to understand that the great parties, and indeed all intelligent persons in this country, who take a more enlightened view of what is really for the interest of the country, than superficial observers gave them credit for, are unanimous in wishing that the differences between them may be speedily and amicably terminated, I be- lieve there is no party, and scarcely an individual in this country who would contemplate with any feeling but that of pain the commencement of hostilities between France and America. I think there is no man—I speak thus generally, for it is my belief that the observation will apply almost universally—who does not think that any petty advantage which this country might derive from the commencement of hostilities between two such powerful parties would be dearly purchased by the hazard which would occur of a general war, and the common injury which the interests of industry, humanity, and morality must thereby sustain. With respect to Spain—I do not quarrel with the terms in which that country is alluded to in the Speech from the Throne, or the Address in answer to it, although I dissent from the policy which our Government is pursuing towards Spain. I cannot concur with the hon. Member for Sheffield in congratulating the House on the manner in which our interference in Spanish affairs has taken place—I, for my part, regret that his Majesty's subjects have been permitted to enter as parties into the conflict now going on in Spain. I do not perceive that such interference on our part has in any way had any tendency to diminish the shameful and disgusting practices (I care not by which party committed), which have cast a stain upon the national character of Spain, I perceive, however, that his Majesty's Speech contains a reference to Spanish affairs, which I certainly did not expect. It contains a direct reference to the conduct of another Government towards its own subjects. The Speech undertakes to pronounce an Opinion upon the prudence and caution of the course pursued by the Government of the Queen of Spain. I am most certainly surprised to find such a paragraph introduced into a Speech framed by the present Government, because I recollect that when, so lately as 1830, reference was made by us to the course which had been pursued by the King of the Netherlands, a most severe censure was passed upon it. We were asked whether we had not enough to attend to in looking after our own affairs—and significant allusion was made to India and Ireland—without passing an. opinion upon the conduct of a foreign Government with respect to its own subjects, and we were forewarned—and it seems with good reason—that the prece- dent then established would hereafter be followed. The introduction of the words which I have alluded to, shows the character of the part which we are acting with respect to Spain; it shows that we are becoming daily more and more parties to the contest—parties not directly by the manifestation of open hostility; but it is a fact that, with respect to Spain, we have, without intending to incur the risk of war, departed from a principle which I thought was held sacred by hon. Gentlemen opposite; namely the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other nations. The cause of quarrel could never be taken into consideration upon the principle which I thought hon. Members opposite were determined to support, and therefore, by lauding the conduct which the Queen's Government has pursued, they are establishing or confirming, if they please, the precedent of interference in the domestic affairs of other nations. Notwithstanding the confident assurances of the continuance of peace which are contained in the Royal Speech, there is, it appears, to be an increase in the Naval Estimates. I presume that the increase will be considerable, since mention is made of it in his Majesty's Speech. It is not absolutely necessary that this should be so; but I presume, that if it were intended to make only what might be considered an ordinary increase in the estimates, no direct mention of the circumstance would be made in the Speech from the Throne. Some of my Friends near me think that this passage in the Speech is intended as a reflection upon the Government which preceded the present. We have little time to scrutinise documents of this description; but, from my own observation, I do not consider that the passage in question bears that imputation. When I and my hon. Friends prepared the Navy Estimates last year, I have no hesitation in saying that we considered it to be our duty to reduce them, as well as every other estimate, military and civil, to the lowest point consistently with the protection of the honour and the true interests of the country. I apprehend, however, that the reduced estimates which we framed, met the general assent. The hon. Member for Middlesex, it is true complained that the reduction had not been carried further; he proposed, I believe, a reduction of ten thousand men. My right hon. Friend behind me doubted whether reduction had not already been carried further than was consistent with the true interests of the country; but I did not understand that the House generally entertained any doubt as to the propriety of the redactions proposed, and, therefore, I differ from those of my Friends who think that the passage in the Speech which refers to the proposed increase of the naval force can be meant to imply a reflection upon the Government which preceded the present, that it neglected the naval honour; and I am glad to perceive that my impression is confirmed by the assent of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. As there are so many other topics of urgent domestic interest adverted to in the Speech, I shall postpone for the present all further reference to what it says respecting the foreign policy of the country, and shall proceed to offer a few remarks upon the principles which it is said are to govern its domestic administration. We are told that material changes, which are called, "better provisions," are to be effected in the departments of law, especially in the Court of Chancery. To the manner in which these changes are recommended I do not object. It implies no pledge, but leaves every one at liberty to act on his own views of the nature and extent of the proposed Reform. Without, therefore, pledging myself to any future line of conduct, I will say that, if I should be compelled to come to the conclusion that it is important to make an alteration in the high and distinguished office of Lord Chancellor of England, by separating its judicial from its legislative functions, I shall come to that conclusion with great pain. It will, however, require a great deal to convince me that it is either right or expedient to divest so high a judicial officer of all his political functions, especially when it is well known that it is those functions which secure to the Lord Chancellor his preeminence as a judge. I thank the hon. Member who seconded the Address for the candour with which he had admitted that there had been a great failure in the appointment of Commissioners to exercise the powers of the Great Seal. Indeed, that failure must be admitted by everybody who knew that the arrears in the Court of Chancery had mounted up to 800, from 200, during the period in which the Commissioners had presided over that Court. [Mr. Parker twice said a few words in explanation] It may promote the convenience of the hon. Member to interrupt me as I proceed, but it will promote the convenience of the House still more if the hon. Member will not interrupt me again until I have concluded my speech. The salary of 10,000l. a-year, allotted to the Lord Chancellor, had been given to the three Commissioners, the hon. Member has explained how they have divided the business to delay it, has he also inquired whether the Commissioners have not divided that sum among them? Now, as they have increased the arrear of business ["No, no," from Mr. Parker],—as they have done no good whatsoever, according to the hon. Member. [Mr. Parker had not used any such language.] Have they, I asked last year, and I repeat the question now, have the three Commissioners, who have done no good, according to the hon. Member except it be a good to increase the number of arrears, have they divided among themselves the salary of the Lord Chancellor? For my part, I wish to see the important office of Lord Chancellor maintained upon its present footing, and the same high and independent confidence reposed in it by the Bar that was reposed in it at present. It is not for me to inquire why the confidence of the Crown was not continued to Lord Brougham, the late holder of that high judicial office. It is enough for me to know that another arrangement was made. That arrangement continued almost up to the meeting of Parliament, and was not altered until after the appearance of a pamphlet by Sir Edward Sugden. The appointments subsequently made might not stand in the relation of cause and effect to that pamphlet, but to the world it appears as if never pamphlet had been more efficient, for it seems to have conferred three offices, and to have created three peerages. His Majesty's Speech also refers to the measures which are to be introduced into Parliament on several matters of important domestic interest. It refers to all of them, with one exception, in a manner which is not calculated to invite any opposition. With respect to the commutation of tithe in England and "Wales, it suggests the propriety of taking it into immediate consideration. It lays down no principle on which the measure is to be founded—it calls for no declation of opinion from the House as to the mode of dealing with it. I introduced into Parliament last Session a measure founded on the principle of voluntary commutation. The noble Lord opposite dissented from the principle of that measure, and declared that no measure would be satisfactory which did not include a compulsory obligation to commute the tithes. In my opinion, it will be a matter of difficulty to reconcile the principle of compulsion with justice to the tithe-payer and to the tithe-owner. If the noble Lord can reconcile that principle with the just claims of those two parties, I shall be ready to give to the noble Lord's plan all due consideration, as I am convinced that the time is come when a permanent settlement of the Tithe Question must be made. I will pass over many of the points referred to in the Speech, not wishing to excite a desultory conversation, which can lead to no results, upon matters which require, and must undergo before long;, full discussion. I will only say, that whatever opinions I may entertain upon many of the measures which it is the intention of his Majesty's Government to lay before the Parliament, I have no objection to urge against the manner in which they have been mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. There is one point, however, a solitary exception, as I have before stated, to the rest of the Speech on which I wish to say a few words, in order to guard myself, in future, from misrepresentation. On that point my suspicions are awakened, not only by the terms in which the subject is referred to in the Speech, but also by the singular contrast which exists between those terms and the terms in which every other topic referred to in the Speech is mentioned. Whatever difference of opinion may prevail on political questions on the two sides of that House, the evil effect of that difference can only be increased by Members allowing themselves to become, through negligence, or, still worse, through intention, parties to any deception on the public. The particular subject to which I referred, and to which I only refer, for the sake of guarding myself against misrepresentation, is the subject of the intended reform in the Municipal Corporations of Ireland, I do not wish to enter at large into that question at present, which would be an inconvenient time for such a discussion; and the time will speedily arrive when such a discussion must be entertained, and when the House must devote itself to its full consideration. I do not refer to this subject so much on account of its own merits, as on account of the pledge, which, unless I am much mistaken, the Speech and the Address both called upon us to give. The terms in which the reform of the Irish Municipal Corporations are referred to are briefly these:—"We assure your Majesty that being already in possession of the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of the Municipal Corporations in Ireland, we entertain a hope that it will be in our power to apply to any defects and evils which may have been shown to exist in those institutions a remedy founded upon the same principles as those of the Acts which have already passed for England and Scotland." It appears to me, that if we consent to that passage in the Address, we shall pledge ourselves to apply the same principles of Municipal Reform to Ireland as we have already done to England. I might hereafter say, that I did not put that construction upon the passage which I have read, but I am desirous not to be a party to any misconception upon the point. If it be meant that, by agreeing to these words, I shall give the pledge which I have described, I, on the truest grounds, object to being called upon to do so, I object to being called upon to give such a pledge, because (apart from the merits of the Question) I think it unfair that I should be placed in that position at an hour's notice. I assume that it is intended to involve me in a pledge—that if I should assent to this part of the Address without protesting or moving an Amendment, hon. Gentlemen opposite would say, hereafter, when I objected to their Measure, "you are too late; you pledged yourself on the first day of the Session to apply the same principles of Municipal Reform to Ireland as have already been applied to England and Scotland." I say that it is unfair and unjust to call upon me, at so short a notice, to pledge myself with respect to so important a matter. The calling upon me to give that pledge, supplies you with no advantage for the ultimate decision of the Question, unless it is meant unfairly to entrap me, and thus fetter my future conduct. You should have contented yourselves with a simple notice, that the subject was to be brought under consideration, and then we should have come to the discussion with the same advantages which you yourselves possess; but instead of that, a Speech is delivered from the Throne this day, upon which an Address is afterwards founded, of whose points no person is cognizant but yourselves, and then you call upon us, without notice, and meeting in London now for the first time after the recess, to pledge ourselves to adopt a most important course of proceeding. I say that this is unjust, and inconsistent with the course which has been pursued upon all similar occasions during the last twenty or thirty years, by all Governments and almost all Oppositions. I maintain that, during the period I have stated, it has been an object to avoid calling upon an opposing party to give such a pledge as that now required; and the Speech from the Throne, and the Address (which is the material point for us to consider) have been so framed, that although the intentions of Government upon subjects of the utmost importance, and referring to measures of the first concern, have been clearly exhibited, the necessity of moving an Amendment has been imposed upon the Opposition. I think there is a great advantage in our being able to meet on the first day of the Session without a division. So far was I from advising any preconcerted Amendment upon the present occasion, that the advice I gave, as my friends know, was, that they should move no Amendment on the first day of the Session to the Address to the Throne from both Houses of Parliament, unless the necessity for doing so should be imposed upon them, contrary to usage. I declare sincerely, that to call upon the House to give a pledge upon this point, is contrary to the practice observed during the last twenty years. I do not undervalue the Measure which is about to be proposed, but I assert that measures of at least equal importance, and with respect to which the most violent opposition was expected, have been referred to upon former occasions, and yet the Address has been so framed as to dispense with the necessity of an Amendment. When the Measure for relieving Roman Catholics from civil disabilities was referred to in the King's Speech, in 1829, it was done in such a manner that the party who opposed that measure did not feel it necessary to propose an Amendment. The right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Hobhouse) says that the Government was not strong then—and I suppose he intended me to hear the observation; but whatever I may think of the correctness of his opinion upon that point, he surely will not deny that the Government which brought forward the Reform Bill, after the dissolution of Parliament in 1832, was strong enough to have been able to have carried an Address, pledging their opponents to the principle of that Measure; and yet they abstained from doing so. I say, therefore, that against the course now proposed to be adopted I have the experience of all past Addresses during the last twenty or thirty years, which, though referring to important matters upon which the minds both of the Ministers and their opponents were made up, exacted no pledge from any party. I further refer, as a proof of the injustice contemplated by that part of the Address which I deprecate, to the remainder of the Address itself. It touches upon other points, with respect to which no pledge is demanded—namely, tithes, alterations in the Court of Chancery, and the introduction of poor laws into Ireland. With respect to these topics the Address confines itself to saying what I wish to be said upon the subject of Irish Corporations—that the House is prepared to give to any measures proposed by the Government impartial consideration; upon the point of Corporations in Ireland alone does the Address go further, and declares that such consideration only will be given provided that the Measure proposed be founded upon the same principles as the Acts which have already passed with reference to Corporations in England and Scotland. Looking upon the Speech from the Throne as the Speech of Ministers, I, with great respect protest against their right to prescribe to roe what shall be the principle of the Measure about to be introduced. "Leave that," I will say, "to the fair consideration of Parliament-state that it is your intention to introduce certain measures—state that you feel the necessity of applying a remedy to certain grievances—but state that you leave the consideration of that remedy to Parliament. Upon other points his Majesty is made to express his firm expectation that they will be so treated "as to increase the happiness and prosperity, by promoting the religion and morality of my people;" but the subject of Municipal Corporations in Ireland is specially excepted, and we are not only told that we must consider of a remedy, but the principle upon which that remedy shall be founded is prescribed. Again I protest against the justice of this proceeding apart from the consideration of the merits of the question. Fair notice ought to have been given; and if it were intended to introduce this pledge into the Address, we ought, at least, to have had the advantage of the practice which prevailed in former times, and been allowed twenty-four hours' consideration, and not twenty-four minutes, before we were called upon either to acquiesce in a declaration by which we should hereafter be bound, or to protest against it by moving an Amendment. I can appeal to another authority in favour of the view which I take of this subject—namely, to the experience and good sense, and sense of justice of the Gentleman selected as the mover of the Address; for in the Speech in which he recommended the adoption of the Address, he distinctly told the House that he anticipated no objection to it, because it called for no pledge. If the hon. Baronet's interpretation of the Address be correct—if Ministers adopt his honest suggestion, on candid admission, they cannot object to clear up all doubt upon the point by acceding to a verbal alteration, for the last thing which I wish is, to be under the necessity of moving an Amendment; but at the same time I am resolved that I will not incur the risk of exciting expectations which, in all probability, I shall feel myself called upon to disappoint, nor embarrass my future proceedings by unnecessary pledges. It may, perhaps, be said that there is a distinction between the question of Irish Corporations and the other matters referred to in the Speech—such as the question of English tithes, reform of the Court of Chancery, and the introduction of poor laws into Ireland, because a measure has passed through the House of Commons with respect to the first, which is not the case with regard to the others. When the Bill respecting Corporations in Ireland was introduced last year, I protested against being called upon to consider it at that time. I stated that at the time it was introduced I had no opportunity of reading the Report of the Commissioners. I read neither the Report nor the Bill, and I reserved to myself the right—whatever might be the decision of the House respecting the measure—of acting as I thought proper, with regard to it, if it should be again introduced during the present Session. The distinction, however, which I am supposing might be attempted to be set up, on he ground that the Bill for altering Irish Corporations received the assent of the House of Commons, does not avail. What course has been taken with respect to the appropriation principle? That was a principle to which the majority of this House assented, and not only assented, but recorded their opinion, that no settlement of the question of Irish tithes would be satisfactory, or conduce to the peace of Ireland, of which the principle determined on should not form an essential part; and yet in your Address you have not called upon us, the minority, to assent to that principle. And wisely have you abstained from doing so. I am not referring to this omission by way of taunt. However firmly your own minds may be bent upon carrying that principle into effect, and however essential it may be deemed by the majority of this House, I think you have acted wisely in not provoking disunion on the first day of the Session, by calling upon the minority to affirm it. If, however, you pursue this course with respect to the appropriation principle—if you feel that there is decorum in not calling upon us to acquiesce in that principle—why do you not act in the same way with reference to Corporations in Ireland? It may be said that the Report of the Commissioners has been presented; and so it has; but it is only Ministers, or Members immediately connected with Government, who have cognisance of the Address intended to be moved; and no person from reading the Report of the Commissioners could suppose that it was meant to call upon the House for the pledge contained in the Address. At half past two o'clock, the Speech from the Throne is delivered, in which Parliament is called upon to consider the subject of Irish Corporations, and at four o'clock we are required to pledge ourselves to the precise principle of the measure intended to be introduced. I find that the Commissioners themselves have, in their Report, studiously avoided suggesting any principle upon which a measure should be founded. If the Commissioners, after full deliberation, had suggested a comprehensive remedy for the evils complained of, I can conceive that there would have been some ground for calling upon us to acquiesce in their plan; but the Commissioners conclude their Report by expressly remarking, "We have not thought ourselves authorized to recommend specific measures of improvement in our reports, save so far as the notice of, and necessary observations upon, the defect, and cause of evil, tend to suggest the remedy. But we feel it to be our duty humbly to represent to your Majesty, that the early and effectual correction of the existing evils, and the prevention of future mischief, are anxiously desired, and essentially requisite; and that these benefits can be attained only by means of a general and complete reform of the constitution of the Municipal Corporations in Ireland." If the Commissioners, after the fullest consideration, abstained from suggesting any measure, is it consistent with justice that, at an hour's notice, we should be called upon to pledge ourselves not only to the application of some remedy, but even to the principles upon which the proposed remedy shall be founded? Another very important subject—namely, the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland—is referred to in the Address; and let the House contrast that part of the Address which relates to Municipal Reform in Ireland, with the phraseology in which Poor-laws for Ireland are referred to, and you will find the variance so strong, the distinction of expression used so remarkable, as to strike one forcibly on hearing it. If with a knowledge of this difference of expression I were to consent to the pledge now proposed, I may be told at a future day, when rising to oppose any details of a Bill for the Reform of the Irish Municipal Corporations, "You are too late—you committed yourself to the principle of the measure by acquiescing in the Address, and you cannot now oppose it." It would be added, "See what was said relative to Irish Corporations; a specific principle was pointed out; while in the case of Poor-laws, Parliament was simply invited to approach the subject with caution, proportionate to its importance and difficulty; but no particular measure was recommended." It would be said, that we had raised expectations with respect to Irish Municipal Reform which we could not fairly disappoint, and it would be urged that the same principle should be applied to Ireland as to England and Scotland. This argument would be strengthened by a reference to the manner in which Poor-laws for Ireland are adverted to in the Address. I am aware that various opinions have been entertained on that subject, and that the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has, hitherto I believe, been opposed to their introduction. Why do I advert to this difference of opinion? Simply because the opposition, which has been offered showed that, in the opinion of some gentlemen opposite, a principle esteemed good for England is not, as a matter of course, necessary for Ireland. The terms in which Ministers speak of Poor-laws for Ireland are cautious and measured, and simply suggested to Parliament the propriety of looking to the experience of the effect already produced by the Act for the amendment of the laws relating to the poor in England, but in no respect fetters our opinions, or seeks to tie us down to any fixed principles. The Address proposes to thank his Majesty for the information that a further report of the Commission of Inquiry into the condition of the poorer classes in Ireland will speedily be laid before the House, and to assure his Majesty, that Parliament will approach the subject with the caution due to its importance and difficulty, and, impressed with a conviction that the experience of the salutary effect already produced by the Act for the amendment of the laws relating to the poor in England and Wales may, in many respects, assist our deliberations. Why may we not claim the humble privilege of being allowed to apply the same cautious deliberation to a subject of equal importance and difficulty? Why not treat the question of Irish Municipal Reform in the same manner as is here suggested in reference to Irish Poor-laws? Your own Address is evidence against the impolicy and injustice of prematurely pledging the House on one point while you abstain upon another. Do I propose that there should be no Reform in Irish Municipal Corporations? Far from it. Am I prepared to defend the exact principle on which they exist and operate? I am not. But I wish not to enter upon the Question upon this occasion, not doubting but full opportunity will be afforded for discussing it. I content myself with stating my objections to being pledged beforehand to a particular course. I am asked, and so is the House, to promise to apply to Ireland the same principles of Municipal Reform which have been already applied in England and Scotland. What are those principles which, without exception or reservation, we are called on to affirm? The destruction of self- election in Corporations might be a principle; but can anything be more difficult than to define its precise limits and operation? You say that the destruction of self-election is one of your principles, but I repeat it is hard to define those principles exactly, and where a latitude is allowed, gentlemen may be entrapped into pledges and concessions they never contemplated. In England the ratepayers at large, in Scotland the 10l. householders are the constituent body. If I assent to the Address, and afterwards see reason to move, on the introduction of an Irish Municipal Reform Bill, that in Ireland 50l. householders should vote in the election of the corporate bodies, am I to be taken as adhering to or departing from the principles now referred to? If I assent to the address, reserving to myself the right and power to alter the details of the proposed Bill as I please, am I not, in point of fact, encouraging delusion? I am prepared to give the important subject of Municipal Reform in Ireland full and fair consideration, but I reserve to myself the power of applying my mind unbiased and unfettered to the Question. I admit that there must be extensive alterations in the Irish Municipal system, but I am not going to enter into the merits or details of the subject. I reserve to my-self the right of considering the subject maturely in all its bearings, uninfluenced by fanciful and merely plausible analogies. I intend to look not at words but things. I will consider the bearings of this Question on all the interests of the empire. It is not necessary for me to defend abuse—it is not necessary for me to maintain self-election—it is not necessary for me to attempt to vindicate exclusion from offices connected with the administration of justice—it is not necessary for me to contend for the misappropriation of funds, or to refuse to take effectual security against future misappropriation; but when I come to consider this Question, I will look at the whole state of Ireland, and I will ask myself whether, under the pretence of removing one exclusion, I shall not be confirming another. I will look to whom power will be given, and I will look to what objects the power so given will be directed. If I believe that power will be conferred in such a way as to conduce to the strengthening of the connexion between the two countries—if I believe that it will confirm those ancient settled insti- tutions constituting the Government, which my hon. Friend, the Member for Staffordshire, says he is determined to maintain, then I will consent to give it; but I will not be deceived by any plausible analogies, where no real ones exist—I will not be bound to apply the same principles with respect to Municipal Corporation Reform in Ireland which have been applied in England, unless I am certain that they will be employed in the same manner and for the furtherance of similar ends. Having received no assurance that it is not intended to bind me by a pledge, and being most anxious to guard against any possible misconstruction—feeling too that the course now taken is contrary to that pursued in other Parliamentary addresses, and inconsistent with Parliamentary usages, I propose to move the omission of the objectionable words; substituting for them others which, so far from excluding a measure of Municipal Reform for Ireland, will leave the question open for every one of the most extreme opinions to approach as he may please. In taking this course I entertain a confident hope, although I find it necessary to propose an amendment, that there may be no division on the Address, and I entertain that expectation because Ministers may concur in my proposition without relinquishing a firm determination to bring forward their own principles, and enforce them in any measure which they might propose to the House. I will read the words of the Address as it stands at present, and then propose an Amendment. The Clause to which I. object is to the following effect,—to assure his Majesty, that being "already in possession of the Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the state of the Municipal Corporations in Ireland, they entertain the hope that it will be in their power to apply to any defects and evils which may have been shown to exist in those institutions a remedy founded upon the same principles as those of the Acts which have already passed for England and Scotland." I move that those words be omitted, for the purpose of inserting the following,—"to assure your Majesty, that being already in possession of the Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the state of the Municipal Corporations in Ireland, we wilt proceed without delay to the consideration of any defects or evils which may have been proved to exist in those institutions, for the purpose of applying such remedies as may obviate all just causes of complaint, and insure the impartial administration of justice." I have purposely framed my Amendment in a way which will render it possible for Gentlemen opposite, though retaining their own opinions on the subject of Irish Municipal Reform, and determined, when the proper time comes to enforce their principles to the utmost of their ability, to adopt it, to avoid an appearance of disunion on the Address by concurring in my proposition.

Lord John Russell

rose and said, he thought he should best consult the convenience of the House, and certainly his own, in rising immediately after the right hon. Baronet, to offer some remarks upon the observations which had just fallen from him, and upon the Address which had just been proposed by his hon. Friend near him. He should take the various topics in the order they had been touched upon by the right hon. Baronet; and first to those respecting our Foreign Affairs. The right hon. Baronet's first criticism had been directed against that passage in the Address, or rather in his Majesty's Speech, which referred to the part taken by this country in respect to Spain, which the right hon. Baronet declared to be a breach of that principle of non-intervention upon which this Government had hitherto boasted to have acted. Surely the right hon. Baronet must recollect that, opposed as his Majesty's Ministers were to the principle of intervention in the affairs of other nations in general; yet, that as regarded Spain, this country was a party—a treaty, which, of course, the Government was bound to carry into execution. Whether intervention or non-intervention were the best principle, was not for him now to discuss in respect to our relations with Spain; for here his Majesty was already bound by a treaty with other foreign powers, which he could not possibly depart from. With respect, therefore, to our interference, that was regulated by a treaty which he believed it was a matter of boast on the part of the Government of which the right hon. Baronet was at the head—it was certainly a subject for just commendation of the conduct of the Duke of Wellington—that whilst that noble Duke held the Seals of Office as Secretary for Foreign Affairs, he carried into effect the stipulation of the treaty to which he had alluded, and studiously pre- vented a levy of troops being made in this country for the aid of Don Carlos. Whatever blame, therefore (if any), attached to the present Government for acting on the stipulations of that treaty, should, in all fairness, be also visited upon the Government, by which they had been preceded. The right hon. Gentleman next alluded to the proposed increase in the Navy Estimates, and seemed to ask, though not in distinct and direct terms, whether the passage in his Majesty's Speech, which had reference to this subject, was to be taken as indicative of a warlike intention. Certainly no conception of that kind was justified by the fact that his Majesty's Ministers had thought it right to propose an increase in the naval force of this country sufficiently considerable to warrant the mention of it to Parliament, and that on grounds and considerations which, in the course of the summer, had been well weighed and discussed by the King's Ministry, but chiefly on this ground, that this country being a great maritime country, and other Powers preparing a force at no great distance from her own coasts, she ought not to be inferior in maritime preparations to other Powers. He thought this a wise principle; it was a principle not implying anything hostile to Foreign Powers; but it was one, at the same time, which justified us in placing ourselves in that situation, that no power would be inclined to insult this country from a notion that by our weakness we were unable to resent any affront that might be offered to us. The precautionary measure which his Majesty's Government, then, had considered it their duty to recommend was, so far from being regarded as a declaration of war, to be looked on as a provisional security for peace. He heard with great pleasure (a pleasure which he was sure would be partaken by all the inhabitants of this country) those observations which the right hon. Baronet had made on the offer of mediation which had been proffered to the Governments of France and America; and he readily and heartily joined the right hon. Baronet in the belief, that if our friendly interference in the decision of a misconstrued point of honour were sanctioned, it would be successfully exercised in re-establishing those sentiments of sincerity and good will which should subsist between those great and powerful nations, and bringing them again into that state of harmonious inter- course which had (but for a short period) been unhappily interrupted. He would not then enter at any length into the consideration of the topics which the right hon. Baronet had referred to with respect to the allusions in the Speech from the Throne to the proposed reforms in the Court of Chancery. At another time his hon. and learned Friend, the Solicitor-General would be enabled to show, that whatever might be the arrear of business in the Court of Chancery, it had not been considerably augmented by putting the Great Seal in Commission. He believed, that it might be shown from a proper comparison between the arrears when the Seal was put in Commission and the present arrears, that the Commission was not the cause of any increase that had taken place; but this he would at once say, that the Government having had it in contemplation, from the moment of its construction, to provide for a different administration of justice from that which had existed up to that period in the Court in question, considered it wise and expedient to adopt a temporary measure. The course which had frequently been taken before, of putting the Great Seal in Commission, and trusting it to those who not only had great experience and reputation to sustain their authority in those Courts in which they presided, was again followed, and persons were now placed at the head of the Courts, who agreed in the opinion, that the time was come for Reform in those Courts to take place. He would only further observe, that when the question of maladministration in the Court in question was brought before Parliament last year, he stated, as the decided opinion of Government, that provision for an additional permanent judge should be made in the Court of Chancery, but that as to the total separation of the judicial and political functions of the Lord Chancellor, that was a question of the greatest possible importance, and one which would require the most mature consideration. He would say no more at present on that subject than just to remark, that when the plan of Reform was brought forward, he trusted it would meet with the approval of the House, not only by reason of the authority of those from whom it emanated, but also from the importance—he had almost said the paramount importance—which it was to the country to have a measure of such a nature carried into effect. And now, Sir, said the noble Lord, I come to that question on which the right hon. Baronet has not merely made critical strictures, but has thought right to move an Amendment to the Address. Sir, I confess, that in framing that Speech, sufficient care was, as I thought, taken, not to pledge the opinion of Members of either House of Parliament, beyond what they may be fairly called on to subscribe to, without any sacrifice of independence, and without at all diminishing that right to which, beyond all doubt, they are entitled, of expressing and acting on their opinions, when the measures to which it referred, came to be considered. Let us see the cautious, and, as I consider, the guarded words of the Speech on this point: "You are already in possession of the Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the state of the Municipal Corporations in Ireland; and I entertain the hope that it will be in your power to apply to any defects and evils which may have been shown to exist in those institutions, a remedy, founded upon the same principles as those of the Acts, which have been already passed for England and Scotland." "I entertain the hope," are the words of his Majesty; and to these we respond, in the Address to the Crown, in these terms: "We partake in the hope expressed by your Majesty." "Oh! but (exclaims the right hon. Baronet) it is wrong of the King's Ministers to entertain any such hope: they should, on the contrary, declare that those principles which have been established in England and Scotland—the principles of vigilant popular control and responsibility—that these principles, which are in accordance (I must assert) with the principles of the British Constitution, and with all our ancient laws, are totally inapplicable to the laws by which Ireland is to be governed, and that no Minister should entertain the hope or consent to partake in the hope of seeing those principles carried into operation." Sir, instead of embodying these sentiments in the Address to the Throne, we have thought it the wisest course to say, that we do partake in the hope of seeing these principles carried into effect in Ireland. There is nothing to prevent Us from coming to that as a sound conclusion, though the words, "we entertain the hope that it may be in our power," are sufficiently cautious in excluding any unqualified pledge upon the subject. And what are these principles, for we of course make no allusion whatever to details? The right hon. Baronet in his speech, has in truth acceded to the correctness of the views which we have expressed on this question; for he has told you, that the regulations with respect to elections under the Municipal Acts vary, in England and Scotland. In the former, ratepayers resident for a period of three years, are entitled to vote for burgesses, whilst in the latter the qualification to vote is confined to 10l. householders: that in England the council recommend certain magistrates for the approval of his Majesty, and that on the other hand, in Scotland the choice of gentlemen who, for a certain period, perform the functions of magistrates, is confined to the electors, without requiring the sanction of his Majesty. These, I agree with the right hon. Baronet, are questions of detail; and when it is said in the King's Speech that the principles which are applied to England and Scotland should be also carried into operation with respect to Ireland, it is quite clear that you are not to be bound down to follow these details I have mentioned, by any forced or implied acquiescence in an opinion that precisely the same provisions should be applied to Ireland as those embraced in the two measures of municipal reform already passed; but it is equally clear that you are asked to give your opinion as to whether the general principles of those Acts—namely, popular election and control as opposed to self-election and abuse—should be made applicable to Ireland as well as to England. For the adoption of these general principles only, you are required to express a hope. Sir, I say, that if the right hon. Baronet do not partake, nor any other hon. Member, do not partake in that hope which alone the King's Speech expresses, they may consider it their duty fairly to express their dissent to any such doctrine; but I can say for myself and my Colleagues about me, that we are persuaded that these same principles may be applied to the municipal government of the towns of Ireland. We do not merely, Sir, entertain the hope, but we entertain the conviction of the truth and justice of the assertion, that the time is come when the differences of creed and sect in that country should not constitute an impassable barrier against the admis- sion of a large and influential class of his Majesty's subjects to the enjoyment of the benefits which must result from the establishment of a municipal system of government in that country, founded on the fundamental principles of the British Constitution, Entertaining, as we do, that conviction, the course which we have adopted on this occasion, is strictly in accordance with that which the right hon. Baronet himself took in the year 1829, when the question of the Catholic claims was about to be submitted to Parliament, and when Parliament was called on in the Speech from the Throne, to enter on the whole consideration of the state of Ireland, with the view to a satisfactory adjustment of that question. I maintain that every man who gave his vote in favour of that Address was much more strongly pledged in favour of the views of the Government than the present Address could possibly be supposed to bind any hon. Member who may support it, because in the former case, he distinctly and unequivocally engaged, no matter what his opinions might be as to the justice of conceding those claims, to go into a Committee of the whole House in order to consider them. Now I will take the liberty to quote a passage from an address, of the right hon. Baronet delivered on a former occasion, not with a view of preferring any charge of inconsistency between the observations which he has delivered to-night, and the sentiments which he expressed at the period to which I allude, but for the purpose of submitting to the calm deliberation of the right hon. Gentleman and the House, a passage of great weight in itself, from the wisdom it discloses, and of great individual importance, from the fact of its having proceeded from the right hon. Baronet himself. When the Roman Catholic Relief Bill was under consideration, the Council of the City of London presented the right hon. Baronet with the freedom of the city, and upon that occasion it was, that the right hon. Baronet thus addressed them. It was to this effect:—"This Act of Parliament will be a dead letter, unless it be enforced with the concurrence of the bodies whom it affects, and, therefore, I make no doubt that you will hold out the right hand of fellowship to your Roman Catholic brethren. I trust that the effect of the measure will be, to restore harmony to all parts of the community, through a consciousness of the privileges which will be enjoyed under the British Constitution without distinction of party or religion. That was the advice which the right hon. Baronet gave the Corporation of the City of London in the year 1829, with respect to the Catholic Relief Bill. How is the case altered by the present situation of affairs in Ireland? Have these distinctions of party and religion been utterly effaced in the management of the local government of the towns throughout Ireland? Or is it not a fact which is undeniable, that the great mass of the people have been carefully and totally excluded from all control over the corporate bodies. Well then, I ask, do we not so far break down those barriers of monopoly and exclusion which exist in Ireland, by resolving that popular election should carry into the common council of the several towns, all the men of wealth, respectability, and character, that dwell in them, be their creed or party what it may. I do think, I acknowledge, that it would grievously disappoint that hope if the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet were carried. I do think, that if instead of his Majesty's Speech (which, after all, be it recollected, pledges you to no more than acting on the same principles to Ireland that you have done to England and Scotland), you omit the words so often alluded to tonight, and say that you will merely endeavour to amend what you should at once announce your willingness thoroughly to reform, you will bring on yourselves a suspicion that you are not about to treat Ireland with the same justice with which you have treated England and Scotland, and that we hesitated to perform our parts towards Ireland, through apprehension of some danger which has not been very accurately defined, but which will be interpreted in Ireland to mean the danger of destroying monopoly and correcting abuse. Sir, I say then at once, that having so acted with regard to England, having so acted with regard to Scotland, and the words of the Address implying nothing more than the adaptation of the same general principles to Ireland, I, for one, cannot consent to the proposed Amendment, particularly when I remember that even against the address of the right hon. Baronet, when he was Minister of the Crown, this House resolved to go further than what he then proposed, and actually expressed a hope (which was then confirmed by a vote), to see "the corpo- rations reformed on principles of vigilant popular control." We do not now repeat these words, but when we use others which imply the same sentiment as that which was formerly sanctioned and approved of by a majority of this House, I am bound to declare, that in wisdom, in justice, and in consistency, you ought to adopt the words of this Address.

Lord Stanley

felt unwilling to allow this question to go to a division, without saying a few words explanatory of a vote which, if he were compelled to it, he should feel himself obliged to give. He came to that House with the strongest anxiety, which had not yet forsaken him, and a hope even, which had not forsaken him up to that moment—that, by a mutual agreement of both parties, by a cautious avoidance on either side of words and expressions which would lead to a premature discussion of important questions, the Address of that House would go up to his Majesty without an Amendment, and almost without discussion; because he could hardly believe that his noble Friend (Lord John Russell) opposite should not, after the speech which he had now uttered, be induced to follow that example which, if he did not much mistake, had been set him by his colleagues in another House, of cheerfully, willingly, and anxiously adopting an Amendment couched in the precise terms in which the Amendment now submitted was drawn up. He could truly say, that he came down to that House, not only with an anxiety to assist his Majesty's Ministers in carrying the Address, if it appeared to him unobjectionable, but also in the entire ignorance of any determination on the part of any person or party to propose an Amendment; but he came down also with a feeling which he never lost sight of on any occasion, that the more important and the more material, were the questions to be discussed which were alluded to in the Speech from the Throne, the more imperious was the necessity of avoiding a partial and premature decision on them. Why, if this Amendment were material to pledging the determination of Government to the adoption of a course of conduct which they did not consider desirable—if it were material in weakening that strong determination and strong expression of opinion to which they conceived they were bound to adhere, he asked why in any place, or on any consideration, they yielded to its adoption; but if the Amendment were only material in so far that it would not weaken the King's Speech, or the Address of his Ministers, but that it enabled those who were anxious further to consider the topics which it embraced, to join cheerfully in the expression of loyalty and attachment to the Throne which such an Address was meant to convey, he asked on what grounds of prudence, reason, or political wisdom, his Majesty's Ministers refused their assent to the proposition? If they were right in acceding to the proposition elsewhere, they could not be wrong in allowing it to receive the sanction of that House. Sir, continued the noble Lord, I am sure that the policy alluded to ought to be, I am willing to hope that it is, the policy of his Majesty's Ministers, I hope that it is their policy to show and secure by their prudence that no difference in expression of opinion—that no difference of feeling between the two branches of the Legislature, should be displayed on such a subject, but that they should wisely and prudently act that conciliatory part which should best become them, if, without any sacrifice of their own opinions, they should yet so far consult the dictates of prudence, and make allowance for what may be termed the prejudices of an opposite party, as not unnecessarily to press words which can be of no real importance. Why, Sir, the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Address said, "I can conceive no possible reason why, when you have dealt in a particular way with England and Scotland, you should not deal in the same manner with Ireland." Sir, the question is now, not whether there does or does not exist any reasons for dealing differently with one from the others; but the question is whether, without discussion and consideration, you are to bind the House, without deliberating upon or even hearing the differences which are acknowledged to exist between these countries, to take precisely the same line, notwithstanding the different circumstances in which each is placed. Have his Majesty's Ministers adopted the same course as that which they have taken with regard to Municipal Reform, respecting other measures which have been carried into effect in England and Scotland, and are now proposed to be introduced into Ireland? Have they done so with respect to Poor-laws? Though the distinction has been already pointed out by the right hon. Baronet who moved the Amendment, yet, allow me again to ask, what is the language of the King's Speech upon speaking of Poor-laws? Do his Majesty's Ministers at once state that a plan had been tried in England, which has proved eminently successful, and call on you, without further consideration, to pledge yourselves to deal With Ireland, on the Question of Poor-laws, in the same manner that you have dealt towards England? No such thing. But why? For the best of all possible reasons—because, as statesmen and prudent men, they felt bound to look at the, different circumstances of the two countries—to the materials they had to work with—to the state of society in the one and in the other—to the different effects which might, in all probability, result in the one and in the other, from the adoption of one and the same measure. Consequently, as prudent and wise men they have told you that you must not be guided in the discussion of Poor Laws for Ireland by the light which the experience of the working of them in this country supplies; but that the Question itself, like every other great question, must be dealt with in reference to the state of society which it is proposed that it should effect. I admit that you must apply a certain remedy to the abuses of Corporations in Ireland; and I, for one, am disposed to go to the root of the evil; but all I ask of you is not to pledge yourselves and this House to the remedy of corruption under one state of things, by the application of a system which was applied to evils arising in a different state of society. The hon. Gentleman opposite can hardly say that this question was decided under the sanction of the House of Commons. It is true that a Bill for the Reform of Municipal Corporations in Ireland was introduced during the last Session of Parliament, in a most able, temperate, and admirable speech of a right hon. Friend of mine, no longer a Member of this House (now Mr. Justice Perrin). It was introduced on the 31st July, and on the 12th August, under a pressure of other business, many Members were compelled to leave the metropolis, (and I can say for myself, that on that very day I was engaged in the performance of my duty as Foreman of the Grand Jury of the County of Lancashire) and when a vast majority, wearied by a six months' Session, had ceased to attend this House, then it was that, without discussion and without consideration, I venture to say, not only the, second reading, but every individual Clause was passed with the haste of a common Turnpike Bill. You cannot, then, say that you have the sanction of the other branch of the Legislature to the Bill of last Session, and I now altogether disclaim the possibility of adopting a Bill founded on the same principles as those which are suited to a totally different aspect of affairs. I ask again, what are those principles to which we are to consider ourselves bound by the adoption of this Address? My noble Friend (Lord John Russell) says we only "partake in the hope" that such a measure may pass, but in order to entertain the hope we must have some well-founded conviction; nay, when the House of Commons says, "we partake in the hope" that such a measure may be passed, we ought to be satisfied almost beyond the power of question that we shall be able to fulfil the hope after we have expressed it. But do we propose because we prefer the language of the Amendment to that of the Address, and which, indeed, if it be pressed to a division I shall feel myself bound to prefer—do we, therefore, manifest a desire to maintain the abuses of Corporations in Ireland? [Lord John Russell: "Yes, you do."] We do! I thought from the tenor of my noble Friend's speech that he either did not hear or did not properly understand the terms of the Amendment, and that supposition is confirmed when I hear him now assert that by supporting the Amendment we are adhering to the abuses in Irish Corporations. What are the words of the Amendment? "We will proceed without delay to the consideration of the evils which are proved to exist in those institutions." Why? For the purpose of clinging to them? for the purpose of defending them? with the view of interposing between them and all Reform? No; but for the purpose of "applying such remedies as may obviate all just grounds of complaint, and insure the impartial administration of justice." I cannot conceive by what I might call a strange conversion of ideas how my noble Friend should have come to the conclusion that the adoption of the Amendment pledged those who supported it to an approval of the abuses in the Corporations of Ireland. I for one am most anxious to apply the most summary remedy to those abuses, and in some instances I should be inclined to adopt the radical remedy of total extinction; for I am persuaded that greater abuses exist in many of the towns in Ireland, as to the administration of funds and the exclusive system of management, than prevailed in this country. Apply the remedy summarily and completely: let not the shadow or vestige of abuse remain; subject your councils to vigilant popular control; but allow me to judge when any measure is brought forward, whether this or that measure is the most effectual, to do away with the corruption and the profligate administration of funds, and the exclusive system by which all those of any one particular creed or persuasion or class is removed from the superintendence of local affairs. Sir, there is no man who looks at this Question, who must not know and feel it to be a subject of the deepest interest and vital importance to the real good government of the country—and that there are involved in the decision of that Question considerations which cannot be answered by the stale phrase that, in order to do justice to Ireland, we are only called on to deal out to that country the same Measure of Reform as that which was passed for this country. It is unnecessary for me to detain you in discussing the various topics comprised in the Speech. There is one point, however, on which no opposition appears to be entertained, but which is couched in terms of. assurance and confidence, in which I must confess that I cannot concur. It is this, that we shall come "to a just, final, and satisfactory settlement of the Tithe Question." Would to God that. I could entertain so confident a hope! But I must fairly say, that I cannot entertain such a hope as long as you adhere to the assertion of the abstract principle of appropriation (a principle to which, however, you must now be considered pledged); but as long, I repeat, as you do keep that Question alive, to a just, speedy, and, least of all, final settlement of the Tithe Question, do I not look with a confident hope, but in my conscience I believe such a consummation to be altogether impossible. I shall not, however, trouble she House further on that question, but I have risen now for the purpose of putting it to his Majesty's Ministers whether they will now pledge the House to principles which have not only not been affirmed by the Legislature, but when the reports on which we are to judge are not in the hands of Members, and that with the exception of the information to be derived from a small body of local reports which we have received, we are called to pledge ourselves to a settled plan of correction of abuses without knowing to what extent they prevail; and how the remedies to be applied to them may answer their purpose. Being convinced that a certain and entire Reform must be applied to the evils complained of, I must, if driven to a vote, vote against the Address, only because I am unwilling to pledge myself on the one side or the other, and I shall support the Amendment because it pledges you to an inquiry into the Question with a view of affording an efficient and complete remedy. More than this you cannot—you ought not seek—you cannot in fairness and conscience ask, when the evidence is not before us, and when the principles of the intended Measure is unexplained; for the hon. Gentlemen opposite will not even tell us how far they mean us to be bound by the adoption of this Address. If my hon. Friend and his Majesty's Ministers had deliberately taken into their consideration these Measures of Reform, which were to be submitted to Parliament, and explained the nature of them, and the principles on which they rested, clearly and distinctly to the House, I should have been ready to express my acquiescence in, or disapproval of them; but I am not prepared to bind myself, (so far as Ministers may hereafter think fit to consider me bound) to the approval of principles which are not specifically and unequivocally laid down.

Viscount Howick

observed that the noble Lord rather inconsistently expressed the reluctance which he felt to the introduction into the Address of any amendment, and his wish that the Address itself should be agreed to unanimously; and yet, at the same moment, called upon his noble Friend, notwithstanding the reasons which had been so forcibly stated by his noble Friend for not agreeing to the proposition of the right hon. Baronet, to reconsider his determination with a view to the abandonment of the original words in the Address, and the substitution of those which had been recommended by the right hon. Baronet. He must say, that the advice thus given to his noble Friend by the noble Lord filled him with considerable surprise. He was quite at a loss to understand how the noble Lord could declare, that it was desirable to postpone any di- vision in that House until the last moment, and also, that it was desirable to cut up by the roots all the abuses of municipal corporations in Ireland, and yet state in the same breath that he found great difficulty in voting for those words in the Address which had for their purpose the attainment of the latter object. The noble lord had asked whether, if there was any serious objection to the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Baronet, it was probable that the members of his Majesty's Government in another place would have given their assent to a similar proposition? There were, perhaps, reasons why such a proposition should be acceded to in the House of Lords, and not acceded to in that House. On those reasons he would not touch, because it would not become him to depart from the respect which ought always to be entertained towards the other House of Parliament. He was exceedingly surprised, however, to hear (he Amendment proposed by the right hon. Baronet, characterised by the noble Lord as a trifling Amendment—as one of no importance whatever with reference to the real object in question. In the Address, as originally proposed, the House declared their hope that they might be able to apply to the Municipal Corporations in Ireland, "a remedy founded on the same principles as those of the Acts which had been already passed for England and Scotland." In expunging that declaration, which would be formally voting that they were not prepared to apply to the abuses of Municipal Corporations in Ireland a remedy founded on the same principles as those of the Acts which had been already passed for England and Scotland, that House would give up their first and best claim to the esteem and confidence of the people of Ireland; and, in a single moment of indecision, would do more to weaken the union between the two countries (a union, to the maintenance of which both the noble Lord and the right hon. Baronet professed themselves to be so warmly attached) than could be effected in years by other and ordinary means. The noble Lord asked what were the principles on which the Acts that had been passed for correcting the abuses of the Municipal Corporations of England and Scotland were founded? He would answer the noble Lord in two words. He would answer the noble Lord as his noble Friend had answered the right hon. Ba- ronet. The principles on which his noble Friend and himself proposed to correct the abuses in the Municipal Corporations in Ireland were the principles on which the Acts of last year for correcting the abuses in the Municipal Corporations of England and of Scotland were founded—namely, the putting an end to self-election, and the introduction of popular control. They proposed to legislate on the subject for Ireland on the same principles on which they had already legislated for England and for Scotland; and the difference which existed between the English and the Scottish Acts afforded the strongest possible proofs that the same principles were applicable to abuses which did not exactly resemble one another. The principles on which his noble Friend proposed to legislate with reference to the Municipal Corporations of Ireland, were the principles which belonged to a free constitution; and if those principles were once given up, there would be an end at once to all freedom in the constitution and government of the country. The noble Lord had thrown out one observation, although he had not followed it up, namely, that if the House adopted the words in the original Address, they would be unable to agree to the provisions of the Bill for the correction of the abuses of the Municipal Corporations in Ireland which had been introduced last Session by an hon. and learned Gentleman no longer a Member of that House. Really this was the most extraordinary statement that he had ever heard made. He did not mean to say that there was nothing objectionable, and that ought to be departed from, in the hon. and learned Gentleman's Bill; but most assuredly there was nothing in the declaration that the House would proceed to legislate for Ireland on the principles which influenced them in their legislation with reference to England and Scotland, which could in the slightest degree prevent them either from adopting as ft before stood or from making any alterations they might think proper in the Bill of last year. It had been asked both by the right hon. Baronet, and by the noble Lord, why, if his Majesty's Government thought it right to recommend, in the terms they had, the measure for the correction of the abuses of Municipal Corporations in Ireland, the Address was differently worded with reference to the consideration of a system of Poor-laws for Ireland? The answer was easy. Two years ago an English Poor-law Bill was passed, for the correction of evils in the condition of the poor in England and Wales, not only different from, but exactly opposite to, the evils in the condition of the poor in Ireland. That Bill went to the correction of evils which had no existence in Ireland. On the contrary, with respect to the Municipal Corporations in Ireland, the abuses in those Corporations were similar in character to the abuses which had existed in the Municipal Corporations in England; and the principles on which it was desirable to put an end to the abuses in Ireland, formed the basis of the measures which had been adopted for putting an end to the abuses in England and Scotland. He owned that with the opinion which he entertained of the value and importance of the principles in question, it was with pain he heard some of the concluding; observations of the right hon. Baronet. It. was very true that the right hon. Baronet had not stated any thing on the subject very specific; but his insinuations, and the tone in which he uttered them, must have forcibly struck every one who heard the right hon. Baronet declare that "If the result of the propositions which were to be made respecting Ireland was likely to bind more closely the union between the two countries, if the result of those propositions was likely to be to secure peace and good government in Ireland, no one would be more happy to support such propositions than himself; but knowing to what hands power in Ireland was given, knowing what, in such hands, the result might actually be, he was not prepared at once to acquiesce in the measures proposed." Did the House see how much was implied in this statement? Did the House see that it involved this most start-ling proposition,—that as respected Ire-hind, the British Constitution ought to be allowed to remain, or where it was not already so, that it ought to be made, a dead letter? Did the House see that it involved the declaration that liberty was a luxury which the Irish people ought not to be allowed to enjoy? Such was the obvious, the evident meaning of the words which had fallen from the right hon. Baronet. Let it be recollected that the present was not a question of detail. Every clause of any bill which might be introduce;] upon the subject would be open to discussion and amendment. Any bill which embodied the two great principles on which the English and Scotch Acts were founded—the putting an end to self-election and the introduction of popular control—would come under the description comprehended in the words of the Address, as they now stood. The right hon. Baronet said, he was afraid of the operation of those principles in Ireland. Why did not the right hon. Baronet propose the repeal of that part of the Reform Bill which related to Ireland? Why did not the right hon. Baronet propose the re-enactment of the penal laws in Ireland? If, however, the House of Commons was prepared to extend the principles of the Constitution to, and establish free principles of, government in Ireland, they would support the words of the Address as they originally stood. The right hon. Baronet had not followed up the observations to which he (Lord Howick) alluded, with any personal insinuations and taunts against the hon. and learned member for Dublin. In fact, the right hon. Baronet had too much tact, he knew too well the taste and feeling of the House on such subjects to follow up his observations with any of those vulgar and petty attacks on the honourable and learned Member for Dublin, in which anonymous scribblers in newspapers were prone to indulge. The right hon. Baronet knew better. But he could very easily construe the insinuation of the right hon. Baronet, limited as it was in expression. He knew very well what was implied in the right hon. Baronet's remark, and would not affect to misunderstand it. The right hon. Baronet meant to allude to the power possessed by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin in Ireland. Did he deny that the hon. and learned Gentleman actually possessed great power in Ireland? He was not there to apologize for the manner in which that hon. and learned Gentleman sometimes exercised that power. On the contrary, he had frequently reprobated such an exercise. It could not be supposed that he (Lord Howick) entertained towards that hon. and learned Gentleman any personal regard; the manner in which that hon. and learned Gentleman had acted, and the language which that hon. and learned Gentleman had used towards one of his nearest and dearest connexions could never be forgotten, and forbade the possibility of the existence of any personal regard on his part towards the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. But was that a reason why he should deny that the hon. and learned Gentleman possessed great power in Ireland? And was the possession of that power by the hon. and learned Gentleman to induce him (Lord Howick) to refuse to give to the people of Ireland measures founded on the principles of liberty? And who and what was it that had given the hon. and learned Member for Dublin the power which he possessed? Had it been given by those who sat on the ministerial. or by those who sat upon the other side of the House? Was not the acquisition of that power mainly attributable to the right hon. Baronet himself and his friends, who, year after year, refused to petitions those rights which they subsequently with abject timidity yielded to intimidation? Was it his noble Friend who had given the hon. and learned Member for Dublin his power, or was it the light hon. Baronet, who, in the very act of general emancipation, introduced a clause, directed against the hon. and learned Gentleman personally, and thereby bound the people of Ireland to him, and induced them to consider him as a martyr to their cause; and by this vain and impotent attack upon an individual, made the Imperial Legislature cover itself with disgrace? Was that the act of his Majesty's present Ministers? But whoever might have conferred the power which the hon. and learned Gentleman now possessed, and which the right hon. Baronet so much dreaded, that power ought not to be assigned as a reason for refusing to grant to the people of Ireland whatever justice and policy required. It was a bad symptom of the political condition of any country when any individual was able to obtain so extensive a power over the minds of the people as that possessed at present over the minds of the people of Ireland by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. But the false condition in which Ireland stood in that respect was occasioned by the course which had been pursued by the tight hon. Baronet and his friends. The present unfortunate state of the public mind in Ireland was caused by the system of governing Ireland as a dependant colony, which we were at liberty to oppress at our pleasure. The only mode of curing the evil was by doing full, fair, and. impartial justice, and by trusting to time and reason for the removal of those prejudices which at present were so deeply rooted. Nothing could be worse, nothing could be more injurious, than to fall back (which, if the House adopted the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Baronet, they would) on the system which had been for so many years pursued. He called upon the House, therefore, to adhere to the original Address, The only pledge that they were called upon to give was, that they would legislate for Ireland, as they had legislated for England and Scotland, on the real and sound principles of the British constitution.

Lord Dudley Stuart

Sir I am not going to discuss the Amendment proposed by the right hop. Baronet the Member for Tarn worth. I think his arguments have been triumphantly refuted by those who have spoken on this side of the House. But while I do not feel the objections which he entertains to the Address, my duty does not permit me to express unqualified satisfaction with the Speech from the Throne. This Speech has been looked for with anxious expectation by the people, not only of this country, but of (he whole civilized would, eager to see what direction our foreign policy is to take. I wish I could discover in it anything calculated to satisfy those who are anxious for the preservation of the balance of power in Europe, who are desirous to see the dignity of England maintained by the enforcement of treaties to which she is a party, and her interests secured by the repression of the designs of the Leviathan of the North and of the East, by which her security is threatened and the liberties of Europe endangered. For a long time there has been a growing apprehension of the increasing power of Russia; great. alarm is felt that the independence of Turkey is more than threatened; that the strongest and most important political and military position in the world is in danger of passing from hands friendly to us into those of a power which we cannot but regard with the utmost jealousy. People know that if these alarms are not without foundation, then that there is danger to our commerce, danger to our political station in Europe, danger to our Indian possessions, danger to all our best and most essential interests. This uneasiness is not confined to one party or to one class, but pervades men of all opinions, and extends to all parts of the country. This feeling, augmented lately by the reviews at Kalisch and the conferences at Tæplitz, has been made more intense, while there have been added to it those of indignation and disgust by the speech of the Emperor Nicholas at Warsaw; a speech, which, while it is shocking to humanity, from the spirit of savage tyranny which it evinces, is insulting to England and to Europe, by the contempt of treaties which it expresses. I should have thought that on this solemn occasion Ministers would have felt it incumbent on them to advise the King to use some expressions calculated to allay the general uneasiness, not by slurring over and pretending not to perceive the causes of it, but by indicating an intention to remove them. I should have thought that they would have felt it imperative on them to put into his Majesty's mouth some words to make it plain, that in the violation of those treaties his Majesty did not acquiesce. I cannot think that in omitting to do so they have discharged their duty to this country and to Europe. His Majesty has referred with expressions of satisfaction (a satisfaction I am sure participated by the whole country) to the intimate union now happily subsisting between this country and France. In this respect his Speech is an echo to that lately delivered by the King of the French. Why is there no echo in our address to those noble sentiments and sound opinions so manfully expressed in the Address of the Chamber of Deputies in favour of the nationality of Poland? Why do we not cement with the French people our bond of amity, by showing that we participate in their feelings for the brave and the unfortunate, and that we are not behind them in the determination to maintain our dignity and provide for our security, while at the same time we satisfy the feelings of humanity, and obey the dictates alike of true policy and of justice? The only consoling part of the Speech, with a view to foreign policy, is that which announces the intention of his Majesty to apply to Parliament for an increase of his naval force. If, at the same time that this force was called for, we heard an announcement of a firm determination to repress Russia whenever she attempted to encroach—then, indeed, I should think there were grounds for satisfaction. Why do we not, in concert with those whose interest is similar to our own, in concert with France and with Austria, who have long perceived the danger which threatens them, and are only waiting for manifest proofs that Eng- land is at length awake to it—why do we not take such measures as may be necessary not only for the welfare of this country but for the maintenance of the independence of Europe? The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth has spoken of the moral obligation of preserving peace, except when war is required for the honour, or for some essential interests of England. In those opinions I fully concur. But deprecating, like the right hon. Baronet, the horrors of war, acknowledging the moral obligation of preserving peace, anxious to spare the expenditure of blood and of treasure which war must occasion, and believing that the only way of averting it is to show that we are not afraid of it, while we are still in a situation to wage it with certain and immediate success, and not perceiving in the Speech from the Throne any clear indication of an intention to pursue that course, I am bound to express the dissatisfaction with which it fills me. So strongly do I feel upon the subject, that up to a late period it was my intention to move an Amendment to the Address. If I have relinquished that intention, it is not because my opinion is altered, not because I am apprehensive of meeting with little support, for the contrary, I am sure, would have been the result, but solely from my desire not to embarrass the Government, and not to do that which in the opinion of those whom I felt bound to consult would be likely to weaken the position of Ministers. In the general principles of the Government I cordially concur. I believe that it is for the advantage of the country that those now in power should continue to govern it, for I believe that they will steadily, honestly, and fearlessly pursue the path of Reform on which they have hitherto proceeded, and thereby satisfy the just expectations and the legitimate wishes of the country. Sooner than expose such a Government to any manner of risk, there is scarcely any sacrifice which I would not make. For these reasons, and for these alone, I have with much reluctance, and not without many scruples, determined to relinquish ray intention of moving an Amendment. But in doing so I reserve to myself the full right of bringing the subject of it under the notice of Parliament. I intend to exercise that right on the earliest possible occasion. I am sure the Ministers will feel bound to assist me in finding a day when the subject, may meet with full and ample discussion. I beg leave to read to the House the notice which I have put on the books, which is, on Tuesday, the 16th of February—"To call the attention of the House to the effect on British interests, of the position Russia has occupied, and the policy she pursues."

Viscount Palmerston

said, that if his noble Friend, when he made up his mind to abstain from pressing the Amendment which he had originally intended to offer to the consideration of the House, thought the grounds upon which he did so were such as ought to influence the conduct of those who were favourable to the Government—if his noble Friend felt that it was proper for any person who, generally speaking, approved the policy of the present Ministry to take a step calculated to produce anything like a division in the ranks of the Liberal party in the House on the first night of the Session—if that, as his noble Friend had stated, was the ground upon which he abstained from pressing his Amendment, he (Lord Palmerston) did not think that that which had passed since the House had assembled—he did not think that the grounds upon which the other Amendment had been proposed, or the bearing which that Amendment had—would tend in the slightest degree to alter the confidence of his noble Friend in the propriety of the decision he had come to. For when his noble Friend saw that the House was going to divide upon a question involving a matter of no less importance than, whether Ireland should continue to be governed upon the same principles as hitherto—whether those principles of constitutional freedom and of public responsibility which had been so beneficially carried into effect in this country, and so much to the satisfaction of the people, were to be extended to Ireland, or to be refused to the Irish nation—when his noble Friend found that the House was about to divide on a Question upon which the Liberal party would vote on one side, and those who were opposed to Liberal measures would vote on the other—he thought his noble Friend would congratulate himself that he had not taken any step calculated to occasion a difference of opinion amongst those who, on that occasion, ought to stand firm and fast by each other. His noble Friend found fault with "his Majesty's Speech, so far as it related to Foreign Affairs. He thought that Ministers ought to have advised the King to have spoken in a more firm and decided and explicit manner, with respect to the relations of this country with foreign nations, and with regard to the principles of policy upon which the Government was prepared to act with respect to the affairs of Turkey, and other foreign States. If his noble Friend would direct his attention to the course which had usually been pursued in framing the speeches of the Crown, he thought his noble Friend would find that the objection he had made was not justly applicable to the Speech delivered on the present occasion. Speeches delivered from the Throne at the beginning of a Session did not profess to contain a general annunciation of the whole system of policy, which a Government intended to pursue. Speeches from the Throne generally alluded only to events which had happened since the previous Session—to measures immediately about to be proposed by the Government, or to matters still pending and undecided. When his noble Friend thought that Ministers ought to have so asserted in the King's Speech the intention of the Government to uphold the independence of Turkey, he would only beg to refer his noble Friend to speeches upon former occasions delivered from the Throne, in which the assertion which his noble Friend required was put forward in the clearest and most explicit terms. His noble Friend would find that on the 29th of August, 1833, at the close of the Session of that year, the King stated in his Speech that the hostilities which had disturbed the peace of Turkey had been terminated: "and you may be assured," said his Majesty, "that my attention will be carefully directed to any events that may affect the present state and future independence of that empire." Again, on the 4th of February, 1834, at the commencement of the Session the Speech from the Throne contained the following paragraph:—"The peace of Turkey since the settlement which was made with Mehemet Ali has not been interrupted, and will not, I trust, be threatened with any new danger. It will be my object to prevent any change in the relations of that empire with other powers which may affect its future stability or independence." The Government of England, therefore, had already declared its determination to watch over the affairs of Turkey with the view of maintaining the independence of that country, in a manner sufficiently explicit not to require any repetition on the present occasion, unless since the last Session events had occurred which threatened new danger to the Porte, and therefore called for a fresh declaration on the part of the Government of England. No such events had happened; and, therefore, he contended that it was perfectly consistent with a full, fixed, and settled determination on the part of the Government of England to pursue with respect to Turkey the policy which had been declared in previous Speeches from the Throne, perfectly consistent with that determination that Ministers should not have advised the King to make any mention of Turkey in his Speech on the present occasion. With respect to the question of Poland, also, he should say that the silence of the Speech upon that subject could not be considered by his noble Friend as implying any indifference to the treaties by which the different Powers of Europe had settled the destinies of that country; or the slightest intention on the part of the Government of England to acquiesce in any infringement of those treaties, if any infringement had taken place, or might hereafter take place. He thought, therefore, that when his noble Friend came to look at what had been said on former occasions, and when he considered what was the general tenour of Speeches delivered from the Throne at the commencement of a Session, he would not find in the framing of the present Speech any ground for a diminution of the confidence which he had expressed in the present Administration. But as his noble Friend had stated that he meant specifically to call the attention of the House to the subject of Poland on a future occasion, he should best consult the convenience of the House by dwelling no longer upon the topic that night. He could not, however, refrain from making some remarks upon what fell from the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) upon that part, of the Speech which related to foreign affairs. In doing so, he begged in the first place to say, that he had heard with great pleasure some of the: observations which were made by the right hon. Baronet. They were remarks which in his estimation did the right hon. Baronet great credit, and which he naturally expected to hear from one who had filled the high situation which the right hon. Baronet not long ago occupied. The right hon. Baronet had that night expressed sentiments which did honour to him individually, and which he (Lord Palmerston) was glad to find held by a person who had filled the highest office in the State, and who, peradventure, might be called upon to do so again. It was satisfactory to find that, however parties in that House might differ upon questions either of domestic or foreign policy, there were some points upon which, at least, both parties were disposed to agree. He was glad to hear the right hon. Baronet express his satisfaction at learning that there continued to be an intimate alliance and union between this country and France—he was glad to hear the right hon. Baronet say that the maintenance of that union must greatly contribute to the preservation of peace—he was glad to hear the right hon. Baronet say that he looked forward to an enlargement of the commercial intercourse between the two countries as a pledge of the maintenance of that union, and as a means of making it more firm. He was glad to hear those sentiments coming from the right hon. Baronet, and he was glad, also, that those sentiments had been cheered by the Gentlemen who sat around the right hon. Baronet, because it had been his own lot to express similar sentiments, in that House which were received by the Gentlemen opposite with a cheer of a very different character, and conveying a meaning of a very different description from that which he had heard from them that evening. It had fallen to his Jot to be taunted by the hon. Gentlemen opposite, when he had expressed his sense of the value of the alliance between France and England. He had been told that he was sacrificing the interests of England for the sake of French alliance—that the Government ought to pursue an independent system of national policy, and not to abandon the interests of England in deference to the Government of any foreign power. The right hon. Baronet, however, had given expression to juster sentiments. In those sentiments he (Lord Palmerston) cordially concurred; and he hailed it as a good omen to the policy of this country, that it should be known to foreign nations, that whatever changes might take place in the Government of England, whatever party might be destined to hold the reins of Govern- ment, no change would take place in those fundamental principles of foreign policy by which the ancient hostility which too long subsisted between this country and France was now converted into a friendship destined, as he believed, to be lasting and sincere. He-was glad also, and he concurred with the tight hon. Baronet in thinking, that the peace of Europe was founded upon the improvement of moral feeling in the different countries of which Europe was composed—that it rested, not merely as some persons supposed, upon a want of pecuniary means to make war, but that there had gradually grown up in all the countries of Europe a public opinion in some, in others a system of government, so that, for the future, every means of arrangement would be exhausted, whenever differences of opinion or conflicting interests arose, before recourse would be had to the last arbitration of arms. He, therefore, thought that they were justified in stating that there was at present, more than ever, a well-founded ground to expect that the peace, which now happily existed, would not be disturbed. Ministers might, he thought, take to themselves some degree of credit for the existing state of things in Europe, because, undoubtedly, when they took charge of the administration of the country in 1830, there was no one who could have believed that peace could have been preserved till the time at which they were then speaking. No man could have thought that, at this period, peace would not merely be preserved, but be placed on a foundation growing every day more extensive and more firm. Upon these points he concurred entirely in the opinions of the right hon. Baronet; and he was glad to find that the right hon. Baronet so fully approved of that portion of the King's Speech. The right hon. Baronet, however, wishing to introduce the real difference of opinion which led to the proposal of the amendment by some differences of opinion upon that part of the Speech which related to Foreign Affairs, found fault with the Government for that which he should not have expected would have been made a ground of attack. The right hon. Baronet found fault with them for following a precedent which he had set himself. The right hon. Baronet found fault with the Ministers for stating, in the King's Speech, that the course pursued by the Government pf Spain had been prudent and vigorous, and inspired them with hopes of a speedy termination of the war. He must deny that the Government had followed, in that respect, the precedent set by the Government of which the right hon. Baronet was a Member. The right hon. Baronet alluded to the Speech delivered from the Throne in 1830, in which the Government of that day mentioned with praise, the enlightened policy of the King of the Netherlands. He maintained that there could not be any two things more entirely dissimilar than the Speech of 1830, and the Speech now under discussion. The Government of 1830 praised, as enlightened policy, a policy which led to the rooted discontent of the nation to which it was applied, and brought about the separation of Belgium from Holland. The Government of the present day, praised the prudent and vigorous policy of the Queen of Spain, which had re-united the greater part of the Spanish nation in allegiance to the sovereign, which had brought back into concert with the Government, all those separate juntas which some months ago divided the nation, and were prepared to resist the authority of the Queen, which had, therefore, produced a union of three-fourths of the kingdom, and which, he trusted, at no very distant period, would establish the authority of the Queen in every part of her dominions. But what did the Government of 1830? They praised the enlightened conduct of the King of the Netherlands—they praised it with reference to a revolution which had just taken place, and with the words of praise still trembling on their tongues, they entered into a course of proceeding, the very first object of which was to effect a permanent division of the kingdom of the prince whose conduct they had praised. That was the way in which they showed their sense of the enlightened policy of the King of the Netherlands. The present Government, on the contrary, praising, as they did, the prudent policy of the Spanish Government, had entered into a treaty to support the government of the queen, and were pursuing measures in conformity with the articles contained in the treaty. And it was for pursuing those measures that the right hon. Baronet censured them for interfering in the affairs of a foreign state. Bat, however just the general principle might be that one nation should not interfere in the internal or do- mestic affairs of another state, the history of the world was full of instances in which national interest overpowered the operation of that principle, and in which foreign countries had formed alliances for the purpose of influencing the course of political events in another; and when one looked back at the history of Spain, it seemed strange that the right hon. Baronet should have selected that country as the nation above all others with which England should not interfere for the purpose of determining who should be its sovereign. He should have thought that the recollection of the right hon. Baronet would have told him that British interference there, was not entirely without a precedent; and if it could be shown, as he thought it could, that the Government was pursuing on this occasion the same course of policy that was pursued in the early part of the last century, when England opposed the pretensions of the House of Bourbon to the Throne of Spain, no one, he apprehended, would charge them with interfering in a manner inconsistent with the interests of England, or not perfectly justifiable by the laws of nations. Then the right hon. Baronet stated, that some further explanation ought to have been given with respect to the proposed increase of the naval force. His noble Friend had justly stated, that a country like this, the defence of which, and the protection of whose commerce, chiefly rested upon its naval force, ought not to allow that naval force to fall below the strength of the naval force of neighbouring nations; and consequently it was no indication of any suspicion of hostile intentions on the part of any other Power, to say, that the present naval force of England, in the existing circumstances of the world, and compared with the naval force of other nations, was not such as it ought to be; it was no expression of jealousy of any other Power—no indication of hostile intentions on the part of any foreign State, if, under such circumstances, Ministers came down to Parliament and proposed a certain increase in the naval force of this country. He maintained that the great object of a nation with regard to its foreign relations, was the maintenance of peace, the upholding the honour of the country, and the protection and extension of its foreign commerce. With regard to the mainten- ance of peace during the administration of the present Government, facts spoke sufficiently for themselves. With regard to the upholding the honour of the country, he thought that the best test of whether countries or individuals were properly upholding their own honour was, when they found other countries or persons applying to them on matters in which their honour also was concerned. When, therefore, it was found that powerful nations were willing to accept the mediation of England on matters which concerned their honour, he thought that the Ministers might be justly entitled to affirm, that they had maintained peace without any dereliction of honour, and that the respect paid to England by the other nations of the world had gone on increasing instead of diminishing. With regard to our foreign commerce, the observations of the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment, sufficiently proved, that at least, under the present administration of affairs, the channels of foreign commerce had not been narrowed, nor the facilities of our merchants, in the transaction of business in foreign countries, at all diminished. It had been the object of the Government by treaties of commerce, and by the exertion of its whole influence, to extend and enlarge the commerce of the country—to open new channels wherever they could be found, and to render more commodious and secure those which had previously existed. He confessed it was with the greatest regret that he heard the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Baronet stated, that it was not fair or just to ask hon. Members to commit themselves on that, the first day of the Session, upon a Bill which had not yet been considered—which was brought in only at the end of the last Session—upon which great difference of opinion might exist, and which ought to be brought under the consideration of every Member fairly, and without the fetter of any preliminary pledge. He must be allowed to say, that it was putting a most strange and forced interpretation upon the words of the Address, to contend, that they pledged any man to anything except that general principle which had been stated by his noble Friend, namely, the principle of applying to the Corporations of Ireland that system of popular election and vigilant popular control which, had been found so effectual in England and Scotland, and which in both countries had been attended with such beneficial results. Perhaps when he said, attended with beneficial results, the proposition might not receive the same ready assent on one side of the House as on the other; because, when it was found that out of the Town-councils that had been elected under the new system so many had expressed confidence in the present Administration—so many, as one of their first acts, had sent up Addresses to the Crown, expressing confidence in the Government by which the Municipal Corporation Bill of last year was proposed and carried, and a wish that that Government should remain in power—perhaps it was not unnatural that there might be Gentlemen in the House who would not wish to see the same state of things extended to Ireland, where, if a similar principle of popular election and popular control were extended, it was possible a similar expression of sentiment might take place, which to some individuals he could easily conceive would be neither convenient nor agreeable. But he conceived that that was not a ground upon which the House of Commons would act. He conceived that it was not a fit ground for the deliberation of that House, to be told, that if they carried a certain measure, the justice of which was not dented, the expediency and propriety of which was not disputed—it was not, he said, a fit ground for their deliberation, to be told, that if they carried such a measure they would be throwing power into the hands of this man or of that. He contended, that the House of Commons ought not to legislate upon such personal grounds. In legislating for this great country they ought to look only to what was just and right, without regard or favour to individuals, and they should not be deterred from doing justice to a great nation, because they felt from the present temper of the people of that nation—from peculiar circumstances, for the creation of which some party or other must be deeply responsible—power might for the moment be placed in hands in which it might not be wished to remain. The Address in its present shape pledged no man to anything that was unfair; for he should like to see any man get up and say, that the House ought not to apply to the Corporations of Ireland the principle of popular election and vigilant popular control. If there were any such Gentlemen in the House, and if those were the grounds on which they resisted the Address and determined to vote for the Amendment, he wished them to say so. He wished the House to understand the Question on which they were going to vote. It was not a Question of unfair pledging, because the Address pledged them to nothing except a principle which he had not yet heard any man venture to deny. It left every man at full liberty, when the Bill was brought in to discuss every Clause of it, and to object to any part that might not please him. But what it did seek to pledge the House to was, what he thought the House could not too soon consent to pledge itself to—namely, the extinction of all differences between England and Ireland, and a full extension of the principles of the Constitution indiscriminately to both; to place the same confidence in the people of Ireland that had already been placed in the people of England and Scotland; to give to the people of Ireland the same interests; to allow them the same control in the management of their own affairs; to cease to treat them as a proscribed and excluded class; and, finally, to cease to treat them as exceptions to the British Constitution, was the principle of the paragraph which the right hon. Baronet proposed to change. He repeated, therefore, that there was nothing in the Address which any man who entertained a just view of the system on which the Government of this Empire ought to be conducted, could for a moment hesitate to agree to. If there were any man who entertained another opinion—who, rejecting this part of the Address, and adopting the Amendment, wished not merely to keep himself free upon the Question, but had formed a determination to follow up the Amendment by voting against the principle on which the Corporation Bills of England and Scotland had been founded—if there were any such, he begged him to tell the House and Government plainly what his meaning was, so that all might understand what the Question was on which they were going to vote. The Question once thoroughly understood, he had not the slightest doubt as to what the decision of the House would be. He said that the Address and the Amendment left every one equally at liberty to deal with the Bill when it was brought forward according to its merits, but as the Address did pledge the House to important general principles, which the Amendment might tend by implication to negative, he trusted that alt those who thought that any Bill ought to be brought in extending to the Corporations of Ireland the principles of popular election and popular control would vole for the Address, and that none would vote for the Amendment except those who were really of opinion that it was dangerous to allow the towns of Ireland to elect their own Councils; that it was dangerous to subject the acts of Irish Corporations to popular control; and who, approving of the existing state of things in that country, were willing to sacrifice the interests of a great nation, and to inflict a gross injustice upon 8,000,000 of men.

Mr. Hardy

would not detain the House for more than a very few moments. The noble Lord who had just sat down had stated that the question on which the House was about to divide was, whether Ireland should be governed on free principles or not. He denied however that that was the question under debate; because the noble Lord would not pretend to say that the people of Ireland were not at this moment free. Let them have no talk of tyranny in Ireland when every man's life and property in that country was safe, except against the pestilence that walketh in. darkness. The Amendment proposed by the right hon. Baronet would not prevent Ministers from adopting any principle they might think fit when they proposed their measure of Municipal Reform for Ireland; whilst on the other hand the Address as it then stood would pledge the House to the adoption of exactly the same principal of Municipal Reform to be applied to Ireland as that which had already been applied to England and Scotland, whilst it was possible that the widely different state of Ireland might render a Bill proceeding upon a somewhat different principle necessary. He agreed with the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) that perhaps the most effectual mode of Reform would be to sweep the Corporations of Ireland away altogether. The noble Lord opposite had taken great credit to himself for the measure of Municipal Corporation Reform which he had carried; but before the noble Lord began to chuckle over his offspring he should see how it worked. He should ascertain how far it was an im- provement to substitute one form for another: and the hon. Member who seconded the Address might be appealed to for the purpose of ascertaining whether some of the old Corporations—Sheffield, for instance—of which his father was an honoured Member—were not quite as respectable and altogether as efficient as any of the new creations. With respect to the observations of the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs, he (Mr. Hardy) felt called on to say that his observations were more calculated to injure than serve the cause he had espoused, It had been asserted that the Government did not come over to the opinion of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin; but that they had acted independently. It was a singular sort of independence, to say the least of it. They had been told long before that the Whigs now were not Whigs; their present conduct with reference to the hon. and learned Member for Dublin satisfactorily proved it. That hon. and learned Gentleman had advocated and urged the adoption of the Appropriation Clause in the Tithe Bill of 1834; and on that occasion the noble Lord and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, now in the other House, had opposed it; yet in the very next Session the noble Lord and the Government of which he formed a part come forward and proposed it themselves. If that was not going over to the policy of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin he (Mr. Hardy) did not know what the words "going over" meant. In 1834, they had opposed the hon. Member for St. Alban's motion, and the hon. and learned Member for Dublin's suggestion; yet, in 1835, they adopted it, and brought forward a measure of which it formed the principal feature. Anxious as he felt for every feasible Reform in the Municipal Corporations of Ireland, he was by no means prepared to give his support to men who exhibited so much instability and such dereliction of principle. He was resolved not to give a premature pledge on the subject, and he should, therefore, vote for the Amendment. If the passage in the Address which the Amendment was framed to meet were expunged, that would not prevent Ministers from having the power of introducing any measure on the subject they chose in the course of the Session. In objecting to the Amendment they were sacrificing the substance to the form. He would give every consideration and support to any measure which would have the effect of eradicating abuses in the Municipal Corporations of Ireland; but he could never consent to any measure which would give greater power to the hon. and learned Member for Dublin than that which he already possessed, and increase the tyranny he already exercised in Ireland.

Mr. Ward

could honestly assure the House that he had not the slightest intention at the commencement of the debate to obtrude himself upon them. The tone of moderation adopted by the right hon. Baronet led him to hope that this discussion might terminate in an amicable manner. He was, however, delighted to see that it had at last assumed its proper character. He was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Hardy) put the question upon a more real and honest footing. The hon. Member disclaiming all those professions of moderation of which the speech of the right hon. Baronet was composed, declared distinctly that to his unreasonable apprehensions of the power of one individual in Ireland he would sacrifice every thing like that justice which was due to the Irish people. This was the question. He would not have hon. Gentlemen who had been taunting—out of the House, where they knew they could not be met by contradiction or exposure—those independent Members who supported the present Government with having formed an unprincipled coalition and conspiracy, and of truckling to the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, think that they were to avail themselves of this discussion to persuade the country that the principles which they professed here were really the principles which were the rule of their conduct. The hon. Member for Bradford had put the question upon a proper footing. He denied justice to Ireland—because he would not establish a tyranny in the person of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. [Mr. Hardy; I did not say any such thing.] This was of a piece with the language which had been held by the party press, and by the party themselves wherever they had had an opportunity to express their opinions during the last six months. Never had there been an attempt by any political party or by any party press to run down an individual made to such an extent as had been made by the Tories and the Tory Press to run down the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. Everything connected with the party which that hon. and learned Gentleman represented, everything connected with their name and fame—things the most sacred and most holy—had been made the subjects of the most disgraceful scurrility—by the organs of the Tory party. The House had been told by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that they were not responsible for the language of that portion of the press which was in their interest. He trusted that no party spirit could by any possibility plant such sentiments as had been expressed by that portion of the press in the breasts of Englishmen. If the parties who applied such language to eight mil-lions of their Irish countrymen, after reading, as be had done, the Reports of the Irish Poor Law Commissioners describing the complication of miseries to which thousands of them were exposed, many absolutely starving in the midst of plenty, men, their wives, and children sinking under their sufferings, and yet abstaining from all violence to the property surrounding them, and seeking only that consolation in this world which their religion afforded—if those parties who vilified the clergy, administering such consolation, denied that the religion they taught was embued, and deeply embued, with the spirit of Christianity, then he would say those men knew not what the spirit of Christianity was. He knew not whether the pledge to which the right hon. Baronet objected in the Address might have been avoided—or whether a more general expression might or might not, in the first instance, have been used; but the question, was whether, having given that pledge, and having distinctly professed that we were ready, as the representatives of England, to give to Ireland the benefit of the same principle which we were enjoying in, our own country, we should now as distinctly withdraw that pledge. If a majority of that House were prepared, as he believed they were, to apply the same principle of Municipal Reform to Ireland as had been applied to England and Scotland, and which had given such unqualified satisfaction to the people—if a majority were prepared to go to that extent, he did not conceive how, without stultifying themselves, they could retrace their steps. He thought it was a question of substance, and not, as the hon. Member for Bradford had said, a mere matter of form. As long as his Majesty's Government, who had advised his Majesty to introduce that pledge in the Speech from the Throne, would stand forward and support the course which they had so advised, he could assure them that they might reckon upon the firm support of every independent man in the House.

Colonel Sibthorp

was no party man—and that he was as independent as the hon. Member for St. Alban's, or any hon. Member in the House. He had the highest respect for his Majesty, but he could not support the Address. He should vote for the Amendment, because a more moderate one could not be introduced—and because he had the greatest confidence in the right hon. Baronet who proposed it. The noble Lord opposite and his colleagues knew that they were now paying the most abject submission to the hon. and teamed Member for Dublin, without whose powerful support and alliance they would be very quickly ejected from their places. This they knew well; for there was not half so much talent among the whole Administration as there was in that hon. and learned Member.

Mr. O'Connell

did not want any excuse for protracting the discussion, because the question before them was one interesting in the highest degree to the people of Ireland. It was a question whether the House of Commons was really doing injustice to that country—whether it was disposed to continue injustice, or whether it would express a hope of treating Ireland as England and Scotland had been treated. That was the question. He knew right well that there were many in, and many out of Ireland, who, though they would not dare to declare that they would refuse to do her justice, though they were ashamed to say they would perpetuate the injustice now done to her, were yet ready enough to consummate the effect. England had never done justice to Ireland. Never, Ireland had obtained concessions from England—nay, she had extorted some recent measures of justice from her, measures which had been refused by men upon principle, and afterwards conceded by them against their own avowed principles. The right hon. Baronet had talked to night about not exactly understanding what was meant by principle. He believed the right hon. Baronet. That right hon. Gentleman had for years been the advocate upon a Christian principle of that policy of exclusion which was so long directed against Roman Catholics, but he yielded to the Catholics when they were strong enough to make it prudent that he should resist no more. Concessions to the Roman Catholics of Ireland were never made till their demand became irresistible, and here was he now again calling for justice to Ireland. There was a coalition to night—not a base or unprincipled one, God forbid! but an exceedingly natural coalition between the right hon. Baronet (the Member for Tamworth) and the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire. It was a perfectly natural, but it was an impromptu coalilion. The noble Lord had not the least notion of taking a part in this debate when he came down to night, or of seating himself where he now sat. [Lord Stanley was sitting next to Sir Robert Peel on the front seat of the Opposition benches.] He knew the noble Lord's candour and fair dealing, and having told the House of the sudden inspiration which induced him to take part against Ireland, he most potently believed the noble Lord, because he well knew that the noble Lord required no preparation to induce him to vote against the interests of his unfortunate country. [Oh, oh, from the Opposition benches.] He thanked them for that groan, it was just of a piece. He regretted, that he had been drawn at once into arguing upon the principle of the question, for he could have wished to dwell upon that Speech which had been graciously delivered from the Throne this day. He should like to have gone into details, and to have pointed to the many excellent amendments to the institutions of the country which that Speech hinted at. Last Session, indeed, they were told, that many reforms were intended for Ireland. They had them in words; and nothing more. But this Speech specified distinctly many excellent practical measures; and if the Speech should be worked out fairly and honestly in detail, he was thoroughly convinced, that this country would not require any further ameliorations in its institutions, but would become, in reality, the envy and admiration of the world. He, therefore, hailed that Speech. It was not, as it was said King's Speeches generally were—a multiplicity of words to conceal a paucity of things—that Speech had more things than words. It pointed out many and many great principles which only required to be adopted in practice to be most salutary, not only to this nation, but to the whole world. He would not detain the House by any lengthened remarks upon that Speech, but he would just remind them that, while rejoicing in the cordial connexion that existed between. France and this country, his Majesty's Ministers clearly and distinctly abstained from exciting the slightest supposition that they approved of any Ministry propounding an alteration of law for the suppression of public liberty—and for putting an end to public discussion—which, as individuals, they might reprobate, and which they did reprobate, but which, as Statesmen, they had properly abstained from introducing into that Speech. He wanted to know whether there was any statesman who would get up in that House, and would express his approval of that act of the Government of France. It might be done out of that House, but the Government had wisely abstained from doing any thing of the kind, and had contented themselves with expressing their exultation that France and England stood together for the maintenance of those principles that were essential to national independence, and public liberty. The Speech then alluded to Spain, We were the allies of the Queen of Spain. Don Carlos, however, had some allies amongst us—not bound by treaty—no—against treaty, but bound by inclination. Who were those allies? Why, some of the purest, most strictly regulated, and, to use a common phrase in Ireland, which he did not mean to apply offensively, most bitter Protestants in this House were allied with Don Carlos, who wished to re-establish the inquisition, and who was most observant of the ceremonies belonging to the established religion of Spain, and who was now waging war against his own country. That war ought to be put an end to. Two or three British battalions would soon put an end to it. Yes; their appearance would put an end to it. Let them be placed under their able and gallant leader—and be disciplined by him, and they would soon be able to destroy the tyrannical power of Don Carlos in that country. He knew, that parties prevailed there—that one party cried out for liberty, and another for religion; and that each party, by their acts, disgraced the cause which they espoused. Legalized murders were per- petrated on the one side, and massacres on the other; and he equally deprecated the horrible cruelties of the one party, and detested the spirit of despotism and tyranny of the other, by which they each endeavoured to carry their purposes into effect. Another part of the Speech he delighted to read. It related to the Protestant Dissenters. It told them that they were about to get real and substantial relief, and that in their marriages, their burials, or their baptisms, no clergyman of the Established Church was to interfere; and it held out to them the hope of relief from pecuniary exactions. He would not dwell any longer upon these topics. He had said enough to show that the principle of that Speech was the principle of civil and religious liberty; and he came again to the question of Ireland, He had met large bodies of men in that country, who were anxious to secure again to Ireland a distinct Legislature. The English in their strength here, might mock at the Irish spirit that cherished at its heart's core the desire for a National Legislature, They knew not the feelings of others; they who boasted, as they ought to do, of the name of Englishmen, and who would rather die than receive law from another people, oh, let them give Irishmen the privilege of loving their native land! The desire for a National Legislature lived and breathed in Ireland; and here he was who animated it as far as he could. And why? Because he saw there no hope of justice to Ireland? because twenty-nine years after the Union Ireland was not a province, but a pitiful colony of the empire. Hardly forty Members of the United Kingdom could be kept together to pass the routine business of Ireland. Yes, the Irish did feel that England did not do them justice. They looked back to the pages of history, and they found that England never did do Ireland justice. The English Government encouraged factions. When the religion was the same, there were Englishmen by birth against Englishmen born in Ireland—Irishmen within the pale and without the pale. Ipsis Hibernis Hiberniores "Afterwards came the Reformation, and you raised the standard of God; you raised the sword of the Lord and of Gideon; you passed your Shibboleth—you deluged Ireland in blood and devastated it till the land became a wilderness. Then came the Treaty of Limerick. A more honourable convention was never entered into: a more dishonourable violation of a treaty never yet was recorded. Emancipation at length came. We stood disenthralled; and to that extent, we stood upon an equality with you.' What had been done since? You have reformed your own boroughs; but the noble Lord stood between us and the same measure of reform for Ireland. He restricted it as much as possible, and he urged, as a reason, that it would increase the power of "individuals." Well, did he diminish the power of those individuals? No; he augmented it considerably. He was the author of that power. Things would have gone on in the constitutional channels, and that power would have been absorbed; but the constitutional channels were dammed up, their natural course was turned, and, therefore, the country rallied around an unfriended and untalented individual. Why? Because he represented their wants, their wishes, and their sufferings, and was the perpetual foe of their oppressors. That was the secret of his power. You have augmented it in Ireland; take care that you do not augment it elsewhere than in Ireland." He had had Scotchmen shouting around him; he had had thousands of them cheering him within the last forty-eight hours. In Birmingham he had also been cheered; and remember, the town of Birmingham, car-vied the Reform Bill. He told the people in Birmingham that he came there with a wish to see whether he could obtain justice for Ireland. He had met congregated thousands in Ireland, and asked them would they give up repeal if he could get justice? He was met by a unanimous shout, "Get us justice from England, and never think of repeal more." He came with that announcement to the British Legislature. He announced it with no affectation of humility; he did not represent any town, city, or borough; he represented millions, and had the confidence of millions. Do justice to Ireland, and England had nothing to apprehend from the further agitation of repeal, nothing to apprehend from Ireland, but every thing to hope. Henceforth separation was at an end. Do them justice, and they were ready to become a party to the empire; refuse it at your peril. When he said "at your peril," he did not mean t threaten Englishmen. [Immense cheer- ing.] He liked that cheer. He would not threaten, but he appealed upon these grounds for justice. Was he to be met by the holy coalition between the right hon. Baronet and the noble Lord? Was it that there were no evils in Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman who knew it well, did not attempt to say that. The corporation of Dublin, with 28,000l.. a year, expended 30,000l. They had no means of rewarding meritorious statesmen for services performed. They had pictures, to be sure, in their hall, but they left the individuals represented to pay for them. But the noble Lord had said, he was willing to do justice to Ireland. There was a frankness and readiness about him. He let out his entire opinion, and, sometimes, perhaps, a little more. The noble Lord said he did not quarrel at all with the report of the Municipal Commissioners. He did not point out any error or false statement in it. Nay, he was more candid and more conceding still, for he gave this description: he said the corporations of Ireland had two especial faults; the first, profligacy with respect to public property—in one word, peculation; and, secondly, exclusiveness in point of religion—or, in one word, bigotry. So that with all the faults in the Corporations Report undenied, the noble Lord resisted this motion, while admitting that the chief faults were peculation and bigotry. These were the corporations of Ireland, over which the noble Lord threw his shield to-night; for he was not to be deluded by words. The right hon. Baronet had spoken of plausible analogies, but, like every thing plausible, they went to the substance, as did his amendment, though introduced with less talent than he usually displayed. It seemed to him that the right hon. Baronet was waiting for inspiration from above. Suddenly a voice came from the powers above—then hurrah and off with it—then came an attack on Ireland. Why did not the right hon. Baronet candidly say, he would not apply the same principle to Ireland, as to England and Scotland? No; he would not say it, but he was doing it. Did the right hon. Baronet think he could delude the people of Ireland? They might accuse them of crime, of superstition, but they could not say that they were not a shrewd people. What was it this ques- ^* In delivering this passage, the hon. Member looked towards Sir Robert Péel, to whom the allusion was understood to apply. tion narrowed itself into? The Speech proposed, that the evils of the corporations in Ireland should be removed by the same principle as that applied in England. Why not give the Irish the hope? The right hon. Gentleman said he did not understand the question. Why not? It was expressed by the majority of the House last year, and was partly the means of removing him from power. The principle was, that there should be popular control over the administration of the funds and of justice in corporate towns. But the principle was understood, because it had not been attempted to be impugned. Neither the right hon. Baronet nor the noble Lord had pointed out anything objectionable to that principle being applied to Ireland, that would not be equally objectionable in its application to England. Let the House divide upon this question. [Cheers.] That was a hearty cheer. Would any men who did not imagine themselves in a majority make such a cheer? But, perhaps, they would find themselves mistaken. Let the House divide upon this question, whether they exulted in the hope of legislating for Ireland upon the same principle as for England and Scotland. Reject the Motion, and he would go back upon Repeal, They might put an end to one agitator, they might crush one, but they would, at the same time, create thousands in. favour of Repeal. Did they wish to make him a Repealer again? He saw by their countenances and their cheers, he knew their hearts, and was not deluded by the hypocrisy of what fell from their lips. He would judge them by their votes, and cared no more for their pretences than did the idle wind for the faded leaf that fell before it. No; that was the question—would they declare to the people of Ireland, that they refused to legislate for them upon the same principle as for England. Let them not put it off with a skulking pretence. He called upon them to come forward like Englishmen, and say at once, that they would not give Ireland any hope of legislating for her upon the same principles as they legislated for Scotland and for England. That was really the question upon which they had to decide; and from that question they should not shrink on any poor pretence; nor should they evade it by any paltry phraseology that would do discredit to an attorney's clerk. Would not Irishmen know that they had given Corporate Reform to Scotland? Would they not know that the principle of control was introduced into the Municipal Government of that country? Would they not know that England had, in spite of another place, received a considerable instalment of Corporate Reform? Aye—and right well had England used it. Those who were opposed to the granting of Corporate Reform to Ireland, had, no doubt, reason to dread its operation, from the effect it produced in England. They already felt the sword—the festering of the wound that had been inflicted upon the old Corporate system of England. He could tell hon. Members, that there was not one of those Corporate towns that would not be converted into a Normal school for teaching the science of peaceful political agitation. He did not wonder, then, that there should be an unwillingness amongst a certain party to extend this principle to Ireland, But the people of that country would know, and would reflect upon the fact, that Corporate Reform, upon a liberal principle, had been granted to England and Scotland; and would they not, ought they not, to expect that a similar measure of justice would be dealt out to them? Were they to be told, "Oh, no, we cannot grant it now—we must consider." Why what consideration was necessary upon such a subject? Ought not hon. Members' minds to be made up upon so simple a Question as that of doing justice to Ireland? Had not the right hon. Baronet opposite read the Corporation Report? And did he not know that the Irish Corporation Bill must have been one of the first measures of the Session. ["No, no."] No! Impossible. He must have known it. He (Mr. O'Connell) would defy him to contradict it. Of those who sat about him there was not one who did not know it, And were they then to come down to that House, and refuse even to hold out a hope to Ireland, that they would legislate for her on the same principle as for England and Scotland? He put it to every honest man in that House—to every independent man, he meant—who eared not for the triumph of party, whose object was not to render Toryism as rampant as in former days, but who, at the same time, did not object to see the democratic principle of liberty replace the mockery of representation—whether it was not simple justice, as well as sound policy, to extend to Ireland the benefit of those ameliorations which had been introduced into the institutions I of England and Scotland? That was all that was asked, and that was what was resisted in the present Amendment. But he put it to the honesty of his Majesty's ii Ministers—again and again he appealed to their common honesty—whether they should permit their high honour to be once more tarnished—whether they should allow themselves to be dragged through the c kennel once more? But no; he could not suppose it. They were delivered from the former difficulties; the "calamity" of c the administration was no longer amongst I them. They were relieved, and were now disposed to do justice to Ireland. They had placed the Government of that country in the hands of a nobleman far beyond I his praise; but who, he could not help observing, had the singular good fortune to pass unassailed by one of the most venomous Presses that was ever tinged with Orangeism in any country. Even that Press had not dared to bring against him one charge of partiality or undue preference. ["Oh, oh."] He repeated, they had not. If those who cried "Oh, oh," meant to contradict him, let them specify their charge; let them reduce it to words. Oh no; they dared not. They knew they would become the laughingstock and ridicule of Englishmen. Yes, the Government had done well, and what was the consequence? Why, that they had given the utmost satisfaction even to the popular party in Ireland. Not one of that party had been raised to power or to place, and yet they were not only satisfied, but struggled to support the present Administration. There was he, and there were those who acted with him, in that spirit, to implore of the House to remember the duty which they owed, not to any party, not to Toryism or Orangeism, but to their King, their country, and to the peace of Ireland. What was it that the Irish people wanted? Simply to become a part of England. True, they had sighed and struggled to procure a domestic legislature, and perhaps to that object might be still directed the aspirations of his own heart. But he and they were ready to give it up. He called upon that House to witness that they were ready to abandon the repeal for ever, upon one condition, and one only—that of being placed upon a perfect equality with England and Scot- land. Talk not to him of their Union as it existed—their cabinet parchment union, Let them remember that there were in Ire-land 6,500,000 of one persuasion, and 500,000 of another, unanimous in their determination to use every peaceable means in their power to obtain justice—from Eng-land if possible, if not, they were resolved to do justice to themselves. He spoke not thus as a threat. [Oh, oh!] Well, be it so; let it be a menace; but was it not a constitutional menace? They had never violated a law; but had proceeded in a peaceable course, by which they wrung concession by concession from the unwillingness of their rulers. Sorry would he be to be driven to the re-adoption of such a course; but though years were coming upon him, he was in heart young as ever; ready as ever to begin, if necessary, the struggle for the liberty of his country—of;hat country of which he gloried in being the hired and pensioned advocate. He stood in a position never occupied by man before. He was the "hireling" if they would—the pensioner, the servant, ay, the slave, if they chose—of the people of Ireland; but he was the representative of their sentiments. And on their behalf what was it he asked? An expression of a hope that Ireland should be put upon an equality with England and Scotland. He wanted no boon—no loan of twenty millions—but the sincere expression of this hope. And would they—could they refuse this? He would not say, dare they; but humbly and submissively he would appeal to them as English gentlemen to rally with the Ministry that night, and give to Ireland the poor consolation of a hope that justice might be done to her. Nothing more was asked than the expression of this hope. Surely it was worth their consideration whether they should deny it. Never, he could assure them, would they have such another opportunity of conciliating Ireland by doing justice. Did they forget 1825? Were the lessons of history thrown away upon them? History, it was said, made even fools wise; and he should call to their recollection the year 1825, when the people of Ireland were upon their knees, begging for justice as a beggar's boon. They were scorned; their prayer was rejected. His own speeches, he remembered, were flung tauntingly at him from the Treasury Benches of that House, when he had no opportunity of replying. The "other place" had rejected their prayer, but were soon convinced that the people were not to be scorned with impunity. And the noble Lord, it seemed, had discovered, that because "the other place" refused to bold out a hope to Ireland, that House ought to acquiesce. With all due deference for that noble Lord—a worse argument he could not have possibly urged. The reason he had urged was the very reason why that House should not acquiesce. Ireland had no hope from that "other place," but she had much hope from the House of Commons. He repeated she had no hope from the other House of Parliament, but he stood there as the living representative of the hopes which she had from the Commons of England, and he said emphatically, that if they had no other reason for refusing to acquiesce in the opinion of the other House, they ought to do so, in order to show that the representatives of the people of England were anxious to do justice to Ireland. Allusion had been made to the power and influence which he possessed. That power he derived from public opinion; and what, he asked, created that opinion? Injustice—the injustice inflicted upon Ireland. Those who were adverse to his possessing that power could weaken—could destroy it. Let them only do justice to Ireland. But let them refuse that justice, and they wounded the country to the heart's core—they shook to the very base the throne of the monarch for which they professed their respect, and they weakened that union which they appeared anxious to perpetuate. They had vaunted their determination to support that union "even to the death," and there were the Irish people now ready to go with them, and support it "to the death," upon the condition, however, that equal justice should be done to them with the people of England and Scotland, Until that justice, however, was done, they would not cease to seek for it, and if it could not be obtained from England, they must seek it for themselves. Every man who heard him now, must acknowledge that the course he was adopting in asking for it, was the proper and constitutional one. They might condemn as much as they pleased the course he adopted elsewhere; but his course in that House must surely meet with their approbation, Hon. Members on the opposite side might taunt him and the Ministry, if they would, with having formed a coalition. They might renew against him that vulgar prejudice that used to exist against an Irishman and a Papist; they might send abroad their minions to sow discoid and disaffection—to pour out calumny and slander—calling themselves, the while, ministers of the God of charity;—still they could not evade the question really before the House, which lay in an exceedingly narrow compass. He demanded for Ireland, in the spirit of the Constitution, equal justice—the advantages of the same principles of Government as were extended to England and Scotland. He would not take less. They might grant it with advantage—they would refuse it at their peril.

Mr. Shaw

would, at that late hour, and when the House was impatient for a division, detain them with very few observations in answer to those of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. He would not stop to consider the qualifications of that hon. and learned Gentleman to read a lecture on principle and consistency to his right hon. and distinguished Friend (Sir Robert Peel)—but proceed at once to offer a few words on the immediate question before them—that part of the Address which had reference to the subject of Municipal Corporations in Ireland; he conceived that the great objection to the expression sought to be amended was, that it pledged the House to the application of a general principle without consideration of the peculiar circumstances of the country to which it was to be applied, as the leading error in the debate had been the use of general terms, and high sounding expressions without regard to their practical and real signification. He entirely concurred with the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell) that too often the sounds of liberty and religion were on the lips when there was none of the spirit of either in the heart. The noble Lord (Lord Howick) accused his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Pee!) and those with whom he acted, of refusing the luxury of liberty to Ireland; but the noble Lord seemed to forget that liberty, which had reason, and virtue, and happiness for its companions was one thing—and another, that which some called liberty, while they meant a license to revel in riot and destruction. The noble Lord, too, had overlooked the difference between vigilant popular control, and reckless popular violence. The noble Lord himself admitted that the undue influence possessed by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, was in itself a proof of the distempered state of society in Ireland; and yet, with strange inconsistency, the noble Lord in the same breath proposed to legislate for that country, as if it were in a sound and wholesome condition—and to apply a remedy which must greatly aggravate the disease. He would put it to the fairness and candour of the noble Lord, did he himself believe, that by adding to the power of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. O'Connell) he would increase the real liberty or happiness of any one individual of those deluded beings who were constrained to yield a blind submission to his despotic mandates, and whose forced contributions rendered him, what he had that night boasted himself to be, the pensioned and hired advocate of what he called the people of Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman talked loudly of" equal rights" and "impartial justice"—high-sounding phrases, and, no doubt, noble sentiments; bat, in the hon. and learned Gentleman's vocabulary for "equal rights of his countrymen," stood the power of exercising an arbitrary tyranny over them; for "justice," the means of subverting its administration, and, as in a late notable instance, poisoning its very source, by placing the executive of the King in opposition to the laws of the land. While the secret counsels of the hon. and learned Gentleman governed the so called Government of Ireland, in return he lavished his praises upon them, and at the moment that every office was stuffed with his nominees, he disclaimed, forsooth, that he or any of his immediate associates had been promoted to office, well knowing, as both the hon. and learned Gentleman and his Majesty's Ministers did well know, the distinction between nominal office and real power. Then, again, the hon. and learned Gentleman vauntingly declared that ail he asked was "justice for Ireland," and that congregated thousands of his countrymen had commissioned him to offer an abandonment of the repeal question, provided he got justice for Ireland—but he had omitted to tell the House that at the very meeting where he put that construction upon the servile shouts of an ignorant multitude—he himself declared that he was as much a repealer as ever—and that under no circumstances did he believe justice could be done to Ireland without a domestic legislature. With respect to the Amendment of his right hon. Friend, those who supported it were willing to pledge themselves to redress all such grievances—to remedy all proved abuses in the Corporation of Ireland. He, for one, would not advocate their continuance in a single instance—he could not sanction the misapplication of one shilling of the public money—nor countenance the slightest deviation from the due and impartial administration of justice—but he did entreat the House not inconsiderately to commit themselves to a course by which, intending to do away with self-election, they would only substitute for it the personal nomination of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin; and, desiring to abolish a system of exclusiveness, let them beware that they did no more than transfer it from men who, let them impute to them what faults they might, were, at all events, devotedly attached to the union with this country, its interests, and its religion, into the hands of a party who would be the mere instruments and puppets of those who were the natural and irreconcileable enemies of England.

The House divided on the original Motion; Ayes 284; Noes 243; Majority 41.

List of the AYES.
Acheson, Viscount	Brady, D. C.
Adam, Admiral	Bridgman, H.
Aglionby, H. A.	Brocklehurst, J.
Ainsworth, P.	Brodie, William B.
Alston, R.	Brotherton, J.
Angerstein, John	Browne, Dominick
Anson, Sir George	Buckingham, J. S.
Astley, Sir J.	Buller, E.
Attwood, Thomas	Buller, Charles
Bagshaw, John	Bulwer, Edw. G.E.L.
Baines, Edward	Bulwer, H. L.
Bainbridge, E. T.	Burdon, W.
Bannerman, Alex.	Burton, Henry
Barclay, David	Butler, Hon. Col.
Baring, Francis T.	Buxton, T. F.
Barnard, Edward G.	Byng, G.
Beauclerk, Major	Byng, G. S.
Bellew, Richard M.	Campbell, W. F.
Bellew, Sir P., Bart.	Campbell, Sir J.
Berkeley, Captain	Cave, R. O.
Berkeley, Hon. C. C.	Cavendish, Hon. C C.
Bernal, Ralph	Cavendish, Hon. G. H.
Bewes, T.	Cayley, Edward S.
Biddulph, Robert	Chalmers, Capt. P.
Bish, Thomas	Chapman, M. L.
Blackburne, John	Chetwynd, W. F.
Blake, M. J.	Chichester, J. P. B.
Blamire, W.	Clay, W.
Blunt, Sir Charles R.	Clayton, Sir W.
Bodkin, John James	Clements, Viscount
Bowes, John	Clive, Edward Bolton
Bowring, Dr.	Cockerell, Sir C, Bt.

Codrington, Sir E.	Hobhouse, Sir J. C.
Colborne, N. W. R.	Hodges, T.
Collier, John	Hodges, T. L.
Conyngham, Lord A.	Holland, Edward
Cookes, T. H.	Hoskins, K.
Cowper, Hon. W. F.	Howard, Hon. E. G.
Crawford, W.	Howard, P. H.
Crawford, W. S.	Howick, Lord
Crawley, S.	Hume, J.
Curteis, Herbert	Humphery, John
Curteis, Edward B.	Hurst, R. H.
Dalmeny, Lord	Hutt, W.
Denison, John E.	Ingham, R.
Denison, W. J.	Jephson, C. D. O.
Denistoun, A.	Jervis, John
Divett, Edward	Johnston, Andrew
Donkin, Sir R. S.	Kemp, T. R.
Duncombe, T. S.	King, Edward B.
Dundas, J. C.	Labouchere, Henry
Dundas, Hon. T.	Lambton, Hedworth
Dunlop, J.	Langton, Wm. Gore
Dykes, F. L. B.	Leader, J. T.
Edwards, Colonel	Lefevre, Charles S.
Ellice, E.	Lemon, Sir C.
Elphinstone, H	Lennard, Thomas B.
Etwall, Ralph	Lennox, Lord J. G.
Evans, George	Lister, E. C.
Ewart, W.	Loch, James
D'Eyncourt Tennyson	Lushington, Charles
Fazakerley, J. N.	Lushington, S.
Fellowes, Hon. N.	Lynch, A. H.
Fergus, John	Mackenzie, J. A. S.
Ferguson, Sir R.	Macleod, R.
Ferguson, Robert	Macnamara, Major
Fergusson, R. C.	Maher, John
Fielden, J.	Mangles, J.
Finn, Wm. Francis	Marjoribanks, S.
Fitzgibbon, Hon. R.	Marshall, William
Fitzroy, Lord C.	Maule, Hon. F.
Fitzsimon, Chris.	Maxwell, John
Fitzsimon, Nicholas	Methuen, P.
Folkes, Sir W.J. H. B.	Molesworth, Sir W.
Fort, John	Moreton, Hon. A. H.
Gaskell, Daniel	Morpeth, Viscount
Gordon, Robert	Morrison, J.
Goring, Harry Dent	Mostyn, Hon. E. L.
Grattan, J.	Murray, John Arch.
Grattan, Henry	North, Frederick
Grey, Hon. Charles	O'Brien, W. S.
Grey, Sir G.	O'Brien, Cornelius
Grosvenor, Lord R.	O'Connell, M. J.
Grote, G.	O'Connell, D.
Guest, J.	O'Connell, Maurice
Gully, J.	O'Connell, Morgan
Hall, B.	O'Connell, John
Hallyburton, Hn. D.G.	O'Connor, Don
Handley, Henry	O'Ferrall, R. M.
Harland, W. C.	Oliphant, Lawrence
Harvey, D. W.	O'Loughlen, Sergeant
Hawes, Benjamin	Ord, W. H.
Hawkins, J. H.	Ord, William
Hay, Sir A. Leith	Oswald, James
Heath coat, John	Paget, Frederick
Heath cote, G. J.	Palmer, General C.
Hector, C. J.	Palmerston, Lord
Heneage, Edward	Parker, John
Heron, Sir R., Bart.	Parnell, Sir H.
Hindley, Charles	Parrott, J,

Pattison, James	Stuart, W. V.
Pechell, Capt.	Stuart, Lord James
Pelham, Hon. C.	Surrey, Earl of
Pendarves, E. W.	Talbot, J. Hyacinth
Philips, G. R.	Talfourd, T. Noon
Philips, Mark	Tancred, H. W.
Pinney, William	Thompson, Col. P.
Potter, R.	Thomson, C. P.
Poulter, J. S.	Thorneley, T.
Power, R.	Tooke, William
Poyntz, Wm. Stephen	Townley, R. G.
Pryme, George	Trelawney, Sir W.
Pryse, Pryse	Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Ramsbottom, John	Tulk, Charles A.
Rice, Right Hon. T. S.	Turner, Wm.
Rippon, Cuthbert	Tynte, C. J. Kemeys
Robarts, Abraham W.	Villiers, Charles E.
Robinson, G.	Vivian, Major
Roche, D.	Vivian, J. H.
Roche, W.	Wakley, T.
Roebuck, John A.	Walker, R.
Rolfe, Sir R. M.	Wallace, R.
Rooper, J. Bonfoy	Warburton, H.
Rundle, J.	Ward, Henry George
Russell, Lord	Wemyss, James
Russell, Lord John	Westerns, Hon. H. R.
Russell, Lord Charles	Westenra, Hon. Col.
Ruthven, Edward	Whalley, Sir S.
Scholefield, J.	Wigney, Isaac N.
Scott, James W.	Wilde, Sergeant
Scott, Sir E. D.	Wilkins, Walter
Scrope, G. P.	Wilkes, John
Seale, Colonel	Williams, W.
Seymour, Lord	Williams, Sir J.
Sharpe, Gen.	Williams, W. A.
Sheil, Richard L.	Williamson, Sir H.
Sheldon, E.	Wilson, H.
Simeon, Sir R. G.	Winnington, Sir T.
Smith, Benjamin	Winnington, Capt. H
Smith, J. A.	Wood, Matthew
Smith, Robert V.	Wood, Charles
Smith, Hon. R.	Woulfe, Serjeant
Speirs, A. G.	Wrottesley, Sir J. Bt.
Speirs, Alexander	Wyse, T.
Stanley, E. J.	Young, G. F.
Stewart, R.	PAIRED OFF
Strickland, Sir Geo.
Strutt, E.	Dare, Hall
Stuart, Lord D.	Walker, C. A.

List of the NOES.
Agnew, Sir A., Bart.	Barneby, John
Alford, Lord	Bateson, Sir R.
Alsager, Richard	Beckett, Sir J.
Arbuthnot, Hon. H.	Bell, Matthew
Archdall, M.	Bentinck, Lord G.
Ashley, Lord	Beresford, Sir J. P.
Ashley, Hon. H.	Bethell, Richard
Attwood, M.	Blackburne, John I.
Bagot, Hon. W.	Blackstone, W. S.
Bailey, J.	Boldero, Henry G.
Baillie, Col. H.	Boiling, Wm.
Balfour, T.	Bonham, Francis R.
Barclay, Charles	Borthwick, Peter
Baring, T.	Bradshaw, James
Baring, H. Bingham	Bramston, T. W.
Baring, W, B.	Brownrigg, J. S.

Bruce, Lord E.	Goulburn, Rt. Hon. H.
Bruce, C. L. C.	Goulburn, Sergeant
Brudenell, Lord	Graham, Sir J. R. G.
Bruen, Col.	Grant, Hon. Colonel
Bruen, Francis	Greene, Thomas
Buller, Sir J. Y.	Greisley, Sir R.
Burrell, Sir C. M., Bt.	Greville, Sir C. J.
Campbell, Sir H.	Grimston, Viscount
Canning, Sir S.	Grimston, Hon. E. H.
Cartwrignt, W. R.	Hale, Robert B,
Castlereagh, Visc.	Halford, H.
Chandos, Marq. of	Hanmer, Sir J., Bart.
Chaplin, Thos.	Hanmer, Henry
Chichester, A.	Harcourt, G.
Chisholm, A.	Hardinge, Sir H,
Clerk, Sir G.	Hardy, John
Clive, Hon. R. H.	Hawkes, Thos.
Codrington, C. W.	Hay, Sir J., Bart.
Cole, Lord	Hayes, Sir E. S. Bt.
Cole, Hon. A. H.	Herbert, Hon. Sidney
Compton, H. C.	Herries, Rt. Hon. J.C.
Conolly, E. M.	Hill, Ld. Arthur
Coote, Sir C. C. Bart.	Hill, Sir R. Bart.
Corry, Hon. H. T. L.	Hogg, James Weir
Crewe, Sir G.	Hope, Hon. James
Cripps, Joseph	Hope, Henry T.
Dalbiac, Sir C.	Hotham, Lord
Damer, D.	Houldsworth, T.
Darlington, Earl of	Hoy, James Barlow
Davenport, John	Hughes, Hughes
Dick, Q.	Inglis, Sir R, H. Bt.
Dottin, Abel Rous	Irton, Samuel
Dowdeswell, Wm.	Jackson, J. D.
Duffield, Thomas	Jermyn, Earl of
Dugdale, D. S.	Johnstone, J. J. H,
Dunbar, George	Jones, Theobald
Duncombe, Hon. W.	Jones, W.
Duncombe, Hon. A.	Kearsley, J. H.
East, James Buller	Kerr, David
Eastnor, Viscount	Kirk, P.
Eaton, Richard J.	Knatchbull, Sir E,
Egerton, Wm. Tatton	Knightley, Sir C.
Egerton, Lord Fran.	Knight, H. G.
Elley, Sir J.	Law, Hon. C.
Elwes, J.	Lawson, Andrew
Entwistle, John	Lees, J. F.
Estcourt, Thos. G. B.	Lefroy, Thomas
Estcourt, Thos. S. B.	Lefroy, Anthony
Fancourt, C. St. John	Lincoln, Earl of
Fector, John Minet	Lopes, Sir Ralph
Ferguson, Capt.	Longfield, R.
Feilden, William	Lowther, J.
Finch, George	Lowther, Hon. H. C.
Fleming, John	Lucas, Edward
Pollen, Sir W. Webb	Lushington, S. R.
Forbes, Wm.	Lygon, Hon. Col. H. B.
Forester, Hon. G. C. W.	Maclean, D.
Forster, Charles S.	Mahon, Lord
Fremantle, Sir T. W.	Manners, Lord C.
Freshfield, James W.	Mathew, Captain
Gaskell, J. Milnes	Maunsell, T. P.
Geary, Sir W. R. P.	Maxwell, H.
Gladstone, Thomas	Meynell, Henry
Gladstone, Wm. E.	Miles, Wm.
Glynne, Sir S. R.	Miles, Philip J.
Goodricke, Sir F.	Miller, Wm; Henry
Gordon, W.	Mordaunt, Sir J., Bt,
Gore, Wm Ormsby	Neeld, Joseph

Neeld, John	Sheppard, Thomas
Nicholl, J.	Sibthorpe, Colonel
Norreys, Lord	Sinclair, Sir G.
O'Neill, General	Smith, A.
Ossulston, Lord	Smyth, Sir G. H., Bt.
Owen, Hugh	Somerset, Lord E.
Palmer, Robert	Somerset, Lord G.
Parker, M. E.	Stanley, Edward
Patten, John Wilson	Stanley, Lord
Peel, Sir R. Bt.	Stormont, Lord
Peel, Colonel	Sturt, Henry Chas.
Peel, Rt. Hon. W. Y.	Tennent, J. E.
Peel, Edmund	Thomas, Colonel
Pemberton, Thomas	Thompson, Wm.
Perceval, Col.	Trench, Sir Fred.
Pigott, Robert	Trevor, Hon. G. R.
Plumptre, John P.	Trevor, Hon. Arthur
Plunket, Hon. R.	Twiss, Horace
Polhill, Frederick	Tyrrell, Sir J.
Pollen, Sir J., Bt.	Vere, Sir C.
Pollington, Visc.	Verner, Colonel
Pollock, Sir Fred.	Vernon, Granville H.
Powell, Colonel	Vesey, Hon. Thomas
Praed, Winthrop M.	Vyvyan, Sir R. R.
Praed, James B.	Wall, C. B.
Price, S. G.	Walpole, Lord
Price, Richard	Walter, John
Pringle, A.	Welby, G. E.
Reid, Sir J. Rae	Weyland, Richard
Richards, J.	Whitmore, Thos. C.
Rickford, W.	Wilbraham, Hon. R.
Ross, Charles	Wodehouse, E.
Rushbrooke, R.	Wood, T.
Russell, C.	Wortley, Hon. J. S.
Ryle, John	Wyndham, Wadham
Sanderson, R.	Wynn, Sir W.
Sandon, Lord	Wynn, Rt. Hon. C.
Scarlett, Hon. R.	Yorke, E.T.
Scott, Lord J.	Young, J.
Scourfield, W. H.	Young, Sir W. L.
Shaw, F.