HC Deb 10 June 1836 vol 34 cc308-405

On the Order of the Day for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the question of disagreeing to the Lords' Amendments to the Corporation Bill for Ireland, having been read,

Mr. Sharman Crawford

said, he hoped that he should not be considered presumptuous if he stated thus early his sentiments upon the question. He had been intrusted with various petitions from Catholics and Protestants praying the House to reject the Amendments of the Lords, and to those petitions he was anxious to do justice; but he required peculiar indulgence, because he could not concur in the proposition made on either side of the House. He was himself a Protestant, and naturally felt anxious for the welfare of the Church. But he could not conceal from himself that the means taken by the Protestant interest to maintain its ascendancy had been the cause of all the great evils of Ireland. The Bill as originally introduced by his Majesty's Government, went to destroy that monopoly of power in the Corporations of Ireland, which the Protestants had so long enjoyed. In the commencement of the Session an amendment was moved by hon. Gentlemen on the opposition side of the House, with the view of omitting from the Address that passage which spoke of the necessity of giving equal municipal rights to Ireland, as had been given to England and Scotland. That amendment was negatived by a majority in this House, but a similar amendment was adopted by a still greater majority in the other House. Ministers afterwards introduced a Bill which went to establish fifty Municipal Corporations for Ireland. That Bill was sent up to the Lords, though it was known that the Lords would reject it. The Lords did not reject the whole Bill, but they rejected its principle by abolishing all Municipal Corporations in Ireland. But now his Majesty's Ministers proposed that twelve towns shall have Municipal Corporations instead of fifty; thus annihilating no less than thirty-eight Corporations. He asked whether this was sustaining the decision of the House of Commons, or whether it was not rather admitting that the Peers had been right? The twelve Corporations were to have mayors and town-councils, but the rest were to be left to the provisions of the 9th George 4th. If that Statute were sufficient for the thirty-eight Corporations, why was it not also sufficient for the twelve? According to the statement of the noble Lord, four towns with a population of 10,000, and four others with a population of 9,000 persons, were excluded from the twelve privileged Corporations; yet Derry with only 10,000, and Carrickfergus with only 8,000, were, for some incomprehensible reason, included. The great use of a Corporation consisting of a mayor and council was, that the inhabitants might annually have the means of expressing their opinions. This he would call wholesome agitation; but it would not exist in the towns left under the provisions of the 9th of George 4th. The proposition of the noble Lord would cause a collision with the House of Lords for what was not worth a collision, and he appealed to his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. O'Connell) whether it was consistent with the spirit of his noble letter to the people of England? [Mr. O'Connell; Yes.] In that letter his hon. Friend had said, "We will have Lord Lyndhurst kicked out—we will have no compromise;" but was not this Bill a compromise, and a degrading compromise, for the people of Ireland? He was very sorry to differ from his hon. and learned Friend, but, as an honest man, he was bound to express his strong convictions, with great deference to the opinion of his hon. and learned Friend on most points. He could not concur with him in this. His hon. and learned Friend knew that he (Mr. Crawford) had ever supported him in his general political views; but whenever he conscientiously differed from him, he honestly avowed that difference. His hon. and learned Friend had, on the occasion of his late letter to the people of England referred to that principle which he had so often inculcated on the people of Ireland, and which was expressed in the forcible words of the motto— Hereditary bondsmen, know ye not, Who would be free, themselves must strike [the blow. Now how, he asked, was this blow to be struck? His hon. Friend did not mean to resort to arms. Then, what could he mean, except a firm, temperate, and uncompromising demand of the rights of Ireland? And was it consistent with such a principle of action to accept the degrading compromise in the proposition of the noble Lord. Looking at the policy of this question as regarded England, he begged to inquire whether it tended to increase the honour of the House of Commons that it should thus succumb to the House of Lords? What was the inference from the course recommended?—Either that the House of Commons had sent up a bad Bill to the House of Lords, or that having passed a good Bill it was afraid of maintaining the right. If the representatives for Ireland submitted to this humiliation, the blame would not rest with the Government, nor with the English and Scotch Members. This was not a case for a temporising policy, when such an insult had been offered by the House of Lords to the whole population of Ireland; and for his part he was ready to reject the Bill at once, and rather to postpone relief to Ireland for a short time than accept so degrading a measure. It had been said, that to take any other course would be dangerous to the Administration; but the true friends of the Administration were those who recommended them to rest upon the rights of the people, and to depend for support upon the popular voice. The proposition which he conceived ought to have been made was, that the amendments of the Lords should be rejected. After the insulting manner in which Ireland had been spoken of—after the insulting language which a noble Lord in the other House had used, and which had been repeated in this House, there was no medium course for the real friends of Ireland to pursue, but to treat with reprobation the degrading proposition which the Lords had offered for their acceptance and to give to their amendments the most indignant rejection.—He did not, however, wish to offer any disrespect to his Majesty's Government by proposing the rejection of these amendments. He felt that Ireland was much indebted to the noble Lord for the admirable sentiments expressed by him last night, and far be it from him to offer any unnecessary opposition to the proposal made by that noble Lord to the House. But though he should not adopt that course, still it was his intention, whenever the question came on for discussion as to what towns should have Municipal Corporations and what not, to submit such a motion to the House as he conceived ought to be adopted. He trusted that in the observations he had made, he had not said one word, or expressed one sentiment, which could be considered offensive to any individual. If he had gone beyond any of his hon. Friends, it was only, perhaps, from overmuch zeal in the cause which he espoused though he by no means intended to impute a want of zeal on the part of those who fell short of the opinions and views he entertained on this all-important question.

Mr. Lefroy, in rising after the hon, and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, could not avoid expressing his satisfaction at the straightforward and manly integrity with which the hon. Member had expressed his opinions. He did not feel called on to reply to anything which that hon. Gentleman had said; for what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman proved very clearly that the Bill now under their consideration was not the Bill, originally proposed by his Majesty's Government; and he, therefore, thanked the hon. Gentleman for proving, in reference to that Bill, the inconsistency of his Majesty's Government. He also thanked the hon. Gentleman for exhibiting the inconsistency of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, if he supported his Majesty's Government in the course they were now pursuing; and after what the hon. Gentleman had said, he claimed his support in resisting his Majesty's Government in the steps they proposed. The hon. Gentleman had appealed to those around him, those of that party who called themselves the Irish representatives, to support him in obtaining what he designated just ice for Ireland, by securing the extension of the same corporate principle as had been applied to | England and Scotland. He would also join in the cry of justice for Ireland. He would join also in the call upon the House to legislate for Ireland on the same principle on which they had legislated for England and Scotland. But the value of that cry depended entirely on the meaning attached to it by those who used it. If the hon. Gentleman meant justice for the whole people of Ireland, and included in the term not merely the numerical majority which the Roman Catholics constituted, but the minority, as he admitted the Protestants of Ireland to be, but not inferior in wealth, rank, intelligence, station, or influence—if the hon. Gentleman meant to include that portion among the people of Ireland, then he was bold to say that the measure proposed by Government did not give justice to Ireland. It was usual with certain parties to speak of the Catholics as the people of Ireland—the hon. Gentlemen representing that side of the question were denominated the Members for Ireland; and even their leader himself was called the representative of all Ireland—the great political primate of Ireland. Such was the view taken by certain parties of what constituted Ireland and its people; and it never could be considered justice to Ireland, to legislate without regarding the rights and interests, the feelings and wishes of one large and important class of his Majesty's subjects. They had not so legislated for England or Scotland. There was no analogy between the cases of England and Scotland and that of Ireland, as to the reconstruction of municipal Corporations. In England and Scotland these were called for by the general voice of the people, and the operation of that reconstruction could not be to transfer the rights enjoyed by one party exclusively to another. In Ireland, the property of Corporations was in the hands of Protestants. He did not say it should be so; but the effect of the Bill as at first proposed, and as it went to the Lords, would be to transfer the rights and privileges and property of Corporations in Ireland from the hands of Protestants to Catholics. The effect of the measure of Government would be to transfer from one exclusive party to another still more exclusive the whole of the corporate property, the whole of the corporate rights, the whole of the corporate privileges, and he was bound to ask what kind of justice to Ireland would that be? The House would not pass a bill co nomine, to transfer to Roman Catholics the rights and privileges of the Protestants of Ireland. But if the effect of the measure be a transfer of rights and privileges, was not that House doing, indirectly, that which they could not directly sanction? What did the Lords' Bill do? It abolished all offices not essential, and by that means contributed to save the corporate property, the control of which it transferred to commissioners, for the purpose of paying off all debts, meeting all claims and pensions, and lastly, to apply the surplus for the public benefit of the inhabitants of each corporate town. A few offices necessary to the convenience of the inhabitants, such as those of weigh-masters and clerks of the market, were preserved. The appointment of these, instead of being placed in a town-council, composed of one party only of his Majesty's subjects, was vested in the Crown itself as parens patriæ, which would distribute them with justice and impartiality to all the classes of the community. The Bill sent down from the Lords was not a measure which gave a preference by monopoly to either party, it was calculated to do justice to Ireland on the only condition on which that was possible—that of adverting to the rights and the feelings and wishes of every class of the people. If the measure of Government was one of oppression and injustice towards the Protestant population of Ireland, as far as regarded the existing rights of corporate property and patronage, how much more seriously, how much more grievously, did the new power of taxation created by the Bill to be vested in the town-councils in twelve selected places, and in the commissioners in the remaining twenty, affect Protestant rights and interests? In twelve towns named in one of the schedules, the councils had a right to assume immediately all the powers of taxation vested in Commissioners by the 9th of Geo. 4th, and according to another provision of the Bill, that Act was to be applied, not at the option of the inhabitants, not through the instrumentality of popular election, but imperatively, to twenty other places. He found that the council would be authorised to impose taxes for the purposes of election, for the erection of polling booths, for the salaries of the mayor, treasurer, town clerks, and of the coroner, where there was one, and of such other officers as the council might think fit to appoint to carry this Bill into effect. For all these they might appoint salaries without stint or limit; they were authorised also to appoint a paid magistrate, and provide a police office, in which he should transact business; to appoint clerks, special constables, and watchmen. To defray these expenses they had full power to tax the inhabitants. This was to be a graduated tax, to be paid in proportion to the value of the houses. All above the value of 20l. were to pay double. Now, who inhabited the most part of the houses of that description? — The Protestants. Who inhabited the 51. houses?—The Roman Catholics, who were to elect the town-council, or the Commissioners. He trusted that the House would pause before they intrusted to the Roman Catholics a power of taxation beyond that now possessed by any Corporation, without control either as to the amount or disposal of the sums levied, and with no security whatever to the Protestants of Ireland on either of these points. If this delegated authority was not withdrawn or modified, the Protestants would be placed completely at the mercy of those who had been taught to regard them as enemies, and to whom they owed a large measure of retribution for past injuries. He could not imagine what solid grounds there were for the distinction drawn between the two classes of towns enumerated in the Bill. If Corporations were so essential to the well-being of the first twelve towns, he quite concurred with the hon. Member for Dundalk that they were equally necessary to the others. Why should they force on these towns the enormous expense which would arise under the Act of the 9th of Geo. 4th? The inhabitants of many boroughs had already rejected that Act, on account of the expense which it would have entailed on them; and he believed that if the wealthy part of the Roman Catholic population could venture to speak out, they would declare that they had no desire to be subjected to the taxes which must inevitably follow its application. They had heard much of justice to Ireland, but the word was used in a vague and indefinite sense. He tried it by the test of its application to property—which was its proper object. How small were the pretensions of this Bill to be considered a measure of justice, if they included under the denomination of Ireland the Protestant subjects of the Crown, and the wealthy portion of the Roman Catholics themselves. The Bill of the House of Lords left it to the option of every town whether they would apply for the provisions of the Statute of the 9th of Geo. 4th or not. Every duty which it remained to the Corporations to perform was provided for without expense, and in a manner not liable to those objections to which the Bill of his Majesty's Ministers was open. Justice was no doubt a good thing, but to be justice, it should be even-handed. There was another thing also which was equally good, and that was peace and harmony amongst fellow-citizens. He appealed to the consciences and understandings of all who heard him, whether they were more likely to have peace and harmony in the towns of Ireland from a measure which would give rise to all the bitterness and strife engendered by annual elections, or one which took away the bone of contention? He appealed to that House whether domestic quiet and concord would be promoted by a Bill which opened a wide field for protracted strife, for continual jealousy, for continual rivalry, which would be manifested in incessant conflicts between Roman Catholics and Protestants, until one party was overturned by the other. Was that Bill so well calculated to produce peace and harmony as one which gave the inhabitants of the towns the option of introducing for the government of their respective communities the Statute of 9th George 4th, which answered all the useful purposes of a Corporation? He thought that no man who exercised his judgment, or regarded his conscience, could hesitate to say that it was not, The noble Secretary of State for the Home Department had said that, under the Lords' Bill, there would be no municipal liberty for Ireland. Did the noble Lord mean the term or the thing, the shadow or the substance? But would the noble Lord, or would his supporters call that municipal liberty which would be the consequence of their own measure?— Was it municipal liberty where one party was to have the absolute and uncontrolled dominion over another? Let the House but consider the temper and state of parties in Ireland—let them look at the vast preponderance, in point of numbers, of one party, and then let them conclude what sort of municipal liberty the Bill of the noble Lord would secure to Ireland. He regretted that, in the course of his speech, the noble Lord was betrayed into a threat that the Peers would retract their legislation on this measure the moment the first shot was fired in Europe. He did not think it becoming in the noble Lord to read so severe a lecture to the ex-Chancellor of England, for the language he was supposed to have used when speaking of the people of Ireland, and, at the same moment, to allow himself to be betrayed into a much greater indiscretion. He (Dr. Lefroy) regretted that any Minister of the Crown should use such language—should hold out an encouragement to the people of Ireland to attempt, on some future occasion, to wrest by force and violence from the Legislature, what, in their deliberate judgment, they thought it would be dangerous to grant them. It ill became the station of the noble Lord; it was not consistent with the high office he held in his Majesty's councils to minister this mischievous incentive to an easily cited and inflammable population. Having already addressed the House on the details of the measure, he thought it would be inexcusable in him to trespass on its attention on that part of the subject again. He would allude to another topic, so admirably treated by his hon. Friend, the Member for Sandwich. In every thing that fell from him be entirely coincided, and would not, therefore, go over the ground so ably occupied by the hon. Member (Mr. Grove Price). He thought that the time was come when they should determine whether we were only to have the name or the reality of a second branch of the Legislature. He thought the present a fit and proper occasion to put this question to the test, and unless the theory of the British Constitution was but a mere mockery, he had no doubt of the result being in favour of the independent legislative functions of the House of Lords. If the Upper House were not allowed to exercise their own judgment, and to differ with the Commons on any question, what would become of their separate existence as an independent branch of the Legislature; and if they were permitted to differ on some questions, and not upon others, who could lay down the line of distinction, and say "that on such and such questions, we, the Commons of England, will not allow you to exercise your own deliberate judgment; on these you must agree with us." He would defy any constitutional lawyer to draw the line, or point out any one measure over which the Upper House were not empowered by the constitution to exercise their full and free right of differing with the Commons, The noble Lord talked of a compromise, and speaking on an Irish subject, he doubtlessly was determined to propose an Irish compromise. The House of Lords pronounced their solemn decision, on the ground of the danger of the measure, against applying its provisions to seven towns in Ireland, and he supposed, by way of lessening that danger, the noble Lord now proposed as a compromise to extend its provisions to twelve. The noble Lord has given them a singular proof of his notion of a compromise. He proposes a measure pregnant with mischief, pregnant with the vice of the principle, and calls on this House to support him in his endeavours to apply it to a greater number of towns than it was proposed in the Lords to be given, when it was rejected—and he calls this a measure of compromise. He would not trespass further on the attention of the House, but would declare his readiness to give a decided negative as well to the mitigated Bill of the noble Lord, as to the one originally brought in by his Majesty's Attorney-General for Ireland.

Mr. Grote

was anxious to offer a few observations to the Mouse on the subject now under discussion, and wished the rather to do so because he had not taken, any part in the long debates on it which had already occurred. He was conscious that after the copious and ample manner in which the whole subject of the Irish Corporations had been discussed, it would be quite impossible for him to offer any thing to the House that had not been said before, and therefore he was under additional obligations to be brief. He must say, however, that if it was impossible for him to find anything new to submit to the House, other hon. Members had the same difficulty to contend with. The chief objection advanced against the measure in both Houses had been, that it was a transfer of power from the minority to the majority. He on the other hand maintained, that it was a transfer of power from a part to the whole. It placed both Protestants and Roman Catholics on the footing on which they ought to be in respect to citizenship—a full and absolute equality; and although the hon. Gentleman opposite wished that that level should consist in a community of subjection, he, for his part, preferred that it should consist in a community of privileges. The manner in which the proposition of the noble Lord had been introduced to the House, would render it unnecessary for him to make some observations which he should otherwise have thought it his duty to offer to the House. He confessed that he participated to a considerable extent in the feeling expressed by the hon. Member for Dundalk, who had first addressed the House that evening. He would have preferred that the amendments to this Bill sent down from the House of Lords should have been at once rejected, unless on a careful review of them there could have been found any one which in their hearts and consciences they could approve. It was never too late to rectify an error; but it appeared to him that the making of concessions against their own judgment and opinion was seldom attended with any other result than that which they had witnessed on this occasion. The concessions made had not had the effect of conciliating hon. Gentlemen opposite, who would no more consent to pay 10. in the pound than they would to pay the whole, because they disputed the principle itself on which the measure was founded. If; ever there was a Bill on which it would have become the House to exercise its privilege of discussing amendments proposed by the House of Lords with a scrupulous regard to its own dignity, it was the Bill now before them, for most certainly it had been dealt with by the other House in a manner in which no Bill had ever before been treated. They had not only entirely changed the principle of the Bill, but they had embodied in it a principle which had been already considered and deliberately rejected by that House. He thought that the representatives of the people might at least have been spared the pain of making concessions to those who had declined, he might almost say insultingly declined, to make anything like concession to them. The question which they had to decide was not whether less should be conceded to the House of Lords, but whether more should be conceded. In that point of view he cordially agreed with those Members who thought that the House would be eternally dishonoured if they suffered the Bill to be commuted and transformed as it had been by the other House. Their Lordships had not offered the House of Commons any argument, or even the semblance of any argument, for altering the decision to which it had come; on the contrary, the tone and spirit in which their discussion on this Bill had been conducted, furnished the House of Commons with additional reasons for adhering to the principle of the Bill which they had sent up to their Lordships. He would ask any man who then heard him, whether the declaration of a noble and learned Lord, to which reference had been frequently made last night, had not been embodied in effect into the amendments made by their Lordships on this Bill? If, instead of relating to the people of Ireland, the amended Bill had related to the people of Hindostan, the people of Ireland could not have been more effectually debarred from all political franchise and office. The measure involved two principles—of which the first was, whether municipalities were useful and beneficial; and the second, whether the population of Ireland, Protestant and Catholic, was to be dealt with on the same rules and principles as the population of England and Scotland, Protestant and Catholic, and also without reference to the amount of the population belonging to those two different creeds on either side of St. George's Channel. He was inclined to decide both questions in the affirmative. He thought that we were bound, on every principle of justice, to deal fairly and impartially with the whole people of Ireland, without drawing any distinction as to the religious sect to which they belonged. That proposition had been fully sustained by the Bill which they had sent up to the Lords, and had been negatived as decidedly by the amendments made by the Lords, who had insulted and dishonoured the people of Ireland, by declaring them unfit to exercise municipal, and therefore any other political, rights. He did not wish to speak lightly of a collision between the two Houses of Parliament; but let the collision of that House with the House of Lords come when it might, it could never arise on a more noble or a more national object than the present. If the House of Lords were determined to arrest the progress of improvement by eradicating, by their amendments, all the merits of the Bills sent up to them by the House of Commons, he would recommend them to save themselves the trouble of amendment in future, and would prefer their rejecting the Bills of the Commons upon the motion for a second reading of them. If it were to be understood that the two Houses must decide on all Bills for effecting great improvements upon principles diametrically opposite to each other, the sooner that fact was announced to the country the better. Indeed it was the duty of the House of Commons to announce that fact to its constituents as soon as it came under its knowledge. The fact that they must meet with the same spirit of opposition from their Lordships on all important measures which they might send up to that House, rendered him less solicitous than he might otherwise have been for the settlement of the difference between the two Houses on this particular subject. When he saw the House of Commons perpetually considering upon all measures of reform, not how much they ought in justice to give, but how much the Lords would be disposed to grant, he thought that the time was come when they ought to inform their constituents of that melancholy truth, and let them decide whether they would be governed on the principles avowed by the House of Lords, or on those acted on by the House of Commons. That was his view of the case—and he should therefore cordially second the motion of the hon. Member for Stroud, reserving, however, to himself the right of supporting the hon. Member for Dundalk in his proposition to extend the operation of this Bill to sixteen or twenty-three towns, as he might think fit.

Mr. Richards

could not refrain from giving expression to the surprise which he felt at hearing the hon. Member for Lon- don recommending the House to act in such a manner, as would bring on a collision with the other House of Parliament. What did the hon. Member mean? Did he mean to recommend the House of Commons to usurp the privileges of the Lords? Did he see the inevitable consequences of such an usurpation; and did he, with his utilitarian doctrines, flatter himself that the people of England were ready to go out with him on his Quixotic endeavour to change the form of government under which they had flourished and been happy for more than a thousand years? Why, what did the hon. Member's proposition lead to except republicanism? For what but republicanism could be the result of that House assuming to itself the powers of the Government and the privileges of the House of Lords? He (Mr. Richards) could not believe that the hon. Member for London supposed that by his proposition he should add either prosperity to industry, or security to property. Certainly it would not produce either of those effects. Instead of peace, the hon. Member was bringing a sword upon his country; and his proposition, if acted upon, would lead to confusion and civil war, and every thing that was disastrous and melancholy. The hon. Member for London had talked of the necessity of giving peace to Ireland, and had assumed that this was the only measure which could give peace to that country. He had also assumed, that justice to Ireland required that this measure should be adopted, and had spoken of the House of Lords as if they were animated by a determination to reject every bill which was calculated to do good to Ireland. Where were the hon. Member's proofs for these extraordinary assertions? Really, it appeared to him, that the conduct and language of the hon. Member for London required much greater charity than anything which had been either said or done in the House of Lords. He (Mr. Richards) contended that this was not a religious but a political question, and he should treat it accordingly. He was for granting to Ireland everything which was likely to contribute to its happiness and peace; and the rule which he had laid down for his guidance in the consideration of this Bill was, "would it give happiness and peace to Ireland?" Quite the reverse. One of the grounds on which this Bill was defended was, that it would encourage and promote agitation. The hon. Member for Dundalk had said, that agitation was wholesome, and had bestowed great praise on the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny for the manner in which he conducted it. Now, he thought that agitation was unwholesome, and instead of lauding the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny for promoting it, he considered that the conduct of the hon. Member deserved the strongest censure. It was clear, then, that if this Bill increased agitation, the Municipal Corporations provided by it would not conduce to the happiness and prosperity of Ireland; and a measure more likely than this Bill to aggravate the mischiefs of agitation, he, for one, had never yet met with. Referring again to the collision with the House of Lords, which he accused the hon. Member for London of recommending that House to court, he observed, that it was indeed surprising that that hon. Member being a banker, should hold up a fire-brand and throw it among the multitude, for the purpose of destroying public credit. He could not forget the spirit of candour and political honesty with which the right hon. Baronet, the admirable leader of the opposition side of the House, admitted that the various powers vested in these Corporations had been administered for the benefit of one exclusive party, and had therefore been abused; nor the salutary caution which he had given to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, not to transfer the powers, which it would be better to abolish, into the hands of another exclusive party, which was quite as likely to abuse them. How had that salutary caution, proceeding from a noble spirit of candour, been met? Let them look at what occurred even in England. How had the reform recently given to the Corporations of England been applied? Had not the powers of the reformed Corporations been openly, boldly, and almost universally exerted to sustain the party of which the noble Lord was at the head? He contended that the noble Lord had used the powers vested in the Corporations per fas et nefas to increase the strength of his party in the country. The object of the noble Lord, then, in bringing forward this Bill, was not the promotion of the welfare, the prosperity, and the peace of Ireland, but the increase of the political power of his own party for mere party objects. His object was to increase the influence of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, and to give him the power of nominating not merely forty Members, as at present, but sixty I Members in future. He did not blame the I Lords for the manner in which they had dealt with this Bill. Instead of blaming them, he, for one, as an independent Member of Parliament, speaking in the name of the people of England, ay, and: in the name of the people of Ireland too, though he was but an humble individual, and did not pretend to the influence of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny over them, thanked their Lordships, because they had determined to stop that I species of direct and indirect nomination, which this Bill, if it had remained un-amended, would have enabled the hon. and learned Member to exercise over the different boroughs of Ireland. Let not Ministers plume themselves on the support which they now received from that hon. and learned Member, and his party of English and Irish Radicals. Though the hon. and learned Member now went on all fours with them, it was not because he liked them, or because the party with whom he acted liked them. He only acted with them pro hdc vice; and already the day was anticipated in which, his objects being accomplished, he would kick them rudely off, and leave them to extricate themselves as they best could from the difficulties into which he had led them. Instead of promoting perpetual agitation, the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny might have proved himself a better friend to his poor countrymen by promoting real measures for their benefit. He had before told the hon. and learned Member for Dublin how much he owed to his poorer countrymen. Much, very much, had the hon. and learned Member done to advance his own interest, and the interest of his party; but what had he done to advance the interests of the poor people of Ireland, to whom he was so much indebted? He had been horrified by the pictures of misery which the hon. and learned Member had described as existing in Ireland; but he had been still more shocked by finding that the hon. and learned Member had never exerted his great influence and his great talents in devising means to relieve that misery. He had opposed, however, all projects for the relief of his poorer countrymen, and he (Mr. Richards) had no hesitation in saying, that but for that opposition, some measure would before this have been adopted to relieve the extreme poverty and wretchedness of the people of Ireland. If the people of Ireland were to enjoy equal prosperity with those of England, they should learn, it was not to be promoted by listening to the voice of the charmer for factious and unprincipled agitation, charm he never so eloquently; not by seeking to create a disruption between two co-ordinate branches of the Legislature; not by a repeal of the Union, but by learning the arts of peace—by maintaining the security of person and of property, under a wise, fair, honest and impartial administration of the law of the land.

Mr. Wyse

The hon. Member who has just sat down has, as a matter of course, professed an extraordinary love for Ireland. It forms the beginning and end of most of his speeches. He is deeply solicitous for her prosperity—he is more Irish than the Irish in calling for ample and universal justice; but when we ask for deeds, we find he has been giving us shadows. His love is purely abstract, his solicitude theoretic; he would do justice to the country generally; but the moment we point out some specific case or spot where this general zeal may be displayed, we are immediately told that we have hit upon the precise instance where an exception should be made, and where the justice we call for would be impossible. Why, what is this but adding insult to injury—trifling not only with our feelings but our intellects? The hon. Gentleman may take upon himself the character of Member for all England, and what is still more preposterous, for all Ireland—(why did he omit Scotland?) — but I doubt much whether the inhabitants of his own borough would recognise., if he were this moment to question them, either the insult or the absurdity. The hon. Member respects the other branch of the Legislature. So do I. I respect the Lords much, but the Commons more. The hon. Member dreads and deprecates these differences. So do I; but not like the hon. Member—I would end, or at least mitigate, instead of exasperating them. To talk of respecting the Lords, while the hon. Member advocates measures which must inevitably bring the Lords into public odium and contempt—to talk of avoiding collisions by requiring all concessions from one side and applauding al resistance on the other, is a species of logic which it required the very peculiar reasoning powers of the hon. Member to have been guilty of. In one thing I thoroughly agree with the hon. Member. This is a most momentous and grave discussion, not terminating in the details of the measure itself but producing a long series of the most important consequences. Other differences between the two Houses have been differences of etiquette, matters of ceremonial privilege, the mere forms and externals of the Constitution. Here the Constitution itself is at stake. On other occasions the nation looked with indifference on the struggles of a House of Commons emanating principally from the Peers. Here a reformed House of Commons, eminently the people's House, their image and their organ, is in direct opposition to a House which is declared more than ever to require reform. Nor is the contest upon a question like that of Catholic emancipation, in which large masses of the people were adverse to the opinion of the Commons themselves. Here three nations are of but one opinion. The question, though applying specifically to Ireland, is, if we are to believe their own express declarations testified through the innumerable petitions which cover our table, a question truly imperial—a question involving the interests of all three. It is a question, too, still more than reform itself, pre-eminently and essentially a question of the people. It is of their interests, and of their franchises, and of their rights, and not of those of the Lords that we now debate. If self-government be denied in the towns of Ireland, what right can we set up for it here? If the people be too vile or ignorant to choose a mayor or amend a road, what business have they with choosing representatives to this House, or wielding through their hands the destinies of empires and generations? More than all, this is a struggle in which it cannot be for an instant doubtful who is to be the conqueror. If any be incredulous, I point to the Relief Bill, the Reform Bill, the Municipal Bill. They also were to be resisted eternally-on them, also, were final stands to be made. The Bills are now Acts of Parliament'— the revolutionary measures are the constitution of the country. War to the knife has subsided into obedience to the law of the land. So also will it be with this—so also must it be. It is in the very nature of the laws which have been passed to produce a necessity for others, until the reform which they have begun, not completed shall be perfect. To stop now, when they could not stop then, is impossible; and if it were not impossible, it would be impolitic and unwise. The worst of all states is that where institutions themselves are, from their variance with each other, sources of discord. Let us at all events have harmony—let us build in the sense of despotism, or freedom, but not of both. Nor is this contest one in which the Commons were the aggressors. Two blanches of the Legislature may be said to stand against one. His Majesty's Ministers, it is presumed with his Majesty's consent, bring down a Bill modelled on an Act already sanctioned by the three estates. It passes by a large majority this House, with, the full consent (to judge from their petitions) of the people. Who objects to it? A majority of the Lords. Is it possible that this majority, which is a minority in the nation, can succeed?—is it possible they can long continue to resist?—is it possible their resistance can be unaccompanied with evil—and on whom is the onus of such defeat or of such resistance—on whom is the responsibility of such calamities to rest?—on this House or the other, or those who bring in the Bill, or those who were the first to resist and reject it? The sole object of Corporations, if we are to believe the hon. Member for Exeter, was simply to oppose the enactments of the barons; as the reign of baronial warfare and oppression is at an end, so also, following up his reasoning, should Corporations. But this is a misstatement of the question. This was an incident—they served for this amongst other things. Their original object was much wider. They are not Norman, nor even Saxon institutions — they are Roman. Sir Francis Palgrave's theory is founded on analogy — on fact. They are relics of the old republican institutions of Rome. Their object was self-government. The municipia were, even under the imperial sway, as far as local affairs were concerned, small commonwealths. Traces of this organization are observable not only in these countries, but over all Europe. Their true object, to which all others were secondary, was the management of their local affairs. In Ireland, indeed, the case is said to be different. Corporations were planted there, it was said, solely to preserve and extend the Protestant religion. This was, however, the abuse, not the use. A despotic prince employed a constitutional instrument to carry more absolutely and arbitrarily into effect his own views of proselytism and government. But he would put it to any Member in the House, had they effected either the real or presumed object? Had the Irish Corporations been good instru- ments of self government, or good instruments even of proselytism. The Catholic religion existed and increased under the very shadow of these fortresses—increased, too, from their very character; because they excluded and oppressed, the excluded and oppressed sect naturally augmented both in numbers and hostility. But do their warmest advocates in their hour of need support them? Who, of all that profited by them, now stretches out a single hand to save? The Corporations of England had some defenders. The "immaculate" Corporations of Ireland had none. On this point all are agreed; the abomination of abominations must be got rid of. Accused and convicted of profligacy, pecuniary and political, to an extent even beyond Tory palliation, they are condemned on all sides of the House to be delivered over to the secular arm. But now comes the great difference between. us. Having cleared away the rubbish-having got rid of the abuse—having cast away the useless and injurious institution, we would build, reform, and restore. We, on the cleared ground, would erect institutions which would answer the ends for which they were designed in their place. What do the supporters of the Lords' amendments—what do these "architects of ruin" propose in their place? No municipalities—no corporations—no; the very name is loathsome in their nostrils; but commissioners on one side, after all their vituperation of commissions, and an elected body, with all their horror of election and the people, on the other. Without entering as yet upon the merits of the change, I simply ask the House is this consistent? Where is the conservation? They destroy, without once deigning to hear a single witness, a single evidence for or against. Last year nights were spent in testing the accusations against the English Corporations. What has become of the scrupulousness and fastidiousness of the Lords this year? Yet there was not a greater difference between one English Corporation and another, than between one Irish and another. Who will rank in the same category Dublin and Waterford, Cashel and Wexford? The iniquities of the pipe. water expenditure are not to be found in Waterford. Wexford already enjoys a Corporation comparatively open and free. Where was the justice of the Peers in condemning the guilty and innocent together? Where was their orthodoxy in sweeping away, without mercy, Protestant Corporations in the north, in order to render doubly sure, the exclusion of Catholic Corporations in the south. But do they really sweep them away? —This is the pretext—the seeming—the phrase. They annihilate the Corporation, but preserve the officers. The clerks of the markets, weigh-masters, butter-tasters and assay-masters are continued— absolutely the defects of the freeman-franchise are continued—the staff is continued, though the common men are disbanded. What constitutes the essential vice in the system is rendered permanent, the accessory only is flung away. But this is out of regard for property. All these salaries are to be considered as a sort of heritable freeholds. Let us see how the regard for property operates in other particulars. Commissioners for the Crown are, in the first instance, to apply it to the sustainment of a whole host of the old sinecurists; and if there be a surplus, not very probable where there are so many to be fed, it is then to be applied to such improvements as the Commissioners deem fit. What do the Commissioners know, or what can they know, of the interests of these towns? Is it not obvious, that this Leviathan Corporation, which is to swallow up all others, must, after all, depend upon information from each town? But from whom is it to come? Not from any public or authorised body, but from this or that private intriguer; to the hand of the flatterer, or the spy, the dexterous haunter of the Castle offices, will be delivered up the substantial interests of the most influential portions of the community. Nor is this all. Gentlemen on the opposite side seem to be convinced that our confiscated funds are never to increase. Certainly with the monstrous clauses, inserted for facilitating and screening alienation, it would be impossible. But these cannot be seriously maintained by a House which piques itself on being the ex-officio guardian of the public purse. Well, then, what happens? In Waterford, for instance, the greater part of corporate property is held on terminable leases. When these leases shall terminate, the Commissioners will be called to relet. Here is another wide door open for every sort of fraud and personal negotiation, for individual interests, for motives secret, and, for aught we know, too dark to bear the light. Who will lay out money on a holding which may yet be disposed of to God knows whom? and how have these scrupulous defenders of the rights of property managed the charity funds? Just as they have all the others—left them in the enjoyment, that is the phrase, of the old, half-extinct, half-surviving Corporations. The trustees are corporators, and to be corporators; so that in Dublin, where the Blue Coat Hospital has been a receptacle, by a strange perversion, for the sons of corporators only, it is still to be in the hands of corporation trustees, to be applied hereafter to precisely the same use. But, answer the supporters of the amendments, you will have (in the rate proposed to be levied under 9th George 4th abundant means for improving the town, and for the levy and administration of such rate we give you a body chosen by yourselves. But the powers under this Act do not extend half far enough. Where are the means for widening streets, erecting buildings, &c? If the Peers are anxious for these objects, consistently with such anxiety, they ought to have left the Bill as it originally stood. And why have they not? Simply because they have persuaded themselves that a Municipal Council would become an encourager and organ of agitation. But is this enough? Ought they not also to show that a Board of Commissioners, under the 9th George 4th, will be sufficient? But this I defy them to do. Nay, I will go further, and assert, that if a municipal council be a school for agitation, a fortiori, must also be such a Board of Commissioners. Who chooses them? Not the Crown; no—but the people. And what part of the people? Not the 10l. householders, but the 51.;— the very men whom our opponents are in the habit of considering the mob populace specifically of the cities. How, too, are they selected? In mass, and not by wards. Wards, in many cities—in Water-ford, for instance—will mix a large portion of Tory and Liberal interests; and why not? But here you must have, if politics be at all the test, the extreme popular party solely, or in strong majority. The men not only have no very steady principles, but those they have they do not know how to bring them out. But I deny utterly, first, that these bodies would in general be converted to political engines; and next, I do not consider it an evil, that in them, as elsewhere, political opinions and feelings should be evinced. Our charitable institutions are managed by elected Committees; the men drawn are not the political partizans, but the careful, skilful, and honest, the benevolent and the discreet. I rejoice to see, and so do my fellow-citizens, such men in such places. Roman Catholics choose Quakers and Dissenters without reference to party or creed. If agitation be an evil, let us have it in its visible, fair, and purified form, in such bodies, recognised and under the eye of the law and the State, rather than in large and dangerous masses, unauthorised meetings, and turbulent and partial selections. Here it may answer a two-fold purpose, both as a free outlet, and a natural one, for emotions and opinions which will exist, and act as a good guage and scale of the character and quantity of popular feeling. So far from thinking it dangerous, I think it safe. Men have ambitions, and intellect, and energies—give food at home for their honest and useful display, and they will not turn to illicit or perilous gratification for them abroad. Besides, how can you put down this agitation? Do you think it depends upon place or names, or the hearts and heads of men? Whether you call it Council or Board, or its head Mayor, or Chairman, it comes precisely to the same thing. Even if you shut it out altogether, do you not think it would find itself a meeting place and president in every room in a discontented city?— nay, at the corner of every street? Have these men lived in the times of the Catholic Association, and not know this? The Corn Exchange did not make or maintain it. It grew out of, lived, and flourished in your bad laws. If you would wish to expel it—to chain the bad angel in the depths from which it sprung, use fetters which love and justice forge. They, and they only, are equal to the task. I said that Ministers acted consistently with themselves. I say, they also act not less consistently with the British Constitution and freedom. These two last terms I consider identical. What is our Constitution? Self-government. Even the King himself is only a Minister, to obtain more effectually this great object. Self-taxation is the first item in self-government. In this scale it is of no consequence to me whether it be a shilling or a pound. If I give a pound through my own express consent, or through others acting for me, rny independence is inviolate; if a farthing be taken without it, I am plundered. On this principle I demand for every ratepayer a proper organ for the levy and management of his rate. The Bill gave it; the amendments would directly or indirectly take it away. Nominated Commissioners from the Crown are to manage property belonging to the people as much as the tax levied but yesterday. What is the conduct of other countries? Not a single State, however opposed in institutions, in Europe (I need not speak of America), with the single exception of Russia, which has not municipal bodies and franchises quite as large and liberal as those proposed by the Bill. I have hitherto argued this question without reference to what is indeed the question—its flagrant injustice to Ireland. It is enough that England has these institutions, that Scotland has them, and that you deny them to Ireland, to make us fling your amendments from us with indignation and scorn. The hon. Member for Exeter thinks lightly of these institutions. Would he dare to have spoken thus to a Scotch audience before they were granted? Of their usefulness we, not he, are to be the judges. We value them—that is enough. The same cant was used when Emancipation was demanded and Reform was demanded —is that your opinion now? Injustice to Ireland is what you proclaim,—our rights, not more, but not less, is our answer. A late publication calls on us tauntingly to make out a list of our grievances, and they will discuss them with us. Our answer is not written in books, but in every feature of our country—go and read them there. Is it not enough that Ireland is what it is? The very barbarism of which you complain is in itself as foul a blot— as merited a stigma as any which the bitterest hatred could fling upon you. It says, in language which is unanswered, that you—you, who boast in the face of Europe, that your institutions are all-civilizing, all-subduing—you, who vaunt to be the Promethei of new men wherever your touch is felt—here is a country—yours for centuries—yours entirely—yours in every change—open to all your experiments—and what have you made it? Ask Europe, ask history, and they will answer. We ask for justice; other nations so treated would have asked for vengeance. But I am sick, not to hear the taunt, but to reiterate the demand. Events will do for us that which our strength could not do; and with England and Scotland at our side, it will be strange if you refuse us with impunity. This is strong language, but I have a right to speak it;—I am no alien, nor ever will brook to be termed so; the blood in my veins is as Saxon—aye, and as much British as in that of any of our revilers—so also are my feelings. It is not this air I breathe, nor this beam above our heads, nor these sticks, nor these stones about us, that attaches this country—this Britain to our thoughts and hearts; but those noble institutions which have been our glory and our power—this moral might of freedom and justice, which clothes us, like the Roman of old, with the majesty of this empire, wherever and however we travel. I speak the language of Milton and Shakspeare as you speak it, and am of the land which has placed beside you heroes—heroes great in arms, in titles, to all that makes the height of human dignity and power to man. Never, then, will I yield, be the consequences what they may, any share in this my birthright, for it is mine, as well as yours. I take it not by concession or grant, but as a well-purchased, dearly-fought-for inheritance. I said I had a right to speak— judge yourselves. I am not one who have struggled in all seasons in agitation. I never spoke in or out of this House a word which was not my conviction. I have given proof stronger than words of my sincerity. A word would have placed me in the representation of Tipperary or Waterford—that word was Repeal. I refused it, for I could not he to thousands any more than to one. I was severed from friends, from popularity, from all chance of honourable ambition, but I held my conviction untainted—my conscience was untouched. In the same sincerity as then I now speak to you, I entreat you to unite us in deed as well as word. I then said, as I say now, wait a while, an Imperial Parliament there must be, but it can only rest on local government beneath and around it. If I had not that hope, that certainty, how could I have spoken—where would have been my faith? That pledge I call on you to redeem. Believe not that you may refuse it with impunity. Trust not to your permanency. I know of nothing permanent in politics—nothing where nations are concerned, but change. Institutions may crumble, and the ascendancy of one day yield to the ascendancy of the other; but the masses cannot pass away. Read history, and read it to act on it—your own will tell you striking, but useful truths, Kings have been dethroned, the Lords voted useless, but the Commons of these realms are indestructible and immortal.

Mr. Praed

said, it was once an honour and a satisfaction to be engaged with an adversary who, like the hon. Member for Waterford, acted fearlessly on his own notions of right and wrong. In a contest with such an adversary victory must be without exultation, and submission without shame. He gave the hon. Member for Waterford credit for sincerity in the views which he had expressed to the House. They had been told by the hon. Member, that if the measure of the Government was rejected the cry for municipal reform would not cease, but it would be coupled with a cry for reform of the House of Lords, and the hon. Member had expressed himself on that subject in terms loud and strong. To Gentlemen of the country to which the hon. Member belonged—much on account of a prevailng feature in the national character, and partly on account of a warmth of feeling which, on such a subject as this, was to be expected from them—it was conceded that they should use stronger language than might be expected to fall from other Members of that House. But from an English Member he had looked for much solid and grave argument on a question which confessedly involved consequences so important to the national welfare. The hon. Member for London had disappointed those expectations. He could understand that an Irish Member who represented all the warmth, as well as all the wisdom, of Ireland, should use expressions such as that the House of Lords was opposed in spirit to the people, that they did not care for the people, that they must be reformed as the Augean stable was reformed, and that when on another occasion it was proposed to turn the river through the House of Lords, the reply was that it would be better to turn the House of Lords into the river; such expressions as these he could understand coming from an Irish Member; he could understand that hon. Member when he represented the House of Lords as the spirit of evil in the Constitution; but he could not comprehend the propriety of such expressions when falling from an English Member. He would submit to the hon. Member for London, who had condescended, in discussing a grave constitutional question, whether it were proper to use language such as no English Mem- ber ought to have used on any subject. The hon. Member had called the House of Lords a herd of swine, and had alluded to a noble and learned Lord as their driver. He submitted to that hon. Member whether the question of the reform of the House of Peers, ought not to be brought forward in a specific and Parliamentary form, and not in a manner calculated to excite the passions and prejudices of the people, and in language unworthy of a Member of Parliament, either in that or any other House. But the hon. Member for Waterford had said, that the cry for reform of the House of Lords might be expected if this measure was refused. Then it became proper that they should proceed to consider what was the real position in which that House was placed as regarded the House of Lords. Hon. Members on his side of the House, entertaining all that respect for the other House that the Constitution prescribed, held that the amendments made by the House of Lords in this Bill, were recommended not only by their intrinsic excellence, but also by that deference to the opinion of the House of Lords which was consistent with the Constitution. It was natural that hon. Members on the other side of the House should not only condemn those amendments, for what they believed to be their intrinsic defects, but also because they originated in that House, towards which they entertained such strong sentiments of dislike. This being the state of feeling on both sides, and if it became necessary to contemplate the question of reform of the House of Lords, it became desirable to inquire by what means, supposing the difference of opinion to be irreconcileable, under the provisions of the Constitution the difficulties could be overcome. Now it was a necessary ingredient in the constitution of the House of Lords, that it should change from time to time by the introduction of fresh members; and the question was, whether the class of society out of which were generally selected the individuals raised to the Peerage, was of such a way of thinking as to render it impossible that in the course of years the House of Lords would become re-organized and changed in feelings, in the same degree that the same change would have operated in the class from which they had been taken. If this were denied, and if it were granted that the feelings of the class in question were so opposed to that portion of the constituency of the country represented by the House of Commons as to render it impossible that the feelings and views of the House of Lords could be so radically changed as to bring them into conformity with those of the House of Commons; then, he maintained, that the great political difference which existed ought not to be represented as a difference existing between a certain number of the Members of the House of Lords and the people, but the situation of parties ought fairly to be stated as a total opposition of the whole of the upper class of society to that portion of the people represented by the House of Commons. But this was a dangerous admission to make, and as no adequate remedy had been suggested he was disposed to wait for the operation of the natural and constitutional causes, in order to work a change in the House of Lords by the gradual infusion of fresh Members from the upper classes of society, and for a change in the feeling produced in the country by the Reform Bill, and which was rapidly dying away. He would not follow the hon. Member for Waterford in many of the subjects he had adverted to. He would not enter into the circumstances which attended the passing of the Reform Bill or of the Catholic Emancipation Bill, although he thought-that the effect of the passing of those two Bills had taught the Legislature a most important lesson. It had taught them, that there had been a want of prudence or of foresight in those by whom the introduction of those measures had been enforced. It had told them that a blunder had been committed, for that the measures had not effected the object to accomplish which they were introduced—that they had not prevailed to mitigate the feeling of discontent in Ireland, or to reconcile the people of that country to the Government of the empire. Nor should he follow the hon. Gentleman in his travels through different countries of the continent in search of municipal institutions, for he could not but think that there were circumstances—peculiar circumstances— in the situation of Ireland, as regarded this country, which rendered the example of other countries not similarly situated of no possible importance to the Legislature of Great Britain. Those circumstances were, that the inhabitants of Ireland were divided into a majority and minority peculiarly and singularly situated—a majority poor, uneducated, mistaken, in point of religion: a minority confessedly educated, and loyal in politics. [A laugh.] He knew what that laugh meant. He said loyal, because, notwithstanding the universal disappointment of their own views, they still desired to continue their adherence to the Union and their loyalty to the Crown. A majority and minority thus constituted were set against one another in a virulence of hostility not to be found in any other country; and, moreover, there was the fact that this minority had been maintained in a most undue supremacy, while the majority had been reduced to what he admitted to have been a most unworthy subjection, and that the question now was, not whether they should remove as well the supremacy of the minority as the subjection of the majority, but only whether the subjection of the majority should be changed to a not less bitter subjection of the minority. That was the real question. Both Houses were agreed that it was wise to abolish the supremacy of the minority. It was asked, on the other side, why were not the Protestant Corporations left untouched? The reason was, that they (the Opposition) wished that there should be no supremacy of the one sect or of the other. They were asked for equal laws for Ireland with those of this country; but was it doubted, for one moment, that all legislation ought to be adapted to the particular wants of the society for which it was to operate, and to the circumstances of the time at which it was to take effect? In 1817 the Six Acts were passed, but when a motion was made to extend the provisions of one of them—that which related to seditious meetings—to Ireland, that motion was immediately negatived on the ground that Ireland was so tranquil as not to require the operation of such a law. Again, it was only three years since the very Ministers who now called for justice to Ireland themselves introduced an arbitrary measure into that House, the effect of which was to destroy the right of trial by jury, and to hand over the people of Ireland to the tender mercies of the court-martial. Yet the agitation which then prevailed in Ireland arose from no other cause than that the people of that country were expecting to take by force that Church property which the Legislature had since sought to confer upon them. But was there at that time any attempt to transfer that Act to England? It would have been absurd. He might perhaps be told that the provisions of that Act were intended to be temporary only, and they had already been told so. An observation had been made, which was as true as it was pointed, that legislation was for a time, the people for eternity. But the Peers did not mean their present legislation to be more permanent than circumstances required. On the contrary, they desired to see the people of Ireland exercising those rights which had already been granted to the people of England and Scotland, so soon as the state of the public mind in Ireland should be such as to warrant its being supposed that the concession of them would be a benefit and not a mischief. He felt that he was justly entitled to refer to their limited experience of the working of the English Municipal Corporation Act, in order to show-that, as many parts of that Act had operated in a manner totally different from anything intended by its framers, if he had rightly represented the state of parties in Ireland, still worse effects would result in that country than had occurred in this. He particularly referred to the exercise of the trusts vested in the town-councils, and the mode of their election. The town-councils were elected by a majority of the constituency, and the consequence was that, in places where parties were very nearly balanced, and very highly excited, the town-council was wholly composed of partizans of the one side or the other. The patronage in such towns had been distributed for political purposes, and in total disregard of all principles which should have regulated their conduct. He would mention an instance of this. It had occurred at Yarmouth, and he had a personal knowledge of it At that place political feeling prevailed to a very great extent, and parties were not very unequally balanced. At the last election the Tories were successful. He understood to what that laugh referred, but he would not be diverted from his course by it. The numbers of the two parties in the town were nearly equal. There were thirty-six members of the town-council, of whom only one was a Tory—the remainder were Radicals. Under the old system there were eight watchmen for the town, three of whom only were voters. Under the new system sixteen had been appointed—all Blues, and every one a voter—five of whom had been examined against the Tories on a committee up stairs, and one of whom was the single witness who ventured to assert that he (Mr. Praed) had, with his own mouth, offered him a bribe (a statement which, although somewhat irregularly, he took the opportunity of contradicting). The Attorney-General was afraid to make use of that witness as the supporter of a prosecution, and he was afterwards expressly disbelieved on his oath without allowing the counsel for the defence to go into his case. Here, then, was an instance which had fallen under his (Mr. Praed's) own personal knowledge of the manner in which the patronage vested in the town-councils had been exercised. Was it not reasonable to suppose that in Ireland, where the same objections existed in a still greater degree, the effect of the same power being intrusted to similar bodies would be worse. Why, in a Bill which had recently been introduced into that House, under the auspices of the Government, the principle for which he contended had virtually been recognised; for in the Bill for the appointment of the trustees of charities in Ireland, a provision was made against that unanimity of opinion in the majority preventing the minority from being represented at all; and he must say, therefore, that if his Majesty's Ministers had in this instance recognised the evil of the principle which regulated the election of the councils, the same objection ought to be extended to the elections of town-councils in Ireland. They were called on by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny to do justice to Ireland. He did not quarrel with the expression; but he could not see how the call could consistently be made by the hon. and learned Member. A friend of his, an Englishman, had been present at a meeting at Limerick, at which the hon. and learned Member had made a most eloquent speech on the miseries of the people of Ireland. The same Gentleman had, in the course of the day, had an opportunity of witnessing, in company with a priest of the Roman Catholic, persuasion, places where he had seen more misery than it had ever been his lot to witness anywhere. After the meeting (which was on the subject of the poor-laws), he suggested the desirableness of a subscription, by the 800 gentlemen present, on behalf of the unfortunate beings whom he had seen in so much misery; but he was answered, that it would not succeed if it were proposed, for that such a mode of dealing with the question was not popular. But the Peers did not feel themselves called on to do justice to Ireland in the manner proposed by the hon. and learned Member, more especially when they were told by him that he wanted the establishment of municipal Corporations, not for the purposes of lighting and paving, but as normal schools of agitation. They were of opinion that it was in schools of a very different kind that the people of Ireland ought to be trained, that they ought to be graduated at colleges of a very different description. They wished the welfare of the people of Ireland to be secured, their commerce to be improved, and their wealth to be increased, but they did not wish to give additional means of exciting disaffection, and of injuring the people. The hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny talked about justice for Ireland; but they told him at once, that if they could not do justice to that country without creating fresh instruments for his purposes—if they could not suppress agitation without opening the door to that which, in his apprehension, would be a still greater pestilence —they would infinitely rather leave the matter as it stood than make any change whatever in the present system. Now let him put to the House the case as it really existed. It had been stated on all hands, that the present corporation system of Ireland was full of abuse; and no one had been louder in denouncing the mischiefs of that system than the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny himself. Well, a Bill had come down to them for the removal of this abuse, and what did the other branch of the Legislature in that Bill propose? Why, to abolish Corporations in Ireland altogether, and place the whole of the powers now exercised by those bodies in the hands of the present Lord-Lieutenant in whom it could not be said by hon. Gentlemen opposite they could not safely be vested. This was the proposition contained in the amendments of the Lords; and although the hon. Members opposite had complained of the mischiefs arising out of the imperfections of the present Corporations, they refused to accept it. The question therefore before the House was, whether they would adopt a measure which would abolish that which had been protested against by the hon. Gentleman opposite as unjust and illegal, or whether they would retain the old system with all its evils, because they were not in a position to do all the good they could wish to effect. The course which the hon. Mem- bers opposite wanted them to pursue would, in his humble judgment, be neither agreeable to the House of Commons, consistent with their duty as representatives of the people, nor consonant to the trust which had been reposed in them.

Viscount Ebrington

would not follow the hon. and learned Gentleman who had last spoken through all his various matter, nor enter into any discussion with him as to the working of the English Corporation Reform Bill in the particular place which the hon. and learned Gentleman represented. He could assure the House, that in the few observations he had to make he should confine himself strictly to the subject before them; and he would add, though he could not share with the hon. and learned Gentleman the deference which he had expressed to the amendments of the other House, he should at least abstain from anything like vituperation of the authors of these amendments. It was his feeling that the language of both Houses, in reference to each other, should be that of respect and conciliation; and however freely he might discuss the measures emanating from the other House of Parliament, he should always think it incumbent upon him to speak in terms of respect of the authors of these measures. In the course of the debate, nearly every hon. Member on the opposite side of the House had enlarged upon two topics in reference to the subject before the House— namely, the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, and the Repeal of the Union. It was not his purpose to enter into a vindication of the hon. and learned Member from the taunts which had been so plentifully thrown out against him, nor should he enter into any discussion as to the Repeal of the Union, a proposition of which he was one of the very last men in the House who could be charged with being a supporter. At the same time he must say, that with the opinion he entertained with respect to this Bill as it now stood, he felt that if he could conceive it possible that such a measure should pass into law, though he did not say that even such a result would make him the friend or supporter of repeal, yet he would say that such a measure, if it were passed into a law, would afford full justification for the language of those who should say that such an Act presented sufficient grounds for demanding repeal. He was old enough to remember something of the grounds upon which the Union was proposed, of the arguments by which that measure was enforced, and of the great principle upon which those arguments were grounded. That principle was equal laws, equal rights, and equal participation in all the blessings and advantages of the English Constitution. This was the principle which pervaded every sentence of the powerful and eloquent speech delivered by Mr. Pitt in 1800, on the occasion of proposing that measure to the House; and he could not help recalling to the House the words in which that great statesman concluded one of the most eloquent passages of his powerful address, and which appeared to him peculiarly applicable to the circumstances under which a participation in the tried advantages of English Corporation Reform was now sought to be given to Ireland. Mr. Pitt, after happily combatting the argument which had been raised upon the insult which it was alleged would be inflicted upon the national pride of Irishmen, in depriving them of an independent legislature, proceeded in these words:— If there be a country which, against the greatest of all dangers that threaten its peace and security, has not adequate means of protecting itself without the aid of another nation; if that other be a neighbouring and kindred nation, speaking the same language, whose laws, whose customs and habits are the same in principle, but carried to a greater degree of perfection, with a more extensive commerce, and more abundant means of acquiring and diffusing national wealth; the stability of whose government—the excellence of whose constitution, is more than ever the admiration and envy of Europe, and of which the very country of which we are speaking can only boast an inadequate and imperfect resemblance; — under such circumstances, I would ask, what conduct would be prescribed by every rational principle of dignity, of honour, or of interest? I would ask whether this is not a faithful description of the circumstances which ought to dispose Ireland to a union?—whether Great Britain is not precisely the nation with which, on these principles, a country, situated as Ireland is, would desire to unite? Does a union, under such circumstances, by free consent, and on just and equal terms, deserve to be branded as a proposal for subjecting Ireland to a foreign yoke? Is it not rather the free and voluntary association of two great countries, which join, for their common benefit, in one empire, where each will maintain its proportional weight and importance, under the security of equal laws, reciprocal affection, and inseparable interests, and which want nothing but that indissoluble connexion to render both invincible? Non ego nee Teucris Italos parere jubebo, Nee nova regna peto; paribus se legibus ambæ Invictæ gentes seterna in fœdera mittant. Such were the sentiments delivered by Mr. Pitt, in introducing the measure for the union of the two countries, and such were the principles upon which the union was founded and carried! into effect. What, he would now ask hon. Members opposite—what would that great statesman, if he could return now upon earth— now that that measure had been thirty-five years in operation—what would he say if he could hear those ill-omened words which had been so often alluded to in the course of this debate, what, he would repeat, would Mr. Pitt have said, if he could have been told that these words were applied to Ireland by the leader of the Conservative party in one of the Houses of Parliament—by the leader of that party who affected to act, as far as possible, upon the principles and upon the model of Mr. Pitt? What would that great statesman have said if, immediately after the period at which the abuses of the Municipal Corporations of England had been reformed, and when those Corporations had been rendered subject to popular control, and after the Corporations of Ireland had been denounced as fraught with abuses still more intolerable and still more grievous than those of England had ever been—what would he have said if he had been told, that the only means to be offered to Ireland for getting rid of those abuses, was by destroying altogether every vestige of municipal government in that country, and by investing the whole corporate power and authority of Ireland in the hands of Commissioners appointed by the Crown? Would Mr. Pitt have considered such a proposition as accordant with the great principle upon which the Union was founded, namely, that of the junction upon equal terms, of two countries into one great empire? Would he not rather have pronounced it an insult and a degradation to the whole Irish nation? He (Lord Ebrington) would ask the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman on the opposite bench, whether, in case the consequence of this difference between the two Houses upon this question should be a change in the Ministry, whether they really thought it would be possible for them or any other new Ministry to carry through this measure as it stood? He would ask them whether they thought that, with the feeling which existed with respect to this measure as it Stood in Ireland, it would be possible to apply it to that country without the aid of force and coercion? He would ask them whether, in the present state of public opinion in this country, they really conceived that the people of England, by their representatives in Parliament, would consent to apply the force and coercion which would be necessary to enforce such a measure upon Ireland? He was well assured they never would. He, therefore, felt extremely sorry that the considerable and respectable minority constituting the noble Lord's and right hon. Gentleman's followers in that House, and the majority in the other House, should have taken their stand upon a question which he considered to be at once so insulting and so injurious to Ireland, and which he was quite sure was altogether repugnant to the general feeling of the people of this country. When he first saw the amendments, as they came down from the other House, it certainly had appeared to him that no course was left to the House of Commons but to reject them altogether. At the same time, he was free to confess, that he was heartily rejoiced at the step taken by his noble Friend; at the wise and temperate course he had adopted, of trying, at least, how far he could advance on the road to conciliation, consistent with the great principle to which the Government and the vast majority of the House stood nominally pledged. He in no degree underrated the mischiefs which would arise from a collision between the two Houses of Parliament, and he had always, here and elsewhere, maintained the right of each branch of the Legislature to perfect independence in the discharge of their duties in reference to every measure which came before them. He could not, however, but regret that the sentiments of each House should be found so much at variance upon a measure which, if not adopted, left no alternative except a continuance of abuses which on all sides of the House were denounced; for he should prefer the temporary continuance of the present system to any attempt to force upon the people of Ireland such a measure as that which had been substituted for the Bill brought in by his right hon Friend the Attorney-General for Ireland. by the amendments of the other House. He had spoken warmly upon the subject, because he felt strongly. He should vote for the original proposition.

Mr. Horace Twiss

thought, that if any one thing more than another showed the necessity of that useful rule of the House which had been established against introducing allusions to what passed in the other House, it was the course taken in the present debate; because attacks had been made upon particular speeches from time to time, to which it was impossible for the noble personages impugned to offer any reply, or give any explanation of the words attributed to them. But all the inconvenient results of that course must fall upon the heads of those who had thought proper to indulge in such attacks. The noble Lord who had just addressed the House, had not been content with the usual strain of condemnation, poured out upon those who opposed him, but he had evoked from the shades of the grave one of the greatest statesmen England had ever produced, in order to convert his recorded eloquence into a weapon against those who did not think fit to support the course taken by the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department. But was it not the constant practice of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny to inveigh against the English people, not merely as usurpers and tyrants, but as Sassenachs? The hon. and learned Member might be justly called the originator of the offensive expressions, if to describe others as aliens were offensive. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House had been in the habit of stating that seven centuries of misgovernment had brought the population of Ireland to a state of comparative barbarism in some respects, and absolute ignorance in others, and therefore they had called upon the House to provide, not from the ordinary funds of the State, but from the funds of the Church, means to check and remove that ignorance and barbarism. Now, it was upon the very fact which those hon. Gentlemen thus admitted, that he said corporate rights ought to be exercised only by men who had arrived at a state of intelligence and civilization, which would render them capable of appreciating them. The hacknied cry of "justice to Ireland" had never been properly explained. Must that which was justice to England necessarily be so to Ireland? Would any sound constitutional lawyer tell him that there was anything in the common law of the land to give the right of exercising the corporate franchise to any town whatever? He wanted to know how it could be shown that because British subjects had a right to trial by jury, the Habeas Corpus Act, and the Parliamentary franchise, that also they had a right to corporate reform; for that ought to be the basis of the reform which was demanded. Did it follow that because corporate franchise had been given to England and Scotland, it should also be given to Ireland? Was there any similarity between the cases of the respective countries? Were England and Scotland, when they received their corporation Acts, under circumstances similar to those of Ireland now? Was it not necessary to pass an Act which was sometimes called the coercion Bill, and at other times the Bill for the preservation of the peace in Ireland? Was such an act necessary in either England or Scotland? He would ask the hon. Member for Tipperary were he in his place, but in his absence he would ask the House, whether clergymen were escorted to Church by a guard of police or military in England orin Scotland. Did not the House recollect that, at no very distant period, the Secretary of State for Ireland, now Lord Hatherton, reported to the House that the average number of murders in Ireland was two per day? With these facts before them, he called upon them to consider the probable results of putting power into hands so ill prepared to exercise it. The hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny had told them fairly and explicitly that discretionary power was wanted, but he had not fully explained what he meant by it, though no man was better able to do so; because when it was discreet to be discreet, no man could be more discreet than that hon. and learned Member; but when it was discreet to be rash, he was among the rashest of men. But was it not the object of that hon. and learned Gentleman in his present discretion to establish schools of agitation? Was it not intended to extend the flame of agitation from one man to another through the whole mass of society? If not, would the hon. and learned Member consent to the insertion of a clause into the Bill to limit the discussion of corporation meetings to local affairs? No, he would not do that; and yet, to take him at his word, that would be the sort of Bill which he ought to receive. But the House had been told, that the great principles of charity ought to be carried out. What was meant by that? He did not ask that question in the spirit of hostility. He was anxious to contribute any little aid in his power to pacify, rather than to irritate parties. What other objects could he have in view? From his earliest appearance in that House, he was the supporter of the question of Catholic emancipation. He was one of those who in former times were threatened with all the dangers that now appeared to be approaching them, and yet he was bold enough to support Catholic emancipation, being assured by its advocates that if it were granted peace would follow, and that the concession of political equality would destroy agitation. Having, then, been one who supported a liberal policy towards Ireland, ought not those who called upon him to support this measure to tell him definitively how far they intended to go, after what had followed the passing of the Catholic Emancipation Act? He might be told, that Catholic emancipation was carried too late. Perhaps there was too much reason to regret that it had been carried at all; but of this he was quite certain, that the corporate franchise was asked for too soon. He contended that the people were not ripe for it, for the advocates of the measure itself admitted that the population was not in a condition to appreciate it. The justice which they demanded for Ireland was in reality injustice both to England and Ireland. It might be an act of justice to relieve the people of Ireland from the burden of these Corporations entirely, but was it just to give them instead a set of irresponsible and exclusive Corporations? It was not to be said that the people of Ireland were to be excluded from the exercise of the corporate franchise because they were Catholics; no, but because they were not free agents. It was well known that every election of a parliamentary representative was a religious struggle carried on under the direction and influence of religious teachers; it was, in fact, perfectly ridiculous to attempt to deny that the political movements of the people of Ireland were entirely under religious control. He confessed, that he had been struck with astonishment by the concluding passage of the speech delivered by the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—" The first cannon ball fired in Europe will be the signal for retracting all your denials, and making that concession, and doing that justice in your need which you refused in the hour of your glory, and in the day of your strength." It was for the noble Lord to judge how far such sentiments as those were prudent; and how far the utterance of such suggestions was fitting and becoming a minister of the Crown. As to how far they might be useful to the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, that was another question; but it was most strange that His Majesty's Secretary of State should suggest to the people of Ireland, that when the country might have to ask their assistance against some common foe, they should draw the broad claymore, of which so much had been said, to wrest by threat or main force that which they were not able to obtain by reason and sound argument. The noble Lord's argument, however, went too far; for if the present measure must be inevitably conceded, so must any other demand which the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny might think proper to make at any time. The noble Lord's argument went to show, that not merely must the House, at the command of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, grant Municipal Corporations to Ireland, but surrender also any alleged or imaginary surplus of the Irish Church, and hereafter not only the overthrow of the fund itself, but of the fabric through which it was created, and thus sweep away the Protestant Church from the face of the land. Ay, and it showed that his Majesty's Ministers were always in danger of that weapon which the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny always carried about him, half-cocked, and ready to fire off against them, if they refused any demand he made—namely, the Repeal of the Union.

Mr. Gisborne

hoped the House would not be led, by the extraneous nature of the several matters which had been introduced into the debate, to depart from the consideration of the real question before it, which was, whether or not they should agree to the alterations which had been made in this Bill in another place. These alterations were totally destructive of the principle of the Bill as sent up to the other House, and were a studied insult to the people of Ireland. They proposed to destroy all the municipal rights and institutions now existing in Ireland; and on what ground? Why, because a great portion of the Irish people professed a particular creed. The Lords might have done the business in a much shorter way. They could at once have distinctly stated their object in the preamble in some such words as these:—"Whereas it is important to maintain the exclusive system which at present exists in Ireland; and as three-fourths of the people of that country are unfit to be intrusted with municipal privileges in consequence of their being Papists," &c. That was the principle which ran through and governed every enactment of this altered Bill. Because the majority of the people of Ireland were Papists, they were not fit to enjoy municipal rights, or fill the offices of mayor, sheriff, or butter-taster. He would not appeal to the justice of those who supported the amendments. He would not appeal to their charity or toleration; he would merely ask them, did they suppose they could contend against a whole nation? He did not suppose it was the intention of those opposite to compel his Majesty's Ministers to abandon the Government, unless they could show that they themselves were prepared to take office with a likelihood of success. Upon what principle did they propose to proceed, should they come again into power? Was it the principle held out by an important organ of that party, namely, The Quarterly Review? There was a time when an acquaintance with polite literature was supposed to soften and humanize. Ingenuas didicisse fideliter artes, Emollit mores, nee sinit esse feros. But the artes ingenuœ had produced a contrary effect upon the writer from whom he was about to quote. In the last number of The Quarterly Review, the organ of the party opposite, was the following passages— Why has not Mr. O'Connell, who, like Hotspur's starling, speaking nothing but Mortimer, scarcely utters any sound, in or out of Parliament, but "justice for Ireland;"— why has he not been formally called upon to make out a. specific list of the grievances he effects to be lamenting? The substantial justice which Ireland has long required, was ten years' subjection to martial law, under such an officer as Cromwell, whose strictness and impartiality would have thoroughly habituated the country to peace and good order. Was that the principle on which the Gentlemen opposite were prepared to govern Ireland? Would they so conciliate those "aliens in blood, in language, and religion," on the other side of the Channel? The hon. Member for Sandwich, argued that "aliens in bipod, religion, and language," did not mean what the words expressed. Perhaps the hon. Member would also undertake to prove that martial law did not mean anything harsh or tyrannical. If the sentence which he had read were in accordance with the opinions of Gentlemen opposite, they would no doubt concur in the passages which followed,— A course of discipline of this sort would soon put an end to the murders in Tipperary, and the turbulence of fathers M'Hale, Kehoe, and Maher, for ever. And in this passage,— It has long been the misfortune of Ireland to have institutions forced upon it in imitation of those of England, for which it was obviously unfit. The justice which Mr. O'Connell and his followers want is of a very different sort. Were hon. Members opposite prepared to agree in such atrocious doctrine?—if not, by what measures did they propose to tranquillize Ireland, if they should succeed in returning to power? He would not call this language an unnecessary and gratuitous insult to the people of Ireland, but it was a very equivocal sign of affection, and not calculated to show a leaning towards indulgence. Allusion was made, last night, by the hon. Member for Sandwich, to the power of the Lords. The hon. Gentleman asked, whether the Lords were to have no voice or power over the questions sent up to them from this House? Nobody ever dreamed of denying the rights of the House of Lords; but if they insisted upon a rigorous exercise of their extreme rights, the House of Commons would be driven to the assertion of its extreme rights also. That House—it was unpleasant to be driven to a discussion of the rights of the two Houses—but that House had a peculiar power of enforcing its own wishes. The right hon. Gentleman opposite declared, on a recent occasion, that the powers of the State must be ultimately vested in the majority of the House of Commons; and he said truly, for that House possessed the means to assert its opinions. It was not wise in the advocates of the Lords to compel such discussions as these, by insisting on their extreme rights. They could reject any measure sent up to them from the Commons, but it was to be hoped that they would not drive the Commons to exercise the power they possessed. He had no doubt of the ultimate result of the measure. The principle of the Bill, as sent up to the Lords, had been twice affirmed by the Commons, and yet that House was called upon—ungraciously called upon—to give up a principle which it had twice affirmed. Neither the majority in that House, nor the Ministry could recede from that principle without disgrace; and even though that majority should not be increased by an appeal to the people, it must prevail against the minority, backed although it be by a large majority in the other House. He did not think it possible for a political party to occupy a position so weak as that now held by the hon. Gentlemen opposite. The very arguments they used for the assumption of corporate property, and the abolition of vested rights and charters, were calculated to outrage the feelings of a large body of their own supporters. If the hon. Member for Oxford (Sir It. Inglis) were in his place, he would call to his recollection the arguments that had been used on the other side of the House, and show him that they were applicable to every one of the colleges of that ancient and venerable institution of which he was the representative. He would remind the hon. Baronet that the principle contended for would bring the vested rights of that institution, her right to her honours, with her imagineary right to her property, which ha been powerfully said by the right hon. Gentleman to be protected by the broad shield of prescription—these would be brought by the principle of the hon. Gentleman opposite, to the bar of public opinion. Well, then, the hon. Gentleman opposite having thus shocked the feelings of a large body of their own supporters, they propose to proceed next to insult three-fourths of the population of Ireland. What hope of success had they in pursuing such a course? When they were asked for a general law, they would give a partial law—when they were asked for municipal corporations, they would give armed garrisons—when they were asked for watchmen, they would give sentinels—when they were asked for impartial justice, they would give drum-head courts-martial. He was confident of ultimate success, and he hoped no Gentleman would compromise the character of the House to avoid a temporary difficulty.

Mr. Henry Grattan

The right hon. Member for Tamworth says, that on that subject allowance must be made for Irish feeling. We do not require it; but he requires that allowance should be made for his insensibility. The case of the corrupt voter at Tamworth occupied his speech much more than the rights and privileges of the people of Ireland. Sir, it is difficult to know where to begin, still more so where to stop; and I know not whether I am to address you as a free citizen or as one belonging to an inferior and disfranchised class. I have heard of individuals being put out of the pale of nations — one great and distinguished leader was put out of the pale of a nation, but the proscription of entire communities is a new idea. This Bill, Sir, is an insolent, ignorant, fraudulent, and tyrannical proceeding; it carries falsehood at its outset. Its title is a Bill to abolish Corporations, yet it studiously and craftily preserves them, and it offends Ireland by introducing in the first paragraph the passage regarding the police, as if that were to be the sole mode of governing Ireland. Those who have defended this Bill display great ignorance of Irish history; they represent these Corporations as enrolled for party or political purposes—not for the good government of the towns, and the care of local concerns, but for political and religious views. Sir, if they had examined history—if they had read Doctor Lucas's work on Corporations, or even if they had read the Reports of the Commissioners, they would have found that thirty-six of those bodies existed long before the Reformation, and that the chief and largest of them date from the reign of Henry 3rd; but it suited their design to misrepresent the fact, and to give a religious character to bodies that existed long before Protestantism was thought of. With respect to the Bill as returned by the Lords, it not only does not abolish Corporators, but expressly provides that at the end of the present year all the old Corporations are to remain in, and are to have the disposal of the local and charitable trusts. These amount to very considerable sums; and to whom are they intrusted? Why, to the very men whom you on the opposite side have condemned as dishonest; yet you vest in them the power of disposing of those large sums of money, and all charitable trusts are placed under their direction and control. Do you know the amount of property which you propose to place at the disposal of seven individuals under the name of Commissioners? When I see the word "compensation" introduced into the Bill, I cannot persuade myself but that the framer of it had an eye to the 74,000l. which was awarded to the citizens of Dublin. Do you know that, by these amendments, it is proposed to give to seven individuals discretionary power over a property little less than 400,000l.? There are four towns in Ireland possessing a corporate income of 127,000l. In the lesser towns, Drogheda has 13,000l. or 14,000l., others have upwards of 12,000l.; is property to such an extent to be vested in seven individuals? I wish to know what must be the feelings of the people of Ireland when they read your speeches, hear your charges, and behold your condemnation of those men, and yet find that to their hands has been committed the cause of charity, and the care of the widow and the orphan. You declare them to be peculators—convicted plunderers, and yet to them you in trust the helpless and unprotected. Shall this be tolerated—can it be listened to for a moment; and will the people of Ireland patiently submit to it? Where were the Bishops, where were the pious protectors of the poor, when this clause was proposed? Why did they not protest against such a junction—against such an adulterous connexion? Virtue and vice are to go hand in hand, and the public robber is to become the guardian of the poor man's property, and is to relieve those wants he was insensible to before— and where the offences of him who was to distribute were as great as the sufferings of those who were to receive. This is one of the many outrageous parts of this insolent legislation. Have Gentlemen considered not only the large sums thus abused — the growing and increasing amount of these sums under their chartered and local trusts, amounting in five places alone to near 130,000l. a-year? Have they looked to the vast share of patronage vested in the Crown—the officers, the courts, the clerks, the attendants, collectors, and a horde of appointments?— sheriffs, coroners, magistrates, recorders, judges, registrars, clerks, collectors, commissioners, trustees, and an army of dependents, all with salaries, and places, and pensions, which in the course of a short time would make, including other costs, a sum of near 400,000l. a-year, and all forming in one irresponsible officer a mass of power and influence that any lover of liberty must abhor, and raise not only his voice but his arm against. No matter whether exercised by Whig or Tory — no matter whether conferred upon Whig or Tory — I say it constitutes so formidable and dangerous a power, that, along with that possessed already by the Lord-Lieutenant, there will be created a complete and unqualified despotism. Sir, I say that no free people ought, and that Ireland will not submit to it. This is a measure of tyranny as well as insult, and we shall resist it at every hazard. The question you have to decide is not one of detail—it is short, it is plain, but it is important; it is a question of union or no union. I do not mean that paper union that lies on the statute book, but a real living union of affection. Without that your parchment unions are worth nothing; you must have the heart of Ireland, for without that it is not worth preserving. Now, what are the steps you take to secure it? We heard to night some abuse and much invective cast upon the people of Ireland; they were represented as unfit or unable to manage their own local affairs. The answer to this charge is your own conduct, for even in the Tithe Bill of the right hon. Member for Cambridge, he introduced the middle classes in Ireland to inspect, examine, and control the money paid by the people; and the cess payers, under his Composition Bill, assembled and voted, and even to females the right of voting was extended. In the Grand Jury Bill the popular control was introduced; and in the County Board Bill brought in by an hon. Baronet, the introduction and interference of the people and their control is admitted and proved, therefore the charge against the Irish people is proved by the acts of this House to be unfounded. The people of that country were represented as ignorant, uneducated and turbulent; such charges deserve no answer, and coming from the quarter that they do, will be met with the contempt which they merit. But there is another and a graver charge; the people of Ireland have been characterised by a noble Lord as "aliens in descent, aliens in affection, speaking a totally different language, of totally different custom and habit, and professing a totally different religion from you." Aliens in descent appears to me to be a blundering phrase, and would so be called in Ireland, but here it suited the purposes of the noble Lord, and those words were heard without laughter which generally termed the Irish aliens in their native land. The charge is absurd—it is false; but if it were true, who made them so? You, you—that very party whom the noble Lord of late has joined; your bad government made them hostile, as tyranny always will make men hostile, and render a proud people resolute in their pursuit of freedom. They are not hostile to you, but they are hostile to your bad government, and they will continue and increase in their hostility to such government, until you give them full, fair, equal, and impartial government—a system such as yours, without any other distinction among persons or classes, but such as attach to worth, and honesty, and merit. We ask for that equality. We say that Ireland was promised it. We call for it now, and we repudiate those insolent phrases, and those libels upon the people. The noble Lord (the ex-Chancellor) was heard to say that those aliens were men of different habits and different customs from the people of this country. Certainly, Sir, in some respects this is true. The Irish have different habits—they neither sell their wives, nor allow their wives to sell themselves. Sir, I remember to have seen a lady with a halter round her neck exposed for sale in the streets of London! But I pass on to the next charge. Another noble individual has also made an attack on the Irish. I regret it. It was unworthy of the Duke of Wellington—it was unworthy of that man, who owes so much to the Irish, to turn upon them, and in opposing this Bill to have said, that his countrymen would use it "for the purpose of avenging the past." Of avenging the past! How so? The Irish avenge the past. The thing is impossible. It could not be done, for such have been the crimes, and so great the offences, against Ireland, her people, and their liberties, that to avenge them were impossible, and the Irish had covered them with a noble and generous oblivion. "And shall we suffer our country thus to be slandered—the people thus to be traduced, and their nobler feelings thus misrepresented, and this too by one who owes so much to their noble and gallant achievements? Sir, the noble Duke knows little of Ireland—or what he knew he has forgotten—let him read her history! Did he ever hear, or did Gentlemen opposite ever hear who proposed at one period to avenge the past, and who it was who resisted that proposition? —the last is not generally known, but I know it to be true. There was a proposition of that nature made in 1782, but it came from an Englishman—and more, it came from a Bishop. At the time that Eng-land had not 5,000 troops in Ireland, then all Ireland was armed—100,000 men in the field, and 200 pieces of cannon, led on by the nobles and chief men of the land. The Bishop of Bristol, a relative of a noble Lord opposite, came to the late Lord Charlemont to induce him to strike at the connexion betwen the two countries, and he said—"we shall have blood, my Lord—we shall have blood;" these were the words of the Englishman, the Bishop. No, replied Lord Charlemont, no blood if I can prevent it; and he, along with Mr. Grattan, joined, not as the Duke of Wellington would have it, to avenge the past—but, impressed with nobler feelings, and assisted by a man whose name will ever live while gratitude exists in Ireland, and love of liberty in England, in conjunction with Mr. Fox they effected the disenthralment of their country, and restored to her her rights and liberties, without shedding one drop of blood. The Irish are rescued from the imputation. The next statement then is, that this is a transfer—that the corporate influence has been ill-exercised, and that it would be dangerous to impart it; that the majority being Catholics, they should not be allowed to enjoy it—this is but ascending in another step—this is spoliation and degradation as well as insult. I ask, why should I as a Protestant be deprived of my right? Why should the hon. Member for Sligo be deprived of his privileges of citizenship? We are opposed in politics, yet I doubt not that as a municipal officer I would be found to vote for him, as he possibly would do for me; therefore why deprive us of our rights? You have quarrelled with the Catholic, and because of this quarrel you avenge yourself upon me and the gallant Officer, and deprive both of us of our undoubted rights and privileges. I call on my hon. Friend to stand forward like a freeman to defend his rights, and take his station by his country. Let him reject those clauses so disgraceful, so fraudulent, so insulting— penned with a venomous dexterity. The hand is traceable, and we see the cunning clause of the Cork attorney, and the sanctified duplicity of the university drawing the pen from the judicial wig in order to write away the rights and privileges of the entire community. Now listen to the facts:—you say it is a transfer of power— I deny it; but how was the power exercised which was already conferred? Look to those places where these men enjoy the right of voting for Members to serve in Parliament—those men whom you contend are unfit to possess municipal rights—look to Clonmel, where the constituency is chiefly Catholic—that place was, I believe, offered to two Protestant gentlemen to fill the vacancy in the representation—look to Carlow—to my knowledge the representation of that county was on a late vacancy offered to three Protestant gentlemen— look to the county of Meath, where a Roman Catholic was displaced from the representation and a Protestant chosen. There are numerous other cases, but I will not fatigue the House by reciting them. I appeal to you as men—I appeal to the people of England also—they are with us —the majority of the people of England, on this question, are with us. We contend for equal rights—we seek for privileges such as England enjoys, and in this we are joined by the English—they sympathise with us, and they will support us. It is vain for the right hon. Baronet and his party to think that Ireland can be governed on the old system—let him remember that the people of Ireland have borne down all his efforts—that in 1792 it forced the elective franchise from the unwilling hands of the Government. In 1793 they made further progress. In 1829 they made greater progress. In 1832 they defeated you on reform; and do you think you will be able to resist them now? But ought you as men—as freemen should you desire it? Would not your interests be endangered if ours was lost—or would your liberties be destroyed if ours were in existence? Remember the saying of your first conqueror. When Agricola looked to Ireland he said, she must be conquered, because Britain could never be kept in subjection while Ireland, that lay so near, was suffered to enjoy liberty. Your honour, your interest, as well as those of Ireland, demand it. The Irish call for equal laws and equal privileges with yourselves. England responds to that call, and we must prevail. You can only govern us by affection. We hold forth the hand of fellowship. We call on you to decide— Union or no Union. We ask not for concessions, but we demand our rights. Ireland seeks for nothing more, and she will be content with nothing less. Mr. Grattan sat down amid much cheering.

Viscount Sandon

denied, that the corporate property in Ireland was more than 50,000l. a year. He denied too that the Bill deprived Ireland of Municipal Corporations for local purposes; for the towns would possess a means of providing for their own wants, by adopting the provision of the 9th Geo. 4th. It was not a question of Catholic or Protestant, nor was it because power would be transferred from the hands of the one to the other, that the Corporations were to be abolished. The abolition was proposed because the people of that country had their political feelings in so excited and excitable a state that it was not safe to intrust power in the hands of the majority. As to the reference which had been made to the Quarterly Review, he acknowledged no such authority, and it was not fair to taunt those at his side of the House with contemplating martial law for Ireland, more especially when the taunt came from that party who, three years ago, asked the House to pass the Coercion Bill.

Mr. Sheil

observed, that to the noble Lord opposite he should make this simple observation—the town which that noble Lord represented was within twelve hours' distance of Dublin. Now what would the noble Lord think, if the extraordinary proposition were made to him, that a corporation was to be continued in Dublin, and refused to Liverpool. [Lord Sandon: Look to Manchester.] Dublin had a corporation even before Liverpool possessed one. But how would the people of Liverpool feel if it were suggested that their Corporation was not to be reformed, but abolished, and its estates transferred to Commissioners of the Crown. Did the noble Lord not know—and he appealed to the candour and frankness of the noble Lord —that an universal feeling of indignation would be excited by such a proposition? He passed from the noble Lord to the hon. Member for Sandwich. He was always exceedingly loth to speak of himself—it was his opinion that the more a man avoided speaking of himself, the more did he manifest a regard for his own character, advance his own interests, and please his audience. But really the reference that had been made by that hon. Member to the speech delivered by him at Thurles, imposed upon him the obligation of removing that which, on the part of that hon. Member, was misconception, and with others misrepresentation. He hoped that the House would begin to observe, that it was with the utmost reluctance he spoke of himself. He assured the House that he had clear and unequivocal proofs to produce in confirmation of what he had to state. He was not about to say, that the speech that he had made at Thurles had been misreported. Far from it—he avowed the report; but he denied the commentary that had been made upon it. Again and again it had been alleged that a compact had been entered into with the Irish party, of which his hon. Friend on the left was at the head. Now he had not spoken of such a compact; but he spoke of the compactness of the union that prevailed amongst Members sitting upon that, as there did upon the other, side of the House, and who would deny it? If they insisted upon a proof of the compactness of that union, he should say to them, "Circum spice." No such statement was made by him, as that a compact had been entered into. He spoke of "a compact junction;" but the word "junction" was left out in the commentary. In place of the epithet "compact" the substantive a "compact,'' had been introduced [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite smiled, as if he had recourse to a variety of intonation to mark the distinction. It was no such thing. He had the speech by him at that moment, and if they called upon him to read the paragraph he would at once do it. He had hitherto refrained from alluding to this subject; because he had found in a reported speech of the hon. Member for Bradford, that he intended to make this the subject of one of the many motions, with which he had threatened the House. He had waited therefore in expectation that the hon. Member would introduce that motion, as he had brought forward others. He should now read the last passage in his speech, to show the spirit in which it had been delivered. It stated that between the Whigs and the Irish people a compactness of union now existed. Now, it was upon such sentiments that it had been over and over again stated by the hon. Members for Leeds and Bradford, and by others, that there was a compact between the Irish Members and the Government. The hon. Member for Bradford had declared that "they knew perfectly well what Mr. Sheil had said, that there was such a compact, and that Mr. Sheil should explain that in the House of Commons." It really was involuntarily that he was dragged into this discussion; but of this he was quite sure, that however greatly the spirit of party might prevail, yet in a matter which was persona], he was sure that the spirit of fair play would be always found to predominate.

Now he should omit a passage from his speech, and for this reason, that it was his business at that moment not to attack the late Government, but to vindicate the present. After speaking of the disunions which had prevailed between the Whigs and the Irish Members, he proceeded to say, that with the Whigs they now entered into a close alliance, and that, seeing this, they were forced into a compact alliance and indissoluble junction. Then they did provoke him to the reading of the preceding passage, and he would gratify them. He stated that they beheld with indignation the persons who were placed in the Privy Council; that Lord Roden was marked out for an office near the person of the King, and there were the grand treasurer and other officers of the Orange Lodges appointed. Then, that which he called a compact alliance and indissoluble junction, they insisted was a compact. He did not think so; but then they ought to recollect that he was an "alien in language." Assuredly, looking at hon. Members opposite, he would say, that there was no compact amongst them, although there was a compact junction. They said at once, then, that there had been a misrepresentation of his words. There was no bargain—he appealed to their common sense upon this that there was no compact; and he trusted upon this subject that no man would resort to miserable expedients. If they asked him, had there been a junction, he would at once answer that there was—a fair, open, and honourable one. They did support those whom they had opposed, and he was one of their most determined opponents— they did oppose the Whigs, as long as they considered they were acting hostilely to the interests of Ireland; but the moment the Whigs adopted principles that were favourable to Ireland, that moment their opposition ceased. The moment that the Church Commission was issued and acted upon, and that the Whigs of 1824, Lord John Russell, Sir John Hobhouse, and others, took a prominent part in the Ministry, from that moment everything was forgiven, though perhaps not forgotten. What did the Irish party obtain? Measures were promised favourable to Ireland. Those only they sought for. What was gained upon the other side when they came into power? They stipulated for office. Did the right hon. Baronet remember what was the death-stroke to his Ministry? Let him think on Knatchbull, upon Lefroy, upon the division on the Civil List. What was asked for by the Irish Members? The benefit and advantage of their country alone. Let them show him one man amongst them who was in place. Of all the Irish Members, the only one in office was the hon. Member for Kildare. They asked but for justice, because they knew that in that was included equality. They were charged with entering into a compact. In what did it consist? That there should be done that which, in their hearts, the Opposition knew ought to be done for Ireland. He should not dwell any longer upon this subject— he had been led beyond the line that he had intended to pursue upon this subject; but the hon. Member for Sligo had forced him to do so, and for going so far, he trusted he should be excused by all parties in the House. It was, he thought, of importance that the debate should end that night, and therefore it was his intention to be as brief as possible. He did not mean then to enter into the question of the differences between the Corporation for Ireland Bill, as it was returned to that House, and as it went into the Lords. There was another question now between the two parties that divided that House—it was a question between the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Before he went into the facts of the case, he would remark upon the principle applicable to those differences. He had one authority to quote, it was that of Mr. Canning, and it was to be found in a speech of his delivered in June 1827, after amendments had been introduced into his Corn Bill. The object of those amendments was to destroy Mr. Canning's administration. The Bill had been sent up from the Commons to the Lords—there an amendment was introduced which was fatal to the principle of the Bill. He wished now the House to observe, that he was not quoting a man who was a revolutionist, he was quoting a man as devoted to the maintenance of existing institutions as any who then listened to him; and here was the language of Mr. Canning—this was the advice which Mr. Canning suggested, that the unreformed House of Commons ought to adopt. Mr. Western having moved an amendment to enforce those adopted by the Lords, Mr. Canning said— I agree, Sir, with the hon. Gentleman, that something is necessary to be done; but the rule I should lay down upon the subject is a very plain one. As, I presume, the House of Commons is not so reduced as to abjure what its Members have declared to be necessary principles, to rescind their deliberate resolutions, and to throw away as waste paper that Bill which they have so much and so carefully considered, merely because in a certain assembly, which, for many reasons, is entitled to our respect, they did not happen to be entertained with that courtesy which might have been expected, but were made the subject of an amendment, which not merely went to rescind what we had enacted, but to introduce principles, that, besides being new, were positively contrary to what we had determined to be necessary. Let the House, themselves, feel this as they may. If there be a single spark of pride or of shame in it, they will not submit to it.* This was the doctrine laid down by Mr. Canning. Now the Bill which was before them had been carried by a large majority — a majority of sixty-four—in a House of Commons called by the right hon. Baronet. Now, what had been done with respect to this Bill? A resolution had been proposed by a noble Lord, who was known to be the translator of Faust, and who, in proposing such a resolution, seemed to have consulted with some familiar. What was done on the other side? They were not satisfied with increasing the influence of the Castle, but care was taken that all existing officers should be preserved. Such was the sym-pathetic solicitude for speculating trustees and plundering corporators, and all were most carefully maintained. And the Irish were to be thus treated, because it was said that they were "aliens in language." It was rather bard that their defect in language should cost them their institutions. There would be a lasting recollection of the words applied to them. They were said to be "aliens in language, in country, and in blood." Now he called upon hon. Members opposite to say, did they adopt that phrase? Did they deny it? or dare they confess, and blush at it? He asked the right hon. Member for Tamworth, did he adopt that phrase? Was it, and he did so, with every respect for that right hon. Baronet, was it he who would now say that he had conceded emancipation to those who were aliens in country, creed, and language? Let the opposition mark to what a condition they had reduced themselves. He entreated of the noble Lord who sat beside the right hon. Baronet, to remember who was his leader—who at the head of his party. Did the noble Lord remember—he was sure the House could not forget his powerful and emphatic language upon a former occasion, and with what force he had used a quotation, from which he might now apply to the noble Lord these words— Yet time serves wherein you may redeem Your tarnished honours, and restore yourselves Into the good thoughts of the world again: Revenge the jeering and did sained contempt Of this proud King. * Hansard, (New Series) vol. xvii. p. 1308 He should now pass with as much velocity to the remaining facts. They could not but observe that the proposition of the Duke of Richmond was rejected—a proposition that came from one who supported Conservative principles. ["No."'] Why, that noble Duke had resigned with the noble Lord (Stanley), and did he not support Conservative principles with more than a convert's zeal. Having thus quoted the authority of Mr. Canning upon the great constitutional principle involved in the conflicting principles of the two Houses of Parliament, he had now another authority to go to. This was a speech delivered at the Merchant-Tailors' Hall, on May 11, 1835. He found the report of this speech, not in the debates of Hansard, nor in the "Mirror of Parliament," but in a small volume of speeches of first-rate eloquence, delivered by the right hon. Sir Robert Peel, and corrected by himself. He entreated and solicited the attention of every man whom he at that moment addressed, to the principles laid down in the extract which he was about to read to the House; principles in which the relative position of the two Houses of Parliament in regard to one another, and their joint relation in respect to the executive, were distinctly laid down; he would give the extract verbatim as he found it. The hon. and learned Gentleman then read the following passage from the speech referred to:—"I warn you that you must not place a firm reliance upon the prerogative of the Crown—on the influence or authority of the House of Lords. The prerogative of the one, the authority of the other, are constitutionally potent in controlling the powers of the Lower House, but you must not. now-a-days, depend upon them as bulwarks which are impassable, and which can be committed without apprehension to the storm and struggle of events. The Government of the country"—Yes! let both sides hear it, for to both sides it affords matter for reflection—"The Government of the country, and the mode in which it is conducted, allow me to tell you, must mainly depend upon the constitution of the House of Commons. I again say, the royal prerogative, the authority of the House of Lords are most useful, nay, necessary, in our mixed and balanced constitution. But you must not strain these powers. You would not consider that that was worthy of the name of a Government which existed upon nothing but a series of collisions and hostilities between the two branches of the Legislature, You would rather see them moving in that harmonious manner which insures the utility of each, and the efficiency of all. I ask you, then, to take means to assert in the House of Commons those principles which we believe to be just, and to exercise that authority to which you are fairly entitled. On taking office, I avowed my determination to abide by the Reform Bill. I trust I have redeemed that pledge, not by a niggardly and cold acquiescence in details, but, I trust, an honest and generous deference to the broad principle it involved. On this broad, constitutional principle my friends and I acted. We acted in the spirit of the Reform Bill. When we found that we had not the confidence of the House of Commons, although the array against us was miscellaneous in the extreme—although the majority was small, we felt it our duty to resign. However strongly we might have opposed the elective system before, we now adhered to our pledge; we not only gave the Reform Bill a fair trial, but we regarded it as a constitutional settlement of a great question. We did not entertain the idea of governing the country against a majority of the Reformed House of Commons." He would now ask the right hon. Baronet, "Do you entertain the same opinions on this subject now?" Mark how the facts stood. Lord Melbourne resigned, and the right hon. Baronet dissolved Parliament without meeting it. There was not an instance in history of the same force as this. The right hon. Baronet met the new Parliament, and the first question pressed upon his notice was the English Corporations, and the necessity for placing them under a system of popular control. If his memory failed him not, the first question raised was an amendment to the Address, with a view to placing the Corporations of England on a popular footing. That amendment was carried by a considerable majority, and after two or three months vain conflict with the majority of the House of Commons, the right hon. Baronet resigned. It might be said that the majority which turned the right hon. Baronet out of office was a small one; but had it since decreased? On the other hand, had it not rather swollen and strengthened on each succeeding occasion? Under these circumstances, he asked the right hon. Baronet what his prospects were? With what hopes could he resume office in the face of the Parliament which had already driven him from the seat of power? Or would the right hon. Baronet avoid all this dilemma by again dissolving Parliament without facing them, and send back the very House of Commons which he had been the instrument of calling together? He begged the right hon. Baronet to pause and consider what was the state of the feelings of the people of England? He asked the right hon. Baronet whether, in his knowledge, the feelings of the people of England were ever raised to a higher pitch of sympathy with the people of Ireland than they were upon the present question. If you deny (continued the hon. and learned Member) that this feeling exists amongst the people of England, do you deny that you made similar allegations before—that you strained the prerogatives of the Crown to dissolve the former Parliament, and that all the efforts of your incendiary eloquence were tried in vain in bringing together that which was to succeed it, for in that Parliament you were discomfitted. I will not say that you were made prostrate, for that can never be. I ask you again, are your schemes now improved? The right hon. Baronet, he well knew, was not an adventurer—he was not a speculator on public ruin. He did not think that the right hon. Baronet would submit to construct so many electric shocks for the country as this. There were sixty-four Irish Members on his (Mr. Sheil's) side of the House who would be against the right hon. Baronet. A majority of sixty-four Members would perhaps be a small account if questions of Irish grievances were once extinct, but as long as they remained unsettled, and as long as the present Government remained faithfully devoted to that object, they would be supported in power. If this assertion was doubted, let the question be tried—let Parliament be dissolved; the Opposition parties think that they would have all the Protestants of Ireland with them? Let them look to the petition from Bangor, signed by 1,000 Protestants; let them look to the petition from Londonderry, which foremost asserted the glories of Protestantism, the very seat of orthodoxy. He had asked the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry, whether the sentiments expressed in that petition were not those of the majority of his Protestant constituents? and the hon. Member replied that the case was so. All these men, then, concurred in asking of the House was, what he and his party called justice to Ireland. The hon. and learned Recorder for Dublin, had last night entered into a very interesting disquisition as to what justice to Ireland really was. The right hon. Gentleman would perhaps pardon him, (Mr. Sheil) if he very respectfully expressed his wish that the learned Recorder's name had not been to be found in the lists of the Lay Association. The hon. and learned Gentleman knew very well that a Civil Bill for the recovery of tithes would he in his own Court; and yet the learned Judge subscribes to pay counsel for the prosecution of that very process. He would ask, was it conducive to the public interests—to the ends of public justice, that a man holding a high judicial situation, and a Privy Councillor, should rush headlong into this arena of persecution, and hold out a premium to any speculating and trafficking attorney who chose to take advantage of it? The hon. and learned Recorder had concluded his speech by exclaiming, "Ruat cœlum, fiat justitia." He supposed that "ruat cœlum" meant perish religion, perish humanity; whilst "fiat justitia" should be construed, let tithes be levied. If he was wrong in attributing that construction to the hon. and learned Recorder's observations, he was sorry for it. He could only assure him that he had stretched his imagination for the purpose of aiming at his meaning. Let, however, those who opposed this measure, now remember two things—that in so doing, they were raising the question of reforming the House of Lords in this country, and that of the Repeal of the Union in Ireland. The hon. Member for Waterford had already, in the course of his speech, pointed the attention of the House to the physical position of Ireland. On a former occasion, when the Repeal of the Union was agitated, that hon. Member threw up his seat because he would not pledge himself to support that proposition. The warning of the hon. Member deserved the particular attention of the House. He had told the House to-night to beware of pursuing a course which would withhold from Ireland what she is entitled to, or the question of the Repeal of the Union would be raised again, and he must become an advocate of it. No language of excitement he could use could have the effect of the evidence of that Gentleman, who was known and valued, not only for his understanding, but for his political consistency. He candidly told the House that if they denied Ireland these institutions, they must give her back her independence, considering that the people of Ireland were an intrepid, an energetic, an enthusiastic, and, when employed, an industrious people. When he looked into the history of the country, and saw how her prayers had been rejected, and her demands for justice disregarded, he had a right to claim equal rights with the rest of the empire, or a restoration of her independence. The speech of the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, had assured the House that Ireland was not to be treated on the footing of a colonial dependency; and though, when he looked at the place where its Parliament had been held, and remembered the proud antiquity which hallowed it, he regretted its loss; yet when he was animated and excited by the glories which Ireland had gained through her association with this country, he thought they had been a compensation for the loss. Let, then, the Irish be Britons in equal laws. They must be on a footing with Britons in every respect—they must be (emphatically added the hon. and learned Member) they must be your equals. To be your vassals, your dependents—to he in colonial submission before you, we never will consent; and when we are told that in religion, in language, and in blood, and in all but country, we are aliens to you—if any men are mad enough to tell us so—thanks to that power which placed our throbbing hearts within our breasts, we are not base enough to submit to such an insult.

Sir R. Peel

felt under a double obligation of making an apology to the House for offering himself to its notice. He felt that the subject had been completely exhausted, and the hon. and learned Gentleman must have risen under the same impression; for, although his speech abounded in much lively allusion, much personal comment, and much eloquent declamation, yet not one single approach to argument did the hon. and learned Gentleman discover throughout the whole of it. He felt, as he before said, a double obligation to apologize to the House on the present occasion, not only on account of the exhausted state of the House and of the subject, but because the hon. and learned Gentleman had read so long an extract of a speech of his, that he was somewhat doubtful whether the strict rules of the House did not incapacitate him from speaking. He, however, thanked the hon. and learned Gentleman for this extract from his speech, because as to-morrow he should have the honour (it being the anniversary of the day) of again dining with the respected corporation before whom that speech was delivered, he should have an opportunity of repeating the sentiments he then expressed, and which he still entertained. He did think the Government of this country could not be conducted without a good understanding between both Houses of Parliament. He should not call that a safe and efficient system of Government in which there was a constant collision between the two Houses. He thought that the affairs of the Government could not go on where there was this perpetual conflict. But he did not mean by this to imply that the House of Lords had no other course to take on these occasions than to relinquish its independent right to act, and merely register the decrees of the House of Commons. The hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to the doctrine laid down by Mr. Canning with respect to collisions between the two Houses; but he (Sir R. Peel) did not understand by the speech of Mr. Canning, which the hon. Gentleman had read, that Mr. Canning meant, whilst he maintained the privileges of this House, that the maintenance of the privileges of this House was inconsistent with the maintenance of the rights and independence of the other branch of the Legislature. Mr. Canning was referring to the question of the Corn Laws, which had produced a difference of opinion between the two Houses. Mr. Canning was happily relieved from witnessing the political conflicts which now agitated the country; but on this same question he (Sir R. Peel) would refer to another authority—a living authority—an authority from whom it had been his fate to be separated altogether during the whole of his political career, but for whom he felt the utmost respect, and, in all their political disagreements, not one word of disrespect towards that eminent individual had ever fallen from him: he referred to the language used upon a similar occasion by Earl Grey. Lord Grey did not deny the independent right of the House of Commons; but Lord Grey, at the same time, felt it to be his duty to maintain the equal independence of that branch of the Legislature of which he was a member. But he would first refer shortly to the speech of Mr. Canning. The two Houses differed in respect to the Corn Bill; would the hon. and learned Gentleman advise the House of Commons, out of respect to the authority of Mr. Canning, to adopt the same course of proceedings as in the Corn Bill. Mr. Canning said on that occasion, "My first proposition is, to let loose the corn now in bond, by the operation of the principle of the Bill itself; and then to let in, under the same restrictions, the corn of Canada, which has been shipped on the faith of the Bill. To neither of these parts of the Bill was the smallest objection made in the House of Lords; and the amendment which lost the Bill was, as far as I understand the matter, one which did not touch them in the least. In proposing them, Sir, for the consideration of the Committee, I am, therefore, doing that which will not bring us within the risk of a conflict with the other House, since the principles on which I now wish to act are those which met with no objection, and were in fact adopted from us." * He did not say that the House should pursue the same course now; he did not say that this House should abandon its right; but he said, that after the argument used by Mr. Canning, there would be no degradation in adopting the measure of the House of Lords; and on that occasion, Mr. Canning by adopting the course of conciliation ended the conflict, and led to an amicable and conciliatory settlement. What was the language of Lord Grey? Lord Grey said, "I stand here one of a body which will always be ready firmly and honestly to resist such effects which always considers anxiously and feelingly the interests of the people, even when it must oppose the people themselves, and which will never consent, under the influence of fear, to give way to clamour. If I am told we run the risk of having a worse Bill, I shall never suffer myself to be intimidated by any such threat; and if a worse Bill should be sent up, I am sure your Lordships would pursue the course you have pursued by the present Bill. You would consider it, and you would amend it; and if you could not make it good, you would reject it. I am sure that any such measure should be met by me with a firm opposition, and that I should be prepared to * Hansard (Third Series) vol. xvii. p. 1311, do my duty to myself. I have said thus much, and" I might say a great deal more. If there should come a contest between this House and a great portion of the people, my post is taken; and with that order to which I belong I will stand or fall. I will maintain, to the last hour of my existence, the privileges and independence of this House." * On that occasion, these words the hon. and learned Gentleman would find were spoken by one whose authority he had ever held in great respect. He had omitted to notice the first part of the hon. and learned Member's speech; and those who forgot the precept, could not fail to learn, by the effect of example, a warning from the hon. and learned Gentleman, unless there was some cogent reason to abstain from personal explanation. The hon. and learned Gentleman had found it absolutely necessary to explain a speech he had delivered at Thurles; and the hon. and learned Gentleman had been provoked by a look, or something like it, from his right hon. Friend, the Member for Sligo, into an apparent position of hostility towards the Members of the late Government—he said apparent, because he who admired the hon. Gentleman's talents, and did not expect or desire to entertain other feelings than those of respect for him, whatever might be the difference of their sentiments in regard to measures of government, felt no hostility towards him. But the hon. and learned Gentleman had thought it necessary to explain a misapprehension as to a supposed statement of his, of a compact between the Irish Members and his Majesty's Government; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman had simply said that it was a misapprehension, and that he denied the interpretation put upon the expression, it would have been quite sufficient for him, and the hon. and learned Gentleman would never have heard of it from him. But the course pursued by the hon. and learned Gentleman in his explanation, had a tendency rather to confirm the misapprehension. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, "you suppose that I said there was a compact between us and the Government; but this is an error, for there has been an important omission in the text of my speech; for where it seems as if I had used only the word 'compact,' the words I really used were, 'a compact and indissoluble junction.'" Now, there certainly might be a junction without a * Hansard, (Third Series) vol. xvii. p. 1261, compact; but the hon. and learned Gentleman had admitted that there had been an "alliance," and an alliance was not very different from a compact. But the hon. and learned Gentleman went further, and said that there was an alliance "on honourable terms;" and he defied the hon. and learned Member, with all his acuteness and ingenuity, to point out any real distinction between a compact and an alliance on honourable terms. The word "compact" did not necessarily imply a "dishonourable compact;" it had not been said that the price paid to the hon. and learned Gentleman and his friends was admission to office. But the hon. and learned Gentleman had admitted that there had been an alliance, and on terms which might indeed be for the public good; but it could hardly be said that there was no compact, for it seemed to him that there was no distinction between a compact and an alliance on terms. He was sorry, that in following the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he had been diverted from the subject of the Bill; but he would enter into a "compact" with the House, that the moment he departed from the proper course of argument, the slightest notice from the House would induce him either to abstain or to sit down. In fact, the argument on the main question had been completely exhausted in the debate on the question before; and he should have been content to rest the case on the original debate, if it had not been for the speech of the noble Lord last night, which had placed the question on new grounds. The noble Lord had argued as if the question at issue was whether or not there should be local government in Ireland. The noble Lord had quoted the case of Prussia—a case not calculated to excite feelings that would lead to conviction—and the noble Lord had proceeded on the assumption that the question at issue was, whether the local governments of the towns of Ireland should be abolished or not. That was not the question at issue, and he would prove that it was not. The noble Lord proposed to force twenty-one towns in Ireland to adopt the provisions of the 9th George 4th, not that it should be left to their option to adopt them or not, but to compel them to adopt those provisions. Did the noble Lord mean to deny the right of these towns to adopt a local government or not? Surely, it was more consonant to the principles of self-government to allow these places to determine whether or not they would adopt the provisions than to force them to do so. But the noble Lord said, "I will enforce them on all towns in Ireland." How did the Opposition propose to leave the law? Why every town in Ireland would have a right, if he thought fit, to adopt the very Act which the noble Lord would enforce. In what cases was the Act to be enforced? On the application of twenty-one inhabitants rated at 20l. a-year. In any populous city, however averse to a local government, according to the noble Lord's plan, the Act was to be enforced on the application of twenty one inhabitants, rated at 20l. a-year. This was to be applied to every town in Ireland not governed by local Acts. The Legislature had passed an Act for England; but had it enforced the Act? No, it left the application of the 9th George 4th optional. The noble Lord intended to enforce it; he had not introduced any judicious scale of taxation; but he had left the enforcement of the Act to the application of twenty-one inhabitants rated at 2ll. a-year. The noble Lord proposed that there should be municipal government in Ireland, whether desired or not. He thought that sufficient provision was made for local government, when it was left optional with the inhabitants to have it or reject it. Another fallacy in the speech of the noble Lord was, that he assumed that municipal institutions were absolutely necessary for good government: that fallacy pervaded the whole of his speech. The example of Prussia could have no effect here. Was this an essential part of good government, or not? In his opinion it was not, and the principle of the noble Lord's Bill might turn out to be a violation of the rights of the people. Where Corporations had existed before, there custom made them popular. If the noble Lord thought that municipal institutions were essential conditions of good government, why were not corporations enforced throughout this country? Why was Manchester, Birmingham, and the districts in this great metropolis to which representatives had been granted, comprehending a population of 1,120,000, without corporations? The large districts on the other side of the water, which were rapidly advancing in manufacturing industry, Southwark, and Lambeth, and even the city in which they were now assembled, as well as the boroughs to which the been of representatives had lately been given—Finsbury, and the Tower Hamlets, and Marylebone, were without corporations—and could the House see municipal institutions enforced in Ireland, and not in the large districts belonging to the metropolis, if these institutions were requisites to good government? If corporations were thought essential to good government, why were not the provisions of the Bill to be applied in every instance? But the cases of Dublin and Liverpool were compared, and it was said, that looking to the rapid communication between them, it was disgraceful that one should have a corporation and not the other; that a merchant of Dublin would feel himself disgraced on a visit to Liverpool. But if corporations were so essential to good government, what must be the feelings of a merchant of Manchester going to Liverpool? Manchester was as near Liverpool by the railroad as Dublin by sea; and did the hon. and learned Member think that a rich merchant of Manchester, proceeding to Liverpool, would meditate as he was conveyed in the rapid machine, that he was soon to come into a place where he would see by contrast his unhappy lot, and that he would return to Manchester insulted and degraded, and be compelled to hide his head under the mortifying impression that he was not an inhabitant of Liverpool? Did the hon. and learned Member believe that a single individual would transfer his residence from Manchester to Liverpool for the express purpose of enjoying the luxury of a corporation? The real question came to this— would the denial of corporate institutions interfere with the good local government of towns in Ireland, or with the prosperity of the country? He did not disregard the preference which arose from feelings and habits, rather than from the prospect of advantage; but were they proposed for the purpose of local government? The next question he should look at was, whether these institutions were to be formed, not for good local government, but for political purposes, and to be made subservient to illegitimate ends. Unless it could be shown that the reconstruction of corporate institutions in Ireland was compatible with the proper government of towns, with the due administration of justice, with the interests, not partial but equal, of Protestants and Catholics, he should overlook all the arguments derived from analogy of institutions. In the case of Dublin, the administration of justice was refused, no magistracy was given, and the noble Lord refused to grant the control of the police to the most popular and most important city of Ireland. "You take from the Municipal Corporations (continued the right hon. Baronet) the appointment of Sheriff's, and vest it in the Lord-Lieutenant; but then, of course, you give to it the direction and management of the watching, paving, and lighting of the city? Not at all. Well, but you invest it with the powers of widening and improving the streets of the city? By no means. But at least you give to it a control and superintendence over the port of Dublin, in which the municipal body of that city must be so much interested? Nothing of the kind. In constituting this municipal body, then, you withhold from them everything which in a municipal institution can be considered of importance. You do not allow them to interfere in the appointment of Sheriffs you give them no control over the police, you take from this all-important body, this body so essential in your opinion to good government, the appointment of even a single watchman; you invest in other authorities the charge of lighting, paving, and watching; you commit to the care of others the widening and improving of streets, the superintendence of the port. Now, allow me to ask, when you have taken all those powers away, for what purpose is it that you continue it as a municipal body? I ask you, when you have removed those powers and authorities which ordinarily belong to Municipal Corporations, for what purpose do you leave it? I tell you, that if you leave it only for political purposes, it is you and not we who are the enemies of Ireland." Much had been said of the appointment of Commissioners, who were to take charge of corporate property and those for charitable trusts heretofore administered by Corporations. He would not enter further upon that point, which did not involve any principle of the Bill, further than to remark, that if a Corporation were to be abolished, it was almost impossible to avoid the appointment of Commissioners for a limited time. He would have preferred that the time should have been limited, and that was the intention when the Bill was before in that House, that the Commissioners should continue for a time, or until Parliament should determine otherwise; but it was; he repeated, unavoidable that some Commissioners should be appointed to take charge of corporate property where Corporations were abolished—for there were many towns which had no Local Act. He would not enter into the question of the appointment of weigh-masters and butter-tasters, for those were points on which there could be very little difference between him and the noble Lord. When he heard the language used by the hon. Member for the county of Meath, he hardly thought that the Bill deserved the epithets which that hon. Gentleman had applied to it; nor could he have thought that the corporate property in Ireland was so great as that hon. Gentleman had set it down. When he heard the hon. Member for Meath, he was strongly reminded of that familiar quotation from the Latin grammar, which the hon. Member for North Derbyshire (Mr. Gisborne) had used for another purpose. Ingenuas didicisse fideliter artes, Emollit mores, nee sinit esse feros. Without stopping to inquire into the amount of corporate property in Ireland, he would come to a much more important point—namely, whether it was for the advantage of Ireland, that after the abolition of the old Corporations, new ones should be established in their stead. It was said, that the objects were the dissolution of the old Corporations, the mitigation of the present evils, and the reconstruction of new Corporations in place of the old. He would admit that the existing Corporations were very different from those of former years, and that they had ceased to produce those good effects which it was originally intended they should produce; but the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) seemed to consider that those who voted for the abolition of the old Corporations were also to vote for the reconstruction of hew ones. "The noble Lord, adverting to some observations of mine (continued the right hon. Baronet), addressed to the company at the Gold-smiths'-Hall, said, that I was right in complimenting them on having built their new Hall on the old foundation; but the noble Lord added, what would have been thought of you had you told them, they were wrong in building on that foundation—and still more, what would have been thought of you, if you told them they were wrong in building a new Hall? But the question in that case would be, is the new Hall as good for useful purposes as the old? If the old Corporations of Ireland, like the old Goldsmiths' Hall, had served to promote social harmony and good fellowship—if they had tended to promote good and kind feeling between man and man, then, indeed, I should have been justified in advising the noble Lord to build on the old foundation but if I find that those Corporations have not tended to promote social feeling—if I find that they have not tended to bring man to a good and harmonious understanding with his fellow-man—if I find that they had ceased to promote the good objects for which they were instituted, then I should be exceedingly inconsistent if I praised the noble Lord as I did the Goldsmiths, for rebuilding on the old foundation." The old Corporations were at one time of great use to the country, but of late they had become institutions for the purpose of keeping up exclusive interests and privileges: but then if, in looking at the state of society in Ireland, in considering the probable, nay, the almost certain effects of the reconstruction of the Corporations, they should find that the new would be equally intolerant and equally exclusive as the old, would the Legislature be justified in reconstructing them out of the scattered materials of the former? He had no doubt that if this question were viewed distinct from the prejudices with which it was connected, as one affecting national feelings and national honour, the opinion would be general that the removal of the old Corporations, and the refusal to construct new ones on their foundation, would be pregnant with immense benefits to Ireland. He was sure that by refusing to reconstruct the Corporations we should have much better guarantees for the promotion of domestic peace and harmony in Ireland, for the investment of capital, and the promotion of industry than we now possessed. When the proposition was first made in that House, he was sure that it received the, not open, but quiet and tacit sanction of many cool, calm, and considerate persons in and out of that House. He held in his hand a letter addressed to Lord Mulgrave, signed by one who called himself "a dissatisfied country gentleman." He had no knowledge of the writer, but whoever he was, he was no friend (politically speaking) of his. That writer took extreme views of political measures, but in his letter he said that there were four measures required for the improvement and the pacification of Ireland, and that we were now in progress to them. The measures which he recommended were—1st., the complete and unqualified extinction of tithes; the 2nd., was the reduction and remodification of the Church Establishment; the 3rd., was the annihilation of the Orange Lodges. Now, what did the House think was the 4th recommended by this writer, who was certainly a man of acuteness and ability. The 4th was the total dissolution of all Municipal Corporations. It might be said, perhaps, that the abolition of the Corporations did not necessarily imply that they should not be reconstructed; but what was the argument of this writer—an argument penned in a cooler moment than could be expected in the excitement of such a debate as the present? He said, look at the two great corporate towns of Dublin and Cork. The former, in every point which could constitute a great town, had retrograded nearly a century, while other parts of the country, which had no Corporate bodies, had advanced and improved to a great extent. What was Cork?—a city possessing local advantages belonging to few cities in the kingdom, with a splendid harbour, in the midst of a fertile country, enjoying a fine climate, the metropolis of the largest county in the empire, and yet a very large proportion of its inhabitants were sunk in the lowest state of poverty; their morality was in a low state, and in the excitement of election times they were most violent and riotous. He would not say, to use the noble Lord's quotation, "Sic fortis Etruria crevit." The writer next noticed Belfast, a town worthy of England in arts and industry, nominally the third, but in reality the first in commercial importance in Ireland; yet fifty years ago Belfast was an insignificant town. What was the cause assigned by the writer for the increase of the one town and the decrease of the others? He said, that perhaps Mr. Mortimer O'Sullivan and others who took his view might attribute it to the fact that Belfast was a Protestant town, but the writer attributed it to the fact that Dublin and Cork had the most numerous, and, until lately, the most wealthy Corporations in Ireland, while in Belfast they had what scarcely deserved the name of a Corporation, and which did not exceed twenty Members. These, then, were the reasons assigned by a clear and intelligent writer for wishing to put an end to all Corporations for the benefit of the country generally. He would now quote another authority on the same subject—that of a noble Lord with whom he had had the honour of an acquaintance. That noble Lord had not only written a letter, but also drawn up a Bill on the subject. One great object which the noble Lord contemplated as necessary for Ireland was the abolition of fiscal powers by Grand Juries and Corporations. He proposed a general tax, which should be administered by Commissioners appointed by the Crown, aided by Local Commissioners elected by rate-payers, and he pointed out the mode of election. One clause of the Bill drawn by the noble Lord, provided that the Crown Commissioners, aided by some of the local Commissioners, should have the power to inspect Corporate Charters, in order to ascertain if any property possessed by them had been intended to promote public works, and if any such were discovered, the amount should be handed over to the Chief Commissioner, to be applied as originally intended. This was the opinion of an individual well acquainted with the wants of Ireland, and who had made the remedy of many of the evils affecting it a subject of mature consideration. He was of opinion, that Chief Commissioners, whose office should be in Dublin, aided by local Commissioners elected by the people, should take on themselves all the fiscal powers at present intrusted to Corporations and Grand Juries, and he thought that those who proposed the establishment of institutions with similar objects could not be fairly accused of intending to insult Ireland, or to place it below the level of England and Scotland as to municipal rights. He would put it to hon. Members opposite, whether the reconstruction of those Corporations would conduce to that civil equality of all parties which some hon. Members asserted—for unless it was shown that it would have that effect, there was no ground whatever for the proposition. In considering this question he could not overlook the analogy between the circumstances of England and Ireland; for, if any such existed, it ought to be clearly made out. Now, to him it did not appear that that had at all been made out. So far from analogy, there was a vast difference between the circumstances of the two countries. It was true that within the last few years a great moral and social revolution had taken place in Ireland. Within six years we had removed those great barriers which had separated two classes. That removal had been acquiesced in by the Protestants. Those Protestants had not even petitioned against the plan for giving up the privileges which they had so long enjoyed, and was the House to overlook those who had thus acted? The House should not forget what the late Corporations were. Did any Member believe that the new Corporations, backed as they would be by the physical strength of the country, would be more careful of the rights and privileges of others than their predecessors had been? Did any one believe that they would be willing to share their newly-acquired power with those to whom they were opposed? Then, if such powers were to be granted to parties so supported, did any man believe that their exercise, as they would be exercised, would be otherwise than injurious to the country? Hon. Members were greatly offended and indignant at the proposition that the property of Corporations should be placed in the hands of Commissioners. But how did they themselves propose to deal with a corporate body of another description—with the Church. The Church had a prescriptive right to property long anterior to the existence of most of those Corporations. The security of that property had been guaranteed in the fullest manner by one of the articles of Union between the two kingdoms. By that article the Churches of England and Ireland were to be called the United Church of England and Ireland. Now let hon. Members look at the 70th clause of the Tithe Bill, and see how far that guarantee of the Church property had been respected by those who were now so loud in their exclamations against the investment of any corporate property in the hands of Commissioners. By that clause it was enacted, that when a living became void, the glebe, glebe-house, and offices were to become invested in the hands of Commissioners appointed by the Crown. And this is (said the right hon. Baronet) from you, who deprecate interference with corporate property—you, who profess anxiety to keep sacred from the slightest violation—you, who cannot reconcile it to your views of justice to transfer property from a Corporation to the management of a Commission appointed by the Crown, felt no compunctious visitings when you enacted, that on the voidance of every living, the glebe-house, offices, and glebe, should be transferred from the Church and vested in the Crown. What is it that you have done? You say to us, that those suspicions and surmises on our part are unreasonable, that we ought not to object to the exercise of power, that we have no reason for objecting to it but antipathy to the Roman Catholic Church—that, in point of fact, religious bigotry is at the bottom of our opposition, that we hate you as Roman Catholics, that we are unwilling to cement the union—a union of heart and affection—with you, and refuse to you corporate institutions, for the purpose of obstructing your prosperity and insulting your feelings. But what have been your own words? Have they not been the justification of the distrust you have experienced? Have you not told us that those institutions have been in England, and will be in Ireland, the schools of political agitation? May we not object to convert institutions that were intended for the purposes of local government into the arena of civil discord? You tell us, that your object is, unless justice be done—a repeal of the Union—you tell us that you will never be satisfied without making the House of Lords responsible. You tell us that the arrangement made with respect to tithe is wholly unsatisfactory. You use arguments implying a present acquiescence in it, by a determination to take the first legitimate opportunity of defeating it. Why can you be surprised, then, if we are unwilling to consent to the institution of those societies, after the warning you have given us, that they will not be applied for the purposes of local government, but will be consecrated to those of political agitation—to objects which appear to us destructive of the Constitution under which we have lived, and think we have flourished, and fatal to the integrity of that empire, the bonds of which we wish to see indissolubly compact? We think that in the present circumstances of Ireland, practical civil equality is the right of the citizens of that country; we say that that practical civil equality does not depend upon the formal and nominal adoption of similar institutions existing in England and Scotland, and that if the adoption of these similar institutions will destroy that equality, we have a perfect right to object to them, on grounds stronger than the argument from analogy of institutions. We believe that Ireland wants repose; we think that these institutions will increase her agitation. We do not deny that there may be agitation independent of these institutions. You prophesied to us, that there should be agitation; and, I am sorry to say, that the truth of that prophecy we have too good reason to acknowledge. But we are averse to making ourselves participators in it; we are unwilling to lend the sanction and encouragement of the law to the objects which you propose to yourselves. We believe that the institutions of these corporate bodies, if perverted to purposes like this, will, in point of fact, reconstitute in another shape that political ascendency which we, on our part, are perfectly willing to abandon. Our wish is, with respect to the government of Ireland, to see perfect freedom from civil disability, perfect equality of civil privileges; but we do not deny that our object is to maintain in that country that established religion which we know to have been guaranteed at the time of the Union, and which we believe to be essential to the best interests of Ireland and the Irish nation. We do not, at least, I speaking for myself, do not dissent from this measure from any national prejudice; I do not dissent from it from any hostility which I entertain towards Ireland, but I do dissent from it— and I do intend to exercise the privilege of free judgment regarding it—I dissent from it on the ground that, instead of promoting civil equality it will constitute political ascendency, instead of giving repose it will insure agitation. Instead of really destroying the monopoly of power and exclusive privileges, it will, under present circumstances, and in the present condition of Ireland, merely operate as a transfer of that monopoly and those privileges from a body which is perfectly willing to resign them, but which protests against their being transferred to others.

Viscount Howick

said, that at that hour of the night he undoubtedly felt great reluctance in presenting himself to the House, but he hoped that the engagement to which he would bind himself, to adhere as strictly as he possibly could to those parts only of the speech of the right hon. Baronet which bore directly and immediately on the question now before the House, would induce them to allow him to occupy a very small portion of their time. He must be permitted, in the first place, to say one word, and but one word, on the observations made by the right hon. Baronet at the outset of his speech, upon the explanation afforded by the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary, of a speech made by him in Ireland some time ago. The right hon. Baronet had very dexterously endeavoured to show, that while professing to explain the language imputed to him, the hon. and learned Member did, in fact, admit all that was alleged respecting it. The right hon. Baronet told them that an alliance upon terms was neither more nor less than a compact. He was not going to follow the right hon. Baronet into any verbal criticism, criticism which savours of sophistry; but this he would say, that they all knew perfectly well what was meant by those who used the word "compact;" they knew that they meant to imply that there had been something dishonourable in the terms upon which the support of those Gentlemen who sat in that part of the House was afforded to the present Government. He asserted, however, that their support had been purchased by no promise whatever, by no understanding, secret, implied, or expressed, that the members of the present Government would do any one act in the slightest degree at variance with those principles and with those opinions which they had always professed. He said, that upon the question of the Union, on which they had differed with the hon. and learned Gentleman upon various quetions of ecclesiastical policy upon which they had avowed their difference, no compromise whatever, not the slightest even approach to an understanding, had existed between the hon. Gentleman and that part of the House in which he sat, on the one hand, and the Members of the present Government on the other. That being the case, he was at a loss to perceive what disgrace there could be in either giving or receiving an unbought support, on such grounds. But enough, and, perhaps, more than enough, on this subject. He would hasten to consider the question before the House. The right hon. Baronet affirmed, that the question was not whether local government should exist or not. His noble Friend near him having, in his speech of last night, most justly stated that the real question for the House now to decide was, whether Ireland should have the advantages of local self-government or not, the right hon. Baronet boldly met him upon that ground, and said that was not the question. Upon what grounds did the right hon. Baronet rest that assertion, which was so much at variance with what must, at first sight, appear to be the plain interpretation of the provisions contained in the amendments of the House of Lords? The right hon. Baronet had two reasons for the assertion; in the first place, that it was not like local government to impose upon twenty-one towns, whether they liked it or not, the provisions of the Act 9th Geo. 4th; and in the next place, that the question had not been correctly stated by his noble friend, because municipal institutions were not necessary for good local government. These were the two arguments on which the right hon. Baronet mainly rested his assertion. [Sir Robert Peel—Not exactly.] The right hon. Baronet seemed to deny what he had said, but it was in the recollection of the House whether the right hon. Baronet had not stated explicitly that he denied the position of his noble Friend, and followed it up, by showing in considerable detail that in his opinion it was inconsistent with the principle of self-government to enforce in these great towns the adoption of the statute 9th George 4th. [Sir Robert Peel again expressed his dissent.] The right hon. Baronet would by and by have an opportunity of explanation, but in the mean time, he would venture to argue on the right hon. Baronet's assertion, as he himself had understood it, and as he believed the House had understood it. The right hon. Baronet certainly had said, that it would be more in conformity with the principle of allowing them to manage their own affairs to give them the option of adopting the provisions of that Act, or of dispensing with them. He believed that now, at least, the right hon. Baronet would admit, that he had correctly stated his argument. Let them, then, consider how the fact really stood. What was the ground on which his noble Friend proposed that those towns should not be left free to choose for themselves? It was simply this—that there being in existence at the present moment Corporations which exercised various functions, which had various officers, and were in the possession of considerable property, it was absolutely necessary that at the time of abolishing these bodies some provision or other should be made for the discharge of those duties now performed by them. His noble Friend, and hon. Members on his side of the House, had insurmountable objections to the appointment of Crown Commissioners for that purpose. It was, therefore, absolutely necessary that they should decide either for or against the principle of self-government—in the one case, either by rendering necessary the adoption of the 9th of George 4th by-enacting that municipal affairs should be placed under the management of persons elected by the inhabitants; or, on the other hand, by recognizing that sort of government in which the persons interested had no share, by the appointment of Commissioners. Now it happened, curiously enough, if he were not much mistaken, that during the discussion of the English Municipal Reform Bill last Session, the right hon. Baronet presented a petition from the borough for which he was Member, the prayer of which was, that that town should not be included among those to which the provisions of the Bill were to be applied; and if he had not entirely forgotten what passed at that time, the right hon. Baronet had distinctly stated, that he did not expect the House to concur in the prayer of that petition; and that he did not think it reasonable, that in deciding upon a general measure, they should allow the provisions to be rendered partial or incomplete by consulting the wishes of each individual town. He believed that had been the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, and, upon the same principle, in corporation towns of Ireland, when they were driven to the alternative of allowing them to elect Commissioners to manage their affairs, or to place them under the management of the Crown, he would say that they should elect their own Commissioners. The other argument of the right hon. Baronet was, that municipal institutions were not necessary to local government. The right hon. Baronet had accounted for this by telling the House that Manchester was as near Liverpool as Dublin was. He was surprised to hear an argument which bore upon its very face so obvious and palpable a fallacy, from a Gentleman so distinguished in that House as the right hon. Baronet. He contended that local government in the sense in which his noble Friend used the expression, that was, local government by the parties themselves who were interested, did necessarily imply either municipal institutions, or something analogous to them. The right hon. Baronet said, that municipal institutions were not universal in England. He maintained that they were; at least, either municipal institutions, or something analogous to them. With re- gard to boards of management, where Corporations now existed, the ground was not left free from municipal institutions of this description; the Corporations performed certain duties that invaded the functions discharged at Manchester, by Local Boards, aad prevented any opening for similar institutions. The right hon. Baronet had pressed on the House the case of Dublin. If that city had no property, its affairs might be managed satisfactorily without a Corporation, by some such machinery as Manchester. At the same time he must be permitted to express a doubt, and, if he were not mistaken the right hon. Baronet had last year expressed the same doubt, whether the affairs of Manchester would not have been far better managed than they had been—whether the local government of the country would not have been greatly improved, had it possessed for some time back a well-organised corporate system, in the strict sense of the term. By abuses in the old corporations the institution had been rendered odious to the people, and it required some time to eradicate the hatred which those abuses had excited. Where Corporations existed, it was absolutely necessary that the management of their affairs should be transferred to some other hands. He would ask the right hon. Baronet if the case of Manchester presented any parallel to the indignity which would be offered to the citizens of Dublin by taking out of their control the 34.000l. of corporate property now belonging to them, and giving it to the Commissioners appointed by the Lord-Lieutenant? Was the case of Manchester at all analogous to such an outrage as that? If the right hon. Baronet could have shown that that town possessed large property, and that its inhabitants were not allowed to elect by free and unbiassed voice the managers of that property, but that, on the contrary, his noble Friend, the Secretary of State, sent down any body he pleased to dispose of it, and to administer municipal concerns, then indeed the parallel might have some force. That not having been proved, the right hon. Gentleman's case entirely broke down, and the instance of Manchester, adduced by the right hon. Gentleman, was decidedly favourable to his argument. The right hon. Baronet had, with that cautious dexterity which he well knew how to employ in a difficult case, glided over some of the provisions of the Bill. Did the right hon. Baronet forget that it not merely changed the management of corporate property to Commissioners nominated by the Crown, but that it enabled the existing members of those close and rotten Corporations which they were about to abolish, where they happened now to be, by virtue of their office, members of Local Boards, to continue in those situations? He (Lord Howick) had seen a letter printed and circulated among the Members of that House by a gentleman who was a native of Ireland, Mr. French, which stated the dues annually levied in the city of Cork at these sums;—corn-market rate, 2,700l.; wide-street rate, 8,000l.; pipe rate, 1,500l. The management of all this revenue, and of the other important business of the town, would, under the provisions of the amended Bill, be confided not to persons under local Acts, but to at least a large proportion of the members of the present Corporations. It was true, that members of the existing Corporations frequently acted jointly with members chosen by the citizens, or trustees appointed in various modes; but in all those cases the old Corporations were constituted by an Act of Parliament joint managers of these concerns; and the right hon. Baronet, instead of allowing the citizens to succeed to that management, held by those who only derived their title to it from faction, would actually confer such offices in every borough on the existing holders of them. If any thing like this had been proposed last year in the English Bill—if it had been proposed that the defunct Corporation of Liverpool should remain in the situation of trustees for the docks and other vast establishments in that town—if any provision of that kind had been introduced in the Bill of last session, if they had virtually continued Corporations while they nominally abolished them, how would it have been received by the people of England? The question before the House was simply whether the large and flourishing towns of Ireland were to be intrusted with the management of their own concerns. There was no longer any pretence for the various arguments advanced, when the measure was first brought before the House. They had been told that they ought not to interfere with the administration of justice; that Belturbet and Middleton were insig- nificant towns; and that the provisions of the Bill would be extended to many others equally trifling. Any one who had listened to the right hon. Baronet's speech would have gone away under the impression that the English Bill had proposed to place the administration of justice in the hands of persons popularly elected. So far was that from being the case, that it was expressly and repeatedly stated, that they proposed to take all the duties connected with the administration of justice out of the hands of persons chosen in this way; and the only point on which a difference on that subject existed, was the one comparatively trivial question of the appointment of police. There was an end, then, of this objection. He well remembered the appalling picture which the glowing eloquence of the right hon. Baronet had drawn, on the second reading of the Bill, of the consequences which would flow from the supposed enactments on this head, and how he had alarmed the imagination of the House by the misery and oppression he had represented as likely to result from them. But that picture was not a representation of the facts. It was proposed to deprive the towns of Ireland of the direction and control of their own affairs; and the grounds for the proposition were stated with more of candour than of a prudent or conciliatory spirit. He had asked the right hon. Baronet distinctly and pointedly, if he adopted the declaration made by a distinguished member of his party, if that was his reason for supporting the amendments of the Lords. It struck him, and he believed it must have struck the House, that the right hon. Gentleman had carefully and studiously avoided returning a direct answer. The right hon. Gentleman had indeed declared that he was not influenced by any national prejudices. They had been told, that it was childish to think of giving English institutions to Ireland, because they were now legislating for a country three-fourths of whose inhabitants were aliens from us in blood, aliens from us in religion, differing from us in language, and longing for an opportunity to throw off our yoke. Now it did not follow, even supposing the right hon. Baronet to concur in this description of the Irish people, that he felt towards them any national antipathy. It was quite conceivable that a humane and benevolent conqueror might be perfectly aware that feelings were entertained by his subjects, and yet bear no enmity against them, and he could not help thinking, from the right hon. Baronet's argument, that feelings analogous to these existed in his breast. The right hon. Gentleman, he knew, felt nothing like national antipathy; he was sincerely desirous of obtaining what he considered the welfare and prosperity of Ireland; but he had not disavowed an opinion he was sorry to hear from such high authority, that for the welfare of that country legislation must be conducted, not upon the principles of a free constitution, but upon those alone which were applicable to a conquered and degraded country. Why was it that the right hon. Gentleman was so much afraid of lodging power in the hands of the people of Ireland, except he really in his heart believed, though far too cautious to have avowed it in such plain and direct language as was used by another, that the Irish people must be governed by the stern means of compulsion, and were to be debarred from the right of self-government? Let the right hon. Baronet beware how he adopted such a theory of legislation; let him remember that, by avowing distrust and suspicion, he would very speedily arouse in the bosoms of Irishmen those feelings which he had shown to pervade his own. If we treated Ireland as if she were kept in subjection only by violence, as if we feared and distrusted her, we should soon have ample cause for that fear and distrust, and she would be indeed reduced to the condition of a conquered province, watching with jealous solicitude every opportunity of throwing off the yoke. In the first moment of danger and distress, when the first cannon-ball was fired against England, we should have much cause to rue conduct so ungenerous. The right hon. Baronet knew, that even if he wished it, he could not act consistently upon such principles. He could not deprive the Irish people of those rights with which the English Constitution had invested them; he could not prevent them from exercising their privilege of freely electing their representatives in that House; he could not interdict them from the right of meeting in public and petitioning the Legislature; and, when the right hon. Baronet spoke of agitation, he would ask him which was most to be feared, that of the town-council of Dublin, or that of the Corn-Exchange with the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, armed with this most exciting and dangerous topic, a deprivation of municipal institutions? The hon. Member might tell his countrymen, "the injury was inflicted because you are aliens from England; it was on that principle that the Imperial Parliament legislated, and I am here to call on you to vindicate your country from the insult and the wrong which has been heaped upon it." Establish local councils, and peace and quiet would follow. Men's minds would be occupied by the management of the corporate property, and the regulation of municipal affairs. They would practically experience the value of subordination and concord, and acquire all the virtues necessary for the full enjoyment of free institutions. The plan of the right hon. Baronet appeared to him to concede to the people of Ireland all those powers which would enable them, if so disposed, to injure and weaken England; and yet it would have the effect of embittering their minds, and provoking them to abuse the boon. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite said, that Ireland needed only domestic repose and rational liberty, security for person and property. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman how it happened that Ireland actually reckoned those blessings among those which she wanted, instead of, as in this country and Scotland, among those which she possessed. It was because the people of Ireland had been for centuries treated as aliens in blood. It was in the present state of Ireland that they were reaping the bitter fruits of that very principle of legislation, and be called on them, if they wished to see a better state of things arise, if they wished to see Ireland gradually raised to an equality with this country in civilization, in prosperity, and in tranquillity, to show her that they trusted her, that they had confidence in her, and were ready to extend to her that blessing which in every part of England was now enjoyed—the management of their own local affairs.

Mr. O'Connell

entreated the House to bear with him, since, though he was extremely unwilling to trespass on their attention, yet he did not know that he could properly avoid it. He might have an appeal to make to the people of England, and he could not make that appeal to them without having first tried what he could do in the House. It might be little, but he was the advocate of his country, and it was his duty to make an appeal to that House in the first instance. He might be sneered at, but he demanded justice for Ireland. The Lords presumed to sneer at him when he mentioned the word, but he must have justice for Ireland, and they might sneer at him as they would. Scotland had municipal reform, England had municipal reform; and yet they presumed to refuse it to Ireland. What cared he what pretext they made? He cared for none they had: the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) had not one remaining. He gave them an anachronism instead of a speech: he pronounced a discourse that would have been very applicable when he resisted the Municipal Reform Bill of the last session. It would not have been prudent in the right hon. Baronet to have insulted the people of England with such a speech, for then there would have been little chance of his future restoration to office; but the right hon. Baronet now hoped to get back to place by trampling upon the people of Ireland, and by rearing up again that ascendancy which through the right hon. Baronet's instrumentality and assistance the people of Ireland had put down. He appealed to the House for justice to Ireland. England had reformed corporations; Scotland had reformed corporations; Ireland had applied for reformed corporations; the House of Commons had granted her application; the House of Lords had refused it, and the collision had at last arrived. It was an advantage undoubtedly to destroy the present Irish Corporations; but destroying them, and telling the people of Ireland that they had no materials for re-constructing Corporations among them, did they not draw a contrast between the people of Ireland and the people of Scotland and England much to the credit of those two countries, and much to the degradation of the people of Ireland? The collision had come. The House of Commons had determined that the Irish should not be degraded. The House of Lords had determined that they should be degraded. Be it so. It was said, that as soon as the House of Commons was reformed, it would seek a quarrel with the Lords; that the influence of the democratic principle would be so great and powerful, that the Members representing the democratic part of the community would anxiously seek for a collision with the other House of Parliament, and would thus make another revolution necessary. That prophecy had been completely falsified. The Hoe of Commons had been forbearing in the extreme—in order to avoid a quarrel, it had exhibited too great humility to the House of Lords, and it had therefore been insulted by that House, and absolutely defied to the collision. The Bill sent up to the Lords was a Bill for destroying all the Corporations which had abused their trusts, but it was also a Bill for reconstructing them on a plan which would have let into them all sects and classes of the people. That plan would not have let in the Catholics of Ireland and kept out the Protestants. That plan was founded on the principle of property. That plan gave to property municipal functions, and as the Protestants of Ireland possessed the greater part of the property of Ireland, the Bill founded on that plan was a Protestant Bill. The House of Lords, however, had declared that the people of Ireland were not competent to manage their own affairs. They had therefore altered the Bill, had substituted for the reconstructed Corporations a Board of Commissioners, and had taken care to preserve the worst part of the existing Corporations for the management of charitable and all other trusts—for, though the House might not be aware of it, there was a clause in the Bill by which those persons who were now mayors, aldermen, or sheriffs should, from the 1st of January next to the end of their natural lives, be trustees for every charity under the management of the defunct Corporations. [No, no.] He said yes, yes. But why did he enter into these details? [Read.] He would make those who cried "read, read," a present of the clause. He believed that some of those who cried out "read, read," raised that cry because they did not know how to read themselves, and wanted him to perform that task for them. There could not be the least doubt that the alterations made by the House of Lords in the Bill sent up to them by the Commons, had been made for the purpose of placing the people of Ireland in a most insulting position. Had he seen it written by any man—had he heard it said by any man, that the people of Ireland were aliens to the people of this country in blood, in language, and in religion? Had any man had the inconceivable atrocity to use that language respecting his countrymen? If any man had been guilty of that audacity, depend upon it, he would also have the unparalleled meanness to deny it. Sorry was he to say it, but he had heard with his own ears those expressions used by a noble and learned Lord, and so, too, had twenty-five hon. Gentlemen, whom he saw at that time sitting near him. Those expressions, unfortunately, formed the basis of the legislation of the House of Lords. It might, perhaps, be thought that some Irish agitator had hired the noble and learned Lord to use that taunt, to employ that language. He did not know that such was the case; but had he hired the noble and learned Lord to labour in the work of agitation, the noble and learned Lord could not have used expressions which would serve an agitator's purpose better. There was no covert taunt in them—there was no hypocrisy in them —there was no plausible pretence about them. The person who used them had intended to insult the people of Ireland, and he had insulted them; and yet when the right hon. Baronet was asked, and pointedly asked too, whether he had adopted the same sentiments, he would not state explicitly whether he had or not. The leader of his party in the House of Commons was too discreet a Gentleman to quarrel with the leader of the same party in the House of Lords. He beat about that declaration, and he beat around it; but he took good care not to mix himself up with it; and yet it was upon that selfsame declaration that all the legislation of the right hon. Baronet in the present instance was founded. And then hon. Gentlemen, and right hon. Gentlemen talked to him of the fifth article of the Act of Union guaranteeing the preservation of the Church of Ireland. Did that article say that the union between the two countries should not be an union of mutual interests and rights? He had repeatedly declared his opinion on the subject of that union. It was an union hatched in fraud, and brought forth in blood, for which a rebellion was first fomented, and afterwards made to explode, in order that in the weakness of national distraction an unprincipled faction might put down the national liberties. An equalization of civil rights was promised; and it took the Irish twenty-nine years of agitation to extort the performance of that promise, and the very first opportunity that the House of Lords had to render that performance nugatory, it gladly seized on it, in order to make an insulting distinction between the Catholics and Protestants of Ireland. The two Houses of Parliament had thus come to the collision, and that man was undeserving the name of a statesman who did not look calmly and steadily at the prospect then before him. They had heard the hon. Member for the city of London in the early part of this evening— and he had none of the warmth and animation of an Irishman about him—hut, in the cool language of philosophical abstraction, he this night told the House, "The question which you have now reduced the people of England to the necessity of determining is this—shall the House of Lords continue to be irresponsible to public opinion operating upon them through its representatives in the House of Commons, and shall it continue responsible to nothing but the wild caprice of some of its Members, the indiscreet enthusiasm of others of them, and the national antipathy entertained by a third portion of them against an essential ingredient in your empire?" It was the House of Lords who had raised this question,—it was for the people of England to decide it. Depend upon it the people of Ireland would never submit in quiet to insult. They had submitted for centuries to tyranny, but they would not submit with patience to insults. They would do nothing violent, nothing illegal; they would confine themselves within the limits of the Constitution; they would agitate, agitate, agitate, until Ireland was organized peaceably and legally as it was before; and he trusted that the people of Ireland would have responsive England joining them in the cry of "Justice to Ireland." He defied the House of Lords to keep from Ireland municipal institutions. They might, indeed, delay the arrival of them, but keep them from the people of Ireland the Lords could not. The noble Lord opposite, too, must have his fling at Ireland, and no wonder, for he hated Ireland, and had injured it too deeply ever to forgive her. He it was who first suggested this legislation of the Lords—the idea of it came first from him, and it was worthy of him. He was delighted that the suggestion was the noble Lord's; in coming from him it came from the proper quarter; and did he think that Ireland would be reconciled to these amendments of the Lords, because they happened to come from his suggestion? He would not, at that late hour of the night, pretend to go through the arguments by which hon. Gentlemen defended, or rather palliated, this insult to Ireland. It had been said, that this Bill offered no compromise to the Lords. True, it did offer them no compromise, but it offered them what they wanted—a locus penitentiœ. If this Bill had compromised any of the principles of the first Bill, no one would have opposed the Government plan more strenuously than he would have done. It had been well said by an hon. Friend of his, that there was no express understanding between the party with which he acted, and the Government to which that party gave its support; but there was this implied understanding between them—that that support would be withdrawn the very first moment that the Government consented to an insult to Ireland. Why did he support this Municipal Bill? Because it contained no compromise of the original Bill—because it raised a mere question of detail, as to whether thirty-two or fifteen towns required municipal institutions. That was a fit question for future discussion; but if the plan of Government had compromised any principle, it would have been our duty to have opposed the Government, and heartily and strenuously should we have done it. The principle of the Bill had been most ably advocated by two noble Lords, who were members of the Cabinet, and by his right hon. Friend, the Attorney-General for Ireland. He meant what he said when he called that hon. and learned Gentleman his friend; he meant not such friendship as was bandied across over the table by a noble Lord, who hated his noble Friends on this side of the House exceedingly. He was proud of the manner in which his hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-General for Ireland, had denounced for himself the atrocity of the insult offered to Ireland in the speech of the noble and learned Lord to which he had already adverted. He and his friends stand on a principle. Against that principle the first Member who had broken a lance was the hon. and learned Member for Exeter, the Solicitor-General of the late Administration. He had entered into an examination of the Bill, and by his examination of it had proved that he had never read it, and that he knew nothing of the population of the towns in Ireland to which it was to apply. That hon. and learned Member had said that he was a friend to Ireland. No, he was not; neither was he a friend to England, for everybody knew him to be a Tory to the backbone. The hon. and learned Gentleman was not in Parliament at the time when the Reform Bill was passing through it. He had therefore not spoken nor voted against it. But what had he done when the English Municipal Reform Bill was before the House? He had made speeches against the extension of the franchise granted under it; and he had supported by his vote, if not by a speech, that clause which made the rights to muni- cipal office depend, not on the worth, not on the intelligence, not on the activity of the individual, nor on the free, open, and unbiassed selection of his fellow-citizens, but on the paltry possession of a paltry sum of money. After him came the hon. and gallant Member for Donegal, who would deny municipal rights to the people of Ireland because they were ignorant. Look at his own speech, and see what a specimen of classical education it presented—what a mirror of literature it was. That hon. and gallant Member had said, that a learned sergeant had gone to Dublin to agitate, in company with two culprits who had been turned out of Kilmainham gaol by the royal clemency, for the express purpose of agitation. He thanked the hon. and gallant Member for reminding him of that circumstance, for it led him to ask for what were those two culprits, as they were called, put into gaol? For having had the insolence to keep the peace—nothing more. They had been indicted for a breach of the peace, and on their trial they produced several police-officers, the magistrates at the head of the police, and the officer commanding the military detachment that day on duty, to prove that they used the most anxious exertions to preserve the peace; and those witnesses proved that fact: and yet these two honourable and respectable gentlemen were convicted. How? By a corporation jury, selected by a corporation sheriff, and by a partisan judge, who presided on the bench. There was a foolish superstition about the sacredness of the ermine on the bench. But had the judge in that case acted with impartiality? No. He had not; and had not Lord Mulgrave said the same? for he had not consulted that learned judge when he determined to extend to those two respectable gentlemen the mercy of the Crown? He thanked the noble and gallant Member for reminding him of that conviction, for it showed better than any other instance which he could recollect what the Corporations of Ireland were. It was rather an extraordinary circumstance that all the speakers on the other side of the House had concurred in describing the Corporations of Ireland at the present moment as exclusive, bigotted, monopolizing, oppressive, and full of every description of abuse and impurity; and yet the right hon. Baronet, who now declared that he would not give reformed Corporations to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, had been toasted and supported by those Corporations, and had complimented and eulogised them in return, when he was Secretary of State for Ireland. Where was his sense of their impurity and corruption then? The right hon. Gentleman, too, (Mr. Goulburn) who now sat near the right hon. Baronet, as the representative of the learning and piety of the University of Cambridge, had also been Secretary for Ireland. He, too, had borne testimony to the abuses existing in the Corporations of Ireland: and yet he had lifted up his pious eyes to Heaven and had allowed the corruption to go on from year to year unconnected and unredressed! On a former evening he had seen a batch of four or five ex-Secretaries for Ireland seated close to each other, who had all seen and enjoyed the corruption of the Irish Corporations— who had done nothing in their official capacities to remove it—and who now came forward to write eprigrammatic epitaphs upon them, because they were at last about to be consigned to the grave and rottenness which was so congenial with their nature. Then came the hon. and learned Member for Sandwich, who observed that he did not believe one word that he (Mr. O'Connell) said. He thanked the hon. and learned Member for the compliment. The hon. and learned Member had talked about a mountebank. Now, he would tell that hon. and learned Member, that there was no mountebank so amusing as the grave one who spoke dogmatical sentences in oracular tones, and who, with serious face and pompous labour, undertook to prove what everybody knew, —namely that two and two make four. He begged the hon. and learned Member not to believe a word he said. Let him continue to believe himself a very Solomon of patriotism, intelligence, and truth; and with a perpetual grin on his face, from not knowing whether the House was laughing with him or at him, to drawl out in solemn tones his tedious truisms. He next came to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin. That hon. and learned Member was stout enough to be very manly. He recollected right well, that on that hon. Member's offering an insult to his valued friend Mr. O'Dwyer, when Mr. O'Dwyer retorted on him in a becoming manner, the hon. and learned Member said that he was a judge. Yes, he said he was a judge; and as you protected him as a judge, you shall now judge of the value of his testimony. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, that there was no corruption in the Corporation of the city of Dublin. He did not deny that that Corporation was bigoted and exclusive—he did not deny that it was fitting that it should be put an end to—but he denied that it had been guilty of corruption or of anything like corruption. He should like to know what the hon. and learned Gentleman called corruption. Was the sale of judicial offices corruption? The hon. and learned Gentleman was the keeper of the conscience of the Corporation of Dublin? But before he remarked upon their sale of judicial offices, he would introduce the House to a knowledge of their management of the charities under their control. There was the Blue-coat Hospital. The funds of that hospital amounted to 1,9001. a-year, and were left to it for the support of old men and orphans. What amount of salary did the House think that the Corporation of Dublin took for itself out of those funds? Just 9751. a-year— that was all. There was, of course, no corruption in that. The hon. and learned Gentleman perhaps never checked the accounts by which 9751. was granted in salaries to the Corporation of Dublin for managing the 9251. a-year which was left to the old men and orphans dependent upon them, and yet, if he was rightly informed, it was the duty of the hon. and learned Gentleman to have looked strictly into those accounts. He came next to the office of Lord Mayor. The report of the Irish Municipal Corporation Commissioners on the Corporation of Dublin stated, that the Lord Mayor of that city exercised an extensive jurisdiction within it, and was in the habit of farming out to his secretary, for stipulated sums, the fees accruing to him from that jurisdiction. In some years the fees had been farmed out at 3501. He was also President of the Court of Conscience, and as such he got 1,2001. a-year, thereby becoming, like the Don Fabricio of Gil Bias, rich by looking after the affairs of the poor. The Commissioners reported that the practice in this Court had given rise to serious abuses. After stating, that when a cause was once decided it might be rehearsed, the Commissioners used this language,—"In case the defendant wishes to contest the justice of the order, he may do so by a rehearing of the cause. The practice of the Court, as to this power or privilege of rehearing, is very peculiar and extraordinary, and is, we apprehend, too much the result of that pecuniary interest in the increase of business in the Court which all its arrangements give to the judges and officers. If the case is decided in favour of the defendant on the original hearing, he may take out an order for a dismiss, for which a fee of 5d. is charged, but he cannot, on the order, recover this fee, or any fees he may have paid for swearing witnesses. For these costs, if he seeks to obtain them from the plaintiff, he must take out and serve an original summons, with the usual fees, &c. The whole course of these proceedings appears to us to have no useful object whatever in reference to the suitors of the Court, and to tend to no purpose but the encouragement of petty and vexatious litigation, and the consequent increase of emolument to the judges and officers." This he supposed was no corruption; it was only farming out the fees of a judicial office. If it were an earlier hour of the evening, he would show the manner in which processes were multiplied to increase the amount of fees. It was reported that in the course of the last twenty years the amount of fees in this court of conscience had been doubled. Had the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin, during the period he had acted as Recorder of Dublin, ever suggested any remedy for these abuses? If he had done so, the sun had never shone upon his good deeds. Again, there was the office of grand jurors. They exercised control over a taxation amounting upon the average to 30,0001. a-year. How did they exercise it? Look at the Report of the Commissioners. Then there were the sheriffs and sub-sheriff. The sheriffs had scarcely any duty to perform save that of farming out the office of sub-sheriff, who collected their fees—and how they were collected the Commissioners had reported at length. ["Question."] Ay, question. No one cried out now "Read, read," for the subject was too unpalatable, and yet all the time that the hon. and learned Gentleman had been in office, the Recorder of the city of Dublin, who in that House exclaimed, "fiat justiiia, ruat cœlum," had seen these most corrupt and extortionate practices going on, and, to the best of his knowledge, had done nothing to check them. Nay more, it had been stated to him that the deeds authorising the exaction of the fees in the Sheriffs' Court had been laid before the hon. and learned Gentleman for perusal, and that he had given them his sanction by not objecting to them. Here he would stop to ask how the hon. and learned Gentleman contrived to get his office of recorder? He had only been five years at the bar at the time, and if he had ever held a brief in court, it had not fallen within his observation, though he had been daily practising in all the four courts. And yet after that short experience in his profession the hon. and learned Gentleman had been appointed to a judicial office from which he derived an income of more than 2,0001. a-year. How, he would again ask, had the hon. and learned Gentleman obtained that appointment? By cultivating the passions and bad prejudices of the corporators who elected him. The hon. and learned Gentleman had last night made a speech justifying the House of Lords in withholding Municipal Corporations from the people of Ireland. And why? He would shortly explain the why to the House. The corruption of the Corporation of Dublin was abominable, and the hon. and learned Gentleman had no right to stand up as its exculpator. He had, however, a direct interest in standing up for it in that character, for the reformed Corporation of Dublin, were the facts proved which he had just now stated to the House, would have a right to ask it this question—"Shall this man continue to be a judge for another hour?" Longer than he was warranted, he had spoken in that House of the impartiality displayed by the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin in his character as a judge. When he returned to Ireland, everybody blamed him for the language which he had used in the House of Commons respecting the judicial conduct of the hon. and learned Member; and decidedly he had been in the wrong: for the hon. and learned Member was become a judicial agitator, and that circumstance had made an impression on the public mind against him which nothing could wash away. They had heard, too, the practice of packing corporation juries defended in that House. Now, he asked whether men who avowed that they had been participators in such practices were authorised to tell that House that the people of Ireland were not entitled to enjoy the same institutions with the people of England, and were unworthy to exercise local self-government? What was the reason? Because they were Roman Catholics. Others said, and among them the Member for Yarmouth, that the reason why municipal institutions were to be refused to the people of Ireland was, that that they would give additional influence to him! Alas, poor Gentleman! The plan by which that learned Gentleman would destroy the influence which his countrymen allowed him (Mr. O'Connell) to exercise over their minds and feelings would augment it tenfold. Another Gentleman had said that the general unfitness of the people of Ireland for self-government was a sufficient reason for this refusal. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, had talked of the old building having been applied to bad purposes, and had objected to rebuilding it, lest when rebuilt it should be applied to the same bad purposes. Others had said, that the Members of the Irish Corporations ought to be Protestants. In reply to that, he said, that from the existing Corporations of Ireland Protestant intelligence, Protestant respectability, and Protestant wealth, were as effectually excluded as Roman Catholic intelligence, Roman Catholic respectability, and Roman Catholic wealth. The detected peculators of the existing corporations were Protestants only in name. They, had, in point of fact, no country and no religion—they had, in fact, nothing but the hope of future plunder to give up—and yet the right hon. Baronet said, "the Protestant Corporations were willing to give up that, over which the Protestant population of Ireland had, in point of fact, no control at all." He had detained the House longer than he had intended, and than he wished. He stood, however, before the House in firm defiance of the injustice of declaring by legislative enactment the inferiority of Ireland. He cared not what sneers were cast, what sentences were drawled out against him, whilst he was performing that duty to his country. He cared not what lawyer was pitted against him, for he would oppose to the utmost every attempt to special-plead away the liberties of Ireland. He stood on the firm and immutable principles of justice. We either have an union with you or we have not. If we have not an union, give us back our national Parliament—if we have an union give us the benefit of it. He thanked the House of Lords for choosing this Bill as the ground of collision with that House. He thanked them for branding the people of Ireland as aliens to it—be thanked them for thus barbing with insult their dart of death. The Lords might have made the collision on a matter of religion, and thus have made another ineffectual attempt to get up a "No Popery" cry; but they had not even had the talent to choose a good ground on which to fight their own battle. They had put their quarrel on the ground of liberty, a ground which was clear and in- telligible to all. The people of England must, therefore, either proclaim the people of Ireland to be unfit for corporate institutions, or they must join us in the collision, and in that collision the people of the three kingdoms could not be unsuccessful. They might fancy, that though he knew the mind and temper of the people of Ireland, he knew nothing of the mind and temper of the people of England. They were mistaken, for day after day he saw in the calm and deliberate judgment of that people the progress of the question of justice to Ireland, and the necessity of another organic reform. He saw no hope for Ireland without that reform, for the Irish ascendency party had got the ears of a majority in the House of Lords. When defeated in that House, they talked of another place, in which they were certain of succeeding. They were true prophets. The House of Lords had taken its part; the House of Commons were now doing the same; the people of England would determine between them, and might God defend the right.

Lord Stanley

thanked the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, in the name of the House, and also in his own name, for having, by the speech which he had just delivered, rendered it unnecessary for him to detain the House longer than a single minute. For the hon. and learned Member—he who for the twentieth time this evening had commented on an expression which he was not prepared to vindicate or concur in—the hon. Member who had commented on what he had been pleased to call the intemperate language of that side of the House—he from whom language had issued respecting that House, which he would not insult it by repeating—the hon. Member from whom he had heard that language come the other day respecting that noble and learned Lord on whose expressions the hon. and learned Member had been that night commenting; the hon. Member whom he had heard, used language which had been reported, but which he would not pollute an assembly of gentlemen by repeating, because he knew that no gentleman could have used it. The hon. Member thus commenting upon an expression, of which he (Lord Stanley) would not be the apologist, used throughout his speech on this question no one argument, no one reason, no one plausibility of argument; for the whole of his speech from first to last had been a tissue of personal attack on one gentleman after another, on matters wholly unconnected with this Bill, and had been delivered in a tone, and temper, and manner, which he would only say that he should be degrading himself and disgracing the House were he to waste its time in commenting upon. With these observations he should leave the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, and should address himself to a speech delivered in a far different tone by his hon. Friend opposite [cheers, particularly from Mr. O'Connell]. He understood the nature of that cheer, and he knew well that the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny could not believe that private friendship could exist where there was political animosity. Was not that the meaning, he would ask, of the hon. and learned Gentleman's sneer? [Mr. O'Connell:—I will give no answer.] He would only say, that his hon. Friends opposite knew him better than the hon. and learned Member did. His hon. Friend opposite, when pressed by the argument, which came forcibly upon him, and forcibly upon the House, with respect to the total alteration made in the Bill then before the House—how it could be called a compromise, he for one could not conceive— his hon. Friend, he said, when pressed by the argument relative to the introduction of that provision into the Bill, which compels a number of towns to take upon themselves the provisions of the Act of the 9th of George 4th, had, undesignedly no doubt, misrepresented it entirely. The argument of his right hon. Friend was this—that it was not like local self-government to impose on those towns Corporations, whether they liked them or not. That was not the argument of the right hon. Baronet. The argument of the right hon. Baronet was this—that of the two principles, that was the least objectionable which left to the people of any particular town to say whether they would or not take on themselves the provisions of a particular Act of Parliament. For in what manner did they who were said to do away with all local and municipal government interfere with the provisions of the 9th of George 4th? What were the provisions of that Act? The most liberal principles and the most extended constituency. It gave the power of levying rates—it made provision for lighting, cleansing, paving, and watching the different towns which thought fit to adopt it. He was not going into the details, but what practically was the difference between the Government and the opposite side of the House? The Government proposed to compel a certain number of towns to adopt the provisions of that Act, while on the other hand, the Opposition left the Act to be adopted by them at their own discretion. They did not quarrel with it—they did not canvass its provisions, they took it as they found it, and so far from doing away with it, they left every town in Ireland full and unconstrained liberty to avail themselves if they pleased of its various provisions. But his noble Friend said, some provision must be made on the abolition of the Corporations. No doubt, upon that point they too were agreed, but, at the same time, they presumed to think that there might be provisions which would be more acceptable to towns than those pointed out by the Ministerial plan. All parties agreed that the Corporations should be extinguished, and that some body should intervene for the purpose of making those temporary arrangements which might thereby become necessary. They proposed Commissioners to be appointed by the Lord-Lieutenant; but, said his noble Friend, that was an arbitrary principle, which he could not undertake to force upon those towns. Why, they did not propose to force it upon towns. They might perhaps prefer the 9th of George 4th; but if they wished the introduction of Commissioners to enable them to wind up the affairs of their Corporations, they might, under the Lords' amendments, avail themselves of that advantage; that on the one side was the arbitrary, despotic, tyrannical plan, which left towns to their own discretion, and the liberal, comprehensive, and not at all despotic principle of His Majesty's Ministers, which saddled them with all the provisions of a particular Act of Parliament whether they would or not. That was the difference. But his noble Friend said they talked of the Commissioners as being of a temporary character only. Now he had examined the Bill, and he found no provision that, at the end of three, four, or five years, the power of the Commissioners should cease and determine. It was absolutely impossible to fix any such period; but he found throughout the whole frame and machinery of the Bill, provision made that within a short time they should report; that, in fact, they were only locum tenens until some further provision were made; they were to report on the state of the funds—the condition of the boroughs—the amount of the property, &c, to the Lord-Lieutenant, to be by him submitted to Parliament for further regulation and control. But his noble Friend asked what had been done in the case of Liverpool? You continue, said his noble Friend, all the worst parts of the system, because you continue Corporations in office up to a certain time. How long? Permanently? By no means; only until Parliament shall otherwise provide, was the affirmation and provision in each particular case. But if you continued the Corporations, said his noble Friend, the trustees of the docks of Liverpool, what a clamour would have been raised? Why, in point of fact, they did so, until Parliament made provision for a new body. Yet they did not find Liverpool grievously complaining of it; on the contrary, he believed it was on the motion of his noble Friend, the Member for Liverpool (Lord Sandon) that the very provision in question had been adopted. [Mr. Ewart dissented.] The hon. Gentleman surely did not mean to deny that the object of the Liverpool Docks' Committee was to provide only a temporary body for the management of the docks' estate—that the provisional arrangement last year would terminate at a definite period this year, and that it would be necessary to come to Parliament for its future regulation? The only difference with respect to the charitable trusts under this Bill and the English was, that in the one case, provision was made until a definite day, the first of January, or until Parliament should otherwise provide; and if before a certain period Parliament should not decide, then their management was to rest in the Lord Chancellor; whereas in the other case, the present trustees were continued until Parliament should otherwise provide, and if any vacancy arose, the Chancellor should fill it up, without, however, fixing a particular day for taking the whole management. But he would not weary the House by entering into details; he admitted to his noble Friend opposite, that there was a broad distinction in point of principle between them. He admitted that the House of Lords had adopted the opinion as to principle of the minority, a large, a considerable, and as he believed, no one would venture to dispute, a respectable minority, in point of station and character in that House. The Lords had taken that view of the case. The Commons had taken a different view, and as they were told the collision had already come. But he would not be tempted to revert to the hon. and learned Member's speech, who talked of collision and the dreadful effects which must follow. Nobody could estimate more highly than he did the importance of uni- formity in principle and practice between the two branches of the Legislature; but at the same time nobody more highly valued the checks which the Constitution provided in their separate, co-ordinate, and independent existence and privileges for the prevention of crude, rash, and hasty legislation. Fortunately for England, there was in the country, there was in that House, there was in the other House of Parliament, too much good feeling, too much temper, too much sound judgment, too much of a due estimation of the evil consequences that would arise from a collision, which some hon. Gentlemen talked so lightly of, for him to entertain the slightest apprehension upon the subject. The Houses of Parliament had differed before, and might differ still, and the result had been, that each had taken time to consider the resolutions to which it had come, and if one party found they had gone further than the feeling of the country would support, as the other party might yield without going counter to the feeling of the country in the long run—for he did not speak of popular clamour excited in a day —he doubted not on the present, as on every other occasion, the good sense and temper of both Houses would find the means of reconciling their differences. He could not take on himself to say how those differences might be reconciled in the present instance, but certainly it became them to look to that in which they were all agreed. They were all agreed in this —that the present system of Irish Corporations should not continue. They were all sincerely desirous of getting rid of that system of religious and political exclusion which had characterised the Corporations hitherto existing in Ireland. All parties agreed—for there should be no quibbling about who were Destructives and who were Conservatives in this respect,— all parties agreed, and agreed equally, in abolishing altogether the existing Corporations in Ireland. The question was, what were they to substitute in their room for all the different purposes of local government? Of this he was quite sure, if the majority of that House should think fit to reject the amendments made by the Lords in this Bill,—if they should think fit to adhere by their present determination to their former vote upon this subject,—the question, the argument, and the truth, would not suffer even if the delay of another year should interpose between its final consideration and settle- ment. Was it absolutely necessary that municipal government should be established in all the towns of Ireland? It was, no doubt, difficult to argue this question at all without being subject to the charge of wishing to impose degradation and insult upon Ireland. First of all, it was an insult not to give to every town in Ireland the full extent of franchise enjoyed in England. What, then, had his noble Friend agreed to do already? Of the sixty Corporations which it was proposed to establish under the Bill as first introduced by the right hon. the Attorney-General for Ireland, but eleven or twelve remained, so that practically on fifty of them his noble Friend at once cast the insult without the least compunction. He, however, saw in it no insult at all. [Loud cheers.] He contended, that in the present state of affairs in Ireland it would be best for the interests of towns to have no municipal government; not that municipal functions should thereby be abolished, for there was not one of those towns in which it was proposed to confer the corporate franchise to the fullest extent, with the exception of Kilkenny, in which provision had not already been made by law for every kind of essential municipal management. His firm belief was, that the amendments proposed by the House of Lords would in the first place, mark the determination of Parliament to get rid of a great evil; and if the House of Commons would not agree to them, they must lose that advantage. The Lords had gone further, placing the whole property of the Corporations in Commissioners, and for a temporary purpose he would not hesitate to repose the trusts in the hands of his noble Friend opposite, those Commissioners to conduct their functions under checks which rendered particular abuses of corporate property absolutely impossible. There might be objections to Commissioners, but in the mean time they would furnish the best means for collecting information from the most authentic sources, and ascertaining what was the state of the different Corporations throughout Ireland, what the amount of their property, what the feeling of the inhabitants, and enabling them to judge whether at any future period they might with safety, justice, and wisdom, give them any larger measure of corporate privileges. They did not affirm that at no time, and under no circumstances, should Corporations be allowed to exist in Ireland; but merely that under present circumstances and the state of political and religious parties, in that country, the introduction of those means of good government, which had produced peace and harmony elsewhere, would be there the introduction of the means of discord and turbulence. Thinking thus, they felt themselves bound to adhere to their own opinions, however unpopular they might be in that House or in Ireland. Those on the other side declared they could not be called on to recede from the determination they had already come to in order to agree with the House of Lords; with what face, then, could they call on the minority—the large minority who had adopted his noble Friend's instruction to the Committee, to recede from their determination, not for the purpose of coming to a settlement of the question, but for the purpose of differing from the other House of Parliament? If there were any mode by which this question could be settled by mutual compromise, he for one should gladly avail himself of it. But the principle involved in it was too much to compromise; and therefore if called on to decide, regretting the decision to which the majority of that House had come—regretting still more if that majority felt themselves bound in honour to adhere to it—he must support what in his conscience he believed the peace and welfare of Ireland demanded, and adopt the amendments made by the Lords, which, while doing away with all real grievances and grounds of complaint, secured all corporate property from confiscation or mismanagement, and presented the means of good government to the people, and great practical control over their own interests in every town, under the 9th George 4th, or particular local Acts, which were to be continued in preference to the plan proposed by his Noble Friend.

The House divided on the question that it do disagree with the Lords' Amendments, when the numbers appeared:— Ayes 384; Noes 232—Majority 86.

List of the AYES.
Acheson, Viscount Bainbridge, E. T.
Adam, Sir Charles Baines, Edward
Aglionby, H. A. Baldwin, Dr.
Ainsworth, P. Ball, N.
Alston, Rowland Bannerman, Alex.
Andover, Lord Barclay, David
Angerstein, John Baring, F. T.
Anson, G. Baring, Thomas
Anson, Sir George Barnard, E. G.
Astley, Sir J. Barron, H. W.
Attwood, Thomas Barry, G. S.
Bagshaw, John Beauclerk, Major
Bellew, Rich., M. D'Eyncourt, C. T.
Bellew, Sir P. Dillwyn, L. W.
Bennett, J. Divett, E.
Bentinck, Lord W. Donkin, Sir R.
Berkeley, hon. F. Duncombe, T. S.
Berkeley, hon. G. C. Dundas, hon. J. C.
Berkeley, hon. C. C. Dundas, hon. T.
Bernal, Ralph Dundas, J. O.
Bewes, T. Dunlop, J.
Biddulph, Robert Ebrington, Lord
Bish, Thomas Elphinstone, H.
Blackburne, John Etwall, R.
Blake, Martin Jos. Euston, Lord
Blamire, W. Evans, George
Blunt, Sir Charles R. Ewart, W.
Bodkin, J. Fazakerley, N.
Bowes, John Fellowes, N.
Bowring, Dr. Fergus, John
Brady, D. C. Ferguson, Sir R.
Bridgeman, Hewitt Ferguson, Sir R. A.
Brocklehurst, J. Ferguson, Robert
Brodie, Wm. B. Fergusson, rt. hn. C.
Brotherton, J. Fielden, J.
Browne, R. D. Fitzgibbon, hon. B.
Buckingham, J. S. Fitzroy, Lord C.
Buller, Charles Fitzsimon, Chris.
Buller, E. Fitzsimon, N.
Bulwer, H. L. Fleetwood, Peter H.
Bulwer, Edw. G. E. L. Folkes, Sir W.
Burton, Henry P. Forster, Charles S.
Butler, hon. P. Fort, John
Buxton, T. F. French, F.
Byng, George Gaskell, Daniel
Byng, G. S. Gillon, W. D.
Callaghan, D. Gisborne, T.
Campbell, Sir J. Gordon, Robert
Campbell, W. F. Goring, H. D.
Cave, R. O. Grattan, J.
Cavendish, hon. C. C. Grattan, Henry
Cavendish, hon. G. H. Grey, Sir Geo., bart.
Cayley, Edward S. Grey, hon. Charles
Chalmers, P. Grosvenor, Lord R.
Chapman, M. L. Grote, G.
Chetwynd, W. F. Hall, B.
Chichester, J. P. B. Handley, H.
Childers, J. W. Harcourt, G.
Clay, William Harland, W. Charles
Clayton, Sir W. Harvey, D. W.
Clements, Viscount Hastie, A.
Clive, Edward Bolton Hawes, Benjamin
Cockerell, Sir C., bart. Hawkins, J. H.
Codrington, Sir E. Hay, Sir A. L.
Colborne, N. W. R. Heathcote, John
Collier, John Heathcote, G. J.
Conyngham, Lord A. Hector, C. J.
Cookes, T. H. Heneage, Edward
Copeland, W. T. Heron, Sir R. bart.
Cowper, hon. W. F. Hindley, C.
Crawford, W. S. Hobhouse, Sir J. C.
Crawford, W. Hodges, T. L.
Crawley, Samuel Hodges, T.
Crompton, Samuel Holland, Edward
Curteis, Herbert B. Horsman, E.
Curteis, Edward B. Howard, R.
Dalmeny, Lord Howard, hon. E.
Denison, W. J. Howard, P. H.
Denison John E. Howick, Lord
Humphery, John Pelham, hon. A.
Hurrst, R. H. Pendarves, E. W.
Hutt, W. Philips, Mark
Jephson, C. D. O. Philips, G. R.
Jervis, John Phillipps, Charles M.
Ingham, R. Ponsonby, W.
Johnston, Andrew Ponsonby, hon. J.
Johnstone, Sir J. Potter, R.
Kemp, T. R. Poulter, John Sayer
King, Edward B. Power, J.
Labouchere, Henry Poyntz, W. Stephen
Lambton, Hedworth Price, Sir R.
Langton, Wm. Gore Pryme, George
Leader, J. T. Pusey, Philip
Lee, John Lee Ramsbottom, John
Lefevre, C. S. Rice, rt. hon. T. S.
Lemon, Sir C. Rippon, Cuthbert
Lennard, Thomas B. Robarts, A. W.
Lennox, Lord G. Robinson, G.
Lister, E. C. Roche, W.
Loch, James Roche, D.
Long, Walter Rolfe, Sir R. M.
Lushington, Dr. S. Rooper, J. Bonfoy
Lushington, Charles Rundle, J.
Lynch, A. H.S. Russell, Lord John
Mackenzie, S. Russell, Lord
Macleod, R. Russell, Lord Charles
Macnamara, Major Ruthven, E.
M'Taggart, J. Sanford, E. A.
Maher, J. Scott, Sir E. D.
Marjoribanks, S. Scott, J. W.
Marshall, William Scourfield, W. H.
Marshall, Henry Scrope, G. P.
Maule, hon. Fox Seale, Colonel
Methuen, Paul Seymour, Lord
Molesworth, Sir W. Sharpe, General
Moreton, hon. A. H. Sheil, Richard L.
Morpeth, Lord Simeon, Sir R.
Morison, J. Smith, J. A.
Mosley, Sir O. bart. Smith, hon. R.
Mostyn, hon. E. L. Smith, Robert V.
Mullins, F. W. Smith, Benjamin
Murray, rt. hon. J. Stanley, hon. H. T.
Musgrave, Sir R. bt. Steuart, R.
Nagle, Sir. R. Stewart, Sir M. S. bt.
North, Frederick Stewart, P. M.
O'Brien, Cornelius Strickland, Sir G.
O'Brien, W. S. Strutt, Edward
O'Connell, D. Stuart, Lord D.
O'Connell, J. Stuart, Lord James
O'Connell, M. J. Stuart, V.
O'Connell, Morgan Surrey, Earl of
O'Conor Don Talbot, C. R. M.
O'Ferrall, R. M. Talbot, J. Hyacinth
Oliphant, Lawrence Talfourd, Sergeant
O'Loghlen, M. Tancred, H. W.
Ord, Newcastle Thompson, Paul B.
Oswald, James Thompson, Colonel
Paget, Frederick Thomson, C. P.
Palmer, General Thornley, T.
Palmerston, Lord Tooke, W.
Parker, John Townley R. G.
Parnell, Sir H. Tracey, Charles H.
Parrott, Jasper Trelawney, Sir W.
Pattison, J. Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Pease, J. Tulk, C. A.
Pechell, Capt. R. Turner, William
Tynte, J. K. Wilde, Sergeant
Verney, Sir H., bart. Wilkins, W.
Villiers, Charles P. Williams, W.
Vivian, Major Williams, W. A.
Vivian, J. H. Williams, Sir J.
Wakley, T. Wilmot, Sir J. E., bt.
Walker, C. A. Wilson, H.
Walker, Richard Winnington, Sir T.
Wallace, R. Winnington, Capt. H.
Warburton, H. Woulfe, Sergeant
Ward, Henry George Wrightson, W.
Wemyss, Captain Wrottesley, Sir J.
Westenra, H. R. Wyse, Thomas
Westenra, hon. J. C. Young, G. F.
Whalley, Sir S.
White, S. TELLERS.
Wigney, Isaac N. Wood, C.
Wilbraham, G. Stanley, E. J.
List of the NOES.
Agnew, Sir A. Cole, Viscount
Alford, Lord Compton, H. C.
Alsager, Captain Conolly, E. M.
Arbuthnot, hon. H. Cooper, E. J.
Archdall, M. Coote, Sir C. C., bart.
Ashley, Lord Corbett, T.
Ashley, hon. H. Corry, hon. H. T. L.
Attwood, M. Crewe, Sir G.
Bagot, hon. W. Dalbiac, Sir C.
Bailey, J. Damer, D.
Baillie, H. D. Darlington, Earl of
Baring, F. Dick, Q.
Baring, H. Bingham Dottin, Abel Rous
Baring, W. Dowdeswell, W.
Barn by, John Duffield, Thomas
Bateson, Sir R. Dugdale, W. S.
Beckett, Sir J. Dunbar, George
Bell, Matthew Duncombe, hon. A.
Bentinck, Lord G. East, James Buller
Beresford, Sir J. P. Eastnor, Viscount
Bethell, Richard Eaton, Richard J.
Blackburne, I. Egerton, Wm. Tatton
Boldero, Henry G. Egerton, Sir P.
Boiling, Wm. Egerton, Lord Fran.
Bonham, R. Francis Elley, Sir J.
Borthwick, Peter Elwes, J.
Bradshaw, J. Entwisle, John
Bramston, T. W. Estcourt, Thos. G. B.
Brownrigg, J. S. Estcourt, Thos. S. B.
Bruce, Lord E. Fancourt, Major
Brudenell, Lord Fector, John Minet
Bruen, F. Feilden, W.
Buller, Sir J. Ferguson, G.
Campbell, Sir H. Finch, George
Canning, Sir S. Fleming, John
Cartwright, W. R. Forbes, William
Castlereagh, Viscount Forester, hon. G. C. W.
Chandos, Marquess of Freshfield, J.
Chaplin, Col. Gaskell, J. M.
Chapman, Aaron Geary, Sir W. R. P.
Chichester, A. Gladstone, Wm. E.
Chisholm, A. Gladstone, Thomas
Clive, Viscount Glynne, Sir S. R.
Clive, hon. R. H. Goodricke, Sir F.
Codrington, C. W. Gore, O.
Cole, hon. A. H. Goulburn, hon. H.
Goulburn, Sergeant Neeld, Joseph
Graham, Sir J. Nicholl, Dr.
Grant, hon. Colonel Norreys, Lord
Greene, Thomas Owen, Sir J., bart.
Greisley, Sir R. Owen, Hugh
Grimston, Viscount Packe, C. W.
Grimston, hon. E. H. Palmer, Robert
Hale, Robert B. Palmer, George
Halford, H. Parker, M.
Halse, James Patten, John Wilson
Hamilton, G. A. Peel, Sir R. bart.
Hamilton, Lord C. Peel, Colonel J.
Hanmer, Sir J. bart. Peel, rt. hon. W. Y.
Hardinge, Sir. H. Pemberton, Thomas
Hardy, J. Penruddock, J. H.
Hawkes, Thomas Perceval, Colonel
Hay, Sir J., bart. Pigot, Robert
Hayes, Sir E. S., bt. Plumptre, J. P.
Henniker, Lord Plunkett, R.
Herries, rt. hn. J. C. Polhill, Frederick
Hill, Lord Arthur Pollen, Sir J., bart.
Hill, Sir R. bart. Pollington, Viscount
Hogg, James Weir Pollock, Sir Fredk.
Hope, Henry T. Powell, Colonel
Hotham, Lord Praed, James B.
Houldsworth, T. Praed, W. M.
Hoy, J. B. Price, S. G.
Hughes, Hughes Price, Richard
Irton, Samuel Rae, Sir Wm., bart.
Jackson, Sergeant Reid, Sir J. Rae
Jermyn, Earl of Richards, J.
Inglis, Sir R. H., bt. Ross, Charles
Johnstone, J. J. H. Rushbrook, Colonel
Jones, W. Russell, C.
Jones, Theobald Ryle, John
Kearsley, J. H. Sanderson, R.
Kerrison, Sir Edward Sandon, Lord
Ker, David Scarlett, hon. R.
Knight, H. G. Scott, Lord J.
Knightley, Sir C. Shaw, F.
Law, hon. C. E. Sheppard, T.
Lawson, Andrew Sibthorp, Colonel
Lees, J. F. Smith, A.
Lefroy, Anthony Somerset, Lord E.
Lefroy, Sergeant Somerset, Lord G.
Lewis, Wyndham Stanley, Edward
Lincoln, Earl of Stanley, Lord
Longfield, R. Stormont, Lord
Lowther, Col. H. C. Stuart, Henry Chas.
Lowther, Lord Tennent, J. E.
Lowther, J. Thomas, Colonel
Lucas, Edward Thomson, Ald.
Lushington, S. R. Trench, Sir Frederick
Lygon, hon. Col. H. B. Trevor, hon. Arthur
Mackinnon, W. A. Trevor, hon. G. R.
Maclean, D. Twiss, H.
Mahon, Lord Tyrrell, Sir J.
Manners, Lord C. Vere, Sir C. B., bart.
Mathew, Captain Vernon, Granville H.
Maunsell, T. P. Vesey, hon. Thomas
Maxwell, H. Vivian, John Ennis
Meynell, Captain Wall, Charles Baring
Miles, Wm. Walpole, Lord
Miles, Philip J. Walter, John
Miller, Wm. Henry Welby, G. B.
Mordaunt, Sir J., bt. West, J. B.
Neeld, J. Weyland, Major
Whitmore, Thos. C. Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.
Wilbraham, hon. B. Yorke, E. T.
Williams, Robert Young, J.
Williams, T. P. Young, Sir W.
Wodehouse, E.
Wood, Colonel TELLERS.
Wortley, hon. J. S. Clerk, Sir G. bart.
Wyndham, Wadham Fremantle, Sir T. W.
Paired off.
Hallyburton Mandeville, Viscount
O'Connell, M. Sinclair, Sir G.
Tynte, Colonel Peel, Colonel
Speirs Bruce, Cumming
Finn Bruen, Colonel
Wilkes Hanmer, Colonel
Wood, M. Noel, Sir G.
Dobbin, L. O'Neil, General
Ponsonby, J. Ossulston, Lord
Edwards, Colonel Marsland, J.
Williamson, Sir W. Smith, J. A.
Gully Smythe, Sir H.
Hume, J. Follett, Sir W.
Buckingham Davenport
Roebuck, J. Rickford
Guest, J. Wynn, Sir W. W.
Scholefield Duncombe, W.