MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND.)

HC Deb 10 April 1837 vol 37 cc929-97

Lord John Russell

rose, and moved the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill.

Mr. Goulburn

could assure the House that he should be most happy, if possible, to avoid a discussion upon a subject which, having been already before the House two Sessions, had been so fully debated, that almost every argument and illustration with reference to it was exhausted. But he felt it impossible, consistently with his conscientious duty, to prevent this measure to pass, without stating his opposition to it; and he could assure the House that it would be his endeavour to comprise within the narrowest bounds the observations with which he should accompany his rejection of the motion of the noble Lord. He confessed it was a source of great regret to him that the House did not think fit to entertain the proposition which had been submitted to it by his noble Friend (Lord Francis Egerton), the Member for South Lancashire, the object of which was to terminate the existence of the several Corporations at present existing in Ireland, and to make other and further provision for the administration of the funds and the discharge of the local government attaching to those bodies. He could not but think that if that measure had passed it would have been of the greatest possible advantage to the discussion of the question; and, what would have been of more consequence to the tranquillity of Ireland, it would have allowed some interval to elapse between the destruction of the existing Corporations in Ireland, and any attempt which might have been made to establish a substitute for those bodies, in any shape which might have been suggested. It would have been (as it appeared to his mind) a great advantage that time should be allowed for mutual political animosities to cool, and that those who had long been in possession of exclusive power in those corporations should not have had their removal from that power accompanied by a sense of an opposing force; and it would have been an equal advantage that when they were deliberating on the form of these new corporations some interval should be allowed to elapse; so that those on whom Parliament should devolve the administration of local power should not assume that power flushed as it were with victory. An opportunity would thus have been given to the House to judge of other measures very materially bearing on the state of Ireland—of measures affecting the interests of that country—of measures connected with her physical condition and moral improvement—of measures, moreover, connected with the maintenance and security of the established religion in that country, and with the preservation of its rights and property. As affecting the Established Church, the establishment must on all questions relating to Ireland, as it appeared to him, form the prominent feature; for its welfare was indeed the very beginning: and end of all legislative deliberation. He contended that there would have been a great advantage in having all these matters plainly before them, and discussing what should be done for the better regulation of Corporations. But his Majesty's Government had thought differently. They had thought fit to Submit to them singly the question of the re-construction of the Irish Corporations; they had deprived them of the advantage which a more intimate acquaintance with the real state of affairs in that country, and a knowledge of their own measures, would have enabled them to acquire; and he was, therefore, driven to consider this question singly and alone. Under those circumstances he Was bound to oppose the measure. With reference to the Bill which they were now required to send up to the other House, he would say that so far as it went to remove that evil, which was the foundation of all legislation upon the subject before thern—so far as it went to the extinction of those Corporations which had been permitted in Ireland under different circumstances, but which had now become little suited to the country, and were admitted by all to be not capable of being longer retained with propriety or advantage to the community at large—so far as all this went, he would say that the Bill before this House very imperfectly executed what appeared to be the unanimous feeling of the House with respect to Corporations in Ireland. This Bill Was not like that which had been returned to them last year from the other House of Parliament, which provided for the extinction of all existing corporations, but on the contrary, this Bill provided that in forty-seven boroughs there should be Corporations formed on the model propounded by the Bill, but that in the case of twenty-one other towns where Corporations bad been established upon principles which the House now condemned, and which had been established, not for municipal, but for political purposes, in these twenty-one towns those Corporations, condemned as they were by the unanimous voice of the House, were permitted to remain; and, therefore, whatever might have been done in the way of establishing a faction, or to create a suspicion of those towns from the dominion which they exercised, or the nature of the position which they held in the country, all that dissatisfaction remained behind to irritate the public mind, which had so long kept up the feeling of jealousy against the existing Corporations, and to prevent an amicable arrangement. All declared that the Corporations which had heretofore existed were not only undeserving of being retained, on account of their inapplicability to the altered circumstances of the country, but they were to be condemned because they had abused the trusts reposed in them as municipal bodies. He would ask his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how he could recommend to Parliament to affirm a Bill which retained, in twenty-one of the boroughs of Ireland, those bodies which it was said had so abused their trust and ought to be divested of authority? These boroughs had been selected, not because they had evinced greater purity or virtue than their fellows; the question was not, then, whether there had been a greater or a less abuse of trust, but it was one of comparative popularity. The question, however, was this; whether these places were of extent sufficient to require any Corporations. And yet in these Cases it was thought right not to inflict that which was Stated to be a just punishment upon those who had not been more guilty. He knew not on what principle this distinction was supported. He did not understand that peculiar sort of justice to Ireland which would condemn the borough of Gorey on account of the evil consequences which had resulted from that Corporation having been invested with municipal power, and yet in the full possession of the powers, heretofore enjoyed, Wicklow was preserved. He did not see how justice was to be done in this way. Referring to sec. 2, schedule C, of the Bill, he contended that the towns contained in that Schedule were just those which had very little occasion for municipal authority. But it was on places of this kind that this Bill proposed to confer Corporations; and in cases like those they became a burden upon the people themselves and served only to interfere with the general administration of the local Government. He could not, therefore, account for this large number of towns being increased. But there was in this Bill another provision which rendered it impossible for him to concur in it. The Government had not been content with dealing especially and by name with the charters of forty-seven towns in Ireland, some of little or no importance: the Bill provided by a general power to vest in his Majesty's Government the authority to eonfer every power, and privilege, and authority that this Bill conferred on special places on any other town or towns in Ireland in which there should be an inhabitant who should advise the Government, should be admitted to those privileges. It was left to the discretion of an individual to submit to the Government the proposition for investing the town with a charter and Corporation possessing all the authority by this Act to be made. He must say, that seeing the position in which the Government of that country stood, and the feelings and influences which guided their policy, he could not view without jealousy and alarm the power which they assumed to themselves to erect these little citadels of agitation and excitement into municipal governments. Now, in the case of municipal elections in England, it had been thought necessary that the householders should have the franchise; but why was the case altered in respect to Ireland, directed as feeling might be against the Church? In England the inhabitant householders were required to make the application to the Government for a charter for a Corporation; but in Ireland, where agitation prevailed, directed against every species of property, and mainly against the Church, power was to be given on the application of a single individual to construct a Corporation, not for the charge of municipal duties, but to gain the objects of particular parties. The measure in that respect was altogether without precedent. It was a Bill which in his view of the case, could not be acted upon without danger, and it was one which gave a power he was unwilling to trust the Government with. Therefore he could not support the measure. But it became necessary to consider the nature of these Corporations which the Bill proposed to establish, and how far they were Capable of answering the objects for which they were professedly formed; and how far they might be converted to objects which were calculated to endanger the peace of the country and the continuance of the union. He would beg to call the attention of the House to the nature of the franchise which it was proposed to be given to the electors by this Bill. In large towns it was a 10l. householding, and in the minor towns 5l. In other cases it was to be coupled with a residence of six months merely, and the payment of rates, if any were to be paid (let the House observe this latter condition), during the period of residence. Was it possible for any man who was acquainted with Ireland, not to be aware of the class of persons who occupied houses rated at 5l.? They were individuals, if not of the lowest, at least of a very low grade of society. They were not distinguished by intelligence, and were the victims of Want during a portion of the year. They were always liable to some influence or other being exercised upon them which bigotry or political animosity might direct. These were to be the electors of the new corporations. If their functions were fairly administered (supposing even that to be the case), and that the franchise was so examined into as to render it impossible that fraud should be committed as to the value of the tenements in virtue of which they were called upon to vote, even then, this course of proceeding was not exempt from those dangerous influences which, operated upon the minds of the lower classes. Looking to this 10l. and 51. franchise, he was sure that many would be qualified to vote who were not bonâ fide voters. In fact, every resident in the place, whatever his disposition, and whether he was qualified or not, would be brought forward under the dictation of their leaders to return a certain class of persons to the council. Those electors, the occupiers of a house at 2s. a week for six months of the year, having no permanent interest In the welfare of the town, and in a situation which generally exempted them from the payment of any rate or tax whatever, were undoubtedly most susceptible of improper influence; and easily directed either by the political animosity, or sectarian feeling of those who guided them against the Established Church of the country. But not only so, they would have a class of persons introduced on the register who were not possessed of the requisite qualification. And when they knew that instead of having their claims to the franchise decided before a barrister, who was responsible for the manner in which he discharged his duties, the persons who were to judge of the validity of each claim were the mayors of these towns and two assessors, all of whom were themselves elected by the same majority as the council themselves were elected, he would contend that it was not too much to say, that a case or cases might happen in which persons making applications for the franchise, would be enrolled on the list even when not possessing the requisite qualification, they throwing into the hands of the multitude, and the lower orders of the multitude, the whole control over the property of the towns. It was no slight objection to his mind that it provided not merely for annual elections in the numerous boroughs which now existed, and which it might be the pleasure of the Government hereafter to add to, but that elections on every vacancy in addition should take place in every one of these boroughs, thus keeping up a constant excitement, and giving rise to a regularly-established machinery, for the purpose of keeping up the multitude to vote. And there was, too, this disadvantage, that in the large towns contests which would take place for municipal offices, would be but the precursor of that which was to occur in the elections for Members to serve in Parliament. The animosity and bitterness of feeling engendered by a contested Parliamentary election, would not be permitted to slumber during the intervals between these elections, but would receive a fresh accession of strength at the yearly or half-yearly municipal elections, and would be kept alive from the commencement of the year to its termination. This would strike a deadly blow at the peace and good government of Ireland, and maintain in perpetual activity the elements of civil discord. If there was any evil against which the House ought to guard more anxiously than another, it was the incessant supply of fuel to the flame of agitation. The House ought, above all things, to guard against bringing the two great contending parties into collision, against kindling social dissensions into redoubled vehemence; for, with whatever side victory might remain, the order of society would be disturbed, and the public welfare injured. Such would be the necessary consequence of the election of councils by the constituencies proposed in this Bill, and at such small intervals of time. The numerical superiority in the whole or the greater part of the towns in Ireland being vested in the followers of one particular form of religion, the councils would be as exclusive, as far as regarded religious opinion, as grasping and selfish in political matters, as the very bodies which Government proposed to abrogate. In the present state of the country they would afford to those who were anxious to maintain excitement or to disturb the public peace, the means of carrying on, in an authorised form, the war which had been some time past waged against the Established Church and its possessions. He confessed, that in all Irish questions he had always looked upon the safety of the Established Church, and the preservation of its rights, as the main object to be taken into consideration. He believed, that to that church we must look for the means of effecting an improvement in the prosperity and peace of the country for the means of effecting the great moral improvement which is required in that country in order to place it on a level with other parts of the empire. Nothing would be more fatal to its stability than rashly and hastily to establish institutions, which would be powerful instruments in the hands of those who were engaged in a course of hostility against the Church, and who were attempting, by every mean: in their power, to deprive it of its legitimate revenues, and apply them to purposes not connected with the objects of an Established Church. Such a measure would remove every chance of tranquillity, would do away with every prospect of future prosperity. He said this because he had had occasion to observe that in all parts of the country the churches formed centres from which civilisation and knowledge flowed to the surrounding neighbourhood. He was convinced that the most effectual means of diffusing the blessings of religion, charity, and peace was, to plant throughout the country clergymen of the Established Church, and to place them in a situation of security and comfort, which would enable them faithfully to discharge their duties. Such a course of policy, by giving them the means of extending their influence over a wider range of society, would greatly increase the amount of individual comfort, and would be productive of the most valuable benefits to the nation. If he observed the Government attempting to create corporations in every part of the country on a principle of hostility to the church, formed of men who were not in a situation to judge for themselves respecting its value, who had every inducement to oppose it on political grounds, besides the hope of freeing themselves from the imposts to which it subjected them, and who were besides often compelled by the mandates of their clergy to oppose it, especially when these corporations might be created in a place at the desire of any inhabitant who should judge it necessary to have a new position from which to direct an attack against the church, he could not consent to assist their designs, or to support a Bill intended to give effect to them. The House was told, that because England had municipal corporations, Ireland must have them too; and that the power of self-government conceded to the people in one country ought not to be withheld from them in the other. He had no desire to withhold from any class of his fellow-subjects the power of self-government. So far was the plan which it was proposed to substitute for the ministerial measure from depriving the people of that power, that the Bill to which the House last year refused its concurrence recognised the right more clearly than the Bill now upon the table. The Bill on the table gave, to the corporations an unlimited power of taxation, and left the amount of taxation to the discretion of that body; but the Bill proposed to be substituted for it gave to the people not only the right of governing the town, or managing the corporate property through a body elected by themselves, but of deciding whether or not such a body ought to be established. He asked hon. Gentlemen opposite whether there was not a great difference between the present measure and the English Municipal Reform Bill, both as regarded the manner in which Corporations were formed, and the hands in which power was lodged? He thought it indisputable that the constituencies ought to be composed of persons who had some permanent interest in the welfare of the town. In England the franchise was not given to the small cottagers of the place to such an extent as to overwhelm the voices of the better class of inhabitants, or to men who might only be casual residents, and need not remain in the town more than the six months necessary to insure qualification. A residence of three years was the term fixed in the English Bill, which gave a security for the moral character and stability of the voter, that could not exist in the case of an individual who frequently changed his residence. In the English Bill provision was made that the corporations should discharge the ordinary functions of municipal bodies, and should superintend the paving, lighting, and cleansing of the towns. But, by the Bill now before the House, the most important corporations would absolutely be deprived of the power of regulating the municipal concerns of the place. Those bodies would be, except for the baneful purposes of agitation, little else than nonentities, and being debarred of the power of employing their time to the advantage of the community would become mischievous engines for exciting discord and inflaming the passions of the people. In England, a country in a state of civilisation far more advanced than that of Ireland, having a government conducted with a firmness unknown in the other country, and a people which obeyed the law, not from fear of the power of compulsion with which it is armed, but from a feeling of respect and attachment. Ministers introduced safeguards to the misuse of municipal power, which in the Bill before the House they did not attempt to enforce with respect to Ireland. This was a Bill which threatened the most fatal injury to the interests of the Established Church; and he begged to ask Government how it happened that the House was now called on to give a final decision on the measure without some definite explanation of their views with respect to the Church. The House had been called upon to take into consideration the state of Ireland, to provide for a just settlement of the affairs of the Church, and for the better regulation of the municipal corporations. The advisers of the Crown must necessarily feel that these subjects were closely connected, and that the House could not decide the question of the corporations without knowing what measures were to be brought forward regarding the Church. He could conceive it possible to place the Church in a position in which its revenues might be secured against the attacks made on them, and its existence made compatible with a reform of the Municipal Corporations, based, not upon the principles of the Ministerial plan, but upon principles which might better conduce to the good government of the towns and not interfere with the benefits of an Established Church. The House had had an intimation from the noble Lord, the leader of the Government, who had stated that no false point of honour on his part, no regard to consistency, should prevent him from proposing such measures as might be necessary for the security of the Established Church and the maintenance of its property; but he thought that they should not be asked to legislate on a question so important as the present, and one which affected so materially the interests of the Church, without some specific assurance of the measures to be taken for giving it permanence and security. He knew not upon what principles these measures might be founded, but be could tell the Government the inference which would naturally be drawn from this state of affairs. The public and the House were aware that the present Government was formed upon a principle, he would not say of hostility to the Established Church, but of appropriating its revenues to purposes different from those to which they were originally destined. The opinion of the country was decidedly adverse to the measure introduced to carry that principle into effect, and it passed the House by a slender majority. But when this measure remained in abeyance, and a Municipal Reform Bill, pregnant with danger, as he maintainted, to the Established Church, was introduced, the necessary and natural inference which the public drew from it was, that this Bill was proposed, not with the purpose of conferring municipal government, but of giving to those who demanded the appropriation of the church revenues, the means by which they might keep alive agitation, and render it difficult to realise the property of the Church. He thought it not an unnatural inference, that the Government who had pledged themselves to apply to secular purposes a portion of the property of the Church, and thus to take the first step towards its dilapidation, had not abandoned that principle which was the ground of the support they received from a large body of Members, but were endeavouring by a less open, but not less certain, mode, to insure the object they had in view, through the medium of the new corporations. There was another point to which he was anxious to draw the attention of the House—the relation in which they stood to the other House of Parliament. When this Bill was under consideration last Session, the noble Lord at the head of the Government in that House called the attention of hon. Members to that portion of the reasons assigned by the Lords for adhering to their decision, in which they expressed a hope that the two Houses, maintaining the good understanding which happily subsisted between them, and zealously cooperating in the discharge of their duty, might at no distant period devise such measures of reform in the administration of local affairs as might give a real guarantee for prosperity by the suppression of religious animosities. The noble Lord read that passage to the House, and intimated an opinion that it held out a prospect of a reconciliation of the differences which had taken place between the two Houses on the measure now under discussion. But how was it possible to reconcile this Bill with the hope expressed by the noble Lord? The noble Lord now called on them to send up to the other House, not the measure which he was then willing to accept, not even the measure which was in the first instance sent up to the House of Lords and returned with amendments, but that measure rendered more distasteful by enactments still more opposed to the views which the other House had declared itself to hold. The course which the noble Lord proposed to them to take, in order to satisfy his expectation that he might be the means of settling the question, was to insert in the measure provisions of a character still more objectionable than those to which the Lords had refused their assent. Viewing, therefore, this question of municipal reform both as regarded the nature of the corporations which the noble Lord proposed to establish, as it affected the interests of the Church, and as it affected the relations subsisting between the two Houses, he for one could not satisfy his feelings without declaring his opposition to the measure. It was not yet too late to re-consider a measure which applied to the present circumstances of Ireland and in its present shape, was calculated not to promote peace and good Government, but to foment discord and embitter society. He did in his conscience believe, that if sent forth as it now stood, it would, undoubtedly, aggravate the evils by which that country was distracted, and give additional weight to the influence opposed to the Protestant faith and to the Protestant Establishment.

Mr. Tancred

was satisfied that if Corporations had never been known in Ireland still such beneficial effects would result from their establishment in that or in any other country, if left to their fair operation, that they would tend more than anything else to improve the condition of the people. Most of the present Corporations in Ireland were very exclusive and dishonourable in their nature, and were framed solely with a political object. Sir Arthur Chichester, the deputy in Ireland in the reign of James the First, recommended the foundation of the greater portion of the small Corporations of Ireland on an exclusive principle, with a view of securing Protestant ascendancy. At this period the greater part of these boroughs were framed, and they soon became ready instruments in the hands of an oligarchy. He thought that the conduct of hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to this question, and stating that they opposed it as Friends of the Church, was most extraordinary. The right hon. Gentleman said that if the House passed that measure it would create a battery against the church, but he would ask whether they were not more likely to procure this result by rejecting the measure, for, by so doing, they would exasperate the feelings of the people against the Church, as being the occasion of their oppression. In fact, it would be telling the people of Ireland that the existence of the Church was the cause of their being treated as an inferior race to their fellow citizens. He was satisfied that the creation of such institutions as would be framed under this Bill would afford the best possible chance of promoting the religious peace and tranquillity of the country. To tell the people of Ireland that they would not be degraded by adopting the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman was to make one of the most extraordinary assertions that could be uttered, and he almost doubted whether hon. Gentlemen could be sincere when they made such declarations. It was his misfortune, for so he must ever consider it, to give his first vote in Parliament for the Coercion Bill. He stated at the time, he felt it to be his duty to support the measure, in consequence of the state of the country, when the people apparently were driven to a state of madness; but at the same time he should feel it to be his duty to support measures calculated to remove the grounds of complaint under which the people of Ireland laboured. He was happy to find that the conduct of the Government since that time had been such as to create a confidence towards it in the minds of the people, and he trusted that the policy of that Government, whose primary object was to place the people of Ireland on a footing of equality with those of England and Scotland, would not be thwarted. This, therefore, was a most auspicious moment, and if it was neglected it might be centuries before they again had an opportunity of securing the confidence of the people of Ireland. He therefore should give his cordial support to this Bill.

Mr. Hamilton

said, that as a Member for Dublin, and connected in that capacity with the largest and most important of the Irish Corporations, as well as with the largest of the Irish constituencies, he was unwilling to give a silent vote on the important question then before the House, though it had been so frequently and ably discussed that he was not vain enough to suppose he could say anything that was new on the subject. The metropolis of Ireland was, indeed, so studiously excluded from the operation of the Bill in many important particulars, that he almost felt that he owed an apology to the House for offering himself at all to its notice as connected with that city; and, certainly, if he were a supporter of the principle of the Bill he should feel that he had reason to complain that Dublin was excepted in almost everything that really appertained to self-government or fiscal and municipal regulations. It did appear to him that in the discussions during the present session the question had been placed by those who supported the measure upon somewhat new grounds; or at least that language had been held both in and out of the House which was calculated to place it in what he believed to be its true and proper light, and to furnish its opponents with their strongest and best arguments against it. The proposition of the noble Lord was now supported by two classes of persons—both in and out of Parliament; those who were anxious, and avowed themselves, to advance the democratic principle and influence; and those who were seeking to strengthen the Roman Catholic interest, with a view, first, to the subversion of the Established Church, and with a view afterwards to other and ulterior objects. Now it was precisely because he thought that the one ought to be strenuously resisted, and the other strenuously restrained, that he felt himself compelled to vote against the measure. By those who represented the first class it had been argued, that a complete democracy should be introduced into municipal institutions, and that those democratical institutions would constitute the best species of apprenticeship to larger and greater rights. Now, such an acknowledgment as that did appear to him rather startling, especially when made in speeches that were adapted, as he thought, in tone and sentiment, rather to the republican assemblies of the United States, than to the Parliament of the monarchy of England, and served to convince him that, however plausible as a pretext, or convenient as an argument, the supposed right or expediency of institutions conferring the power of self-government might be by a large proportion of the supporters of the present measure, it was really regarded merely as a means towards the attainment of other ends, and that it was valued principally as being conducive to the establishment of the democratic principle in the Constitution itself, and every branch of the government. Again, because it was said by the opponents of the measure, that, by the opportunity which these new Corporations would afford for agitation, the danger to the Established Church would be increased, an attack was immediately made upon the Established Church. It was said to be the obstacle in the way of good government—that it was interposed between the people and their rights—that the people have a right to good government, and that they could not obtain it because of the Established Church. In that argument there was a fallacy and an assumption. Certainly the people had a right to good government—it was the consideration which society was bound to render to individuals for their conformity to its ordinances and regulations; but it was assumed in the argument that good Government and self-government were identical; whereas it was precisely because, under existing circumstances, in Ireland self-government would not be good government that he was desirous to withhold it. It had likewise been urged, that the friendly contact of persons whom a difference in political feeling had hitherto kept apart would be useful in softening down these asperities, and creating a milder and better feeling. No one could be more anxious than he was to see these asperities softened down and removed, but little did they know of the state of feeling in Ireland who imagined that the annual elections and discussions that would take place in the new Corporations could possibly be kept apart from political and religious considerations. It was precisely because they were calculated to increase and not to diminish—to perpetuate and not to extinguish—dissensions in Ireland, that he for one was opposed to the measure. He agreed with an hon. Friend of his that the Roman Catholics were increasing in wealth; but he further thought that, in proportion as they were increasing in wealth, they were learning to wear the chains of the agitator more loosely, and to feel them more irksome. The fact was, Ireland was tired of agitation. The people were wearied of the constant excitation of political struggles between contending parties. They were anxious to be allowed to apply what had been called their industral energies to individual objects, to advance their own interests by improving the country. They were going to increase, to perpetuate, to legalise these political struggles, by establishing these schools of agitation. Great stress had been laid, and justly laid, upon the expediency of assimilating the institutions of the two countries. In that proposition, as a general proposition, he was inclined entirely to agree; but dissimilarities had been pointed out which prevented the application of the rule to the case of Municipal Corporations. There was one dissimilarity not yet adverted to, and which appeared to him to bear very materially upon the subject. He was happy to have the opportunity of pointing it out, because it was unconnected with any religious or political dissension. The dissimilarity he alluded to consisted in what he might call the comparative statistical difference of the population of the two countries. England was essentially a manufacturing country. abounding in towns of consideration, wealth, and importance, and requiring, therefore, extensive civic jurisdictions. Ireland, on the other hand, was an agricultural country—a country of agricultural labourers. She had more agricultural labourers for the cultivation of her fourteen millions of acres than England for the cultivation of her thirty-four millions. What benefit would her 1,955,000 labourers derive from the cleansing and lighting in one way rather than another, or even by the self-government of a few paltry towns?—Could it really be supposed they would rebel if Parliament should refuse to invest with the gown and insignia of office the provost of Monaghan, the portreeve of Enniscorthy, or the sovereign of Clonakilty? He regretted that language had been used in reference to the question, both in and out of Parliament, of a violent and threatening character—language that was calculated, whether so intended or not, to lead to the belief that the people of Ireland would be justified, if the measure should be rejected, in seeking to obtain it by force. As such language, however, had been used, he would take leave to say, that he had no fears whatever of a rebellion in Ireland. It was not merely because he knew that the battle was not always to the strong, or to the many; but because also he had a great reliance upon the good sense, the good feeling, and loyalty of the majority of his Roman Catholic countrymen. They might be forced, perhaps, to join the National Association—they might be induced, perhaps, to do outrage to their feelings in voting against their landlords at elections—but depend on it it was not come to this, that they would enter into the field against their Sovereign. There was no one who could deprecate the introduction of such a topic more than he did; but he felt it his duty to add, that, if in an evil hour, and because Parliament, in the exercise of its deliberative and legislative functions, should think fit to legislate in a manner which to its wisdom might seem best for the interests of the whole community, a portion of the people of Ireland, misunderstanding the language he had alluded to, and under a sense of imaginary insult or injustice, should have recourse to the expedient of force, there would not be wanting those in Ireland who would stand forward in defence of their King, and the independence and supremacy of the Legislature; and he would have neither a fear nor a doubt as to the result. But he would again repeat that such a conjuncture was as improbable as it would be deplorable. Let a Government be formed which, administering the laws mildly, but firmly, would not prostitute them for the purposes of party. Let Parliament, laying aside its dissensions on abstract questions, for which the Irish people really cared little or nothing, apply itself to the consideration of ameliorating their condition. Interest the Irish labourer in your legislation by legislating for his comfort and improvement—elevate him in his own estimation—teach him to look upwards with hope—you will take him from out of the hands of the agitator—you will make him that for which Providence designed him in giving him a warm, a kind, and a generous heart—you will place him in the situation of being a contented and loyal subject, and attached to the institutions of his country.

Mr. R. Dillon Browne

could not offer any new arguments, the subject having been already so frequently and ably debated. Every argument had been used in support of the expediency and justice of the measure, and used, too, with the most triumphant success. Indeed, if the object of any hon. Gentleman was to combat the arguments of the Tory benches, there would not be much necessity for drawing on his ingenuity, or for seeking out new matter, for hon. Members opposite had not offered a single argument in justification of their opposition. They had upon every occasion deserted the narrow space which comprehended the real matter in debate, and they had taken up theirs upon the wide common of personality and vituperation. Like the learned Sergeant, the Member for Bandon, when they found they could not combat their adversaries by any efficient opposition, they tried, like the lord of misrule in the old mummeries, to shake their swords of lath at the King's executive in Ireland. They had also opposed this measure in defiance of every principle of reasoning; they refused to Ireland identity of law as well as identity of allegiance, because they objected to the viceroy, who was a mere existing accident; they refused great principles of justice on account of the bare existence of accidental circumstances; and thus they, arguing from the particular to the universal, proved that what they considered false in logic they considered, in Ireland at least, right in justice. The question before the House involved a great national consideration, whether the Government of this country should consider the people of Ireland as British subjects or not, and by what means they should exact allegiance from them. He thought it was a great political maxim, that in proportion as the allegiance of a people was the condition upon which they claimed the protection of the government of a country, so in the same proportion a righteous and equal administration of the laws was the condition on which the government of a country claimed that allegiance. Now the question resolved itself into this, whether they should consider the Irish people as British subjects, and claim allegiance from them in return for haying observed those relationships of civil society, or whether they should not consider them as British subjects, and exact their allegiance by the strong arm of the law. If they considered them as British subjects, they had a right to extend to them the protection of British law; and he could not conceive how they could say they extended to them that protection if they pulled down in Ireland those popular institution? which they upheld in England, and which for the perpetuity of particular rights the wisdom of their ancestors had given a legal immortality. Then they did not consider them as British subjects, and were resolved to govern them by the means of physical force. The hon. Member would not consider how much moral justice and national honour was violated by such an attempt—the first, in their disregarding the great principle of doing right to all, which they were bound to observe as legislators, as Christians, and as men; the second, in their violating their national faith by neglecting the conditions of the Legislative Union, But he would consider the policy and practicability of such conduct. If to-morrow this country were to be involved in war, no remote contingency—if the flag of Russia were to wave over the waters of the Mediterranean, could the Government of England, after such a demonstration of hostility and contempt for the Irish people, go to Ireland, and ask the youth of that country to fill their naval armament? Would not the secret voice whisper to them disobedience? would not the manly and loud voice of agitation tell them they were insulted?—would not such conduct in a moment of doubt alienate the country?—would it not brief the demagogue?—would it not place in his hands the fuel of sedition?—would it not furnish him with this matter for agitation, that his country was insulted because she was conquered—that she did not seek superiority, but equality?—and would it not give him reason for exclaiming, in the language of the Roman conspirator, "Nos neque imperium neque divitias petimus, sed libertatem, quam nemo bonus nisi cum anima simul amittit"? He hoped the House would pay some attention to the words he was about to quote—they were words uttered in another place by a great man, and by a man who had obtained for himself an eternal fame, though his services to his native land were not commensurate with his power of doing good—the words were these:—"Let not either this or the other House of Parliament regard the Roman Catholic, or anything that affects the interest of Ireland, with any other eye than that with which they regard the interest of Scotland and this country." Such were the deliberately-declared opinions of the Puke of Wellington. He could not conceive why this principle would not be followed out, and why hon. Members opposite would give nothing to Ireland in common with England, except the liability of being taxed. From what reasoning did they come to the conclusion that there was inferiority on one side and superiority on the other, for on that consideration alone could they ground their partial government? What facts had they to support the assertion? Was it from a survey of the army list? Did not Irish blood flow freely in the battles of England? Was it from a survey of the annals of this House? Was not, since the Union, Irish ability devoted with as much zeal and virtue and effect for the common interest of Britain? Was it from a survey of the literature of the day? Was not Irish mind as pure and cultivated, and in the more useful productions did not a ripe fruit fall from the harvest of Irish industry. Was it from a more minute observation of the people of the country? Take any two parishes in England and Ireland, and let their inhabitants be examined as to a knowledge of the laws of the country, and as to their general conduct—their conduct as citizens, in observing the civil regulations of society, and as Christians, in observing the ordinances of God—and would Irishmen yield in the comparison to their better fed and better clothed fellow-subjects, who lived only a few hours' sail from the land of the proscribed? He did not approach this subject yielding solely to the impulse of national and sectarian feelings. He did not ask for these concessions for the sake of Ireland alone, but he asked them for the sake of maintaining great principles, upon which, he understood from his earliest youth, were based the liberties of this country; upon the principle of local government, and on this principle, that the government of a country should maintain a good credit and an honourable understanding with the people. For the same reasons that he would this night register his vote in favour of Ireland, he had done so before in favour of Canada; and as he did not wish now to see his countrymen deprived of the power of governing themselves, and to see public confidence abused in the violation of the conditions of the Legislative Union. He did not wish, then, to see the same rights refused to Canada, and the same abuse of public confidence in permitting England to coquette with the constitution of that country. Above all, he advocated it on the principle of local government—on the right of the people to participate in the creation and administration of those laws for the maintenance of which they were taxed, to the authority of which they were amenable, and for the purity of which they were responsible in the eternal opinion of history and the contemporaneous estimation of mankind. The principle of local government was one of the great democratic principles that belonged to the Constitution of England. The Constitution of England was essentially democratic. In every contest between the people and the aristocracy, the people had asserted the right of dictating laws and of governing themselves; and in every contest the aristocracy had found but one result—that they were taught another lesson of humiliation. He would not wish now that the aristocracy should become the ascendant, for, from that moment, judging from the example of history, he would date the decline of England's greatness. In Rome, from the moment power was vested in irresponsible hands, and the emperors triumphed over the people, the downfall of that nation commenced: in more modern days in Venice there were similar consequences from the exercise of aristocratic power; and still later in Poland, it was a base aristocracy that sold their country and their patriotic king to the infamous triple alliance. But he could not conclude that such a misfortune could befal Great Britain. From a consideration of the character of both parties, he entertained no fear for the people; for he saw on one side a few nobles who owed their privileges to the accident of their birth, and their creation to the whim, the necessity, and frequently the corruption of the Ministry; and, on the other side, a people who were eternal. The Lords might, for a while, resist the importunities of the people; a few waves might be broken against the shore, but the tide. of popular opinion would advance in its steady and eternal career; and these proud patricians, who regard with a listless eye the rising of the waters, if they did not recede in time may be borne down by the fury of the current that was collected from the fountains of liberty, and swelled by the indignation of the people. Ireland had been subjected in vain to every species of injury, to the consummation of no moral end. Bayonets and penal codes have been tried in vain; why not adopt another experiment in governing that country, an experiment which this Bill endeavoured to try, the experiment pf equal justice, and of kindness and conciliation? In the language of Earl Grey, he would tell the House that the time had arrived when "they had no alternative except coercion or conciliation; coercion they had tried and had failed, therefore they should adopt conciliation." Lord Bacon said, "He that turneth the humours back and maketh the would bleed inwards, endangereth malign ulcers and impostumations,"—that had been the course of England. You have turned the humours back—you have made the wound bleed in wards—you have made it impossible to effect a cure—you have done all this in the vain endeavour to crush a great and generous people; and what is left you, in the words pf Bacon, but to look to the cause, and cure the evil by its removal: that cause is exclusion—the remedy is admission. Exclusion from the blessings of the Constitution is the cause—admission to those blessings is the remedy. Do that, and what he heard quoted on another occasion would be true in this:— Defluit saxis agitatus humor: Concidunt venti, fugiuntque nubes, Et minax (quod sic voluere) ponto Unda recumbit.

Colonel Verner

did not rise for the purpose of following the hon. Member who had just sat down, through the speech which he had just delivered. It was neither his wish nor intention to occupy so much of the time of the House; he merely rose to make one observation before he gave his vote upon the motion now before the House. It was said by some hon. Members on the opposite sides of the House, that the Municipal Reform Bill for Ireland was in point of principle included in the great measure of 1829. By the Act of that year all distinctions on account of religious belief were removed. Roman Catholics became eligible to fill offices which Protestants had before exclusively filled; and by the same Act it was contended a kind of promise was given or implied, that all reforms which were adopted in England should be extended to Ireland, if the Roman Catholics in that country hoped to derive advantage from them. This might seem all fair—but this was not the whole case. In the memorable year 1829, some of those who had long been opposed to the claims of the Roman Catholics, declared, that they could not any longer resist efforts made in their behalf, and they consented to make the great concessions demanded. They did so, declaring that they yielded as a matter of expediency. But they did not surrender at discretion; they capitulated on terms. He did not think those terms had been kept, and he did not think that those who violated the engagements which they entered into at the time of the capitulation, should assume to themselves the privilege of breaking the convention, for their own advantage, while they exacted a rigid fulfilment of it, to the injury of the other party. He should not stop to inquire how far an oath might be evaded by legal dexterity, or by priestly casuistry; or how far a coach and six might drive through it, as through an Act of Parliament. But thus much he did know Roman Catholics in return for the privileges bestowed upon them, swore that they would defend the property, and that they would not subvert the Establishment of the Protestant Church. He believed also, that their conduct, in Parliament and out of it, had been calculated to overthrow what he conceived by their oath they were bound to defend. It appeared to him that the qualification oath should be so interpreted; and for himself he must say, that had he taken that oath, no power on earth could influence him to act in a manner which he must still consider contrary to the spirit and letter of the engagement into which Roman Catholics, of their own accord, entered. If it were said, that the views which he and many others entertained on this subject were erroneous, the error ought to be shown. If Roman Catholics out-ma- nœuvered the Ministry in 1829, and swore to an oath which was not to be binding on them, let their explanation be fairly set before the public, and let us see whether they acted fair and honourable in obtaining such an advantage by their dexterity. One of these things certainly took place, with respect to this oath, either—first, the Ministry in 1829, meant to deceive the Protestants of this country and Ireland, by proposing as a security an oath, which they intended should be evaded; or, secondly, the Ministry, having been sincere, Roman Catholics outwitted them, by so contriving that the oath should be without obligation; or neither of these things being the case, in the third alternative an oath calculated to furnish an abundant security was provided, and Roman Catholics took it, and despised it. Let us know which of these cases is correct, and we shall then know how to act. As to the first, it would appear, that no one had yet dared to whisper a charge of treachery against the distinguished individuals by whom Catholic Emancipation was carried; as to the second, he never heard any such interpretations of the oath, in all its parts, as would give Roman Catholics the benefit of a supposition that they had outwitted its framers—while he heard only angry retorts on the subject. He was led to draw the conclusion, that the terms on which the Protestants capitulated, have not been kept to them, and that their capitulation, therefore, ought not to be used as an argument for proceeding, to what, he was convinced, would lead to the separation of Ireland from this country, and be an additional step towards the destruction and overthrow of the Protestant religion in Ireland. He should, therefore, give his vote against the measure now before the House.

Mr. Bellew

said, that after the discussion which this subject had already undergone, he should not go into any details, but would view the present measure as a section of the plan upon which the people of Ireland were to be governed, and he would say, that if the Bill even did not pass it would have no effect upon the present popular Government of Ireland. The peace of that country had already been restored by the mild sway of the Lord-Lieutenant, and the laudable exertions of the associations of the people themselves. He did not wonder at the opposition given to this measure by the hon. Gentlemen opposite, because he recollected that they also protested against the Reform Bill, against the Catholic Relief Bill, and against the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. In fact, whenever any measure was proposed for the amelioration of the situation of the Irish people, hon. Gentlemen opposite identified it with the ruin of the Protestant Church.

Mr. Henry Lytton Bulwer

said, one asks for some great statesmanlike principle when a whole policy is at question. What is the principle here? A difference between the state of Ireland and England. Is that the principle? Well, then, Gentlemen are told of the difference between England and Ireland in regard to the Church question; what do they reply? That this difference is not to be taken into account—that Ireland is to be governed not as Ireland, but as part of the empire of Great Britain. They deny this difference on religious matters where the two people do notoriously differ; they contend for it on State matters, where, if the Catholic Emancipation Bill is not a lie, there is no such difference: was there ever anything so perfectly absurd as this? But let us carry on the argument: if the people are in a peculiar condition from all other countries, what follows as a consequence? That in legislating for such a people you must consult their peculiar wishes their peculiar interests. And how can you best ascertain these? Why from themselves to be sure. If, then, the Irish essentially differ from the English, you are bound in legislating for Ireland to consult the feelings and the opinions of the majority of the Irish people as expressed-by their representatives. If the Irish do not essentially differ from the English, you are bound to govern them by the English law. He did not see how Gentlemen could escape from one of these two conditions. But they gave the Irish nation representation for the purpose of knowing the sentiments of that nation, in order that they might legislate according to those sentiments? No, in opposition to those sentiments. This is all their care. When the majority of the Irish nation say, we wish in this matter to be held as apart from England, then you at once declare, that the two countries are to be considered as the same. When the majority of the Irish people say, we wish to be considered not as a sect apart, but as a portion of the citizens of the British empire, then you turn round on the other side and say—no, we will not treat you as British subjects, but as Irish helots. This is all that they seem to care for; they seem to have no other principle, no other policy, no other wish, than to avoid every risk of obtaining the affections of the people whom they undertake to govern. But have they even pursued this course with common wisdom? A noble Lord who spoke on a previous evening—(I mean to speak plainly; I do consider, that the Catholic subject is to be looked upon differently from the Protestant)—gave an apt and felicitous illustration of his opinion: for having declared that the one was the immense majority, and the other the immense minority, he said that his notions of policy would be, to maintain an exact equality between this immense majority on the one side and this immense minority on the other. But if this is his view, what has he done—what has he been about for these last few years? Why did he pass the Catholic Emancipation Bill—why the Irish Reform Bill? He passes one Bill, which declares that Protestants and Catholics are equally legal subjects and have equal civil rights—he passes another Bill, which declares that all men, whether Catholics or Protestants, who have a certain qualification, should vote for Members of Parliament. By these two Acts he makes the majority in the electoral lists, in whatever creed it is formed, superior to the minority; and it is after these two measures, which he not only consented to carry but was forward in carrying, that he comes out and says, that the majority and the minority are to be considered equal. And this is the Nestor in politics—this is the person who comes forward to warn others lest they should by taking one step lead to another—who declares, that for his part he will not admit any principle of which he is not ready to adopt the consequences. The fact is, that there are only two ways of governing Ireland. It might be attempted to govern Ireland as the Austrians governed Italy. Gentlemen might say, that the minority were disaffected and rebellious, and that the majority would be armed with sufficient power to keep the minority down. This was the course of their forefathers—a tyrannical but a consistent one. But you (speaking to the opposite benches), right or wrong, thought proper to abandon that course; you, right or wrong, thought proper to declare, that the majority were as good citizens as the minority; and directly you did this, you removed the very foundation stone upon which all your former policy was based, and it is the height of folly to endeavour to maintain that superstructure which it supported. It is necessary now either to go back, to repeal the Catholic Emancipation Act, to repeal the Irish Reform Act, or to go forward and pass the Irish Municipal; Bill. But the very essence of absurdity is to grant, without a murmur, the right of legislating for an empire, and to refuse, as dangerous, the claim of legislating for a parish. Gentlemen speak of agitation; how can they expect there will not be agitation? They bring a principle and a policy into presence, the one directly opposed to the other: the principle gives the Majority the greater power, the policy opposes it. They must renounce their principle or they must renounce their policy. There must be a complete system of exclusion maintained by the sword, of a complete system of conciliation established by the taws. But how, then, Wilt Gentlemen say, is the Protestant party to be maintained in Ireland? Why, by its ceasing to be the Protestant party, by forgetting its former superiority and the laws passed to maintain it, and by remembering its present condition founded oh recent enactments. To the Protestant who seeks for weight and consideration in his country—not from any clique or class, but from the great bulk of his fellow-citizens—will his religion be ah obstacle? I Say not, if he himself does not raise it tip as a barrier between himself and his country. Some of the most popular men in Ireland, and with Irish Catholics, are Protestants And why? They are not Orange Protestants—they are not exclusionist Protestants—they do not think their fellow-citizens the worse men for being Catholics; he, therefore, does not think them the worse for being Protestants. He would now, before sitting down, say one or two words on another view of the question. Corporations were to destroy Protestantism in Ireland; why, what had been the very foundation of Protestantism but Corporations? Was it not by the small states and chartered cities of Germany, the free towns of Flanders and of the Low Countries, that her fiercest battles had been fought and won? And even in England it was in Corporations that Protestantism had found her earliest and most stanch defenders. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, passionate and prejudiced as they were, would desecrate the very cradle in which their infant creed was first blessed and nursed. The Protestants! how little would they be recognised by their forefathers when they said the creed of Rome can flourish amidst free institutions, but the more sickly faith of Calvin or Luther could never endure the stormy atmosphere from which a free government derives its vitality and its vigour. But the standard of Protestantism was to be unfurled; and hon. Gentlemen might be certain that the people of England would not recognise their colours. Their Protestantism would appear little better, after all, than a kind of bastard popery which they had Stolen from the middle ages. He repeated the term; for all that the most stupid adherents Of the Church of Rome would have made that church in the most barbarous times, they in the nineteenth century, were for making the Church of England. Yes, they were arraying against Protestantism, the very Causes which brought Catholicism to the ground. Papal despotism had been trampled under foot in many of the first and freest states of Christendom, because the proud prelates of that haughty faith would have trampled under their feet every species of secular right which interfered with their own authority. And what was now said?—what was now contended for? Why, that some of the best fruits of civil liberty should not be allowed to appear in Ireland, because it was feared lest they should interfere with our Church dominion in that country. This was arraying against Protestantism the causes which once laid Catholicism so low. He should how sit down; but before he did so, he was anxious to put a question to the right hon. Baronet who was then just entering the House. Was it true that that right hon. Baronet said, at no distant time, and on a great public occasion, that however he might venerate and respect the authority of the House of Lords, yet still these were not the times when the House of Lords could wage a successful contest with the majority of the representatives of the people? If the right hon. Baronet had said this, how could he reconcile it with the conduct which he was then countenancing and pursuing—a conduct which brought the House of Lords into a conflict which the right hon. Baronet had the foresight to see could not be successful with a majority of the House of Commons? There was one way in which, according to his Friends, the right hon. Baronet might escape from this dilemma. They said, "You don't know Sir Robert Peel—he sees that the Irish Corporation Bill must pass, and when he comes into office then he will pass something in the shape of a Tithe Bill if he can, and after that he will say—now the Church is, you see, in a little better condition, now I'll consent to passing the Corporation Bill." if the right hon. Baronet did mean to pursue this course, it would be fair now to avow it. But at all events he stood in this unpleasant predicament at the present time—according to himself he was periling the country, and according to his Friends he was deceiving it.

Lord Stanley

began by remarking upon the desolate appearance the House presented, when a debate of that nature was before it. He did not, he said, wish to add much to what he had already said upon this subject, He did hot hope to be able to attract much of the attention of the House, Still less did he hope that any thing be could address to hon. Members could in the slightest degree alter the opinion, or at all events the vote, of any hon. Member. He was well aware that the House of Commons had by a majority varying from sixty-five to eighty, at different times, recorded its general acquiescence in the measure proposed by his Majesty's Ministers. That was a position which he did not dispute, but be was anxious before the discussion terminated to state why, notwithstanding that opinion of the House, he still persisted in his opposition to the third reading of the present Bill. He thought that the present state of the House would be a sufficient guarantee that he could not be tempted to trespass upon their time at any great length. In his opinion in the present state of society, and more particularly looking to the present state of the Church in that country, it was not safe to give to Ireland municipal institutions, or at least not to give them those municipal institutions which were given by this Bill. He rested his objection to the third reading of the Bill on the ground of the partial provisions of the Act itself; but he also objected on account of the present condition of Ireland, and on account of the state of society there. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last had charged the right hon. Member for Tamworth with the intention of adopting some specific course of proceeding upon his arriving at the possession of office. The hon. Gentleman had not told them at what period that would take place, if it would soon. The hon. Gentleman was better informed on the subject than he had been. But this he was satisfied of, that his right hon. Friend would not adopt any course as a Member of his Majesty's Government which he was not prepared to sanction if brought forward by his opponents. Now be would say that if he saw the Church of Ireland in a different position from that in which it was at present, much of his objection to the establishment of municipal institutions in Ireland would be removed.

Mr. H. L. Bulwer

begged to explain. What he had stated was, the opinion delivered by some persons as to the course which the right bon. Baronet would pursue when he came into office—that he then perhaps might make the excuse of having passed a tithe measure, and that, having done so, then he might say, that the Church was safer than it was before, and consent to a Corporation Bill. He did not say that the right hon. Baronet would come into office—he did not say anything of the kind.

Lord Stanley

was willing so to take the statement of the hon. Gentleman. That which the hon. Gentleman reported to have been stated by some persons he made as a charge against the right hon. Baronet of deceiving his countrymen as to the course he would take. His answer to this was, that the right hon. Baronet could not take any course in office which he was not prepared to support out of office. Let the hon. Gentleman call upon his Majesty's Ministers to take that course with the Church which they ought to do. What had his Majesty's Ministers done? they had put three questions together—the state of the Irish poor, of the Church, and municipal institutions. They bad put forward one question as the popular measure—they kept back the other two—they did not tell them what they would do with the other two, although all were combined in his Majesty's speech. If the state of society in the two countries were the same, then all they would have to do would be only to look to the towns in Ireland to see what were their traffic, their importance, and their capability to bear without injury to themselves the cumbersome burden of municipal institutions. If the state of society were the same in Ireland as in England, then they would only have to apply the same law to that country which now existed in this, but the state of society, unhappily, was not the same in Ireland as in England. Without the least intention of putting an insult on any one, he must say, that there was a broad distinction between the two classes in that country; there were religious differences, and there was still more unhappily a broad distinction between the higher and the lower classes of society in Ireland. The differences were mixed up with every part of the social body; they entered into all relations of property; in to all the relations between the higher and the lower classes—they were manifest on every question of social policy; they were mixed up with every political question. There was one point to which he wished to call the attention of the House. By the provisions of the English Corporation Act the magistrates in boroughs were required to take certain oaths that they would not use the powers they had as officers of the corporation for the purpose of weakening and endangering the Protestant Establishment. The clause requiring such an oath was omitted in the Irish Bill. He wished to know from his Majesty's Ministers whether this omission took place accidentally, or whether it was intentional? By the Act of 1829 Catholics were placed on the same footing with the Protestant Dissenters. In the first clause of that Bill it was declared, that all oaths inconsistent with the provisions of this Act were repealed. Such a provision as that was to be found both in the English and the Irish Bill. Both affected equally the Act of the 9th of George 4th. If the oath, then, were surplus age in one case, it was so in the other. But in the English Bill the officers of corporations were not exempted from the declaration that they would do nothing to injure the Protestant Establishment. Why, by the Irish Act were not they bound in the same manner? He should be glad to hear that there was nothing in his objection; but it was one that excited his suspicions, coupling it as, he did with the declarations as to the manner in which the power given would be used. Then with regard to the qualification, what was done? Hon. Gentlemen opposite talked of similar institutions. When they required a corporate franchise in Scotland they required a 10l. franchise and six months' residence. In Ireland there was to be a 5l. franchise in every town, with the exception of some five or six towns. Why was it that in Londonderry, with 19,900 and odd inhabitants, they put down the franchise as 5l., while in the smallest Scotch borough they required a 10l. qualification? He wanted to know whether the lower classes in Ireland were better educated, whether they were less liable to sudden gusts of passion, whether they were more cool and calculating, more remarkable for their discretion, their judgment, and foresight than the same classes in Scotland, that they gave the low rate of 5l. in Ireland, and withheld it from Scotland. Besides, in Scotland there was not only the 10l. qualification required, but there was also the payment of assessed taxes. It might be said in Ireland, that there were no assessed taxes. That was no answer to him; for it only showed that there ought to be a greater security for the qualification when they were unable to have that test. In England they did not require a qualification as to property; but then they required that a man should have a local residence of three years, and a continuous payment of the poor-rates. In England, then, they knew that practically this was requiring a 5l. qualification, and three years' continuous payment of the rates. In Ireland, then, were they to have the lower qualification and to dispense with the payment of rates? This was the argument of Gentlemen who told them they were to have in this a Bill on precisely the same principles as the English. They told him that there were no assessed taxes, and there were no poor-rates. There were not any poor-rates at present, but he trusted there would very soon be—he trusted it would be very soon. If the franchise in Ireland were to be below that in England and Scotland, the least that ought to be done would be to require that no person should be qualified to vote until he had paid not only the local taxes, but also his poor-rates. That, at least, would be the best test of qualification. What he saw done on the other side raised a suspicion in his mind. There were two notices given by the hon. Member for Kilkenny; one was, that the payment of poor-rates was not to apply to elections in Corporations; and next, that the rating was not to be produced to show the value of a house. The next point to be observed was the continuance of tolls, which would be under the management of the new Corporations. If there was anything more than another condemned by the Commissioners, it was the system of tolls—if there was one thing more than another abused on all sides of the House, it was tolls; and it was proved that they were promoters of riot and bloodshed in Ireland. Now these tolls were not to be abolished by any Corporation until they had satisfied the debts of the Corporation. He did not complain of that provision; but he thought it unnecessary. The Corporations would never abolish those tolls—their continuance would lighten the burdens upon their constituents; they would be paid by the agricultural population, with whom the corporators had no sympathy. The same case occurred in Carlisle, where the corporators took credit for bearing the police rate, without imposing any additional tax upon the inhabitants. They had effected this by exacting the tolls in the most unprecedented manner. Was it rational to suppose that the town-councils would take off tolls, when by continuing them they would save their own constituents from a burthen? Would they not rather more vigorously exact them? There were several other points on which he might touch, but he really was unwilling to detain the House. For example, he very much disapproved of a provision introduced in the present Session as a sort of compromise—he meant the mode of appointing sheriffs. He could not conceive a more objectionable method. The giving the appointments to the town-council was comparatively harmless. In the case of jurors the present Government had laid down a rule that persons elected to serve on a jury should not be set aside without cause being alleged. Could any man believe that the two lists of the town-council would be set aside by the Government? The Government had the power, but if they exercised that power he could conceive nothing more vexatious, more obnoxious, and hostile to the feelings of the population of the towns. If they did not mean to exercise the power, they had better leave it in the hands of the town-councils; but if they meant practically to exercise it, and really to keep the appointment in the hands of the Crown, they should honestly say so. The administration of justice in Ireland ought to be kept sacred; it should be kept free from all political and party prejudice which might overbalance its due administration; and to do that it was necessary that the nomination of the most important officers in the administration of justice should be kept in the hands of the Crown. With regard to the towns that were under this Bill to be incorporated, he was very doubtful of the advantage of extending the Bill to some of them. What were the opinions of these towns them-! selves? Had they all presented petitions in favour of the Bill? Not at all. From the town of Belfast a most important petition had been presented against the Bill. If they did grant Corporations, they ought at the same time give them duties to perform. They should not incorporate a set of men who would be a mere burthen on the towns, who would have the power of imposing vexatious tolls, and yet be in reality mere engines for the purposes of political agitation. He could not conceive upon what grounds they felt called upon to inflict on all these towns, whether they had corporate duties to perform or not, bodies of men who could serve no local purpose. There might; moreover, exist in those towns other boards who had duties to perform; and the consequence of this Bill would be, to raise in such places conflicting authorities. He could not see the justice or the propriety of establishing Corporations, the great majority of which would be mere normal schools of agitation, the constant source of political excitement and violence, for the purpose of effecting political objects. But in the present state of Ireland he objected to corporate institutions altogether. While he saw the Church in its present state he objected to all corporate institutions. They had been told that this Bill was intended to destroy the Church, and that it would be used as a means of destroying the Church. In the present state of the Church he believed it would be so used, and therefore, as a Protestant, and anxious to maintain that Church, while he saw it in its present state he would not give the lever to overthrow it. It was no reflection on this argument to say, that if he saw the Church placed in a situation of security as to its revenues—if he had not heard the dangerous doctrines of the Gentlemen who composed his Majesty's Government, and of the supporters of that Government—his objections, which were now inseparable, might in a great measure be modified. But even then he could not pledge himself to the present Bill, as it would still be open to objections. But he did say, that the question would be placed on an entirely new footing if they were able to deal with it in such a manner that his objections to it as a Protestant might be removed. With these views, and these views only, he would willingly yield to the introduction into Ireland of institutions which were not necessarily or precisely similar, but which should be analogous to those of England, and which, in his deliberate judgment, should be for the advantage of the people of Ireland. It was his fixed determination to oppose the Bill at this stage as he had opposed it at every other.

Mr. Henry Grattan

said, the noble Lord has very properly stated his conviction, that nothing that fell from him would induce any Member to change their opinion on the measure before the House. He has said nothing on the subject of any weight whatever; his objections to the Bill, unimportant as they were, came too late; they should have been made in Committee, and not on the third reading, but it sufficed his purpose to raise a clamour against the measure, and complain of the want of civilisation among the people of Ireland as a ground of objection. This argument, and others of a similar nature, he urged with less asperity, and less success than usual. His attack was a failure, and his objection to the charge in the Bill regarding the sheriffs was futile. Would he have supported it if the power was vested in the council, and, as he says he would prefer it, why did he not support it when proposed to be introduced into the Bill? The old theme, that the Protestant Church would be endangered, is also brought forward by the noble Lord. This from a person who struck off at one blow ten bishops! Was that no encroachment? Was that not an attack on the Church—a very direct spoliation? And with what colour can he appear against this measure, on the ground that it affects the Church? The great objection, in fact the only objection, is, that the great body of the people who are to reap the benefit of this measure, are Roman Catholics; that is the sole objection, and as it has been the common and never-failing argument on every other measure that was intended for the relief of the Irish, so it will be found to be equally just, equally sincere, and equally successful. In fact, the liberties of the Irish are intolerable to Gentlemen opposite; they decry, they tear, and they hate them. It was as in the time of their predecessors, and, with little change, is so now. As this is one of the last days in which Ireland is to be brought up to your bar and receive sentence, I shall take leave to speak out, and I know that what I may say will not have any great effect on persons opposite; but knowing their history, and knowing the character of those Gentlemen, I shall trouble them with my opinions. To me it is of no personal import which side of the House governs—seeking for nothing from either side, I Stand indifferent towards both, except so far as Ireland is concerned; and as a great principle is involved in the present law, I find both the interests of Ireland, her peace and her prosperity, are deeply involved, and a great principle is here at stake. Now, the Gentlemen opposite have uniformly opposed the liberties and interests of Ireland; they have not procured for her prosperity; they have not secured to her peace; and they have uniformly opposed the great principles that Ireland has unceasingly contended for. Therefore I take part with this side of the House, and as an Irishman, anxious for the honour and dignity of my country, I seriously caution the House and country against the Gentlemen opposite. There appears on that bench, five persons who have been Secretaries in Ireland. The hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), number one—he failed; the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn), number two—he failed; the noble Lord who moved an amendment on the second reading, (Lord Francis Egerton), number three—he failed; the gallant Officer (Sir H. Hardinge), number four—he failed; and the noble Lord who has just sat down—he, too, completely failed. He failed more conspicuously than the rest, because he failed before he changed sides, and he failed after he changed sides. These five administrators, I repeat, failed to govern Ireland with credit to the British Crown, or with satisfaction to the Irish people. Do they seek to try it again? If they do they will equally fail. They will do more, for they will exasperate Ireland, and render the British Crown not worth wearing. The old and exploded system of force they would scarcely attempt to revive, though their partizans and their favoured journals declare they would. Look at the furious publications, rather fulminations, against Ireland that disgrace the press; the charges against the Irish people, their clergy, and their religion, so infamous, so disgusting, that I trust no Gentleman in this House would stand up to defend, much less to be connected with them. Look to their Irish press, and the journal that they patronise: speaking but a few days ago about the Duke of Wellington and the right hon. Baronet, this journal that had formerly recommended as a cure for Ireland, "some salutary bloodletting," goes on in the same strain and says, "We are happy in being able to assure the Chronicle, that not a shadow of it difference, at this moment, exists as to the mode of governing Ireland between any of the illustrious individuals whose names it has introduced. This country requires a strong hand, and, with the blessing of God, it will soon be made to feel it." Such being the repeated sentiments of Gentlemen opposite, it becomes our duty to put the people of England, as well as the people of Ireland, upon their guard. The right hon. Baronet would be weighed down by the violence of the party that surround him, and would be governed by a still more violent party—a noble Lord in another place. These men would be the governors of Ireland; these men, some of whom have told us, that they must be feared in Ireland, because they are not loved; "that they would not yield to clamour what they had denied to justice." These last sentences are the index of their feelings, and are remembered by the Irish people, against that party. The right hon. Baronet would in vain contend, particularly after he has shown how little he valued the principle of a great measure, and by what means he was induced to yield in 1829, for his words are not forgotten, when he said, that "he never took credit for passing the Emancipation Bill, that he voted for it now—for it was forced upon him." What a confession for a statesman! The right hon. Baronet would be forced to yield, or would try another game—an old and long tried one in Ireland—he would pass the measure, and then nullify it; he would give to Ireland the silent grant of an Act of Parliament, and the positive and active efforts to render the Act of no effect. The Ministers did so; they yielded to Ireland a free trade in 1779, and afterwards strove to deprive her of it; they yielded her independence in 1782, and afterwards sought to nullify every part of the transaction; they did so in 1793, when they admitted Roman Catholics by law to certain rights, and by their recent Acts deprived them of the enjoyment; they did so in the measure passed by the right hon. Baronet in 1829, for by this Act Roman Catholics are eligible, and yet not one has been admitted to our Irish Corporations; and it was not until a motion was made by my relative, the Member for Wicklow, in 1822, that it appeared how effectually they had frustrated the Acts intended to relieve the Irish—for not one Catholic had been appointed to the office of assistant barrister. Violence at one moment—duplicity at another—insincerity on all; this, this is your character—be assured it is known better to us than by yourselves. Now we, the Irish people, are determined to oppose you—we are determined—six millions of people are bound together as one man against you—not by an oath, but what is equal to an oath—the principle of national honour; no longer are we in the times of Boult, and of Swift, "hewers of wood and drawers of water," but freemen, and determined to be free. Here has arisen the hostility to the Irish Government—their attacks on Lord Mulgrave and his supporters; when Ireland got a Government friendly to the people, then Gentlemen opposite commenced a most unsparing attack; every subject, every appointment, every species of abuse and attack was resorted to. A grand petition from the Board-room of the Dublin Corporation was threatened, and an impeachment was talked of—where are they? where is the grand Master, the Lord Sergeant? His charges have evaporated—he fled from his own fire—he has on this occasion absconded. Sir, they oppose Lord Mulgrave because he is supported by the people of Ireland—because he governs for the people, and not for a party; he is the first governor since 1782, and in the short period of the Duke of Bedford's government in 1806, that has ever yet secured the affection of the Irish people. The integrity of his mind, and the justice of his disposition have obtained for his government, this support of the great body of the Irish, who feel attached to him, because they find him attached to a fair and impartial administration of justice. This has placed his government in the high station which it holds, and this will also secure it—and in vain will his opponents hope to overturn it—they can no longer terrify by their violence, or deceiv by their duplicity. Sir, on this occasion, I beg to complain of the unworthy mode of attack resorted to. The hon. Members for Bandon and Belfast advance the most unfounded and unmanly charges, and after that they abscond. In vain I sought for an opportunity to reply to their misstatements. I had letters from Mr. Cruise Smith, Mr. Berwick, and Mr. Cassidy. I assert, that the charges brought against these Gentlemen are unfounded, and that grosser misstatements were never made. Their conduct is, in the extreme, unparliamentary. They make an attack upon individuals just as high in character and respectability as the hon. Members themselves, and after that they abscond, and do not listen to the contradiction. They betake themselves to flight, and leave a wound which they have not the generosity to heal. Sir, I have a letter from Sir William Somerville, a man whose authority the Gentlemen opposite will not dispute, he stated the facts as to Mr. Smith, and negatived completely the charge of the Member for Bandon. The printed Report of the Committee of the House of Commons explains the case of Mr. Cassidy; and here is a letter setting forth the vote of thanks of the Conservative magistrates of the West Riding of Cork, headed by Lord Bantry, complimenting Mr. Berwick, and approving of his appointment by Lord Mulgrave. What becomes of the idle charges by Gentlemen opposite? I again complain of their conduct, and pronounce it unparliamentary and shameful in the extreme. The hon. Lord, with all his zeal to find fault with the Bill, passed over one point where I think a fair objection could be made—that is, the omitting the town of Wicklow in the Schedule; it was in last year's Bill. The funds of the Corporation are small at present, but in a short time a very valuable lease held under Lord Meath will expire, and their income may arise to some thousands a-year, and it would be just that the people should have a power to interfere, in the disposition of these funds. The town is ill paved and lighted, and the harbour most defective. These should be improved, and persona admitted to manage them—local officers who have a desire for the public good. Sir, it would be a waste of time to enter into the subject more at length; the question is one of principle, and the House is to decide upon what system it will govern Ireland, If you return to the old one of force, and fraud, and we are allowed to become the victim of that party that has injured the country since 1813, and whose Administration has been signalised by a repetition of failures, you go, Sir, to shake our obedience and to render the Irish crown of our King scarce worth the wearing. Mr. Fox said, I would rather lose Ireland than hold it by force—better get rid of her altogether than keep her fast by no other bond than fear. Her affections you may secure. Lord Mulgrave has gone a great way to regain what Gentlemen opposite have so often lost, and never can hope to recover. If this Bill be rejected elsewhere much mischief will ensue, and it will require all Lord Mulgrave's popularity to manage the affairs of the country and hold her together. Be assured, that in this House our numbers will augment the majority that will, I trust, ever turn the balance against Gentlemen opposite, and what now only averages from sixty-four upwards will shortly increase, it will be eighty—it may in time be ninety—and Ireland here will be the arbiter of the fate of your Administrations, though she may not be the victor of her own liberties. Rest assured, that at the next election the test sent to candidates will be a reform of the Lords, and a Repeal of the Union. This Act, such as it is, and the Act of Emancipation taken along with it, has placed Ireland on an equality as to right with England—in the benefit of these acts Ireland will insist upon—you must pass this Bill into a law, unless you mean to repeal the Act of Emancipation or the Act of Union. In every respect we are your equals—Protestant or Catholic there is no difference—the idle charge that the Church is in danger can no longer deceive. By their spirit, by their courage, aye, and by their arms, they obtained freedom, and bequeathed to you a glorious inheritance. That inheritance you justly pride. That inheritance we call upon you to share. We ask but perfect equality. We are too close to you not to be admitted by such an example. By your courage, attached to our Sovereign, we are equally attached to our rights, our privileges, and our liberties. We ask them from you as friends, and if you now refuse, the time may come when we shall win them from you by our swords.

Mr. Milnes Gaskell

said, that he was unwilling the debate should close without having an opportunity of stating to the House, as shortly and clearly as he could, the grounds on which he opposed this Bill. It would be as absurd in him to attempt to defend the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, from the charges of ignorance and incapacity which had just been brought against him, as it was discreet in the Member for Meath to make them. He would take leave, however, to tell that hon. Gentleman that he was labouring under the strangest misapprehension, if he supposed that he had made one single convert, either by his invectives or his arguments. He (Mr. Gaskell) had listened with great attention to the whole course of this debate: he had heard Gentlemen descant at great length upon the abstract merits of municipal institutions; he had heard them appeal to the fears of their opponents and to the passions of their supporters, and prefer charges of injustice and of insult against those who differed from them in opinion. But he had not heard one single attempt to show, that in the present social and political state of Ireland, it would be wise or politic to intrust any additional power to its Roman Catholic population. He knew the answer which would be made to this. Gentlemen would say, "That may be all very well, but you are too late with your opposition. This Bill is the natural and legitimate consequence of Roman Catholic relief. You no longer retain the means of successful resistance, and you had better acquiesce in it at once." Undoubtedly, if he (Mr. Gaskell) held that opinion—if he thought that, in rejecting this Bill, they were rejecting any implied obligation which the Act of 1829 had imposed on them, or that they were making any declaration of hostility against the Irish people, he should withhold his vote from the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn). But he believed, on the contrary, that in supporting this Bill he should be acting in direct contravention of the spirit of the Relief Act; for if it were no part of the object of that Act to impose civil disabilities on the Protestants as well as remove them from the Catholics, then this transfer of political power, so far from being the natural and unavoidable consequence of the Act of 1829 was directly at variance with its spirit, and inconsistent with the terms which it guaranteed to the Protestants of Ireland. He knew that it was not a very pleasing task to take the unpopular side of any question in that House, and least of all upon one which bore the semblance of religious toleration; but the more irksome this duty was, the more essential it was to perform it; and if these attacks were to be made year after year, and session after session, upon the Protestants of Ireland, he trusted that neither their chosen representatives in that House, nor their hereditary guardians in the other House of Parliament, would be found to shrink from their defence. Now, how did the facts of this case really stand? for it was of great importance that they should have a clear understanding of the meaning of this Bill, before they consented to invade and violate the Protestant Corporations of Ireland, and convert them to the purposes which this Bill contemplated. What, he asked, was the object of Gentlemen opposite? What was the avowed and ostensible end which his Majesty's ministers themselves had in view? Was it or was it not the maintenance of good local government in Ireland: If not, why did they not openly avow it? If it was, why did they charge those who differed with them, as to the best means of attaining it, with intolerance and injustice? It was no very conclusive argument, however convenient it might be found in Ireland, to brand the most distinguished opponents of this Bill in another place with every epithet which treason and malignity could suggest—and it was no reason, because they chose to attach the nickname of anti-reformers to those who were not prepared to pull down one outwork of the Constitution after another, that they (the Opposition) were less sincere in their hostility to abuses, or less zealous in their attachment to the rights and liberties of the people. It savoured only, in his opinion, of the worst of every species of intolerance, that of calling in question the sincerity of other men's opinions, and arrogating the infallibility of their own. He did not pretend to know much about the history of these Irish Corporations, but he believed he knew this in common with every Gentleman who heard him, that the great ma- jority of them were established for the express and declared purpose of upholding and protecting the Protestant interests in Ireland, The preamble of this Bill, indeed, carefully left out of sight all mention of those interests, but acknowledged that these Corporate bodies were constituted for "the quiet government of the cities and towns in that country." Did his Majesty's Ministers really believe that this Bill would tend to its maintenance? That a perpetual round of elections, and constant struggles between violent partisans, attended with all the asperities and all the bitterness which characterised election contests in Ireland, were likely to be found the best means of calming men's passions, and inducing them to pay obedience to the law? Was there so little of agitation in Ireland, that they must have this Bill to increase it? Was the general Association so powerless, were its principles so mild, that they could talk only of conferring civic privileges, when they ought to bring in a bill for its suppression? Was it the administration of justice which they sought to purify? Would the recommendations of town-councils be more impartial than those of judges? And if the Catholics had reason to complain that too intimate a connexion had subsisted between Protestant corporations and Protestant grand juries, would the Protestants have no reason to complain of that between Catholic corporations and Catholic grand juries which this Bill proposed to establish? Was it intended to make a transfer of property as well as power? If it was not, he should like to know upon what principle the majority were to levy taxes on the minority, when those taxes were chiefly paid by the minority. The injustice of this Bill was at least as glaring as that of the existing law, and would be found tenfold more injurious in its practical operation. What, then, was the inference which he drew from the plain scope and tendency of this measure? Why, that good local government was not the object of his Majesty's Ministers, but the increase of Whig influence in Ireland, and the domination of those who befriended them in that country for the attainment of their own party purposes. Did any man doubt this, who had heard the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, brand the Protestants of Ireland as "a miserable monopolising minority," and had heard his Attorney- General, the Attorney-General for Ireland (Sergeant Woulfe) say, that if this Bill was not suffered to pass, he should be unable to defend the Union with effect? Were they to be told after statements and declarations like these, made by the King's Ministers themselves, that equal laws were the object of this Bill? Or were they to be told, as they had been told before, that the sole ground of their opposition to it was the jealousy which they entertained of Irish demagogues, and the dangers which they apprehended from their uncontrolled dominion? It was not their fault that the name of the learned Member for Kilkenny was so often dragged into these debates. They were told, indeed, by the Gentlemen opposite, that they attached undue importance to his influence and position, but surely they were justified in retorting this charge upon those who made it, and reminding them that without his powerful support in that House, they would be out of office to-morrow. There had been a time, when some of the warmest supporters of this Bill, some of the most inveterate sticklers for what was now called justice to Ireland, shared in the apprehensions which they (the Opposition) now entertained. In the year 1824, a noble and learned Lord (Plunkett), now the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, then the Attorney-General of a Tory administration, was so deeply impressed with the importance of preserving unimpaired, the Protestant institutions of Ireland, that he used this remarkable language. He (Lord Plunkett) said, that he "would never sail in the same vessel with the hon. Member for Aberdeen and his friends to the high latitudes to which they proposed to run: nor could he agree to sail under sealed orders that might be broken at a time when he could not escape from their bark." No wonder at the malignant triumph of the enemies of those institutions, when they saw the King's ministers sailing in that bark—aye, and under sealed orders which might and which would be broken at a time when they were unable to escape from it—when they saw the King's Ministers in league with declared revolutionists, and sacrificing the dearest interests of the Protestant religion to conciliate the disturbers of the public peace. He knew that some Gentlemen were prepared to sacrifice those interests in the belief that more danger would accrue from withholding concession than from granting it, and in the hope that if they would but pass this Bill, then peace and tranquillity might ensue. What sort of peace was it that those Gentlemen would ensure to them? Was it security or protection to life and property? Was it the enforcement or resistance of legal dues? Was it the preservation of the Church inviolate, according to the terms of the Act of Union, which guaranteed an extension of the same laws, ecclesiastical as well as civil, to both countries? No—it was none of these—this was no question of peace or justice—it was no struggle for equality or compromise—but a struggle for ultimate supremacy. It was sought to undermine the Protestant institutions of Ireland by transferring the means of their support into the hands of their opponents. Surely it was enough, that the Protestants should be called upon to abandon their corporations, and to forfeit the privileges they enjoyed—surely, it was enough, that they should consent to dismantle forts which had been raised for the express purpose of their protection, without seeing a rival flag hoisted upon their ruins, and a hostile garrison supersede them. If he was told that such was the state of Ireland that no attempt at rational compromise could be successful—that such was the bitterness of religious dissension, and such the prevalence of party feuds, that it must be governed either by means of the Catholic majority or the Protestant minority of its population, he said at once, that deeply as he should deplore that alternative, he would rather govern it by the latter. He would rather govern it by those who were attached to the connexion between the two countries and anxious to uphold and to preserve the common institutions of the empire, than by those who were opposed to both. If this was being intolerant, he was content to be thought so, and would not share in the responsibility of those who supported the third reading of this Bill.

Mr. Sergeant Woulfe

said, I think it impossible for any man to take a review of this debate, both on the present and on former occasions, when the same question was before the House, without being satisfied that the real, and indeed the only objection which is relied upon against extending to Ireland the municipal institutions which you have established in England and Scotland, is the fact that the majority of the people of Ireland are Roman Catholic. All that has been said in vituperation of priests, and exemplifying their interference in elections and on other similar occasional would be totally irrelevant to the question, save so far as it tends to establish that this fact ought to be attended with this effect. It is very true, Sir, that in the course of the debate arguments have been urged which are independent of this fact, and apply equally to municipal institutions under all circumstances and at all times; but I am bold enough to say, that these arguments would never have been ventured into the field if they stood upon their single merits, and if it were not hoped that their infirmity would escape exposure under cover of the vague and misty terrors which hon. Members have endeavoured to excite through the medium of that fact. Who, for instance, in the absence of that fact, would have ventured to propound, that the Municipal Corporations of Ireland have no legitimate functions to perform?—as if it were possible that urban communities, having a population ranging from 3,000 to 300,000 souls, could by possibility be found without local wants to supply, or local interests to further. Who would have ventured, in the absence of the same fact, to make it an argument against the extension to Ireland of the popular municipal institutions which you have given to England and to Scotland, that the local circumstances of Ireland made it necessary that they should vary, as established in that country, in some small particulars of their machinery, from the corresponding bodies of England and of Scotland?—as if the Corporations in Scotland did not vary again more from those of England than will vary from them the municipal institutions proposed for Ireland; or as if the merit or demerit of these institutions depended upon their conformity to any precise model, and not upon the soundness or unsoundness of the great principle of popular self-government common to them all. In the absence of this fact, no man, whose moral sense was not utterly perverted would have regarded it as consistent either with the principles of abstract justice, or the express stipulations of the union, that in England you should place in the hands of the people the management of their own affairs through the medium of corporations, which pervaded the whole country, which opened at the door of every man a field of honourable, if not exalted, ambition, which gratified the national pride, called into activity and nourished the habits which are the result and the best security of freedom, and, at the same time, increased their power and influence over the public councils; while in Ireland, a part of the same empire, equal by nature and by contract, you should wrest from the people the management of the most home affairs, subject them to a central administration which mortified their self-respect, which increased the power of the Crown, and not of the people, and, as between them and the other portions of the empire, deprived them of their just share of influence in the State. In the absence of the fact I speak of, no man could have thought this just, and no man could have thought it safe: no man who valued the union at a pin's fee, and who saw that the two countries are connected together, not by physical ties—for the sea rolls between them—but by common interests and social affinities alone, could have the hardihood to suggest a distinction which leads so surely and so fearfully to separation. It is the fact of the people of Ireland being Roman Catholic which emboldened hon. Members to advance these things: without that fact they would not have an inch to stand upon. It is the hinge of all their arguments. Now, how does that fact touch the question of Corporations? Natural connexion between them there is none; it is not pretended that there is anything incongruous between the Catholic religion and municipal institutions; it is not pretended that a Roman Catholic may not make as worthy a mayor or as goodly an alderman as a Protestant. The fact, Sir, bears upon the question thus, and only thus: it is said that these institutions carry power with them to the people; that the majority of the people of Ireland being Catholic this power will fall for the greater part into their hands; and, lastly, that they will exercise this power so as to increase the dangers of the church. Now, I will deal fairly with this argument. I admit that those institutions do impart power to the people. I say this not as admission, but as portion of my argument. I admit that they do make the public will more puissant in public affairs; I admit that they quicken public opinion, render it more authentic, more self-derived, more pure, and that they give it force, both by adding to its worth, and by supplying it with a constitutional organ for its ex- pression. How far, however, this proposition is consistent with another which has also been advanced on the other side, to the effect that these institutions are mere trifles in the State, unimportant for good or evil, which it is no benefit to have, and no injury to be deprived of, is for the hon. Members who advance these conflicting propositions to reconcile. But let that pass. I admit, I say, that these new bodies will impart new power to the people of Ireland. I further admit, that the Roman Catholics of Ireland, being the majority of that people, will acquire in Ireland the greater part of this new power. I will even admit, for the purposes of this debate, that it will be divided between them and the Protestants of Ireland in the ratio in which they constitute the population. The fact, however, is, that the distribution will be not in the single ratio of their numbers, but in a ratio compounded of that ratio and the ratio in which the property and intellect of the country are divided. But I admit the fact of an increase of power to the Roman Catholics of Ireland. Is it not manifest, however, that the same circumstances which carry increased power to the people of that country have already augmented the power of the people, the Protestant people, of England and of Scotland? And is it not clear that the result must be the maintenance of the general balance of power in the different portions of the empire, if Corporations were withheld from all? But I waive this argument in this debate. I will admit the fact not only of a positive increase of power in the Catholics of Ireland, but of a relative increase. But here my admission stops; I deny that this increase will increase the dangers of the Church. I deny that any increase of power which grows out of equal and fair dealing can increase those dangers. I assert, on the contrary, that to withhold this power on account of the Church will more increase those dangers. I affirm that to make the supposed good or safety of the Church the cause or the pretence of establishing a distinction which affronts the public sentiment, will aggravate all the feelings which constitute the only danger to the Church. Wherein, I ask, do the dangers to the Church consist? They consist in the feelings which are incident to the anomalous position in which you insist upon maintaining her; they consist in those feelings which the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, in 1817, declared were by nature inseparable from the state and history of the Church of Ireland, a declaration which he repeated in 1829. To inflict upon the people of Ireland political privations in order to maintain those anomalies cannot surely assuage those feelings. I quarrel not now with those anomalies; I object not now to the position in which you think fit to maintain the Church Establishment of Ireland; but surely the difficulties and dangers that are attached by the very ordonnances of nature to that position are sufficient to exhaust the cares and anxieties of her friends, without loading her with the odium of being the cause of national disparagement. Has the Church of Ireland not enough of difficulties to struggle with as it is. She is the richest Church, in the poorest country, with the smallest congregation in reference to the population in the world. Is not that enough! Are the arguments which her enemies draw against her from this position not sufficiently strong or plausible as they stand? Do you think it tends to her safety, publicly to proclaim that her well-being is incompatible with the civil privileges of the people? Why will you heap this additional odium on her head, you who profess to be her friends and are so solicitous for her safety? I do not affect to close my eyes to the difficulties of the Church, but there they are, and the only question is, how you can guard against them best. I deny that you can guard against them by any expedient human ingenuity can suggest, to deprive those who dissent from her of political power—you tried it in every shape and failed. If I had said these things some twenty years ago, I might be called up to prove them; but, as it stands, I assume it as an axiom in your civil polity. It is embodied into your wisest statutes; it is sustained by the authority of your first statesmen of all parties. The Act of Emancipation governs the present case, and the Act for the Reform of Parliament followed the principle of the Emancipation Act. Upon the discussion of the Emancipation Act the same question was at issue as at this moment, and it arose under circumstances exactly similar. The question then and now is, will you more increase the dangers of the Church by giving political power to the dissentients from the Church, or by withholding it? You then decided that it was safer to bestow it. You decided that the more generous, the more noble, the more Christian policy, was also the most prudent. Why we I you recede from that policy now? Perhaps it will be said, that the circumstances of Ireland and the state of parties made concession inevitable in 1829; but are not all the circumstances of the country now similar to the circumstances of 1829?—If there be a difference, does it not consist exclusively in your greater inability to withhold now than then? Sir, there is not one of those facts connected with the state of Ireland and the feeling of the Irish people—there is not one of those great principles—which does not now exist, and equally apply, therefore, at the present moment. Is Ireland not as profoundly moved upon this subject as she was in 1829? The right hon. Gentleman stated, from his place on these benches, that at that period Ireland was in a state of extreme excitement and irritation—that at that period there existed a political association, or body, which had usurped all the powers of the law, which neith r statute nor common law could put down and which it was necessary to put down by emancipation. What! is there no association at this moment of that nature? Was this the language of the right hon. Baronet on the other side, or not? Is Ireland at this moment in a state of irritation or not? And is this the whole of the argument which the other side have to adduce? It is impossible to view the state of Ireland at the present moment, and to compare it with what it was in 1829, and not to perceive that Ireland is animated by as strong, as enduring, and as determined a feeling now, on the question of these Municipal Corporations, as she was then on the question of Catholic Emancipation. Have we not heard that that very Catholic association, which had arisen in Ireland, had grown in 1829 so strong, that neither under the authority of statute law nor common law could (the Government suppress or neutralise it? But the general association exists now in Ireland, and hon. Gentlemen will find it just as impossible to cope with that association as they did to grapple with the association of 1829; and you will as vainly attempt to reach it by statute or common law. Against the Catholic asso- ciation you came forward with an Act of Parliament. You found it inoperative; yet the right hon. Gentleman declared and declared with truth, that the common law would not touch it. You will find that the demand in Ireland for this Bill will be just as great as that which arose for emancipation. The right hon. Gentleman stated that England and Ireland were divided on the subject of Catholic emancipation in 1829—that a majority of the people of England were in favour of it—that a majority including all the Roman Catholics were in favour of it. Is it not clear, and evident, and notorious that the majority of the people of England are in favour of this measure for granting to us Municipal Corporations? Is there not a majority of the Irish people in favour of it? But it is said, that the state of parties in this House made concession necessary in 1829. The state of parties, however, is stronger now for this concession than it was then for the other. Is there not a majority of this House in favour of the measure before you? And has it not been a continuous one—not in one Parliament one Session, but Parliament after Parliament, and Session after Session? Is the public Opinion of England less pronounced upon it than it was upon the question of 1829? The right hon. Baronet argued on the question of 1829, that the great division of opinion upon it among the people of England was to be collected from the fact that the House of Commons were for, and the House of Lords were against it. Is not the same fact observable in this instance? The House of Lords is now, as then, against the concession proposed. But it yielded, in 1829, on the Emancipation question, as in due season it will yield on this. I defy that House to produce a greater effect upon the opinions of a majority of the Scotch and Irish Members than it did in 1829. I have gone into this parallel, to show that the question before you is the same in 1837, as it was in 1829, The question was, whether it is advisable to make a large concession to the 'demands of the united Irish people, sanctioned by a majority of the British nation? The question now is, whether you will carry out the principle on which you conceded Emancipation, to the concession of these Municipal Corporations? The only point of difference which it is necessary to mention between the circumstances of the two periods is, that in 1829 no Ministry could be formed upon the principle of resisting concession; that they would be unanimous in proposing a vote of relief to the Roman Catholics—to their disabilities, I should like to know, Sir, whether in 1837 you could form an Administration from the benches opposite, even, which would be unanimous in refusing Municipal Corporation to Ireland? Why, Sir, the hon. Gentlemen differ among themselves tola cælo on that subject. One party does not like these institutions; another party is very favourable to them. It remains to be tried if such an administration can be formed now. I venture to predict that it cannot—I venture to say, that the differences upon the subject among hon. Members on the other side would soon render this an open question, if they ventured to take power without adjusting it; and the best step to complete the parallel in the history of the two measures will be, that hon. Members will themselves propose the measure they now resist. Sir, the noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire, in his speech, has paved the way for a retreat upon this question. He says he is not opposed to the establishment of Corporations in Ireland in proper time, but this, he says, is not the time. This, at least, admits the principle of the measure, and saves his inconsistency if he should hereafter bring it forward. It is for the noble Lord to say, having admitted the principle, why this is not the time, or when the time will come. He says, when the Church questions are adjusted. But when are they to be adjusted—and is it not the doctrine of the hon. Members who sit near him that they never can be adjusted? Is it not their creed that the Catholics are insatiable and never will be satisfied till the Church be actually uprooted? When, then, will the Church be put into that state which the noble Lord considers as necessary to sanction the present measure? And how are we to know that it is come? Why did he not explain what that state was, that we might claim the fulfilment of his promise when it was achieved? As it stands, the noble Lord may, or may not, at any future time support the present measure as he chooses. When reproached by one party or the other, either for bringing it forward or opposing it, all he has to say is, either that the time has, or has not come. Sir, there was an observation of the noble Lord to which I must advert before I close. He objects to the absence from the present Bill of the oath to be taken by Roman Catholics in lieu of the oaths that were formerly required upon the admission to Corporations. I must say that this objection comes very tardy; it is a year since the Bill came before the House, and the objection was never before started. Sir, I have no hesitation in saying, that if it would gratify the noble Lord, or any of his friends, that the oaths should be taken by the new corporators there, and the substituted oaths should be taken before they become councilmen or mayor, a clause shall be introduced to that effect. But let me remind the House, and the noble Lord, that the practice of taking oaths upon every occasion has been of late years discouraged by the laws; it has been considered that the perpetual and recurring habit of swearing oaths has tended to bring them into disregard; and it was upon that principle that the present Bill omitted to require these oaths. Impressed with these opinions, I shall vote for the third reading of the Bill.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

I do not wish to deceive the House, as to the question which we have really to determine. We are called on to decide whether we will give a third reading to this Bill, or whether we will leave the people of Ireland to those existing corruptions which, it has been fairly acknowledged in another place, are too gross and exclusive to be capable of being defended or upheld. It is now some time since a Bill passed into a law which stayed the corruptions that had long been practised in many Corporations of this country, and winch happily arrested the progress of their mal - administration; and this, avowedly, on the ground of their want of trustworthiness, At the same time, Ireland remained, and still continues, subject to this exercise of these corrupt practices, on the part of many of the Corporations,—to this mal-administration of the affairs of the communities they are set over,—and to this excluding spirit, which the great purport of the Bill before us is to remedy. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side tell us they object to this Bill, because it tends to substitute one exclusive domination in towns for another,—to take the exclusive dominion in Corporation affairs out of the hands of one set of men, and to place it in those of another. Therefore, they admit that the present system of Corporation government in Ireland is an exclusive domination. But they forget that, though the event of extinguishing it were what they anticipate, they utterly fail to establish the hypothesis on which they proceed, and in which, though distinctly avowed by them, I utterly and completely dissent from them: namely, that it is not fitting that the transfer should be to those who represent the many. It should be recollected, that in the one case this dominion is in the hands of a small minority; and that, in the other case which we have it now in contemplation to provide, this power will, at any rate, be given to the larger masses of the people. Has any Gentleman in this House—has even the right hon. and learned Recorder of Dublin, to whom I appeal, as peculiarly representing the Metropolitan Corporation of that city—has even be, or any other hon. Member, ventured to defend the conduct of these Corporations? No, Sir; none have done so. Why, then, it seems to be agreed, on all hands, that the present corrupt state of things should be done away with. But I go further, Sir; and I, and those with whom I have the honour to act, wish that something better should be substituted in its stead;—whereas, the proposition of the noble Lord the Member for South Lancashire (Lord Francis Egerton) is not, indeed, to continue the present Corporations, but to substitute something worse in the place of those bodies which he desires to abolish, on the very ground of their corruption. I may venture to congratulate those who are friendly to the present Bill, upon the fact that this measure is carried. The arguments used, and the principles acknowledged, by hon. Gentlemen opposite, in the course of this debate, have put an end to all doubts as to Municipal Reform in Ireland. It is admitted. It is now only a question of time—a question of expediency. But they will not give to us, the triumph, they will not give to us who acquired Municipal Reform for Scotland, the triumph; they will not give to us, who acquired Municipal Reform for England, in spite of all their efforts, who denied the expediency, and protested against the danger of putting the affairs of our municipal communities under a more popular superintendence;—they will not give to us the triumph of effecting the same reform for Ireland. They will not give to us the triumph, who have carried so many questions, involving liberal and constitutional principles, the most essential to the welfare and happiness of the public. No, Sir, they will not let us carry the Bill. But, I repeat, it is only a question of time. This was, in fact, admitted in the speech of the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn). Carried this question is; carried it must be; carried it must be for the benefit of Ireland;—but carried not by us, but by them. But will the result be the same if the Bill shall be carried by the hon. Gentlemen opposite? Are they prepared to go on still in the same course which they have been so long treading, proposing measures one day, and acting in direct opposition to them the next? Are hon. Gentlemen, who flock down to record their votes against this measure tonight, prepared for what is even now preparing for them? Are they aware that though they are called down to-day to oppose the measure now before us, they will probably be called down some other day to carry it? Were ever arguments advanced so shifting, so slippery, as those which have been urged against the principle of this measure? See what they amount to. "The present time is not the time," says the noble Lord opposite; and so say his hon. Friends:—"the present circumstances are not the fitting circumstances—let us first see what can be done with the question of the Church." In his great zeal for the Church he cannot find time to have any thing to do with the Municipal Corporations of Ireland. But, considering that we are now discussing the Irish Municipal Corporations Bill for the third time, I must say that they who espouse this view of the present question should remember that, when we first discussed this Bill here, no danger was apprehended by them as likely to result from it to the Church of Ireland. Two years ago, when this question was first formally brought before us, if danger menaced that Church by reason of this Bill, it must have equally threatened it then, as now. But two years ago nobody spoke of danger to the Church of Ireland: it was not then thought of, either here, or in another place which I am forbidden to name. Last year, perhaps, the magnifying glasses of the right hon. Member for Cumberland (Sir James Graham), certainly the most far-sighted Gentleman in the House on all these questions, may have been put on, and have enabled him to descry, afar off, this danger. But that "the Church is in danger," was not the ground taken by Gentlemen on the other side last year. I recollect that when, in the discussion of last year, I first suggested that argument which has been so irresistibly stated by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General for Ireland (Mr. Sergeant Woulfe) to-night, namely, that there could be no real objection to this measure among Gentlemen opposite, except it was the objection founded on the religion of the great mass of the Irish nation,—that argument was scouted by those benches as an illiberal misrepresentation of the views which they really entertained. And yet, Sir, we find that it was reserved—I will not say to the eleventh hour, but to a time past that eleventh hour—for the curious penetration of the right hon. Baronet to discover that, in this Bill, there did lurk that very principle of danger to the Church, which his hon. and right hon. Colleagues had repudiated. But, give me leave to ask, Sir, if there actually do exist this danger to the Church of Ireland, is that, or any other danger which may attach to the measure before us, equal in amount to that which must result from the aggravation of spirit and disappointment of heart which must ensue from the refusal of this boon? We Irish are a peculiar people; and, if the House will allow me to speak simply as a native of Ireland, unconnected with office or with party, I would venture to tell hon. Gentlemen that they little know the character of the people of that country, if they do not carry with them, into all their discussions, the knowledge of this fact,—that, of all things, an insult is that which the people of Ireland will least submit to, or overlook. We are a very sensitive people. We bear much, perhaps, in the way of actual injustice; but if you arouse our national pride,—if you tell us that we are unworthy of these institutions,—that we are so despised as to be thought either unfit to be trusted with, or incapable of exercising, them,—that argument is one which, depend upon it, the Irish people will long remember. But, Sir, not only is the argument which has been raised one that goes to affect the national feeling of the Irish, but it attacks that nationality in the most sensitive point, namely, the religion of the great mass of them. I take upon myself—an Irish Protestant—to disclaim those sentiments which hon. Gentlemen opposite, and, among them, an hon. and Gallant Officer opposite, have advanced, as claiming to represent the Protestants of Ireland. I disclaim them as the representatives of the genuine feelings of that body; and I say, that I feel, for my part, an insult thrown upon the Roman Catholic body with as much acuteness as if it were thrown upon those of my own religion. For what is the argument? We are not to look at this as a question affecting Ireland only as regards the Protestant part of the community, but as regards, also, the great Roman Catholic majority. If we, by our conduct on this occasion, intimate to the Roman Catholics that they are less entitled to our respect than their Protestant brethren, I contend that we shall deserve all the consequences which must inevitably flow from such an intimation. How, then, is this House prepared to act on the present occasion? We are called upon, after admitting, in the cases of Scotland, Ireland, and England, that the system of self-elected Corporations is one which cannot be vindicated, to vindicate and continue that very evil;—first, it seems, because we are Irishmen; and, secondly because the Roman Catholics comprise about three-fourths of our whole population. My noble Friend (Lord Stanley) says, he has many objections to take to the Bill. I wish he would state to us, distinctly, whether it is to the principle or to the details that his objections are confined. But if it be their object that the Bill should be debated, and affirmed or rejected on its principle, was it a fair course, I would ask the noble Lord and his hon. Friends, that they should have abstained, on the second reading of the Bill, from all objections of this sort; and then, on the question of the third reading of the Bill, bring forward arguments really applying to its principle, not to its details? We are fighting for that great principle, who now advocate the third reading. If my first position be well founded, that they are really intending, at some time or other, to carry this Bill themselves, then I am right in protesting against the mode of proceeding which they adopt, and cadit quœstio, I admit; but I take this simple mode of ascertaining the fact. If such be not their intention—if they do not mean to carry the measure,—then, I say, take this as a sample of the other measures which you may expect from them in administering the Government of Ireland. The principle on which we have gone, intend to go, and ask the House by its vote to affirm, is, to place the municipal power in the hands of the mass of the people. Are hon. Gentlemen opposite prepared to govern Ireland by withholding their confidence from the Irish people? Do they suppose that Ireland can be governed by such a policy? Let them be assured, that their objections to our principle come too late, if even they were good for anything. We have been parties, already, to the giving to the majority in Ireland political power; and many of the Gentlemen who opposed the present Bill have been the parties to enable the Irish people to influence the decisions of this House, by sending so many Members into it. Those very Gentlemen, who supported the Irish Reform Bill, now contend that it is inexpedient to pass this most necessary measure for the reform of Irish Municipal Corporations. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite remember the speeches which used to be made from the benches on the other side? Do they recollect what was said by the hon. Member for Cavan? Do they recollect the agreeable futurity of which he held out to us the prospect, in the event of our refusing to pass this Bill? Do they recollect, that he told us at the time that, in future elections, there would be sure to be at least thirty-two additional Members returned by the mass of the Roman Catholic constituency? Do they recollect that these seventy or eighty Members for Ireland alone (for to that number will the advocates of our measures, be found among the Irish representatives, now to amount), are about to rend to us this lesson (and what can be more important to the constituency),—that the rejection of this Bill has its origin in nothing but the distrust which some among us entertain of the religion which they and their forefathers have loved and cherished for so many centuries? Do they suppose that the measures of the Legislature can be well prepared and properly supported, or that the functions of the Government of this country—whatever party may be in power—can be properly carried on and exercised, if they attempt to lay down a principle which can have a tendency to produce such a result as I have adverted to? I contend, that under such principles, the Government of this country never can be administered. But we are offered an alternative; which alternative we are not, on this side in a condition to accept,—for it resolves itself into the rejection of this Bill. But now I wish to refer to the alternative which has been suggested, and which is this,—that the principle of the Bill being similar to that under which certain local or civic bodies were formed under the Act of 9th George 4th, who would fulfil all the functions that were requisite for local government, these Municipal Corporations are not necessary. I should like to know whether, after refusing to the people of Ireland the establishment of Corporations, founded on no more extensive powers than those which have been conferred on Corporations in England, the feelings of the Irish people will not be highly exasperated; and Whether these bodies, to be formed under the 9th George 4th, would act efficiently? Why, Sir, talk of normal schools of agitation, I would get them up under the provisions of the 9th George 4th, (exasperated as the people then would be by the refusal of Municipal Corporations)—I would give them Commissioners armed with powers that should be more active and more mischievous in their operation than anything which can result from the establishment of Municipal Corporations. And why will the case be so? It will be so because those persons, to whom the powers under the 9th George 4th Were given, would come into office excited and enraged by the sense of the injustice they had experienced. But we have approached other subjects We have been told, that the Ministry are supported only by small majorities, and that those majorities are caused by the votes of Irish Members. I have always refused to attach any weight to the assertion which goes to attach a particular value to the votes of hon. Members either for Scotland or Ireland. I say that that argument is one which is inconsistent with the character and privileges of the House, and the freedom of debate; and it is equally inconsistent with anything like fair reasoning. Do not. Hon. Gentlemen know that they dare not fight with us on this question? That they are obliged to frame another question, upon which they think there is a stronger ground to raise the cry of "the Church in danger?" That cry has been often raised by some hon. Friends opposite me; but it is now raised, I will say, with as little truth and decency as ever it was raised before, by them or for them. Do not those hon. Gentlemen opposite know, that on this side of the House there are Friends whom they have left, or from whom they have separated, who are as earnestly and sincerely attached to the Church of Ireland as any men can be? And, for the correctness of this assertion, I feel that I can appeal to my hon. Friends opposite. But there is this distinction between them and those on this side of the House,—that, whilst we are all equally attached to the Church, some among us are better acquainted with the subject than our adversaries; and none among them can have a better knowledge of the dangers which must arise, if this prediction of theirs were likely to be fulfilled, than we have. There is nothing on which the people of Ireland have more completely set their hearts, than the acquisition of these Municipal Corporations. I will ask if ever there was a more trumpery attempt made to connect two subjects essentially distinct, than that which we have heard to-night? Some hon. Gentle-men contend that, in the paragraph contained in his Majesty's Speech, three measures were referred to, as necessary to be considered on behalf of Ireland; namely, one relating to the introduction of Poor-laws, the other to the settlement of the question of Municipal Corporations, and the third to the settlement of the tithes and the Church question. Surely, Gentlemen cannot have been led into such an error as to say, "because these three measures were united in the King's Speech, that, therefore, we have ft right to consider them as one measure, and to discuss them as one measure, and we will not vote for any of them apart?" Connexion between the questions of the Church and Municipal Corporations? Where is the connexion between the one measure and the other? Suppose we had not introduced the measure for Poor-laws, and suppose it had been said "we cannot discuss the Municipal Corporation Bill till you give us the Bill for the introduction of the Poor-laws:"—why, there is no earthly connexion between the two Bills. And, whatever may be surmised in respect of another question, hon. Gentlemen may be assured that it is the intention of his Majesty's Government to in- troduce the subject of tithes again, and I will put them in possession of that fact; and I can assure them that his Majesty's Government are not disposed to shrink from the responsibility of such a measure, which they will have an opportunity of considering in the present Session. I have a great respect for the right hon. and learned Recorder for Dublin, to whose talents, ability, and uprightness, I readily bear testimony; yet, if I were required to "march through Coventry" with such a troop as he has to follow him, I should be very sorry to give the Church so bad a chance of enlisting champions for its cause. It is said, however, that these Corporations cannot be established without great practical danger and continued agitation; and the name and power of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny have been certainly resorted to in reference to this point: and it is said that the Government have made that hon. and learned Gentleman a powerful man. But I will contend, that they who use this line of argument make him much stronger than he otherwise would be. The hon. and learned Gentleman has only to direct a single casual observation to the notice of the House, and there is not an hon. Gentleman on the opposite side who does not feel himself immediately bound to vote in opposition to him. It is urged that the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny has said, "Give me Irish Corporations, and I will achieve all the rest" Hon. Gentlemen opposite refuse to do this; and they thereby enable him to say, in every place entitled to a Corporation, "I did my best to give you Municipal rights in every part of the country, but hon. Gentlemen who usually sit opposite to me in the House of Commons refused to give you this advantage." By this course of proceeding, I am pre pared to show that you give to the hon. and learned Gentleman a greater lever on the public mind than he ever had before, or could have in the Corporations which this Bill goes to establish. The effect of this Bill will be to engender in the minds of the Irish people a greater disposition to look into local concerns, without regarding the speeches of hon. Members on either side of the House; a disposition which our long sustained and corrupt system of governing Ireland has so much discouraged, to the infinite mischief of that country. The argument which was so well raised by the hon. Member for Lis- keard, on a former occasion, was, that the general principle of this kind of measure was good, but that it was absolutely irresistible as applied to Ireland. We are teaching them now, by our own example, that, carried out into execution, it must be of the utmost possible benefit to that country. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke first in the debate, and whose speech has since been alluded to as if he had moved an amendment, though that, in point of fact, was not the case, has referred to the reasons advanced by the House of Lords, during the last Session of Parliament, for adhering to the amendments they had made in the Bill then sent up to them. The reason particularly referred to was this:— The Lords still entertain the hope that the two Houses of Parliament may, at no distant time, devise such measures of Reform in the administration of local affairs as may give real contentment, by effecting real improvement, by promoting social and religious peace in the cities and towns in Ireland. Now If the Lords really entertained the hope expressed by them in that reason, do not hon. Gentlemen opposite see that, by their endeavours to defeat the Bill now before them, they are, in point of fact, depriving their Lordships of the opportunity of adopting a measure which would have the effect of realising their thus avowed expectations? Before I conclude, it is impossible that I should not refer to something which has recently appeared in a public print, namely, a declaration coming from an old friend of theirs, stating the true principles on which the present Bill is framed, the true principles on which it is supported, and the true principles upon which, I will venture to say, it will sooner or later be carried into a law. The statement to which I allude has been attributed to the hon. Member for Derbyshire (Sir George Crewe); it has appeared in several of the public-prints, and I do not find that the hon. Baronet has ever subsequently disowned it. It is contained in an address to the constituency of Derbyshire. To that address, let me entreat the earnest and serious attention of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, before they give their vote this night for the absolute rejection of the Bill. It is in the following terms:— I could not reconcile the plan proposed by the party with which I have the honour generally to act with my own interests, either as to the justice or policy of refusing the demand of Ireland to receive an equal participation in civil rights and privileges, which has been fully granted to England and Scotland. As upon the result the present Government had voluntarily staked their existence as Ministers of the Crown, I felt there was the more urgent need for me to be jealous of my own character, in fulfilling stoutly the only pledge I ever made to the public at my election. Now, Sir, I ask the hon. Gentlemen who are about to vote against the Bill, whether they can reconcile that vote with a sense of what is due either to justice or to sound policy? Is it just or politic to refuse to Ireland those claims which have already been proved to be just and fair, by their being conceded to other parts of the empire? I know that many Gentlemen differ from the Government upon the question of the Established Church; that a strong difference of opinion on that subject exists among different classes in this country. There let them take their stand; but here, where the Church question does not enter, except where it is forced, with the view of gaining the votes of an hon. Gentleman in aid of a bad cause, I do ask the House to give its support, and to declare that the Irishmen, on whom many Parliamentary rights have of late years been conferred, should not be deprived of those local and municipal rights to which the rest of the empire has been admitted. Let it not be said to the people of Ireland, "We have given you the greater right, but will continue to refuse to you the less." I may venture, perhaps, for one moment, to speak to the House in the capacity of a witness. I am an old municipal reformer; I am, in fact, the first person, connected with Ireland, who ventured a struggle with the old corporations of that country; I took up the quarrel as a young man and conducted it, perhaps, with something of the over-excitement of a young man; but I fought the battle unaided, and I was stout enough to conquer. The corporation to which I allude was that (of the city of Limerick, with respect to which I applied to Parliament, (I gave up five years of try time to the attainment of my object,) not merely for an authorized statement of the result of a contested election, but also for a remedial measure of legislation, embracing a law for extension of the franchise. A Bill was accordingly introduced and carried, in spite of all the opposition offered to its progress by a strong party in this House. But what was the character of evidence given before the Committee who sat upon that Bill? I speak in the presence of several Gentlemen who attended upon the Committee, and who will be able to bear testimony to the correctness of my statement. The greater part of the evidence went to this:—"If you carry this Bill—if you open the corporation—above all, if you admit the Roman Catholics to the municipal franchise—if you allow large meetings of mixed bodies of the citizens, the peace of the town cannot be maintained—the laws cannot be administered." Old magistrates were presented before the Committee to prove these facts; and even military officers, who had served in Ireland, were called to show that, if these extended privileges were granted to the city, the whole body of troops employed in that part of the kingdom would be insufficient to maintain the peace and secure the administration of the law. But the Bill passed into a law, notwithstanding all the heavy denunciations which were heaped upon it, in its progress; notwithstanding the powerful hostility of its eloquent opponents, the learned Members for Huntingdon and Exeter. And what was the result? What has been the state of the city of Limerick since the passing of that measure of extensive municipal reform? Compared with what it was before, it is now in the happiest and most flourishing condition. In place of all the disturbances—all the turmoil—all the excitement and exasperation that formerly existed, with regard to the whole details of its internal government, the complaint at the present moment is of a very opposite description; and the only difficulty experienced is that of finding persons sufficiently interested in the local affairs of the city to undertake the duties of corporate councilors and officers. Now if I can show one single example of the complete success of the experiment of municipal Reform in one of the largest cities in Ireland—an example beyond all doubt or gainsaying, it is worth a thousand of such arguments as have been advanced by the hon. Gentlemen opposite. Let it be remembered that the system of municipal corporations, with whatever vices and deficiencies, accompanied, has long been known in Ireland. Why, then, should you hesitate to confide to the people those institutions, under a Reformed system, the excellence of which you admit in their application to all other parts of the United Kingdom? The Irish have endured the tyranny of Cromwell; they have suffered under the arbitrary oppressions of Lord Strafford. Do not put upon them the needless insult of withholding from them a benefit to which they are so well entitled. I regret that I have been compelled at this time of the night to occupy so much of the time of the House; but again I say to the friends who uniformly support the measure, "Let us stand firm to the measure we have supported—let us acquire a new confidence when we find that the grounds of opposition now taken by the hon. Gentlemen who oppose us are only grounds laid for their own future support of the measure." To the hon. Gentlemen opposite I will again say, "Hesitate before you give a decided negative to the measure now; when you must know, endeavour to disguise it from your own conscience as you will, that a proposition constantly supported, as this has been, by majorities of the House of Commons ranging from sixty to seventy, must ultimately be carried." You are arrayed on the other side against us, to-night, but the time is coming when we shall see you our supporters.

Mr. Sham

said, he would not at that late hour attempt to follow the right hon. Gentleman through his lengthened speech; he knew the House and the subject were exhausted. He was conscious, too, how frequently during the progress of the measure he had trespassed on the attention of the House, and he was reluctant to trouble them at all on that occasion; he would do so as briefly as possible, in answer to some of the observations which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He could not, however, but think that the real bearings of the measure were not yet understood, and that the House and the country (he particularly meant England) were still unaware of the precise character either of the proposed Bill, or of the nature and limited extent of the opposition which was offered to it. First, he must advert to the fallacy of the right hon. Gentleman, that those who, on that side of the House, admitted that the ancient Corporations should be abolished, were, on that account, bound to support the third reading of the present Bill. No; it was they who had offered the alternative, and the Government, who, if they had desired to abolish the existing Corporations, were bound to have adopted that branch of it, by dividing the Bill, and agreeing to the part in which his side of the House concurred. But surely it was erroneous reasoning to say, that because they were willing to remove the less evil of exclusiveness even from the hands of the known friends of British connexion and the established Church, they were to incur the greater evil of transferring that exclusive power to those who, as had been said by his hon. Friend the member for Wenlock (Mr. Gaskell), were notoriously and avowedly the enemies of both. It was then said by the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), as well as by the Attorney-General for Ireland, that the objection urged to the passing of the Bill was the fact of the large mass of the Irish people being of the Roman Catholic religion. That depended upon whether or not that was the cause of another fact which was, beyond all controversy—namely, that the people of Ireland were divided into two great contending parties, marked, no doubt, by the difference of religion—but still taking their rise from a period antecedent to the distinction between Protestant and Roman Catholic. The right hon. Gentleman was historically incorrect in stating, that the first corporate charter was granted in Ireland in the reign of King John—it was, in fact, granted in the reign of Henry 2nd—though by Prince John, then Lord of Ireland. The truth was, that in their origin, their purpose, and their practice, the Corporations of England and Ireland were essentially different. In England, during the long struggle between prerogative and privilege, and the arduous contests which engaged the attention of the King, the nobles and the clergy, the townspeople were gradually accumulating wealth and acquiring influence, and undoubtedly their subsequent incorporation raised a new balance in the constitution, and served to diffuse freedom and independence more generally throughout the mass of the community—and industry increased, and trade and commerce flourished. The principle of local government was established amongst them. In England, even, the danger will scarcely now be said to be on the side of the privileged classes. But in Ireland, the whole origin and object of Corporations were entirely different. There, from the earliest grants of Henry 2nd to "his men of Bristol," municipal institutions were established in the nature of garrisons in a hostile country—expressly for the defence of the English pale. They were continually occupied in warfare—military services were the consideration of the charters and patents granted to them. These were full of acknowledgments, not of their improvement in trade or the performance of corporate duties, but of their faithful allegiance, and the blood and treasure they had expended in defence of the British Crown and Government; and to this day the legal title of the Lord Mayor of Dublin was Admiral of the Port and Military Governor of the City. In the same spirit of the reformation, new corporations were granted, and charters passed for the express purpose of maintaining and encouraging the Protestant religion, thus superadding a difference of religious faith to the previously existing distinction of a different descent from that period to the present. The Irish Corporations had been regarded by both parties in the light of engines for political and religious purposes alone; and other functionaries had, in almost every case, discharged the ordinary corporate duties of local management, such as paving, lighting, watching, and so forth. It was in the hands of those existing boards and commissioners that he desired to leave those functions, at all events, for the present. He and his friends were willing to surrender those exclusive political and religious privileges to the charge of which had been set clown so much of animosity and ill-will; but they said at least, allow time to obliterate those recollections. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the part he had taken personally with regard to the abolition of the existing Corporations, and he might be permitted to say, that it was an easy matter for those who possessed their confidence, to induce the old Corporations to forego their ancient rights, and to surrender those customs and privileges to which their ancestors and themselves had for ages been accustomed; but it would be contrary to all reason and common sense to expect that they could patiently, or without the most rankling irritation, see them made over to a rival party. They desired no terms but those of perfect equality. Provide for all corporate purposes, and then, as under the 9th George 4th, they would not object to a considerable popular control. Let justice be equally and impartially administered by officers appointed by the Crown. Let tolls be abolished, and such property as remains be applied to all the inhabitants of each locality. Under these circumstances, we are told that Ireland is insulted and degraded by the proposition to abolish the existing Corporations, and not for the present to erect new ones in their stead. Now be it recollected, we have never contended that a time may not come, as was said by his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) that night, when under different circumstances, and when a period shall have elapsed sufficient to have softened or removed the personal, political, and religious animosities now in the minds of both parties—connected with not only the nature, but the name of the existing Corporations, there is nothing to prevent charters being granted to such cities or towns as may desire them at any future time. The trifling property they possess was to be preserved for strictly local purposes, and it would be as easy, at any time hereafter as at present, to confer, by Act of Parliament, the power of local taxation, if that should be deemed desirable; they objected to a transition so sudden, so rapid, and so violent, that it could not but be dangerous. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sergeant Woulfe) had accused his (Mr. Shaw's) side of the House, of having raised the cry, in connexion with the present question of the Church being in danger. He denied that they had raised any such cry; but if they had, they would have been justified. The right hon. Gentleman, and his colleagues!, had done all in their power to bring the Church into danger. The very measure had been described by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny as only an instalment, and he accepted it only as a means of getting more. The Ministers were willing to give such measures as were injurious to the Church of Ireland, while they delayed and kept back all measures of substantial practical relief. To such measures he and his Friends were always ready to give their best and unbiased attention—he meant such measures, as those for the settlement of the tithe question, for the relief of the destitute poor, for the development of the internal resources of the country, or any other measures not intended to serve a mere party purpose, but such as were really calculated to promote the permanent peace and prosperity of that apparently ill-fated portion of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Brotherton moved the adjournment of the debate.

The House divided—Ayes 286; Noes 232: Majority 54.

Debate adjourned.

List of the AYES.
Acheson, Viscount	Chapman, L.
Adam, Sir C.	Chetwynd, Captain
Aglionby, H. A.	Chichester, J. P. B.
Ainsworth, P.	Clay, W.
Alston, R.	Clayton, Sir W.
Andover, Visc.	Clements, Viscount
Angerstein, John	Codrington, Admiral
Anson, Sir G.	Colborne, N. W. R.
Astley, Sir J.	Collins, W.
Attwood, T.	Cowper, hon. W. F.
Bagshaw, John	Crawford, W. S.
Baines, E.	Crawford, W.
Ball, N.	Crawley, S.
Bannerman, A.	Crompton, S.
Barclay, D.	Curteis, H. B.
Baring, F. T.	Curteis, E. B.
Barnard, E. G.	Dalmeny, Lord
Barron, H. W.	Dennistoun, A.
Barry, G. S.	D'Eyncourt, rt. hon. C. T.
Beauclerk, Major
Belfast, Earl of	Dillwyn, L. W.
Bellew, R. M.	Divett, E.
Bellew, Sir P.	Donkin, Sir R.
Benett, J.	Duncombe, T.
Bentinck, Lord W.	Dundas, hon. J. C.
Berkeley, hon. F.	Dundas, hon. T.
Berkeley, hon. G.	Dundas, J. D.
Berkeley, hon. C.	Dunlop, J.
Bernal, R.	Ebrington, Viscount
Bewes, T.	Edwards, J.
Biddulph, R.	Ellice, rt. hon. E.
Bish, T.	Elphinstone, H.
Blake, M. J.	Etwall, R.
Blunt, Sir C.	Evans, G.
Bowes, J.	Ewart, W.
Brady, D. C.	Fellowes, hon. N.
Bridgman, H.	Fergus, J.
Brocklehurst, J.	Ferguson, Sir R.
Brodie, W. B.	Ferguson, Sir R. A.
Brotherton, J.	Ferguson, R.
Browne, R. D.	Fergusson, rt. hon. R. G.
Buller, E.	Fitzgibbon, hon. R.
Bulwer, H. L.	Fitzroy, Lord C.
Bulwer, E. L.	Fitzsimon, C.
Butler, Hon. P.	Fleetwood, P. H.
Buxton, T. F.	Folkes, Sir W.
Byng, G.	Forster, C. S.
Callaghan, D.	French, F.
Campbell, Sir J.	Gillon, W. D.
Campbell, W. F.	Gordon, R.
Carter, J. B.	Goring, H. D.
Cave, R. O.	Grattan, J.
Cavendish, hon. C.	Grattan, H.
Cavendish, hon. G. H.	Grey, Sir G.
Cayley, E. S.	Grote, G.
Chalmers, P.	Guest, J.J.

Hall, B.	Palmer, General
Hallyburton, Lord D.	Palmerston, Visc.
Handley, H.	Parker, John
Harland, W. C.	Parnell, rt. hon. Sir H.
Harvey, D. W.	Parrott, J.
Hastie, A.	Parry, Sir L. P. J.
Hawes, B.	Pattison, J.
Hawkins, J. H.	Pease, J.
Hay, Sir And. Leith	Pecbell, Captain
Heathcote, J.	Philips, M.
Hector, C. J.	Philips, G. R.
Hindley, C.	Phillips, C. M.
Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.	Pinney, W.
Hodges, T. L.	Ponsonby, hon. W.
Hodges, T. T.	Ponsonby, hon. J.
Holland, E.	Potter, R.
Hoskins, K.	Poulter, J. S.
Howard, R.	Power, J.
Howard, P. H.	Poyntz, W. S.
Howick, Viscount	Pryme, G.
Hume, J.	Pryse, Pryse
Humphery, J.	Ramsbottom, J.
Hurst, R. H.	Rice, rt. hon. T. S.
Hutt, W.	Rippon, Cuthbert
James, W.	Robarts, A. W.
Jervis, J.	Robinson, G. R.
Johnston, Andrew	Roche, William
King, E. B.	Roche, D.
Labouchere, rt. hon. H.	Roebuck, J. A.
Lambton, Hedworth	Rolfe, Sir R. M.
Leader, J. T.	Rooper, J. Benfoy
Lee, J. L.	Rundle, J.
Lefevre, C. S.	Russell, Lord J.
Lennard, T. B.	Russell, Lord
Lennox, Lord George	Russell, Lord C.
Lennox, Lord A.	Ruthven, E.
Leveson, Lord	Sanford, E. A.
Loch, J.	Scott, Sir E. D.
Long, W.	Scott, J. W.
Lushington, Dr.	Scourfield, W. H.
Lushington, C.	Scrope, G. P.
Lynch, A. H.	Seale, Colonel
Macnamara, Major	Seymour, Lord
M'Taggart, J.	Sharpe, General
Maher, J.	Sheil, R. L.
Mangles, J.	Simeon, Sir R.
Marjoribanks, S.	Smith, J. A.
Marshall, W.	Smith, hon. R.
Marsland, H.	Smith, R. V.
Martin, T.	Smith, B.
Maule, hon. F.	Spiers, A.
Methuen, P.	Stanley, W. O.
Molesworth, Sir. W.	Stewart, P. M.
Moreton, hon. A. H.	Stuart, Lord D.
Morpeth, Viscount	Stuart, Lord J.
Morrison, J.	Stuart, V.
Mosley, Sir O. Bt.	Strangways, hon. J.
Murray, rt. hon. J. A.	Strickland, Sir G.
Nagle, Sir R.	Surrey, Earl of
O'Connell, D.	Talbot, C. R. M.
O'Connell, J.	Talbot, J. H.
O'Connell, M. J.	Talfourd, Serjeant
O'Connell, M.	Tancred, H. W.
O'Conor Don	Thomson, rt. hon. C. P.
O'Ferrall, R. M.	Thompson, Colonel
Ord, W.	Thornley, T.
Oswald, J.	Tooke, William

Townley, R. G.	Wilbraham, G.
Tracey, Charles H.	Wilde, Sergeant
Trelawney, Sir W.	Wilks, John
Troubridge, Sir E. T.	Williams, W.
Tulk, C. A.	Williams, W. A.
Turner, W.	Williams, Sir J.
Tynte, C. K. K.	Williamson, Sir H.
Tynte, C. J. K.	Wilson, H.
Verney, Sir H.	Winnington, Sir T.
Villiers, Charles P.	Winnington, H. J.
Vivian, J. H.	Wood, C.
Wakley, T.	Wood, Alderman
Walker, C. A.	Worsley, Lord
Walker, R.	Woulfe, Sergeant
Wallace, R.	Wrightson, W. B.
Warburton, H.	Wrottesley, Sir J.
Ward, H. G.	Wyse, T.
Wason, R.	Young, G. F.
Westenra, hon. H. R.
Whalley, Sir S.	TELLERS.
White, S.	Stanley, Edward J.
Wigney, I. N.	Steuart, R.

List of the NOES.
Agnew, Sir A.	Clive, hon. R. H.
Alford, Viscount	Codrington, C. W.
Alsager, Captain	Cole, hon. A. H.
Arbuthnot, hon. H.	Cole, Viscount
Archdall, M.	Compton, H. C.
Ashley, Visc.	Cooper, E. J.
Ashley, hon. H.	Coote, Sir C.
Bagot, hon. W.	Corry, right hon. H.
Bailey, J.	Cripps, J.
Baillie, H. D.	Dalbiac, Sir C.
Balfour, T.	Damer, G. L. D.
Barclay, C.	Darlington, Earl of
Baring, F.	Davenport, J.
Baring, H. B.	Dick, Quintin
Baring, W. B.	Dottin, A. R.
Baring, T.	Dowdeswell, W.
Barneby, J.	Duffield, Thomas
Bateson, Sir R.	Dunbar, G.
Beckett, rt. hon. Sir J.	Duncombe, hon. W.
Bell, M.	Duncombe, hon. A.
Bethell, Richard	East, J. B.
Blackburne, I.	Eastnor, Viscount
Blackstone, W. S.	Eaton, R. J.
Boldero, H. G.	Egerton, Sir P.
Bolling, W.	Egerton, Lord F.
Bonham, R. F.	Elley, Sir J.
Borthwick, Peter	Elwes, J. P.
Bowles, G. R.	Estcourt, T.
Bradshaw, J.	Estcourt, T.
Bramston, T. W.	Fancourt, Major
Brownrigg, S.	Farrand, R.
Bruce, Lord E.	Fector, J. M.
Bruen, Colonel	Feilden, W.
Bruen, F.	Ferguson, G.
Buller, Sir J. Y.	Finch, G.
Burrell, Sir C.	Fleming, J.
Campbell, Sir H.	Foley, Edw. Thomas
Canning, rt. hon. Sir S.	Follett, Sir W.
Castlereagh, Viscount	Forbes, W.
Chandos, Marquess of	Forester, hon. G.
Chaplin, Colonel	Fort, J.
Charlton, E. L.	Freshfield, J. W.
Chichester, A.	Gaskell, James Milnes

Geary, Sir W.	Maunsell, T. P.
Gladstone, T.	Maxwell, H.
Gladstone, W. E.	Meynell, Captain
Glynne, Sir S.	Miles, William
Goodricke, Sir F.	Miles, P. J.
Cordon, hon. Captain	Miller, Wm. Henry
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.	Mordaunt, Sir J.
Goulburn, Sergeant	Morgan, C. M. R.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.	Neeld, J.
Grant, hon. Colonel	Neeld, John
Greene, T.	Nicholl, Dr.
Grimston, Viscount	Norreys, Lord
Grimston, hon. E. H.	O'Neil, hon. J. B. R.
Hale, R. B.	Ossulston, Lord
Halford, H.	Owen, Sir J.
Hamilton, G. A.	Owen, H. O.
Hamilton, Lord C.	Packe, C. W.
Hanmer, Henry	Palmer, R.
Hanmer, Sir J.	Palmer, G.
Harcourt, G. G.	Parker, M.
Harcourt, G. S.	Patten, J. W.
Hardinge, rt. hon. Sir H.	Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Hardy, J.	Peel, rt. hon. W. Y.
Hawkes, T.	Pemberton, T.
Hayes, Sir E. S.	Perceval, Colonel
Henniker, Lord	Pigot, R.
Herries, rt. hon. J. C.	Pollen, Sir J. W.
Hillsborough, Earl of	Pollington, Viscount
Hogg, J. W.	Pollock, Sir F.
Hope, J.	Powell, Colonel
Hope, H. T.	Praed, W. M.
Hotham, Lord	Price, S. G.
Houstoun, G.	Pringle, A.
Hoy, J. Barlow	Rae, right hon. Sir W.
Hughes, W. H.	Reid, Sir J. R.
Jermyn, Earl	Richards, J.
Inglis, Sir R. H.	Richards, R.
Johnstone, Sir J.	Rickford, W.
Jones, W.	Ross, C.
Jones, Theobald	Russell, Charles
Irton, S.	Ryle, J.
Kearsley, J. H.	Sanderson, R.
Kerrison, Sir E.	Sandon, Viscount
Kirk, P.	Scarlett, hon. R.
Knatchbull, right hon. Sir E.	Scott, Lord J.
	Shaw, right hon. F.
Knight, H. G.	Sheppard, T.
Knightley, Sir C.	Shirley, E. J.
Law, hon. C. E.	Sibthorp, Colonel
Lawson, Andrew	Smith, A.
Lees, J. F.	Smith, T. A.
Lefroy, A.	Somerset, Lord G.
Lefroy, right hon. T.	Stanley, E.
Lemon, Sir C.	Stanley, Lord
Lewis, D.	Stewart, J.
Lowther, hon. Col.	Sturt, H. C.
Lowther, Viscount	Tennent, J. E.
Lowther, J. H.	Thomas, Colonel
Lucas, E.	Trench, Sir F.
Lushington, rt. hon. S.	Trevor, hon. A.
Lygon, hon. Gen.	Twiss, H.
Mackinnon, W. A.	Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Maclean, Donald	Vere, Sir C. B.
Mahon, Viscount	Verner, Colonel
Manners, Lord C. S.	Vesey, hon. T.
Martin, J.	Vivian, J. E.
Mathew, G. B.	Vyvyan, Sir R.

Wall, C. B.	Wortley, hon. J. S.
Walpole, Lord	Wyndham, W.
West, J. B.	Yorke, E. T.
Weyland, Major	Young, J.
Whitmore, T. C.	Young, Sir W.
Wilbraham, hon. B.	TELLEES.
Wodehouse, E.	Fremantle, Sir T.
Wood, Colonel T.	Clerk, Sir G.