HC Deb 22 February 1837 vol 36 cc863-958

The Order of the Day for resuming the debate on the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill having been read,

Mr. Brotherton

, being in possession of the House, would avail himself of the opportunity it afforded him of saying a few words merely in reference to the remark on which great stress had been laid by the hon. Gentlemen opposite, that Manchester had not manifested a desire to be constituted a corporate town. He thought he should be fully justified in saying that the fact was, that in all classes of inhabitants, and in every degree, it was the unanimous desire to obtain an improved system of local government, on the basis of corporations. The difficulty had been in making an arrangement which would prove satisfactory to the townships which constituted the town of Manchester. There had, however, been a meeting held, and a committee appointed to consider the subject; that committee had made a report, which he held in his hand, and with the leave of the House, he would read the concluding part of it. It was that—" In conclusion, your committee beg most respectfully, but earnestly, to impress upon their fellow-townsmen the importance of an early arrangement of this important subject, and they think that the present time is a most favourable opportunity for effecting it. The subject should not be viewed as a party question, but as one which should have the good of the community for its sole object, by the con- stitution of a local government, which will sustain the acquirement, and be worthy of the character of the town. The interests of every part of the borough, which are one and the same to all intents and purposes, ought to be strengthened by consolidation, instead of being weakened as they now are by subdivisions and distinctions inimical to the general good." It was plain, therefore, that Manchester was desirous of having municipal government. He would not enter upon the general question, as he could not expect to interest the House by anything he could advance. He considered the subject was nearly exhausted, and he would only state his opinion, that having paid considerable attention to the debate, he had not heard one shadow of an argument on the other side, or any fact tending to prove, that Corporations would not be highly beneficial to Ireland. He had heard some alarm expressed with regard to the Church, that the Established Church of Ireland would be injured by Municipal Reform; but, for his own part, he thought he could give proof that he had no hostility to the Church, when he said he was thoroughly convinced the Church of Ireland would exist twice as long if Municipal Reform was granted as it would if it was withheld. Believing, then, that these corporations would be beneficial to Ireland, he should give his cordial support to the original motion.

Lord Clements

said, the hon. and learned Sergeant opposite had particularly alluded to the exercise of the prerogative of mercy by the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland; and if the hon. and learned Sergeant were able to prove his grave charge, and induce the House and the people of England to consider that the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland had prostituted the power which was placed in his hands, he would go far to prove that the policy pursued by the Irish Government was the reverse of the most just, the most conciliatory, the most beneficial to the English connexion that had ever been pursued by any Lord-Lieutenant by whom Ireland was ever yet governed. He begged to read a letter which he had received from a gentleman in the county of Cavan—a gentleman as respectable and honourable as any of the hon. Gentlemen whom he saw opposite—a gentleman who was the brother-in-law of the Conservative Member for Cavan, and who had done as much to promote the peace of the county of Cavan, the connexion between England and Ireland, and the happiness of the people, as any man in this House. He was not about to refer, like the hon. and learned Sergeant, to an anonymous authority. The gentleman to whom he alluded was Mr. Saunderson, of Castle Saunderson. His letter bore on the statement of the hon. and learned Sergeant that a person of the name of Patrick Maguire, who had been found guilty of having fired at the revenue officers, and whose sentence, which was transportation, had been commuted by the Lord-Lieutenant to two years' imprisonment, was subsequently discharged by order of his excellency before the terra of his imprisonment had expired, the reason assigned being the bad state of the man's health. It was said by the hon. and learned Sergeant that the necessary proof of the sickness of the prisoner—the certificate of the surgeon—had not been given, and it was with reference to this representation that the letter would be found to afford some important information. The letter was as follows:—The writer said, that feeling he was responsible for the representation which had been made respecting the release of Maguire without a surgeon's certificate, he begged to state such of the facts as he was acquainted with. A petition, signed by fourteen or fifteen magistrates, besides many other respectable persons, praying for an extension of the Royal mercy to Maguire, was brought to him, with a request that he would sign it, but he declined to do so, not knowing anything of the circumstances. It having been represented to him, however, that the case was one of great hardship, and that his name would be very serviceable, he promised to inquire into the case; and having satisfied himself on the subject, he determined to sign, but before he could do so, the petition had been forwarded to the Government. Subsequently the Lord-Lieutenant visited, the prison, and having gone through it, was about to leave, when the surgeon requested him to commute the sentences of two men confined in the hospital, one of whom was this Maguire. His excellency objected to doing so in Maguire's case, because he had already commuted his sentence from transportation to imprisonment. However, on the representation of the surgeon that the man was languishing in the infirmary under a wound, that he was reduced to a hectic state from which he did not think he would recover if his confinement continued, and further, on the entreaty of the high sheriff, the writer, and others who were present, his release was ordered, to the perfect satisfaction of all parties. The man's offence consisted in this:—He was surprised when smuggling by some revenue officers, when he jumped into a boat and rowed, under the fire of the officers, towards the middle of the lake. When beyond the range of their fire he rested, and, levelling his piece, fired, it was believed purely out of bravado at the officers. He was taken, tried, sentenced to transportation, and sent to the hulks; but his case becoming known, was thought one of great hardship, and an extraordinary number of magistrates and others interfered in his behalf. The second case, which was that of a man who had been tried for killing another, and who was found to be insane, the Lord-Lieutenant would not interfere in. Now he would ask the House whether the testimony of this gentleman, who had done his best to promote the peace of the country, was not of more value than the anonymous authority on which the representation of the hon. and learned Sergeant was founded. The hon. and learned Sergeant had also referred to some transactions in the county of Leitrim. Perhaps the hon. and learned Sergeant would allow him to inquire whether his informant in this case was or was not Mr. Potter? The hon. and learned Sergeant assented; the authority, then, to which he appealed was that of Mr. Potter. Now he would state that he did consider Ireland, and his county (Leitrim) in particular, to be in a state of remarkable quiet. He believed his hon. Friend opposite to be the last person who would have permitted the magistracy to connive at acts of riot; he believed him to be the last person who would have looked over such a thing; yet he must say, that neither in his Administration, nor in any other up to the present time, had there been the same anxiety on the part of the constituted authorities, on the part of the magistrates, or on the part of the police, to prevent or to bring to justice parties guilty of rioting at fairs. He did not mean to say his hon. Friend had not done his best, but he did not go so energetically to work to that end as had the present Government. As far as his own expe- rience had gone, he was surprised that there had not been more outrages committed than there were. In the month of November there were only five prisoners for trial in the gaol of Leitrim. He believed that there were few counties in England which could say as much at that period of the year. Was he not justified, then, in representing the county to have been in a remarkably quiet state? The learned Sergeant had referred to an outrage committed on the Rev. Mr. Hogg, of the parish of Cloon. He had received the facts of that outrage from a friend of his. He begged to declare that he yielded to no man in his desire to promote the peace of the country. To him it was of the highest importance. He lived there. Therefore, to him, he repeated, it was of the utmost consequence that peace should prevail. He did not mean to say, that he had put himself in any situation of danger to effect that object. He did not say, like Lord Charleville, that he would share in the danger of enforcing peace; he did not say he would share any danger; but he was ready to do his duty; and the fact was, that he had never been incommoded. He lived in a house without fire-arms; its windows were open down to the ground; and no stone wall surrounded it. Such was his position, yet he had never been incommoded in the slightest degree. But the hon. and learned Sergeant said, that Mr. Potter, forsooth, connected the outrage on the Rev. Mr. Hogg with the clemency of the Lord-Lieutenant. He would tell the House how that gentleman came to the county first: he would show them what the country must expect if the Tories came into power. Of course they must consult somebody—they must consult the learned Sergeant, and he must consult this Mr. Potter. Well, Mr. Potter was introduced to the county by the late Rector of Cloon as a tithe proctor, and his conduct in that capacity was so harassing, so obnoxious to the people, and so disadvantageous to the rector, that he, or the executors of that gentleman, discharged him. At present the living was held by Mr. French, and he found the conduct of Mr. Potter such that he discontinued him as his tithe proctor. Mr. Potter having been so treated by his friends, turned round and joined the other party, and became an anti-tithe agitator; so he united in his own person the two characters which both sides of the House agreed had most agitated the country. His side of the House attributed to the tithe proctors much of the agitation which had existed in Ireland; the other side contended that the agitation was chargeable against the anti-tithe agitators. Now this gentleman was both. He was originally a tithe proctor, and then he became an anti-tithe agitator. He, after this, tried a third trade, and now he was an attorney. It was in his capacity of attorney that he instituted the prosecution for that very outrage which the learned Sergeant wished to make out. Without entering into the question whether the prosecution was right or wrong, he would say the outrage was one of a horrible description, and one the parties to which he would bring to justice if he could; but he must also declare that it was not a party outrage. On this subject he would ask the House to whose testimony would they attach the greater weight—that of Mr. Saunderson, or that of Mr. Potter? He might throw into the scale his own testimony, which, humble individual as he was, nevertheless was entitled to a little consideration. He did not mean to say, that the constituency he represented had that interest in the Corporation question which some others had. The reason was this: there were no towns in his county which were likely to become corporate towns. But it was now said that the rights of Irishmen were to be refused, because the majority of them were Roman Catholics; why, if the question were brought forward in that shape, they might refuse to Irishmen the enjoyment of any rights whatever. If they refused what must be admitted to be just rights to Irishmen because a majority of them were Roman Catholics; why, then, they might be denied trial by jury; they might be denied, in fact, any rights that ought to appertain to them as British subjects. He wanted to know what argument, that would withhold Corporations from Ireland, that would refuse to Irishmen the right of their Municipal elections, would not apply generally to the extension of any other liberty to Irishmen, whether as Protestants or as Roman Catholics? He was glad to hear hon. Gentlemen opposite refer so much to the jury question, because it showed this, that if the Tories were consistent and got into power they ought to have Tory judges, that they might appoint Tory sheriffs, in order that the latter might nominate Tory under-sheriffs, and so they would have packed juries. He did not impute that to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Peel), whose worth he respected. He believed that right hon. Baronet had saved the country once, and he hoped God would bless him for it. He believed that the right hon. Baronet would not knowingly do any such thing; but the fact was, that the feelings of prejudice were so strong amongst the Orange party in Ireland, that they did not believe they could get a fair trial unless there was a packed jury. He would instance a case to prove this. In the parish in which he lived the officers of the revenue police and the country people had a conflict. It occurred in the dark; the country people rushed on the police, by whom one of the people was slaughtered, and died in consequence of the wound he had received. One of the revenue officers came to him in a state of great excitement, and told him of the occurrence. It was necessary to have a coroner's inquest: but the coroner (as was usual in Ireland) was in gaol. The revenue officer said, that the magistrates must hold an inquest, and stated that he had sent for a magistrate with whom he was acquainted, to request his attendance; and also that the jury might be taken, not from the neighbourhood in which the occurrence took place: he desired that a jury might be summoned from a town which was at four miles distance. His answer was, that he did not approve of the revenue officer having sent for a magistrate with whom he was acquainted, nor did he even approve of himself presiding on the occasion; that they should not only show the people that justice would be done, but also guarantee justice being administered. He, therefore sent for the stipendiary magistrate. He stated, also, that he would not consent to a jury being brought a distance of four miles, when the law said the jury should be taken from the neighbourhood. It was predicted of course that the jury of the neighbourhood would never find any other verdict than that of manslaughter. The jury heard the evidence—they were sworn—they attended to their oaths—and they found a verdict of justifiable homicide. Now, the hon. and learned Sergeant opposite was for continuing the old jury system. He did not mean to say that a jury even under that system would not act according to their conscientious opinions—that twelve men on their oaths would not find an honest verdict—he did not mean to say that such persons put into a box would not give a good verdict; but what he contended for was this, that just as good a verdict would be given if the men in the box were not party men. Now since that unfortunate homicide to which he had referred there had never been another case of outrage, and this because the people were convinced that they would have fair play, and that the jury who decided the case never would have found a verdict of justifiable homicide if the act committed were not justifiable. It was all very well for hon. Gentlemen to say, that juries were always fair in Ireland, because a case had never come against themselves; but this he knew Protestants to say when the shoes pinched themselves, that they could not bear corporation juries. He had not himself any personal interest in this matter, he never attended their public meetings in all his life, but still he could not remain silent when his country was denied that which it was her plain and manifest right to have. He denied, that because the majority of the people of Ireland were Catholics, that they, therefore, were hostile to the connexion with this island. It had, indeed, been said, that corporation reform would affect the Church question; this was said because it was declared to have been asserted by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny that it would affect the Irish Church. Now it was not enough for hon. Gentlemen opposite to say this, or to rest upon the assertion that another said it; they ought to prove, that a connexion between corporate reform and the Established Church existed. The General Association did not maintain that it would destroy the Church. What it said was, that corporation reform would lead to a satisfactory adjustment of the tithe question, and, in his opinion, there was the greatest difference between a satisfactory adjustment of the tithe question and the Established Church. What effect, he asked, could bodies in towns have with respect to the tithes, which was merely an agricultural question? The opposite party could not show it, except by quotations from speeches made by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny. In his opinion corporation reform could have no effect whatever on the Established Church. The right hon. Member for the University of Dublin had taunted him with constantly saying he was a Protestant. He hoped he was a sincere Protestant—that he adhered with firmness to the religion that he professed. He was ready to maintain the religion of the Established Church, and he was one who, if his religion were attacked, would, to use the language of the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire resist that attack "to the death." He did not say, that corporate reform could alone pacify Ireland; but he believed that, with Poor-laws, it would go a great way towards the tranquilisation of that country. Hon. Gentlemen opposite wished that things in Ireland should remain in statu quo. That was impossible: they could not remain so without coercion bill after coercion bill, and the people of England, he believed, would not run the risk of a civil war for the purpose of sustaining things as they were in Ireland. He might pass over to the other side if it were practicable to keep things as they were in Ireland; but believing that to be impracticable, he gave his support to his Majesty's Government in the course they were pursuing.

Mr. Robinson

observed, that he had last year given a silent vote upon this question, and he would have done so this year but for the increased importance which the question had acquired. He would state that there was no question in which the people of England took so deep an interest as this question, and this because it appealed to their sober judgment. He was at a loss to conceive how hon. Gentlemen on the opposition side of the House, who were supporting the Protestant Establishment in that country, could, consistently with their own arguments, impose on Ireland an establishment alien to the feelings of the great body of the people, on account of the Union, and yet pretend, looking to the same Union, to draw a distinction between them and the English people, and deprive them of corporate reform. He had been generally a supporter of the present Ministry, because he saw them, on the one hand, acting as a check upon democracy, which was so unsuited to a mixed Government, and, on the other, opposed to a party to which he should be opposed, who wished to govern the majority for the benefit of the few. It was his opinion that the maintenance of the present Government in Ireland was for the benefit of that country. He had heard rumours in many quarters of the near approach of the dissolution of the Melbourne Administration. He would ask those near whom he sat [on the opposition side of the House]—he would ask the Gentlemen on that side of the House, whether it had ever occurred to them to reflect on what must be the condition on which any Administration could succeed to the present with the hostile feeling which must be entertained on their part by the whole Catholic population of Ireland? He would ask, could an appeal be safely made to the people of England and Scotland upon this question? If he could pretend to know anything of the feelings and opinions of his countrymen, he would state with perfect sincerity to those Gentlemen near him, that it was impossible for them to appeal to the people of England and Scotland upon any question that would be more fatal to them and their party than this very question. This was his decided opinion. It was supposed that such an appeal would be attended with more or less success, because it was mixed up with the question of the existence of the Church Establishment. As a member of that Church, he must confess he was extremely sorry to find the claims of the Protestant Church so much mixed up with this question. He was very sorry to hear it avowed by the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire (Lord Stanley), when he supported the amendment of the noble Lord, the Member for South Lancashire, that he did so because he considered that the granting Municipal Corporations to Ireland would necessarily lead, and was, as he believed, intended to subvert the Protestant Church. In his opinion, the existence of the Protestant faith, whatever became of the Establishment, did not depend upon this or any other question—he would rather say that it rested upon its intrinsic merits, and in the affection and respect of those who honestly and conscientiously belonged to its communion. But it was said that the granting of Municipal Reform to Ireland would have a tendency to increase the influence—an influence which no subject should possess—enjoyed by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny over the people of Ireland. They were warned not to pass this measure, because that hon. and learned Member, in his discretion, had avowed elsewhere, that if Municipal Corporation Reform were granted to Ireland, he would make it the means of carrying all the other points which were desired by him and those who acted with him. He would tell the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, that he was very much mistaken in the people of this country and of Scotland, if he conceived that the sympathy felt by both countries towards the Irish people, which induced them to co-operate with the hon. and learned Member and others, in their endeavours to obtain justice for Ireland, would in like manner be available, if the hon. and learned Member should, in an evil hour, turn round and advise his countrymen—having obtained this measure, as he hoped they would—to attempt to establish a Catholic dominancy on the ruins of the Church Establishment. Was it possible that the Dissenters, who, to a man almost, supported the present Government, was it possible that they would be induced to co-operate for such an unholy purpose? The power of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny was created by a long system of misrule, and his hope and belief was, that by taking away the cause, they would deprive the Irish people of the motive for rallying round and supporting the hon. and learned Member; and so far from adding to his strength for mischievous purposes, they would absolutely put an end to it in this country, and greatly weaken it in Ireland. He must repeat, that he was sorry to find this question mixed up with the question of the Established Church. He was sorry to see that Church put forward as the only barrier between the people of Ireland and their political freedom. He spoke the sentiments of his constituents when he said, that if the result should be the rejection of the present measure by the other House of Parliament—there was no doubt that it would be carried by a large majority in this House—but if the other House should reject this measure a second time, and there should be, in consequence, an appeal to the country, he was perfectly satisfied that the people of England were determined to support that Government, and that Government only, which was disposed to grant the same rights and privileges to Ireland which were enjoyed by the people of this country. This question would be an insuperable obstacle to keep the hon. Members on that side of the House out of power. The time had arrived when it was absolutely necessary that they should change the whole course of their policy towards Ireland, and when they must endeavour to conciliate the affections of the Catholics of Ireland by a real union and identity of interests between the two countries. They had tried the contrary system long enough. They were told, that it would be dangerous to go on making concession after concession. In his opinion the danger was purely chimerical. They had seen the baneful consequences of a long system of misrule and misgovernment in Ireland. Let them try conciliatory measures—let them establish civil, political, and religious equality in Ireland, and he was very much mistaken if they would not have reason to bless the hour when the two branches of the Legislature came to so just a determination, instead of pursuing this miserable warfare between Protestant and Catholic. The present debate, the acrimonious invectives on both sides, showed the diseased and disordered state of Ireland. Let that House adopt a different system, and they might expect that Ireland in future, instead of being a source of weakness, would become a pillar of strength to this country. For this reason he would oppose most decidedly the amendment of the noble Lord, the Member for South Lancashire, and support the measure of his Majesty's Government.

Mr. Richards

denied, that the hon. Member for Worcester was at all justified in attributing to hon. Gentlemen at that side of the House such a motive as that of wishing to govern the many for the advantage of the few. He denied that they were actuated by any such feelings, and therefore he thought the observation of the hon. Member for Worcester open to great animadversion. For himself, he could say, that he participated in no such feeling; and he was convinced he might make a similar declaration on behalf of every hon. Gentleman on his side of the House. The noble Lord, the Member for Leitrim, had replied to the facts stated by the hon. and learned Member for Youghal, but had he disproved any of those facts? If the desire were to ascertain whether these facts were true or false, why not grant the Committee which the hon. and learned Member for Youghal had demanded? The refusal to grant that Committee would enable the country to judge of the matter for themselves, because they must feel, as he did, that if the case made out by the hon. and learned Member for Youghal could be met, an inquiry would at once have been volunteered. He was anxious, however, to discuss this question on its broad principles. The noble Lord, the Member for Leitrim, stated, that the people of Ireland were entitled to equal rights with the people of this country, and of Scotland. No one doubted that; but then the question was, were not the circumstances of Ireland such as to render it unsafe to grant municipal institutions to that country? It was notorious, that there was in this country, a struggle between two great principles—the influence arising from property, and the democratic influence—and he would ask, whether the latter influence had not been considerably augmented by the change which had taken place in the English corporations? It was by means of the democratic power that many of the hon. Gentlemen opposite occupied seats in that House, and on that same power it was, that his Majesty's Ministers relied for their continuance in office. It had been said, that there was no connection between this question, and that relating to the Established Church. He entertained a very different opinion; and, believing that this measure, if carried, would tend to the subversion of the Church, he felt it his bounden and sacred duty to oppose it. When the Reform Bill was under discussion, much was said about allowing certain individuals to nominate to seats in that House: but what were they now going to do? Why, to enable the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, not to nominate six or seven Members for Ireland, but perhaps eighty or even ninety. The hon. and learned Member had stated, that this measure would place power to that extent in his hands, and was he not more likely than the noble Lord to understand what would most contribute to the advancement of his own views? The hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny might be sincere in wishing the welfare of his country; but as he (Mr. Richards) did not think that object could be attained by the course which the hon. and learned Member pursued, he must give it, as his opinion, that this Bill would place a most dangerous power in the hon. and learned Member's hands. The hon. Member for Worcester had said, that the people of Worcester were in fa- vour of granting Municipal Corporations to Ireland. Now he was well acquainted with that county, and, knowing, as he did, the feeling that prevailed there, he must deny the assertion. He might make the same observations, generally, with respect to the people of England and of Scotland. The noble Lord, the Member for Leitrim, thought, that this Bill would tend to the pacification of Ireland. No doubt it might satisfy certain parties in that country; but, from his acquaintance with the state of Ireland, he could undertake to say that, whatever might be its tendency, it would not be of a pacific character. He had never yet found, that the lust for all was satisfied by the concession of a part. On the contrary, ambition was a passion that grew with what it fed upon; and, in the present case, he was convinced, that if these corporations were put into the hands of the majority, they would be used as a lever for the attainment of universal dominion in Ireland. He well recollected, that when the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, introduced the English Municipal Bill, he declared his conviction that the power gained would not be applied for party purposes; yet since that Bill had been passed, the power had been exercised for scarcely any other objects; and he was convinced that it was intended to be so wielded at the coming election; for the Ministers had no hopes in the counties, and they must, therefore, rely on the towns. The hon. and learned Member for Liskeard had, on a former night, spoken in periods that were, no doubt, most elaborately worded, of the extraordinary virtues of municipal institutions—of the occupation they would give the inhabitants in paving and lighting their streets. That hon. Member also gave one of the oddest illustrations he had ever heard—he said, that the state of Ireland was untranquil, and that these corporations would give the people of that country something to think about, and draw them off from their present quarrels. Why that should be, he could not understand. If the power was now abused by the minority, how much more likely it was to be abused by the majority. Why, in proportion to the greatness and irresponsibility of power would be the abuse of it. On the Opposition side it was proposed, that provision should be made for the due performance of all the municipal duties, and that there should be a proper responsibility. It was singular the similarity that there was between the speeches of the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard, and those of Danton, Marat, and Robespierre, at the time of the French Revolution. They, too, talked of the advantages of municipal institutions, and of the harmlessness of their intentions in demanding them. Yet what was the result? The hon. and learned Member for Bath had talked of the local advantages of corporations. Probably this meant liberty of speech and action, and security for property. But where, in any country, would so much liberty, so much security, be found as in England? Why change this state of things, then? What could they hope to substitute for it? What had they ready to substitute, when they had pulled down all the present institutions of the country? Neither Danton, nor Marat, nor Robespierre knew what to substitute when they did the same thing. In the excess of their kindness for the people, hon. Gentlemen opposite wished to take away the great advantages they now had, and to give them, in their room, more sounding ones, certainly, but more dubious. He protested against their efforts to destroy the institutions of the country, under the specious pretext of reforming them.

Mr. Walker

said, a very few words would be quite sufficent to answer the observations, for he could not call them arguments, of the Member for Knaresborough—indeed, he had heard nothing deserving the name of argument during the debate from the other side of the House. The hon. Member boasted that he lived in happy England, enjoying her free institutions in peace and prosperity, and by which means he had succeeded in trade, and had grown wealthy, and that, therefore, he would not agree to this Bill; so, because he saw they were useful to England, he would refuse to give like blessings to Ireland. The same Member, with equal wisdom, observed that the Orange minority monopolised and abused the corporate power, and persecuted the majority of the people; ergo, says he, a majority would monopolise, and persecute still more in exact proportion to its numbers, and for that reason he would refuse to accede Corporate Reform to Ireland. Truly, to mention these absurdities, was a sufficient answer to them, The hon. Member seemed to be ignorant that the minority were a small political faction, whilst the majority to which these rights were to be restored was a nation comprising within its millions that faction itself. The debate had run to such length that he should now confine himself to a very few observations, and a few facts which he thought would show that the apprehensions of Members opposite were groundless. The Tories assert that this is a question between the Protestants of Ireland, on the one side, and the Catholics on the other; he, however, positively denied that position. It was truly a contest between a section only of the Protestants, who strive to retain an. exclusive possession of corporate property and power for individual advantage, and the Irish people at large, being Catholics, Protestants, and Presbyterians, who are seeking the removal of civil disabilities, and an equality of civil rights with the people of England and Scotland. The Irish Conservative Members assert that they alone represent the Protestant property and feeling of Ireland; that he also denied, for the liberal Irish Members were in number and property nothing inferior to their opponents. Ireland sent thirty liberal Protestant Members to that House, and their opinion was, that the passing of this measure could not endanger the Protestant church, whilst the refusal of it, and particularly on the grounds put forward by the other side, must be injurious to that church, by rendering it more odious to the people. He wished to address this to English Tory Members opposite, and, if possible, that it should go forth to the English people that thirty Irish Protestant Members believed that the conduct of the Conservatives of Ireland was calculated to upset the Irish Church, and that those who set up that Church as an obstacle upon all occasions to good government and equal laws were the real and worst enemies to the Protestant Church. But the Gentlemen opposite taunt all liberal Protestants with being only nominal Protestants, and therefore not interested in the existence of the church. Now, he would ask, if this were true, what motive could a liberal Protestant have to profess that religion at all? The Orange Protestant had clearly a worldly advantage in doing so, for he had hitherto a monopoly in all the good things going in Church and State. On the contrary, the liberal Protestant had no expectation that his opinions can bring him any such harvest. It is quite manifest that when the Tories were in power, he had no chance of any of the crumbs; and the Gentlemen opposite, as also the resolutions passed at the Mansion-house, allege that none except a Catholic had any chance of promotion under the present Government, so that it would really appear that the liberal Protestant Members were the only party that had any right to complain. Then what other motive except a religious one, namely, a conscientious belief that his own religion was the best, could a liberal Protestant have for professing Protestantism? and he thought that the liberal Protestant, who wished to do to his Roman Catholic neighbour what he would wish his Catholic neighbour should do to him, was at least as Christian a Protestant as the Orange one, who was constantly doing to the Catholics what he would be exceedingly sorry the Catholic should retort upon him. He should not have dwelt so much on this, only at the present time such exertions had been made by the Tories, in and out of the House, to renew that hypocritical no Popery cry, not that they really believed that the measures of the present ministers endangered the church, but that they knew that unless they could deceive and rouse the prejudices of the people of England, they could never turn the present Ministry out or regain their own lost places or power. Another objection stated against this Bill was, that agitation was still going on; that it was promised, on the part of the Irish Catholics, that so soon as emancipation was carried, agitation should cease, and that that promise had been broken. To this he would answer, that so soon as Catholic emancipation was really granted, Catholic agitation would cease; that so soon as Ireland obtained equal rights and equal justice, national associations and national agitation would cease. But he would ask, had Catholic emancipation really yet been granted, when noble Lords, and right hon. Baronets opposite, declare, that their only reason for refusing a full participation of the British constitution to Ireland is because the majority of the people are Catholics? The act passed to emancipate the Catholics stated it to be for the removal of all civil disabilities, but were the civil disabilities of the Catholics removed, when you not only refuse to admit them to the same municipal rights enjoyed in England and Scotland, but the House was actually endeavouring, by its amendments to this Bill, to destroy the civil rights of the entire people of Ireland? The people of Ireland would never desist from agitation until they obtain their full share of the constitution, and they would be undeserving of liberty if they did. He would at once admit, that the passing of this Bill, therefore, would not put a complete end to agitation, but he would say, that it would be taken as an instalment which would go far to allay it; refuse it and the agitation would be ten times worse. Another objection was, that the Catholics, being the majority, would exclude the Protestants from all office and emolument; this was an assumption which Parliamentary experience disproved, for Catholic constituencies had hitherto made no religious distinctions between candidates, but had returned many Protestants to this House, and had frequently shown a marked preference to Protestants. But it was also said on the opposite side, that though this was true as regarded Parliamentary returns, it would not be the case in municipal elections, there would be so many little local party prejudices; now at the best this objection was but a prophecy, and in order to upset it, he should state what he considered would be the practical working of the Bill throughout Ireland, by stating how the open corporation system worked in the town which he had the honour to represent. He should first state, that the town of Wexford was, next to Belfast, one of the most rising commercial towns in Ireland, and the House might judge of its importance when he told them that between 200 and 300 sail of vessels belonged to the merchants of Wexford, and that 1,000 of her townsmen were on the sea; the great majority of the inhabitants are Roman Catholics, at least in proportion of five to one Protestant; the corporation consists of a mayor, who exercises extensive judicial functions—of two bailiffs, whose duties are somewhat similar to sheriffs—of twenty-four burgesses, or as they might be termed aldermen—and of the freemen at large, who are the electoral body. Now, in ancient times, this corporation was open to all the inhabitants, without any religious distinction, and Catholics had actually held high office in it. Next came the days of persecution and exclusion, and it grew into one of the close Tory corporations, Catholics and liberal Protestants being most religiously excluded, and scarcely one of the inhabitants of the town was permitted to enjoy the advantages of its freedom, or a share of its property, which at one time was immense, but which had gradually and long since disappeared, for the individual benefit of the favoured few. In this state it continued, until about nine years since, when it was suddenly thrown open to all the inhabitants, without any property, qualification, or religious distinction, in consequence of a contest between the then two Parliamentary patrons of the borough. During those nine years, there had been, he believed, about six vacancies amongst the burgesses, and when the first vacancy occurred, did the Catholics elect a Catholic to fill it? No such thing; though only just having obtained a restoration of their rights—though naturally smarting under their former unjust exclusion—they had too much magnanimity to practise revenge, and they filled up the vacancy with a Protestant, to whom they felt an obligation. Upon a second vacancy, he was asked by some of the freemen if he would start for it. He declined, and recommended them to elect a Catholic, as they had been so long excluded. He believed four Catholics and two Protestants had been elected; but even if every vacancy had been filled up with Catholics, he should have thought it quite fair, where the body consisted of twenty-four burgesses elected for life. In the same period, nine mayors had been elected, the first mayor a Protestant; and, in short, the Catholic freemen have elected only three Catholics to that office, though there are many opulent and respectable Catholics in that town, members of the corporation. No doubt the Gentlemen opposite would exclaim, Oh! these Mayors might call themselves Protestants, but they were Radicals. He would say, wrong again. The majority of these nine mayors were, in religion and politics, as true Conservatives as themselves. He would astonish them still more, by telling them that the gentleman last selected to fill that office was a Conservative, whose name he saw among the list of those published, as having attended the meeting at the Mansion House, and that this election by the Catholic freemen of Wexford, was made when they might naturally be supposed to be smarting under irritation at the audacious insult that had been offered to Catholic Ireland in another place; but they proved themselves superior to any paltry feeling of revenge, and, generously placing political difference aside, elected a Conservative gentleman; being guided in the choice of a municipal officer by a conviction of his municipal fitness alone. An election for the office of town-clerk also occurred. A Catholic gentleman, and a Conservative Protestant gentleman were the candidates—the Conservative was elected. Now, perhaps, Members opposite might think that this was owing to complete apathy on the part of the Catholics at Wexford, as regarded politics. He could assure them it was no such thing; that when it became necessary for the assertion of their political rights in their country's cause, the men of Wexford were foremost in the fight. But when they had to exercise their political franchise, they laid aside all sectarian considerations it is true, but accurately examined the political opinions of the candidates, and he felt proud to say, their choice had fallen upon himself, because they believed him to be a staunch and uncompromising opponent of Toryism, and therefore a fit representative of their political opinions; while on the other hand, when called on to exercise their municipal franchise, they laid aside all political as well as sectarian considerations, and looked alone to the respectability and municipal fitness of the candidate. The consequence, then, of the admission of all the inhabitants of Wexford, without religious or political distinction, to their municipal privileges, had been, that instead of bitter feelings existing between the excluded and the excluders, they all now lived in the most perfect harmony, exchanging friendship and hospitality, and the ministers of the two religions going about hand in hand seeking to relieve the objects of their common charity. And thus he would assure English Members, it would be throughout Ireland, but for the madness of an interested party refusing to break down those pernicious distinctions which alone keep Irishmen now asunder, and which, so long as they are suffered to exist, were the only real dangers that Church they seem so anxious to defend, had to dread. He should conclude by again saying these few facts were better than all their prophecies.

Sir Frederick Trench

had to congratulate the hon. Member who had just sat down on being the representative of such a town as he had described. It certainly seemed to constitute a brilliant exception to the general state of Ireland. The noble Lord, the Member for Leitrim, had challenged any person to show that a connexion existed between the claims of the Irish people to municipal rights and the Protestant Church in Ireland. He for one was not ashamed to acknowledge himself bigot enough to apprehend that danger threatened the Protestant Church from the measure then before the House, and that it was thereby intended to deliver that Church into the hands of the hon. Member for Kilkenny. The hon. Member for Liskeard had, in the course of the debate, delivered a very eloquent speech, in which he insisted strongly on certain general principles, but these principles though just in themselves, were not applicable in the present instance. The case of Ireland was a peculiar one, and demanded a peculiar treatment. But if he disagreed with the hon. Member for Liskeard, he had heard with the utmost pleasure the hon. Member for Shaftesbury deprecate the system of instalments, and the plan of proceeding on the principle of the wedge—obtaining a little entrance at first, and then by degrees penetrating farther in, until nothing less would be attempted at last than the destruction of the Protestant Church. The noble Lord at the head of the Home Department had, in introducing the measure then under discussion, spoken in very slighting terms of the state of the Protestant clergy in Ireland, and in place of pitying the condition to which they were reduced, the noble Lord had spoken of them with what he considered an unbecoming levity; and, instead of suggesting some means of alleviating their condition, he quoted a trifling poem, to the effect that they were enamoured of their present lot. His Majesty's Attorney-General, when out of office, when speaking of Ireland had used language which had tended to promote the assassination of the Protestant clergy in Ireland, and yet, after having used such language he had been promoted to his present high office. That the House might not suppose he was making so grave a charge lightly, or without due reason, he would read the passage from the debate on the Irish Church, which took place on the 2nd of April, 1835. The Attorney-General then said—" What benefit was it to a Christian community to erect churches which were not frequented, which were considered a grievance even by those for whom they were intended, while they were regarded as an insult by those of a different faith?" And again—" Such was the state of feeling in Scotland, that at the time of the assassination of Archbishop Sharpe, that assassination was actually approved of by a majority of the people of Scotland." This was a pretty broad hint, he thought, to the people of Ireland. But this was not all. The hon. Gentleman proceeded still further, and alluded openly to Ireland:—" There was nothing in recent times to compare with that assassination, and yet it was a common observation by the people of Scotland that the killing of the Archbishop was 'no murder' he being of a religion opposed to the majority of the people." Surely after such language as that which he had just quoted, the present Government must have had some strong motives for promoting the hon. Gentleman to the office which he now held. This Attorney-General added—" Scenes had occurred more serious than what had taken place at Carrickshock and at Rathcormac. Need he mention the scenes at Drumclog and Bothwell Brigg, where much blood was shed?" But what did the Attorney-General say with regard to the Church?—"The number of archbishops and bishops ought to be diminished."* Such was the language of the Attorney-General, and it did not require any legal knowledge, or any ingenious special pleading, to draw the inference that the reading of such passages ought to produce the very worst effects on the people of Ireland. When the Government raised the person who had delivered such inflammatory language to his present high station it appeared to him that they gave a most convincing proof that they had no intention of taking any pains to conciliate the Protestant party in Ireland. He conceived the Government to be nothing more than the instruments of the hon. Member for Kilkenny—and, as such, completely under the influence of that hon. Gentleman's * Hansard (Third Series,) vol. xxvii. p. 657–658. wishes. They were obliged either to yield to that hon. Member's desires or at once resign their places. In conclusion, he would say, that he was not ashamed to declare himself opposed to the measure before the House, which would, if it passed, first destroy the Protestant Church in Ireland, and afterwards, though at no great distance, would materially affect the Protestant Church in England.

Mr. Morgan John O'Connell

began by alluding to the quotations which had been made by the hon. Gentleman who had just at down, from a speech delivered by the hon. and learned Attorney-General two years ago. It was a pity the passages alluded to had not been discovered in time to use them on the hustings against the hon. and learned Gentleman. To come, however, to the question before the House. The arguments which had been urged by the opponents of the measure were divided into two classes—old and new. On the old, as they were the same which had been urged and answered last Session, he would touch very lightly. One of the principal of the new arguments was, that the Protestant Church Establishment in Ireland was in danger; another, that an Association had arisen in Ireland, pregnant with danger to the tranquillity of the country; a third, that his Majesty's Government had not made their official appointments in Ireland in a manner satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman opposite. With regard to the last point, he wished to know whether the Tories had ever advanced any man to office except a political partisan? Those who objected to the conduct of his Majesty's present Government, in that respect, reminded him of the line in the satirist— Dat veniam corvis vexat censura columbas. The appointments in question were all of them creditable to his Majesty's Government; and none more so than that of Mr. Pigott, a man of great and acknowledged talents. The General Association had been compared to the Orange societies, but there was a wide difference between them. To prove this it was only necessary to refer to the words of the resolution of that House, denouncing them as "secret political societies, confined to one class of individuals." The General Association was not secret, and was open to men of all descriptions. As to the association of so large a body for the purpose of obtaining their rights, if they had not done so it would have been justly said that they were unworthy of those rights The noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire, had spoken of the paucity of petitions from Ireland as a proof that the people of Ireland were indifferent to the subject. But the noble Lord was mistaken in his computation, and had omitted to notice a number of petitions which had actually been presented. Why was the Emancipation Bill passed if the people of Ireland were still to be considered inferior to the people of England, and if they were still to be prevented from enjoying an equal participation of civil rights? Did not the Emancipation Act mean that any civil rights which might thenceforward be conferred on the people of England should be extended to the people of Ireland? To deny the people of Ireland this, was at once to injure and to insult them. But it was to check the progress of liberty and of liberal institutions that the hon. Gentlemen opposite opposed the present Bill, as they did the Reform Bill. But even some of those who had supported the Reform Bill were opposed to the present measure. The sentiments of the noble Lord, the Member for Lancashire, delivered during the debateson the Reform Bill, were very different from those which he had expressed on the present occasion. In answer to the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, on the 23rd of May, 1832, the noble Lord said—"The right hon. Gentleman has expressed his regret that this subject should be agitated so soon after the apparent settlement of the Catholic question; but is it not much better that this measure should be passed at a time when it will give satisfaction, than that it should be withheld, like the Catholic question, for a long time, and conceded, at last, at a period of irritation, which prevented it having the good effect which it other wise would have had? "Why, I ask, should the question of religious difference be again excited in conjunction with the question of Parliamentary Reform? If we allow the present system of close corporations to continue, under the pretence that it is unsafe to trust the Catholic inhabitants of the towns with the franchise, we may justly be told, that so far from making a settlement of that great question in Ireland, we have continued the grievance and added to the insult. Let me again remind the House, that, if we determine that those grievances shall continue to exist and be felt in Ireland which we have long since removed from England, we furnish a just ground of complaint, and give to the agitators a power which they otherwise would look for in vain." He (Mr. O'Connell) would now put the same question as the noble Lord had put, with the change of a single word: why should the question of religious differences be again excited in conjunction with the question of Municipal Reform? The most unholy appeals had been made to religious prejudices in the course of the present discussion. The opposition to the Bill was made a stepping-stone to office by the hon. Gentlemen opposite. They had raised a "No Popery" cry upon it, from the effects of which he called on all the moderate Whigs and Tories to protect the country; or a religious warfare might be excited, the consequences of which would be destructive of the general peace. He implored hon. Members, who were not actuated by factious motives, not to consent to the opposition to this Bill—an opposition which, in the name of Christianity, sought to perpetuate every existing evil.

Mr. Grove Price

was not in the habit of trespassing upon the attention of the House unless the question for discussion was of such a nature as to call for an open and unequivocal expression of opinion. Such he conceived to be the case in the present instance, and he therefore felt anxious to express, however briefly, his judgment on a measure which he conceived not only of vital importance to the country to which it more immediately related, but to the whole of the British empire. The hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House had thought proper to indulge in some sarcastic allusions to those on his side of the House who opposed the Reform Bill. For himself, he would say, that he too had ever been the open, and undisguised, and conscientious opponent of that measure up to the period at which it was carried. Indeed, so strenuous was his opposition to that question that he would have willingly resigned his life if, by such a sacrifice, he could have prevented its accomplishment. But the moment that question was settled—the moment the fiat of the Legislature had declared it law—from that moment he had used his honest and best exertions to carry out the principle into practical effect. The able, eloquent, and elaborate speeches of his hon. and learned Friends, the Members for Bandon and of the University of Dublin, rendered it unnecessary for him to touch upon topics connected with the Administration of Lord Mulgrave in Ireland, which otherwise he might have been induced to do. He would not, therefore, dwell further on this point, except to say that the statements of his hon. Friends were well deserving of the serious attention of that House and the country. Never was there a period at which Ireland more required the rule of a Government marked by strength, by decision, and by character, and never in the history of that country was it degraded by a Government the distinguishing characteristics of which were imbecility and frivolity. He implored the House to recollect that they were called upon to decide on a great question, and that decision, if once made in favour of democracy, could never be rescinded. If the House decided that popular power should be extended, and contributed by its vote to swell the ranks of democracy, who amongst them could mark its limits. Who could undertake to say where the popular demands would stop short, or how they could be resisted? Who could deny that this was a stepping-stone to other measures of a more serious and dangerous character; or who could tell (if he might quote from Shakespeare) whether it was to bring "airs from heaven or blasts from hell V Before they extended Municipal Reform to Ireland he entreated the House to look at the effects it had already produced in England, and if they found that in a country like this, differing in habits, in manners, in education, in religious belief, and other essential particulars, from Ireland, it had been productive of heart-burnings, of social discord, of political animosities, of local jealousies, and party feuds, how much more cautious ought they to be in extending it to a country where two great parties were arrayed in a contest marked by all the rancour of religious warfare? From his experience he could say, that this measure of Municipal Reform had been a firebrand in the domestic circle in every town in England, and had roused into action all the angry passions which had so long been permitted to slumber. He repeated this assertion, and what would be the consequence if they invested towns in Ireland with a power like this—a country where a bigotted and intolerant priesthood reigned paramount and influenced every political movement? Would not the municipal elections be determined by their dictation; and under such a domination who could answer for the safety of the Church, or any other of the institutions of the country? A noble Lord on the opposite side had expressed a wish that the clergy of all religious denominations should abstain from interfering in elections. In this wish he (Mr. Price) most cordially concurred, but, at the same time, he was bound to say, after eighteen years' experience of English elections, he never knew an instance, except in three cases, where a clergyman of the Church of England had overstepped those legitimate bounds which a moderate country gentleman might prescribe to himself. Could this be said of the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland? [Mr. O' Connell: "Yes."] The hon. and learned Gentleman well knew that they had not confined themselves within legitimate limits, and he must also know that the fabric of his power rested on the will of this intolerant priesthood. The cry of "Justice for Ireland" was the watchword of a faction; and if by justice to Ireland was meant its tranquillity and happiness, they would not do justice to the people of that country if they sanctioned the present measure.

Mr. Sergeant Woulfe

felt satisfied that it would be excusable on his part to condense into as narrow a space as he could whatever he had to offer, and to avoid travelling out of those topics which constituted the subject matter of debate. It was not his intention to go into the questions which the hon. and learned Member for Bandon, in a speech of two hours' length, detailed to the House. He had not intended to go into any of these matters until he had received a letter from a nobleman that morning, begging him to make some explanation on transactions connected with the hon. and learned Member. He could not refrain from explaining these facts, and though he could not complain of the hon. and learned Member for Bandon having occupied the House so long on the occasion of making his speech, he did not think himself justified in following him through it. To the allusions which had been thrown out against Lord Milltown, he thought it his duty to revert, for the purpose of showing how unthinkingly charges were brought against the King's Government. The hon. Member stated that Lord Milltown, being dis- missed, or having resigned to avoid being dismissed, from the commission of the peace, in consequence of his having attended a tithe meeting, and in consequence of his agitating conduct there, was, after an interval of time, when he had again qualified himself, in the estimation of the succeeding Government, by joining the General Association in Dublin, actually restored to the commission of the peace. Now, how stood the fact? Lord Milltown never attended any tithe meeting but one; and at that tithe meeting he attended, not as an opponent of the tithe system, but actually to exhort the people to continue to pay the tithes as long as they were liable by law. He did this, not merely from a general disposition on his part to sustain the law of the land, but also because he had a strong personal interest in the due payment of tithes, being a lay impropriator of not less than seven parishes, and deriving a considerable portion of his income from that source of revenue. So much, then, for the charge that Lord Milltown was a tithe agitator. He was not dismissed from the commission of the peace, nor did he resign the commission of the peace, in consequence of anything he had done in connexion with the tithe question in Ireland. He resigned in consequence of an intimation made to him that it was not consistent with his holding the commission of the peace that he should continue to be a member of a political association which was then said to exist in Dublin, and which was called the Volunteer Association. He prayed the House to attend to the cheers of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. They meant to intimate, by those cheers, that the fact of having once belonged to an objectionable Association was to disqualify a man for ever from holding the commission of the peace. Now, he would ask, when they made such an intimation, were they applying to the Associations of their political opponents the same rule that they claimed for the Orange Societies? If gentlemen who had formerly belonged to the Orange Society of Ireland—a society which had freely and generously dissolved itself, were not to be considered as disqualified from holding the commission of the peace, he should be glad to know why the same rule should not apply to other respectable men belonging to other societies which had also dissolved themselves? Those cheers seemed to insinuate that some of those societies still existed. That might be true; but there was this essential difference between the society to which Lord Milltown belonged (and which had spontaneously dissolved itself the instant it saw the probability of the object for which it was formed, being attained) and those Orange Societies, to which many of the hon. Gentlemen who had cheered had been attached, that the Association of which Lord Milltown was a member, was never, by any Act of Parliament, declared to be illegal. It was not so with respect to the Orange Lodges; they were declared to be illegal. So much, then, for the case of the dismissal of Lord Milltown. But it was said that he had been re-appointed to the commission of the peace by the present Government in consequence of his having become a member of the General Association in Dublin. What was the fact? He was re-appointed to the commission of the peace long before he became a member of the Association. With regard to Lord Milltown, then, it was not true, either that he had been dismissed from the commission of the peace in consequence of having attended a tithe meeting, nor that he had been restored to the commission in consequence of having connected himself with the General Association. Furthermore, instead of having made violent and turbulent speeches in the Association, he never spoke in that Assembly more than twice. To be sure, on those occasions it was most probable, nay it must almost of necessity happen, that his speeches were of the most violent, most turbulent, and most inflammatory character—for only think what the subjects were: on the first occasion the subject was that of joint-stock banks. Doubtless a tumultuary subject—enough to make one's blood boil. Well, Lord Mill-town went down to the Association and made a flaming speech upon the subject of joint-stock banks. The next topic upon which he spoke so much sedition, upon which he poured out such a torrent of lava, was that of the Poor-laws. He made a speech in favour of the Poor-laws. With these observations he dismissed the subject of the charges brought against Lord Mill-town. He ought, perhaps, to apologise to the House for having dwelt upon it so long; but he felt bound to refute the charges that had been made, as well in justice to Lord Milltown as to the character of the Government of Lord Mulgrave, which had been most inconsiderately and unjustly assailed, upon statements, every one of which, he did not hesitate to declare, was as totally unfounded as the one he had just refuted, or as any statements that were ever uttered within the walls of Parliament. He would not occupy the valuable time of the House, which he thought ought to be devoted to the discussion of a subject most important to the well-being of the empire, by investigating the various isolated and particular cases which had been introduced by the hon. Gentlemen opposite, and which had no relevance whatever to the question at issue. He did not mean to complain of hon. Gentlemen for the course they had pursued, but he thought he should hardly be justified in occupying so much time as would be necessary to follow the hon. and learned Member for Bandon into the cases of Mr. Magrath and Mr. Maguire, and to inquire why it was, that the Court of King's Bench passed so lenient a sentence, and why that sentence was afterwards remitted? In the discussion of such cases upon the present occasion, he thought the time of the House was utterly wasted, and therefore he would not enter into them. But there was one topic incidentally introduced into the debate to which he thought he might for a moment allude. He did so, because he considered himself bound in justice to an hon. Friend of his, who had been his predecessor in the office he had then the honour to hold, to state that the ear of the House had been grossly abused, he did not say intentionally—but still grossly abused by the statements which had been made, attributing to that hon. and learned Gentleman a rule with regard to the challenging of jurors, in consequence of which rule, it was asserted that, in many instances, there had been a failure of justice. It was said that his hon. and learned predecessor had laid down this rule—that in the trials at the assizes the Crown should abandon its prerogative, not of challenging, but of setting aside jurors called upon the panel; and that no juror should be challenged or set aside except where there was a legal objection to his being placed upon the panel. That was a misstatement of the fact. The rule that his learned predecessor had laid down, and which he, on coming into office, considered it to be his duty to desire the counsel employed for the Crown to follow, was this—not that they should repudiate or abandon the prerogative which the Crown, from time immemorial, had exercised in Ireland, of desiring a person upon the panel to stand aside, if a proper case for so doing occurred; but that they should not set a juror aside merely because he happened to be a Protestant or a Roman Catholic. They were, of course, instructed to challenge wherever there was a legal ground for challenging; and they were further instructed to set aside jurors in other cases where the objection might not amount to a legal ground of challenge, but this was to be dependent upon the discretion and sound opinion of the counsel employed for the Crown; and to prevent a wanton exercise of this power on the part of any subordinate officer, the Crown solicitor was directed to take a note of every case where a juror was set aside upon an objection not amounting to a legal ground of challenge, and that he should report the circumstance, together with the details of the trial, to the Attorney-General. A wiser or more discreet regulation could hardly be conceived; and the late Attorney-General never laid down any other rule than that. What was the value, then, of all that had been said of the various cases in which there had been a failure of justice in consequence of the abandonment of the prerogative of the Crown? He would not stop to inquire whether it were true that convicts had sat up n juries; it was a point upon which the attention of the House had already been sufficiently fatigued; but this he would say, that if the fact were so it had been not in consequence of the rule laid down by the late Attorney-General, but in consequence of the non-observance of that rule. There was only one other topic irrelevant to the real subject of debate to which he would refer—it was the case of Mr. Pigott. It had been alleged that he was a member of the Association at the time he was appointed assistant to the Attorney-General. Mr. Pigott was not a member of the Association at the time of his appointment to that office. He had been a member of it some time previous to his appointment; but he ceased to be so at the time of his appointment—a very short time previous to his appointment, he admitted. He did not state that fact as an apology—he did not think an apology necessary; but he stated this simple fact, that Mr. Pigott did think it right to withdraw from the Association before he took the office he was then holding; not because he thought that the Association was illegal, but because he felt that it was the growth of great popular emotion, and that it was not fitting that either a judge—or a person who might be called on to be a judge, should take such a decided part in a popular movement. An instinctive delicacy and sense of propriety on the part of Mr. Pigott induced him to think—not that he considered the Association illegal, but induced him to think it right that he should not continue to be a member of an Association which was undoubtedly the offspring of great popular passion; and it would be well for the respect due to justice if those who were members of other societies would follow Mr. Pigott's example. The hon. and learned Member for Bandon had put a question with regard to this circumstance which he would take the liberty to answer, after the fashion of his country, by putting another. The hon. and learned Member asked what would the Government do if they found it expedient to put a question to Mr. Pigott with regard to the legality or illegality of the Association? Now he was grievously misinformed if there did not exist in Dublin another association, called the Lay Association, which consisted of persons who had confederated together, and clubbed their purses and resources for the purpose of carrying on a system of the most expensive and vexatious litigation. If he were misinformed, of course what he said would fall to the ground; but he had certainly heard of a confederation in Dublin, called the Lay Association, the members of which contributed largely for the purpose of carrying on suits, in which they were not personally interested, on the part of the tithe-owners in Ireland. He was glad that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Sergeant Jackson) denied the existence of such an association; but up to that hour he had certainly been led to believe, not only that such an association notoriously existed, but that the hon. and learned Gentleman himself was a member of it. But as there was no such association, of course it could not be true, either that the hon. and learned Gentleman, or any other distinguished Conservative Members of the bar were members of it. As no such association existed, he could only put the case by po- thetically. Suppose such a society existed, suppose the Government changed, and suppose a Lord-Lieutenant sent over to Ireland, who should think it necessary or proper to call upon some of the members of that Conservative association to act as his legal advisers, and a question were to arise as to the legality of that association, upon which the gentlemen so called upon to act as officers of the Crown would have to decide—would not the situation of those gentlemen be, in every respect, similar to that of Mr. Pigott? One association, perhaps, might be quite as legal as the other; but there was, at all events, this difference between them—that the one had existed, if not identically, at least in shapes exactly similar to itself, for a multitude of years, and had been declared by the highest authorities, to be beyond the reach of either the common or the statute law—whereas the legality of the other had not yet been brought to the test, although it might be soon. He was ashamed to find that he had occupied so much time upon isolated and irrelevant topics. He came now to the proper subject of debate. The great, the fundamental proposition that had been pressed by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, as an objection to the plan proposed by his Majesty's Government for reforming the corporate bodies of Ireland was this:—that the effect of it would be to transfer the power incidental upon those corporations from the hands of the Protestants, where it was now alleged to be, into those of the Roman Catholics. Now that proposition, as far as it had any claim to truth whatsoever, entirely failed in supporting the argument that was built upon it; and as far as it was capable of sustaining the argument built upon it, so far it was utterly devoid of all truth. It was not true, that the effect of the measures proposed by his Majesty's Government would be to transfer from the Protestants of Ireland the power incidental to the corporate bodies in that country. It was not true that that power was now in the hands of the Protestants. It was not true that the parties holding that power were the Protestants of Ireland. He did not wish to use a harsh phrase, but, as the term had been used in the course of debate, he might observe, that the Protestants connected with the corporations of Ireland constituted but a miserable minority, when compared with the general Protestant body of that country. The persons who now hold the power incidental to corporations as effectually excluded from among themselves the great mass of Protestant wealth and intelligence, as they did the Roman Catholics. There was not a province in Ireland, scarcely a county, which did not contain within it a body of Protestants, rigidly excluded from the corporations, but who, nevertheless, surpassed the whole body of those corporations put together, in everything that could give value to character, and weight to opinion. If any authority were wanting to sustain a proposition that was so notorious, he was armed with one of the strongest kind—an authority valuable in itself, and of peculiar weight in the estimation of the hon. Gentlemen who sat opposite. In the year 1829, when the Duke of Wellington, then at the head of affairs, introduced into the House of Lords the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, and when the right, hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, did the same in that House, they both naturally and fairly sought to justify their measure, by showing that they were sustained in the introduction of it, by the great mass of the Protestant wealth, numbers, and intelligence in Ireland. With this view, each in his respective place, went into minute statements of details, for the purpose of establishing his doctrine; and they did so, although it was as notorious as the sun at noon-day, that every man belonging to the corporations in Ireland was arrayed against the measure they were proposing; yet, in their estimation, so far from regarding the corporations as constituting the great mass of the Protestant population of Ireland, they viewed and treated them as an inconsiderable section. The thing really was too notorious and obvious to require any argument. The power now vested in the corporations was not in the hands of the Protestants; it was in the hands of a small sectarian portion of Protestants; and not even in that part of the Protestant body which happened to differ from his Majesty's Government, but in a sub-division of men held together by local ties and family connexions. It was not true that the proposition of the Government was, that the Protestants of Ireland should have anything taken from them; and it was less true, that the proposition was to give power to the Roman Catholics of Ireland. The effect of the measure proposed was, to give the power of these corporations, not to the Catholics of Ireland, not to the Protestants of Ireland—but to give it to the people of Ireland. The effect of it would be, to give to every man in the country who would be entitled to it, a participation in that power, irrespective of his creed. The effect of it would be, to attach to corporate power a civil qualification; and wherever that qualification was found, there the power would be found also. The limitations adopted in the Bill proposed by the King's Ministers, made it utterly impossible that the Roman Catholics of Ireland could acquire more power than they de facto possessed, or than they were de jure entitled to; or, that they should have less de facto than they were entitled to de jure. It distributed corporate power upon the only principle on which any power can be justly distributed. It distributed it to every man who had that presumption of fitness to possess it in his favour which arose from his having the necessary civil qualifications. It was the principle upon which all the powers in the state were now distributed; it was the principle upon which the elective franchise was distributed; it was the principle upon which the power to sit in the House of Commons was distributed; it was the principle which pervaded the whole system of our civil establishments. But he was not now arguing that point, because, if he mistook not, hon. Members on the other side of the House did not suggest that this principle was not a fair one, and ought not to be adopted. No; they said, that if the power was to be created, this mode of distribution was just; but they alleged that, inasmuch as the adoption of this principle of distribution would lead to the giving of that power into the hands of the Roman Catholics, therefore the power itself ought not to be created: because, if the power were to be distributed at all, it must be distributed upon a constitutional principle, and that principle would give the Catholics more power than the Protestants. Was not that the argument? In the first place he would remark, that gross exaggerations had been made as to the extent of the influence which this Bill would give the Roman Catholics. He really could not believe that any man acquainted with the state of Ireland could get up in that House to say, that the effect of the Bill would be to put the entire corporate power in the hands of the Roman Catholics. With those who knew the state of the city of Dublin, of Belfast, of Waterford, of Cork, and of other cities in Ireland, such an argument could have no weight. Was it not notorious that in those towns the Protestant strength chiefly prevailed. And what was the fact with respect to parties in those cities? Not only were the Roman Catholics not a decidedly ascendant party, but in those places where the 10l. qualification was established, even with the aid and assistance of the liberal Protestants—a most efficient as well as valuable body of men—the Roman Catholics were only able to maintain a difficult and precarious struggle against the section of Protestants who were arrayed against the Government. It was impossible, therefore, to insist that the whole power would fall into the hands of the Catholics. If any man would look only at the shops and houses occupied by the Protestants in those towns and count their numbers, he would be compelled to say, that the Protestants must necessarily partake, in a very large degree, of the power of the municipal corporations in those places. Was it, then, he would ask, just or honest to represent, that this was an entire and wholesale transfer of power out of the hands of Protestants into those of Catholics? It was not. It would fall into the hands of Roman Catholics and Protestants in that proportion in which it ought to fall with respect to the population, wealth, and intelligence of the towns. It was a remarkable thing how differently the strength of the Catholic body was represented in that House, according to the different ends which were to be attained, by the hon. Gentlemen opposite. At one moment hon. Gentlemen opposite had to exhort the House not to yield to abstract justice; pressing upon them the practical expediency that intervened, and made it improper that a body so influential and large, and occupying all the civil positions in Ireland, they should be entrusted with the power of local taxation. When that was the view to be pressed upon the House, nothing, according to those hon. Gentlemen, was so great and irresistible as the power of the Roman Catholics; they were all in all, and quite overwhelmed the Protestants everywhere. But, on the contrary, when the feelings of the Roman Catholics of Ireland were to be outraged, and every indignity to be cast upon them, then they were represented as an insignificant body, and that the Protestants of Ireland were able to control and to keep them down. In short, the deductions drawn from the proportion of the Roman Catholics and Protestants were made to answer any purpose. But he would not dwell upon this fact. He would place his argument upon higher ground. He would admit, for the purpose of argument, that this power, being distributed upon a proper and sound principle of distribution among the people of Ireland, it would throw a larger proportion of that power into the hands of the Roman Catholics than into the hands of the rest of the population. Assuming this, for the sake of argument, he would then say, that to withhold that power from the people of Ireland upon the ground of their religion alone was a gross violation of the Act of Union, and of the Act of Emancipation. He would say, that to withhold from the people of Ireland an important civil power which had been already given to the people of England and of Scotland, because in Ireland a greater proportion of that power might fall into the hands of the Catholics than of the Protestants, was to disturb the balance of constitutional power between the different portions of the empire and to violate the principle of the Union. He would say, that to give to the people of Scotland and of England a civil institution which enabled them constitutionally to exercise a control over the Government and the Legislature, which gave them an important influence over all the executive functions of the state, and at the same time to withhold that power from the people of Ireland, was to act in violation of the Act of Union, and to the prejudice of the Irish people. What was the principle of the Union? The principle of the Union was equality. The principle of the Union was equal dealing towards the people of England, Scotland, and Ireland. But it was not equal dealing to give to the people of the two former countries those means of controlling the legislative will and the executive Government which were withheld from the people of Ireland. Was it denied on the other side that these corporations did give to the people, wherever they existed, a great constitutional power over the legislative will, and over the executive; Was that fact denied? It was so far from being denied, that it was the very groundwork of the argument advanced on the other side. Their argument was, that Municipal Corporations would have that effect in Ireland; and because they would, so they ought not to be given to the people of that part of the empire. The argument used both for and against the English Corporation Bill, when it was passing through Parliament, was, that it tended to augment the power of the people over the ruling authorities of the State. He would not now inquire whether the English or the Scotch Municipal Bills had had that effect; but he would say this, that having given that power to the people of England and Scotland, they could not in honesty or in justice, or in adherence to the principle of the Union, withhold it from the people of Ireland. He knew, that in the course of this debate, Gentlemen on the other side had affected to think that they had answered this argument, founded upon the title of the people of Ireland to share equally with the people of England and Scotland in exercising all constitutional power over the will of the Legislature and the Executive, by saying that there existed other differences between the law of Ireland and of England and Scotland; that a similarity of the law was no portion of the Union, and that it was not necessary to the Union that such a similarity should exist. No one had ever said—he, at least, had never said—that a similarity of the law was necessary; but what he contended for was, that if they gave to the people of one part of the empire power which enabled them to exercise a control over the will of the Legislature and the Executive, they could not in fairness refuse the like power to the other parts of the empire. The Poor-law and the Constabulary Bills had been referred to. The similarity of those measures to the laws in England might or might not be necessary; but show to him that the want of any law in Ireland which existed in England would be attended with thisresult—thatthe people of Ireland had less control over the will of the Legislature and the Government of the Empire than they would enjoy if that law existed—show him that, and he would then do the utmost he could to assimilate the laws of the two countries. It was not the ant of Union alone that would be infringed and violated by the project of the noble Lord on the other side (Lord F. Egerton), but the fundamental principle of the Act of Emancipation would be widely departed from. The principle of that Act was, that all the civil powers of the State might be properly intrusted to Roman Catholics, notwithstanding their religion. The principle of the Emancipation Bill was to place in the hands of the Roman Catholics, in spite of their religion, the most important civil power and authority. It intrusted to them the right to sit in the House of Commons; it intrusted to them the right of filling the highest offices in the executive department of the State, while acts of the same nature empowered them to lead oar army and conduct our fleets. Such was the principle of the Emancipation Bill; a principle which declared that notwithstanding their religion Roman Catholics were trustworthy to hold civil power in the State. But what was the principle proposed by the noble Lord's project? He considered it to be this—that by reason of their religion the Roman Catholics of Ireland were not worthy to be intrusted with the exercise of that power over their own concerns which the rest of his Majesty's subjects enjoyed. He knew very well that an attempt had been made to reconcile the principle of that project with the principle of the Emancipation Act. It was said, that there was no injustice in that project, because the principle of the Emancipation Act was equality between Catholics and Protestants, and accordingly the project of the noble Lord dealt with them upon the principle of equality. The noble Lord said, that the Bill of his Majesty's Ministers did not deal equally with Protestants and Catholics, whereas his amendment did. But the distinction was most marked and obvious. The principle of the Roman Catholic Emancipation Bill was equality of employment, notwithstanding dissent—the principle of the project of the noble Lord was equality of privation because of that dissent. The principle of he Catholic Emancipation Bill was equality of rights—the principle of the project of the noble Lord was equality of wrongs. The principle of the one was the principle of dis ri u ion—dealing with the powers of the State as equitably distributable among all without regard to difference of creeds; while the principle of the other was the principle of destruction—destroying all civil powers instead of distributing them upon an equitable principle. The principles of the two measures were not only not the same, but the very antipodes of each other. Nothing could be more dissimilar than the two principles. He could understand how a person who opposed the Catholic Emancipation Bill, and who entertained sentiments hostile to that measure, might still think that, under every circumstance, the augmentation of the Roman Catholic power was to be considered as likely to militate against the Ecclesiastical Establishment in Ireland; but how any man who at the time of its being passed thought, and still continued to think, that principle just, could support the project of the noble Lord, really surprised him. At the same time he must observe, that those persons were departing from their own principle. Their ancient principle was, not only that the Catholics should not have civil power, but that Protestants should and Catholics should not; whereas, now their principle was, that neither Protestants nor Catholics should have civil power. If they were justified in principle and policy in withholding civil power from Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, for fear a predominancy should fall to the Catholics he could not help saying that would have found the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tarn worth, in 1829, means of escaping the difficulties by which he was then beset. The right hon. Baronet distrusted the Roman Catholics—he wag afraid they would abuse the powers to be placed in their hand, but he was coerced by circumstances to give it them. Now, if the principle of the noble Lord's project were sound, could not the right hon. Baronet have adopted it, and instead of giving civil power to Catholics and Protestants indiscriminately, why not have taken it indiscriminately from both? That would have been a much more safe mode of proceeding according to the right hon. Baronet's own views.' But he did not think of adopting that principle. It was a new-fangled principle unheard of before. He defied any hon. Member to open a single page of the History of England, since it was a nation, and show that the principle of destroying civil power, because it might possibly fall into the hands of one party rather than of another, was ever before acted upon. It was a principle at variance not only with history, but with every system which had ever been adopted. The principle upon which the predecessors of the hon. Gentlemen opposite had proceeded was, that if there were a party in the State which ought not to be intrusted with power, yet punishment ought not to be inflicted on others—that Protestants were not to be deprived of their rights because Catholics were unworthy. Hon. Gentlemen opposite spoke of innovators and of innovation. But who were the innovators, and what was innovation? That was innovation which spoliated Protestants without gratifying the Catholics. It was no satisfaction to the Catholics of Ireland that when their civil rights were destroyed, the civil rights of the Protestants of Ireland should also be destroyed. He was sure that there was not a Catholic in Ireland who would not rather a thousand degrees that the corporations should be established in Ireland upon a fair basis, and upon the principle of popular representation, although confined to the Protestants only, than that they should be wholly extinguished. He admitted that by the adoption of that clause the Catholics of Ireland would sustain a considerable wrong; that the principle of the Emancipation Bill would be violated, though not more grossly than it would be by the present project of the noble Lord opposite; but still the principle of the Union would be saved—that Act of Union which established equality between England, Ireland, and Scotland, would at all events be preserved. He had in all periods of his life been a supporter of that Act of Union. He had done so because he considered by the provisions of that Union every man in Ireland would be treated in all respects upon terms of equality with Scotland and England, and that on all questions of power, in all matters where the people were to exercise any influence in the State, the people of Ireland would receive the same attention, their feelings would be equally consulted, and their will, their prejudices, if you please to call them so, would have equal effect on the Parliament of the United Empire, and would produce as full an operation upon the proceedings of the Legislature and the Executive as the will, the passions, the feelings, and the prejudices of the other parts of the empire. He had argued with many people in Ireland upon the principle of the Union, but he could not argue with them again if the argument maintained by hon. Gentlemen opposite were to be admitted. How could any man suppose that they could maintain the Union if the people of Ireland were to be taunted as they had been. You told them that you would support the Union between the two countries—you told them that the people of England would do justice to them with all other parts of the empire; but what had the Irish nation done, that while municipal institutions, on a popular basis, were given to all other parts of the country they were withheld from Ireland? It was not because they did not require local bodies like those established in England, it was not because they had no local matters to attend to which required watchful superintendence, but because those bodies had hitherto been made exclusive in Ireland, and that, therefore, they should not be established now. This argument, however, was now in substance abandoned with regard to Ireland; and, to use a vulgar expression, was now regarded as mere chips in porridge. Then why should Gentlemen opposite not accept this measure now? Did they do so on the ground that these institutions had not been found to be beneficial in England and Scotland? On the contrary, their utility was admitted. He would then ask whether they could sustain the Union without life. Hon. Gentlemen opposite said that they could not maintain the Established Church conjointly with these bodies. He never heard of a proposition having been made in that House to grant some boon, or to bestow some advantage on the people of Ireland, that was not met by some ill-omened expression in some speech or other, that if they did so they would tend to destroy the Irish Church. He could only regard such expressions as mere cant, which had been constantly used from the time of Swift down to the present time; and they had been urged not only against the Catholics, but also against Presbyterians and Dissenters—indeed, they were sometimes now applied in the latter way. The Legislature, then, had been driven, step by step, to grant to the people of Ireland large and constitutional powers, but at the same time refused them the government of their local affairs. You give them political power, but you refuse them this comparatively insignificant, but at the same time important, power. The mode in which this had been refused was an insult as much as the refusal was an injury; but was there no possible loss of strength in withholding these institutions? This part of the subject had been eloquently dwelt on by the hon. Member for Liskeard, who traced out the several uses and benefits which had arisen from them in England and Scotland. If, however, these bodies were perfectly useless in Ireland, yet if they were withheld from that country in the manner in which they had hitherto been, it would excite feelings of discontent which they would never be able to dispel. He was most anxious to support the union between the two countries, but to do this effectually, every reason and argument showed that they must give the same measure of justice to Ireland that was possessed by the people of England and Scotland.

Sir James Graham

, could assure the House that he had risen with very great unwillingness. Need he make any excuse for saying so, aware as he was that the subject had been so sifted and winnowed, that he feared the chaff only remained, and that, therefore, the House would be unwilling to hear him on this third night of the debate, and furthermore, because he had presumed, on more than one occasion, to address the House on that very same subject; nevertheless, the vital importance of that subject impelled him once again to then offer his opinions. If he thought the subject important before the commencement of the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, he was disposed now to think it of still higher importance. Sectarian as he was called, and almost bigot as he was held to be by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, he would remind them that he had been the firm, constant, and uniform supporter of the Catholic claims for emancipation; and, as one who supported those claims, he sincerely congratulated the hon. and learned Gentle man on having won his way to the highest office of his profession by his legal abilities, and on having sustained the credit of his appointment by the ability he had displayed in the speech which he had just delivered. Having said that, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would permit him to comment with freedom on some of the topics of that speech. He (Sir J. Graham) had already said, that, in his opinion, the importance of the subject had been increased by what he had heard fall from the hon. and learned Gentleman, whom he understood to have said, that if this question were not carried, then he, the King's Attorney-General, would cease to defend the Union.

Mr. Sergeant Woulfe

begged leave to explain: he had said more than the right hon. Gentleman attributed to him. What he had said was, that he should cease to be able to defend, with effect, the Union from those who attacked it.

Sir James Graham

That was a very nice distinction. The hon. and learned Gentleman would excuse him for saying, that this was a fine-drawn legal subtilty, which he feared would not be so nicely discriminated by the people of Ireland. He must, however, remark, that there was something ominous in such a declaration being made by the King's Attorney-General, that if this question was not carried now—at this particular moment—that he was of opinion that he would not be able to defend with efficiency the Union with Ireland. But he would pass on from this topic to the real question in debate, which was in point of fact, the actual state of affairs in Ireland. He would not follow the hon. and learned Gentleman through his arguments as to the criminations and recriminations which had passed between different sides of the House respecting the Association in Ireland. It appeared, that that which was one day the Volunteer Association, became shortly after the National Association; and, in answer to remarks respecting this to-day, the hon. and learned Gentleman recriminates the other side with the existence of the Lay Association, and of the Orange Association which was put down last year, but which, was now again got up under another form. And he would remind the House, that although the National Association was on one side, and the Lay Association on the other, that the Lay Association had been formed for the purpose of maintaining the administration of the law, the execution of which duty had been, in some respects, partially or wholly neglected by his Majesty's Government in Ireland. The National Association, however, was formed for the purpose of violating the law, and he must also add, that he considered that that Association continued to receive a most extraordinary degree of indulgence and support from his Majesty's Government. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, that he would not go into a defence of the various legal acts of his Majesty's Government. What would the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, say to this declaration of the Attorney-General, after the statement he made the other night? What was the answer which would be given to the case of Mr. Cassidy? Surely it had not escaped the recollection of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that since the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, had spoken, the letters of Lord Vesey and Lord Oxmantown had been read to the House? The statements contained in their letters had not been denied; they could not be denied. He would not stop at the case of Mr. Cassidy, but would go on one stage further. He would not, however, pass by the general gaol delivery made by the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland during his tour through the country, when he liberated not less than sixty-nine prisoners in one county, and when he found that certain prisoners had been committed for a further time to gaol, until they found bail, he ordered them to be liberated, and they had not heard that he had taken care to direct that some provision should be made for surety in the shape of bail. The hon. and learned Gentleman, as the Attorney-General, was the legal adviser of the Lord-Lieutenant; and surely he might have been expected to give some explanation of this proceeding. He now, however, came to a much more important point, namely, the case of Mr. Pigott. He intended to argue the general question immediately; but, in the first instance, he trusted that he should be allowed to make some remarks on this case. There could be no doubt that Mr. Pigott seemed to entertain a higher sense of duty with regard to the appointment he held, and the situation he occupied in connexion with the Association, than was entertained by his Majesty's Ministers. It had been stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, that Mr. Pigott thought that it was only proper and becoming before he accepted the office which had been conferred upon him by the Irish Government that he should retire from the Association. It appeared that his Majesty's Government, however, had no such scruples. As the case stood, according to the statement of the King's Attorney-General for Ireland, it appeared that Mr. Pigott thought that it was only decent and proper for him to withdraw from the Association before he accepted office; but it was not stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman—it remained to this moment a presumed fact—that his Majesty's Ministers made no such agreement on this appointment of Mr. Pigott, But he did not attach much weight to the offer of the appointment on condition of his withdrawing from the Association; and it remained yet to be seen whether the offer of the appointment was made while he was yet a Member of the Association. If it was made while he was a member of the Association, and he of his own free will resigned the Association, it became a mere subterfuge, and the argument remained untouched and uncontradicted as regarded his Majesty's Ministers, that they had made an appointment of a gentleman to the most confidential legal office connected with his Majesty's Government in Ireland who had previously taken a part in the proceedings of the Association, had been a most useful member of it, and had taken an active part in its formation. And let the House not forget that for the purpose of making this gentleman the legal adviser of the Government a special and unusual vacancy was made. Who was the first sergeant in Ireland? A gentleman of great ability and high professional reputation, and very lately in the confidence of the Government. This gentleman had been passed over in appointing a Solicitor-General. Certainly his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Bandon (Mr. Sergeant Jackson), had no title to the confidence of his Majesty's Ministers. But who was the third sergeant? A gentleman whose talents were well known and appreciated in that House, and who had a high professional reputation and character. These two gentlemen were passed by, and a person was made Solicitor-General who held the office of confidential legal adviser to the Irish Government, that Mr. Pigott, who was comparatively little known in the profession, might be placed in the latter office. He understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say, that the establishment of Municipal Corporations would give greatly increased political power to a certain party in Ireland, and would afford additional means of controlling the Legislature. He begged to ask his Majesty's Ministers whether at present there was not a sufficient control exercised over them as regarded all their Irish measures? Were they desirous, by a measure like that before the House, to increase this influence and control, for a learned Gentleman sitting beside them had told them that by giving municipal corporations they would materially increase the political power of a certain party in Ireland? He thought that he had read in a speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman—he believed an electioneering speech—another description of the probable operation of this measure. If he was wrong in his quotation, he should be happy to be set right; but he recollected to have read some observations purporting to be made on a certain occasion at Cashel, when the hon. and learned Gentleman took an opportunity of discussing this question. Did not the hon. and learned Gentleman then make use of an expression somewhat of this nature—that if this measure were carried, the popular influence of a certain party which was now supporting His Majesty's Government would be greatly increased—that the number of Members of that party returned from Ireland would be augmented from sixty to ninety. He would now turn to a very important part of the question, and would, in the first place, refer to the speech made last night by the noble Lord, the Secretary at War. The noble Lord put certain questions with great perspicuity and force. The first was, why did the opposition put forward this argument, that the carrying this question would be attended with danger to the Church of Ireland? And next he asked, how would the establishment of municipal institutions endanger the established Church in Ireland? The Attorney-General for Ireland had refused in no very courteous terms to give any answer to these questions. He said that it was all cant to talk of the Church being endangered by these municipal corporations. The hon. and learned Member for Bath had said, that the notion of the Church being in danger was merely the hobgoblin phantom of a fanatical imagination. Another hon. Gentleman called it a political cry of a faction, and other expressions of a similar character had been used. The noble Lord opposite did him only justice in saying, that, in arguing the question last year, he did so in connexion with the Established Church. He did so consider the question last year. It was afterwards said, that the question connected with the Irish Church was only made a stepping-stone to power; he could reply that neither noble Lords nor the right hon. Gentlemen opposite would assert that he was touched by any such insinuation. He would now endeavour to establish the fact that this connexion between the two questions was pot so unnatural as hon. Gentlemen oppo- site asserted; and he would do this by citing evidence which the opposite side of the House could not refuse to receive. The evidence he alluded to had been given in the course of the present debate, and in the presence of the House. The noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, complimented an hon. and learned Friend of his on the great ability he displayed in the speech which he made on this question two nights ago. He admitted that the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard (Mr. C. Buller) manifested great ability, and he confessed that he heard the opinions put forth in the course of it without surprise, coming from whence it did. That speech contained some very strong expressions, and he certainly did not mean to say, that the noble Lord when he praised that speech was to be considered as adopting all the opinions put forth in it, or to be held answerable for all the expressions used in the course of it. This would be very unfair; but then the House should consider the character of the speech in support of this measure. The hon. and learned Member for Liskeard said, that he regarded the Irish Church with horror, as the most revolting profanation of all that was most venerable in Christianity, and the most odious perversion of all that was useful in the principle of a church-establishment. He went on to argue that the Church in Ireland could not co-exist with free institutions. He was followed last night by another hon. and learned Gentleman, in a speech of not less ability than that of the hon. Member for Liskeard, and what was his description of the Church of Ireland? He applied terms to it which had in former times been used with reference to another Church in the height of polemical quarrels. The hon. and learned Gentleman called it the harlot Church of England in Ireland, the greatest enormity in any country in Europe—this harlot Church of England as now existing in Ireland.

Mr. Roebuck

rose to order. He begged the right hon. Baronet not to misrepresent him. The words he made use of were, "the harlot Church of Ireland;" he said nothing about the Church of England.

Sir J. Graham

The hon. and learned Gentleman might endeavour, with great legal precision, to make a distinction between the expressions, but in the eyes of the law and the nation there was no dif- ference. The Church of Ireland did not exist separately from the Church of England. Did any hon. Gentleman deny that the proper expression to be used was the Church of England as established in Ireland? The main point, however, was, that the hon. and learned Member for Bath had used the opprobrious epithet, "the harlot Church of England, as established in Ireland," and had declared that Church to be the greatest enormity in Europe; and the hon. and learned Member, following up the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard, went on to give, in able terms, his rationale of the further proposition, that an abuse so great, so flagrant as the Church Establishment in Ireland, could not coexist with free municipal institutions. His words were—"This Bill will produce a spirit of self-dependence that will prevent them (the municipal burgesses) from suffering themselves any longer to be guided or governed by any body,"—a very happy prospect! "so as to make them support or approve of any abuse whatever." He was accused of being a bigot for contending that the two questions were connected; but he was now showing the House that there was not only a natural but an irresistible connexion which could not be denied even by Gentlemen on the opposite benches. His noble Friend, the Member for North Lancashire, had shown, that with the petitions in favour of this Bill, the question of tithes had been generally, it might be said invariably, united. That was not the result of accident, but of previous arrangement, under the direction of the National Association of Ireland. He was glad-to see the hon. Member for Tipperary in his place, for whenever he heard him discuss any great national question in which he felt interested, no man listened to him with more sincere pleasure than he did. He would now read to the House the forcible suggestions given by the hon. Member for Tipperary at the meeting in the Coburg-gardens: he told his auditors, that "strong and immediate application must be made to the Legislature for relief from that most frightful of all grievances; that 7,000,000 was the talismanic word by which to disarm the rancorous faction of its power." That was rather on a footing with the threat of the Attorney-General for Ireland that the Union would be dissolved unless the Bill were passed. It was said that it was the bigots, the political hypocrites, on his side of the House, who united these two questions; but here was the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary telling the people of Ireland by no means to petition for corporate reform alone, but in every petition to unite with that subject the more important and more pressing question of tithe. The hon. and learned Member further said, "Trust to me who have long observed the debates, in which I have acted as well as looked on, when I say that success is certain, that they will, they must, they shall give way." The hon. and learned Member cheered this sentiment of his; and it had, indeed, become quite evident, from the tone which the subject had assumed, that the question now was, whether the House was to yield to intimidation by force, whatever its real opinions on the subject might be. There was plenty of evidence to establish the fact of this connexion. Besides the evidence of the hon. and learned Members for Bath, for Liskeard, and for Tipperary, there was the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, who could be brought forward as additional evidence on this point. He would not read to the House the many extracts he had by him from the hon. and learned Member's speeches, on numberless occasions, on this subject; but he would recall to the House the important declaration which that hon. and learned Member had made:—" Let me get the Whigs to a certain point, and I will undertake to carry them the rest of the way with me." That was not all. The hon. and learned Member connected with the Municipal Corporations question, not only the Church question, but many other and much greater ones. He had declared, "I am for the assertion of the voluntary principle in Ireland, the separation of the Church from the State, the vote by ballot, the household suffrage, the expulsion of the Bishops from the House of Lords, and the organic reform of the Lords themselves: give me Municipal Reform, and I will undertake to carry all these into the bargain." He would not carry this point any further; the connexion of the two subjects, he thought, had been indisputably proved. The noble Lord, the Secretary at War, had pressed another point on the attention of the House in reply to the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, who had charged the Government with always burrowing onwards, although they were satisfied that this mea- sure could produce no good effect, and although a large minority in that House had declared, while the supporters of the Bill admitted, that it was a step towards the destruction of the Established Church. The noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, satisfied themselves with the notion, that because they had no such intention, that therefore no such result would take place; and the noble Lord, the Secretary at War, by way of meeting his noble Friend, the Member for North Lancashire, had charged him and his Friends with taking up the very position which those occupied who opposed the Reform Bill when he held office. But the cases were by no means analogous or parallel; and to prove that he would remind the House that the measure then brought forward by Earl Grey as the head of the Government was a specific and final measure, utterly and entirely unconnected with any other. When Earl Grey proposed it to the House of Lords, he said, "There is nothing in this measure which is not founded on the acknowledged principles of the constitution; there is nothing that is not perfectly consistent with the ancient practices and institutions of the country; there is nothing that may not be adopted with perfect safety to the rights and privileges of all the orders of the State, and particularly of that order to which your Lordships belong." What was the declaration which Earl Grey made after the Bill had passed, and after his Government had been broken up, and within a few days of his retirement from office? On the 6th of June, 1834, Earl Grey said, "It is undoubtedly true, that while every Member of the late Administration felt the necessity of introducing a measure of Parliamentary reform, we thought it right that it should be an extensive measure, in order that we might afterwards take our stand upon it; and I appeal to your Lordships and to the country whether I have not resisted any attempt to push the principle of that measure further." That was a measure, then, specific, and finite in itself; and although in carrying out that measure the Government received the support of some Gentlemen who had ulterior views, yet the existing state of parties at that time was such that the old Whig party had a most predominant influence in the House, and the Radical party was comparatively small, so that there was a party sufficiently strong in itself to resist any attempt to push extreme measures. But was the present a specific and a final measure? The noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, might say that it was intended to be so, but was not the question left open still with regard to tithes in Ireland? Were there not other questions still left in a vague and indefinite state? Had his Majesty's Government given any decided answer yet as to the course they meant to pursue with regard to the appropriation clause? What power had the Government to give effect to their own decisions on this point? Had not a great change taken place in the relative strength of parties? What were the relative proportions at present of the Radical and old Whig party? Had there been no compact in this matter? Not only a compact—but a compact union was notoriously effected at Lichfield-house, and what was it? As he understood the nature of that union, it might be shortly and simply stated—it was this, to give Downing-street and office to the Whig party, and surrender the Irish Church to the Irish Association. He said more. He was decidedly of opinion, after surveying the relative strength of parties in that House, that if the Gentlemen among whom he sat were to secede from the House of Commons, and cease, for a short while, to attend to the duties here, he did believe not a month would elapse before vote by ballot, household suffrage, the expulsion of the Bishops from the House of Lords, and the voluntary principle in Ireland, would be established by the most triumphant majorities of at least two to one. So much with respect to the strength of parties at the present moment as contrasted with their relative strength during the progress of the Reform Bill. He should now shortly address the House upon one or two other points. And first of all, he begged to state that the representation of this motion for the abolition of corporations as an Orange device, was utterly unfounded. It was no new opinion—it was no new project. It was first mooted, he believed, so far back as 1829; it was decidedly advocated in the letter of Lord Cloncurry, which he had read at that time; and if he were not greatly mistaken, in a petition which came from the Catholic Association in 1826, this precise object, this disfranchisement, meaning thereby the abolition of those corporations, was distinctly prayed. It was therefore no new proposition. He should not go into all the details of the measure itself, but there was one point on which he must be allowed to touch—he alluded to the alteration which had been made in the Bill with regard to the appointment of sheriffs. That point had not been very distinctly explained by his Majesty's Ministers, He wished to call to the recollection of the House what had taken place on this subject. When the Bill was introduced last year, it was provided that as in England so in Ireland, the sheriffs in the counties of cities should be subject to popular election. Those on the opposition argued that this was an undue interference, in the shape of popular control, with the administration of justice. His Majesty's Ministers yielded to that argument, and withdrew from popular control, the sheriffs of counties of cities, and the other justices. But an alteration was made this year. The Bill gave to the popular body the right of returning three names to which the Lord-Lieutenant might absolutely object, without assigning the slightest reason. It then empowered the municipal bodies to name the other three, and gave the Lord-Lieutenant the power of setting them aside also. Now he begged the House to observe what had already taken place on the subject of setting aside jurors. If public opinion had rendered it necessary to place some restraint on the unlimited power, as it had hitherto been exercised by the Crown prosecutors—and the rule had been to-night satisfactorily enough explained by the hon. Attorney-General for Ireland, although his explanation was somewhat inconsistent with that furnished on a former evening by the noble Lord—if the weight of public opinion against the setting aside of jurors had rendered the practice so unpopular, what would be the effect of the Lord-Lieutenant setting aside six gentlemen thus nominated by their fellow-townsmen to fill the high situation of sheriffs without assigning any reason whatever? There might be sufficient reasons against all of these, and yet in the present state of public opinion in that country it was hardly possible for the Lord-Lieutenant to exercise that most sound and proper discretion. Either this variation from the principle adopted last year was a real concession, or it was a colourable one. Was it, then, real concession, restoring to popular control an officer who had to appoint the juries in Ireland? If so, he held in his hand the solemn adjudication of the House against it in a recent instance last year. The House of Lords in this very Bill inserted a clause which gave the present clerks of the peace and clerks of the Crown in Ireland, a life tenure in their offices. The House of Commons objected to that clause, and assigned a reason for their objection. He would read to the House the reason which had been unanimously adopted, and which he believed there was no ground to forego. The Commons objected to the Lords' plan and the reason given was "because such officers as are connected with the administration of justice in Ireland should be removed from local influence, and placed directly under the authority of the Crown." Here was the recorded unanimous opinion of the House of Commons. Again, therefore, he asked, was this a real concession, restoring the sheriff to popular control in defiance of the opinion of Parliament, or was it merely a colourable one? Was it an act of tame submission to the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny? It was an attempt to deceive the public or an attempt to deceive one who would not be deceived, to satisfy one who would not be satisfied. He should have gone further into the details of the question if the evening had not been so far advanced as to preclude the possibility of doing so with propriety. He could have shown how tolls—one of the most fertile subjects of grievance in Ireland—was kept up in all the obnoxious integrity by it; and then he could have compared with it the plan of his noble Friend, which went to abolish them all. The commissioners even of the Government itself, who reported on the corporations, with Mr. Sergeant Perrin at their head, had pointed out the propriety of abolishing tolls in the strongest manner. They said, that "The tolls were excessive and unreasonable in their amount and exaction; and that the schedules laid them on the smallest articles coming into towns; all of which was a great hardship on the people, and especially bore with severity on the poorest." Then were tolls set down by the Corporation Commissioners themselves as one of the worst grievances of corporate cities; and yet the Bill of the noble Lord opposite, which affected to remedy all grievances in corporations altogether, omitted to notice that crying one, The Commissioners then went on to say in the same report, "That these tolls were often unjustly and illegally enforced, and were as often resisted by violence and tumult." Thus the law was transgressed on both sides. On the one by an illegal assertion of rights which did not exist, and on the other by an illegal resistance to wrong; through which means commotions and bloodshed ensued, unhappily not of unfrequent occurrence in Ireland. The noble, Lord the Home Secretary, admitted that there was a great analogy between the Bill before the House and the Bill on the Poor-laws—that was between the subject of both. Now what did Mr. Nicholls say in his report on the state of the poor in Ireland? He said in substance that he did not believe there were the means of constituting boards of guardians in that country, and the noble Lord, in corroboration of the correctness of that belief, gave the central board the power of suspending such of the boards of guardians as they thought fit. Mr. Nicholls went still further, for he stated that he believed the mode of electing a board of guardians for the poor by the popular voice would be at present dangerous in Ireland; yet the noble Lord proposed in the measure under discussion to confer all the power upon the popular body. How did he reconcile the discrepancy? The noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, in moving the other night for leave to bring in the Poor-law Bill for Ireland, gave no very flattering picture of the present state of that country; he described the want of education—the lawless habits—the marauding mendicancy that prevailed there; he described it as a country overrun by marauders and mendicants. He went on to tell of ejected tenants returning with multitudes, and even with arms, to recover possession of their holdings; and it was in the recollection of the House how the noble Lord illustrated that by an example. He told a story of an ejected tenant, the morning after his ejection, again appearing on the land to resist the entry of the new farmer, and being armed, actually fired a shot at the tenant; fortunately it did not take effect, but with the other barrel he fired at the tenant's servant, and killed him, while multitudes were present aiding and abetting him. Such was the description given of the present condition of Ireland by the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Depart- ment; but he would read to the House something still more curious, and which well merited the attention of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. The House was perhaps aware that Downing-street had lately brought forth a pamphlet. The Foreign, office had been in labour, and was safely delivered, and he held the bantling in his hand. It was christened—they might guess who were the sponsors on the occasion—"The policy of England towards Spain." Now in this pamphlet it was attempted, if not to defend, at least to gloss over, those atrocities which disgraced and disfigured the civil war in Spain. The murder of the mother of Cabrera, for instance, the assassination of Quesada, and many other such dreadful atrocities, were disposed of in that spirit. But perhaps the House would like to hear the juvenile Whig speak for himself. Not only were the offences to which he had referred treated in the way he had stated, but actually—which perhaps they would hardly believe—a comparison was instituted between the present state of Spain, in which country civil war was raging, and the state of Ireland—very little to the advantage, he was sorry to say, of the sister kingdom. The passage ran thus: "Let us look at home—let us examine what happens here, under our own eyes, with every circumstance most favourable to the prevention and punishment of crime, and we may then form an estimate of the difficulties against which a Government of Spain, in its present state, has to struggle. Some of the provinces of Spain are larger than Ireland; but it may be doubted if in the course of a twelvemonth the balance of crime would not be against the sister island, and in favour of any province of Spain that might be selected. Yet, with all the authority of the law—with all the force of opinion—and with the long array of judges, magistrates, infantry, cavalry, and police, all well disciplined, all having a common object, how hard is it for the Government to exercise its functions, when the people, unfortunately, do Dot recognise their own interest in the suppression of vice and crime!" Was he then wrong? Had he overstated the case? Was there not a comparison drawn between Spain, where civil war was now raging, and the existing state of Ireland, and was not the assertion broad and distinct that crime was more rampant in Ireland because the people in that country took no interest in the vindication of law and the prevention of crime? While he had the pamphlet in his hand he might, perhaps, as well read another short extract. It was a portrait drawn by a master hand; it was meant to describe a Spaniard, but he was much mistaken if they did not recognise in it some prominent features of a character nearer home: "The Spanish monk is generally an illiberal and most illiterate person, of coarse manners, and not of a moral life, but he is well versed in low intrigues, in the management of the ignorant peasants about his convent, and in the conduct of most worldly interests: cunning, patient, persevering, bigoted, accessible to all, and having access to everybody, and by means of the confessional, of spies, of gossip, and by perpetually mixing himself up with the family affairs of his neighbour, he becomes most thoroughly well informed of what is going on." What was the reflection? "An army of such men, in a country like Spain, is sufficient to overturn an empire." If, unhappily, there should be an army of such men in Ireland, it was sufficient to overturn an empire. The hon. Member for Lincoln had been pleased to cite the conduct of Lord Grey's Government, with regard to political unions during the progress of the Reform Bill, as analogous to that pursued by his Majesty's present Ministers in regard to the National Association. But the hon. Gentleman had not taken the trouble correctly to inform himself of the facts of the case. But he would take leave to state to the House a circumstance which was distinctly within his recollection. He knew not what other Members of Lord Grey's Government might have done, but he could speak for Lord Grey himself. Lord Grey, in his place in Parliament, when the conduct of the political union of Newcastle, his native county, was brought under the consideration of the House of Lords, took the opportunity of saying that there was no circumstance connected with the history of the Reform Bill which gave him so much pain as the existence of those unions, and that nothing had tended so much to impede the progress of the measure; he also denounced them in strong terms as dangerous to the cause of the constitutional Government of the country. But did Lord Grey's Government stop them? It was said that no step had been taken to suppress them. That Government issued a proclamation warning the people of their illegality, and, at all events, no Mr. Pigott was selected from the ranks of any political union to be the favoured object of the confidence of His Majesty's Ministers. As he had already trespassed so long on their time, he would not refer more particularly to the appointment of Mr. Pigott, nor would he stop to inquire into the amount of the funds of the General Association, or the application of them, with respect to which, however, notwithstanding the boast they had heard, it did so happen that a letter of caution had appeared from the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny. A motion had been made not only that the receipt of the money, but that the mode of its expenditure, should be published weekly. On this the hon. and learned Gentleman wrote a letter, in which he said, "The amount of the receipts you may publish; but with regard to the amount of the expenditure, I recommend to you the course which was adopted by the old Roman Catholic Association—by no means publish an account of the expenditure. Wait till the accounts are regularly vouched, and after the lapse of a year or two you may proceed to publish." But he would not stop to enlarge upon this matter, nor would he be tempted to debate the abstract merit of municipal institutions, because it appeared to him altogether beside the real question before the House. In the abstract, municipal institutions might be excellent; the real question was, though generally applicable, were they convenient to all forms of Government, and every condition of a people? Were they applicable to the present unhappy circumstances of Ireland? He conceived that nothing could be more certain as a general proposition, than that it was not proper in the abstract to refuse demands, which, in themselves, were right, because they might have a deep conviction that, if granted, they might lead to ulterior demands which it would be improper to grant, and necessary to refuse. That was good reasoning in the abstract; but as he had before maintained, so he maintained now, it was the high office of political wisdom to look to the consequences of what they were about to do. He did not pretend to cite the precise words, but the principle he alluded to was somewhere enunciated by Mr. Burke, in his most felicitous manner. He said, of all abstract rights, none is so clear as the right of self-defence. A sword is a weapon of self-defence. A man asks me for my sword; if I know that sword is to be drawn to cut my throat, I am a fool or a coward if I surrender it. So he (Sir J. Graham) said, in the abstract municipal institutions were good, but if he knew—if he were told beforehand that these municipal institutions were to be employed for a purpose which he considered fatal, to use the words of Mr. Burke, he should be a fool or a coward, if he gave those weapons to be employed for so deadly a purpose. It was come to this. He saw clearly and distinctly that the Protestant Church in Ireland was in the utmost danger. To those who considered "that harlot church," as it had been designated, a nuisance that must be abated, the cry of the church in danger would be a sound of cheering joy; but to those who regarded it as a great national good, which it was their sacred duty to maintain, the present aspect of affairs could not but occasion the gravest apprehension. And could he doubt that church was in danger when he had lived to hear a Minister of the Crown, and that Minister the Secretary for Ireland, talk of the rottenness of that church? Wherein consisted its rottenness? Not in its foundation—it rested on the rock of ages. Not in its bulwarks—the hearts of a million of brave men, who regarded it as their first duty to defend, and would rather die than betray it. But still he admitted there was rottenness in that church, and that rottenness, in his opinion, mainly consisted in the hollow, wavering, if not insincere, support, given to it by the ministers of the King—of that King who was sworn to defend and maintain the united church of England and Ireland in all its rights, privileges, and immunities. They had been prepared for The rent the envious Casca made, but— This was the most unkindest cut of all. He certainly must say, not in bitterness of spirit, but from the bottom of his heart, he wished "an enemy had said this!" Ministers had declared against that church, and when Ministers had so declared, was it to be wondered that it had assumed a most formidable aspect? What the supporters of this measure ask for, concluded the right hon. Baronet, is jus- tice to Ireland. We contend for justice to Ireland—justice to the judges of the land, whose sentences are reversed, whose feelings are outraged, whose opinions are rejected, whose judgments are reversed by the Lord-Lieutenant of the King—justice to the magistracy of Ireland, whose authority is impaired, as is proved by the fact, hardly denied, that turbulent violators of the law are placed in the commission of the peace, side by side with its accredited guardians and defenders—justice to the Protestant clergymen of Ireland, whose rights are overborne by open violence, whose property is despoiled with impunity, whose lives are taken in open day, and from whom the protection of the King's Government seems almost entirely withdrawn in face of the tyrannous-hatred of the Irish people—justice to the freeholders of Ireland, who are overawed in their exercise of the elective franchise, by the constant interference of those priests who impress them with the belief that they hold in their hands the keys of heaven and hell; and who bring to bear upon their fears the terrors of the other world, and the pressing struggles of this—justice to the entire people of Ireland, by vindicating the majesty and supremacy of the law, with a hand of firmness, so that in progress of time, life may become more secure, and the rights of property more respected in that unhappy country. These, Sir, are our plans of justice. And when you shall have satisfied them, then, but not till then, we shall be prepared to consider the extension of popular privileges to that country, and to encounter even the danger of your "normal schools of peaceful agitation."

Mr. Sheil

The right hon. Baronet commenced his speech by saying, he believed he was regarded by this side of the House as a sectarian and a bigot; whether his speech was calculated to remove any such injurious impression, I will leave those who heard it to determine. I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman made use of language, in speaking of the Roman atholics, such as no Roman Catholics in this House have ever applied to the Protestant Church. No Roman Catholic in this House has spoken of the Church of England, or of the Church of Ireland, in language so derogatory as that which they have heard applied to them by a Member of that com- munion—as that which they have heard not with disgust, no such thing, but with a feeling of commiseration—with a feeling of commiseration and surprise that a person who once sat on this side of the House, and who was so strenuous and uncompromising an advocate for reform, that he defied all its consequences in Ireland, should on this occasion be so far led away as to utter the expressions which have been heard from him. Why did he speak of Spain? Why did he refer to the atrocities which have been committed in that country? Why was Cabrera's, why was Quesada's, name introduced? I will not call the right hon. Gentleman a bigot, but he will pardon me if I call him a convert. On this occasion he has exhibited all that zeal and enthusiasm for which conversion—conversion be it—is proverbial. In the course of his speech, which was certainly an extremely discursive one, he did me the honour to refer to a speech of mine, and I must confess he spoke of me in terms which were most complimentary. I, in return, must say, I hear him always with the most unqualified pleasure; he is in heart most generous and humane, and his tongue carries conviction to the mind. I remember an instance of this in a speech made by the right hon. Baronet at Cockermouth—a speech in which there was some reference to a recreant Whig.—[Sir J. Graham: That was a long time ago.] Well, no matter; I don't know how long it was ago. Sir, in my opinion, this measure before the House must be granted. In saying this, I assert no more than was said, I believe the night before last, by the noble Lord who sits behind the right hon. Baronet. The noble Lord said, Municipal Corporation Reform should not be granted to Ireland. I say it shall be granted. The right hon. Baronet has also referred to a meeting which was held at a place which he calls the Lichfield House of Commons. He described the result of that meeting as a compact between two parties. I have already stated the expression I used with respect to that meeting—I said that there was then formed "a compact alliance." But if you are to hear of the Lichfield House of Commons, do you remember that in 1831 there was a meeting at Brookes's Club? Does the noble Lord, or the right hon. Baronet remember that then there was an assemblage of Irish Members, who had differed from the Government, and who were called upon by that Whig Government to forego their differences, and enter into "a compact alliance" with them? The noble Lord and the right hon. Baronet were Members of that Whig Government. The right hon. Baronet shakes his head, but there is nothing in it. All must recollect the course taken by the noble Lord on that occasion. The noble Lord in a paroxysm, I will not say of after-dinner oratory, delivered one of the most powerful speeches I have ever heard against the very persons with whom he is now operating. I have not adverted to this subject from any malevolent purpose. But have I not a right to advert to it? Is Lichfield house meeting to be made the subject of discussion in this House, and out of this House—and is a meeting at which the noble Lord took so conspicuous a part, not to be made the subject matter of debate? Is the one to be fair game, and the other to be prohibited? If you are disposed to do justice to Ireland, do justice at least to the person who is now speaking to you, and who will break through no rule of decorum in his address to you. The right hon. Baronet in the course of his address to you, proceeded to comment on the General Association. Now I think that he ought to feel that this was dangerous ground for him to tread upon—if not for himself, at least for his existing associates. You talk of that Association. How long ago, I ask, is it since the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, when called upon to form an association, selected as the objects of his special favour, the members of an association which has since been denounced by the House of Commons? The hon. Member for Sligo, the treasurer of the Orange Society, was promoted, the treasurer of a society that tampered with the army. Have we not evidence of that? Has not the evidence been produced in this House that the Orange Society was in communication with the army? Was there not the declaration of the Duke of Cumberland, that he was unacquainted with the fact? Is there an Orangeman in this House—is there a Gentleman in this House—who can deny that the proofs were afforded to us, that warrants were issued to the army? Will that be denied?

Colonel Perceval

Yes, I deny it. I wish to state distinctly, that I did not say that warrants were not issued; but I did and do say, that the army was not tampered with.

Mr. Sheil

We do not materially differ. In fact, what I insist on is this, that warrants were issued to the army. We have that in the printed reports; we have it, too, stated there that Mr. Boyton moved that warrants should be sent to a particular regiment. We have abundant evidence of the fact, and in consequence of that evidence Lord Hill issued an order to the army. I entreat the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Perceval) to believe that, if I refer to him, it is in no spirit of unkindness. I fairly and frankly tell him that I do so, because Mr. Pigott being a Member of the Association has been so much dwelt upon by hon. Members on the other side. I point then, to the hon. and gallant Member who was promoted by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tarn worth. I shall only advert to another—Lord Roden, who was also raised to a very high office; he is, I admit, an individual of the highest respect, but a Member of the Orange Association. Surely, then, when the Tories make charges against the present Government for promoting Members of one Association, they ought to recollect that they dwell in so fragile a tenement that they cannot with impunity incur the danger of a tile being flung upon the roof of their place of refuge. So much with respect to one Association; but then the right hon. Baronet has adverted to ether Associations—to the Birmingham Union for instance. What, I ask you, is the reason, if you now condemn these Associations, when Lord Brougham addressed the Birmingham Union, at the time they passed a resolution to pay no taxes—what is the reason that the right hon. Baronet and the noble Lord did not resign—why did he not then refuse to hold office with his then colleagues? Let the right hon. Baronet beware—we have not forgotten his public life, though he may have done so. He and the noble Lord who sits beside him have taken as strong a course in the excitement of the public passions as any one of the agitators who are now the objects of their denunciation. I shall not go into the details connected with Ireland. There is only one point to which I mean to advert—the Government of Ireland—as materially affecting this question. The appointment of Mr. Cassidy as a magistrate is a matter of so little consequence, that it ought not to be mixed up with subjects of national importance. I will tell you what is my view of the matter, as connected with the conduct of the Irish Government, and which I regard as of great importance. The Irish Government is acting on a peculiar policy, and the question is, will the Legislature adopt a similar policy? Has the Irish Government succeeded? Has it produced peace in Ireland? I can produce you strong authority on the subject. I have not the means of referring to official details; but I refer you to Mr. Howley, a gentleman who unites in approbation of his conduct the applauses of the Radical, the Agitator, and the Orangeman, and who has received an unanimous vote of thanks from the magistracy who witnessed his conduct as an assistant barrister. I find in his charges repeated statements made of the tranquillity produced in the county Tipperary; and by a return from the clerk of the Crown for the same county I find that where 111 were formerly tried at the Nenagh sessions for riot, in the last session there were only two. Then I ask you, has not the policy of Lord Mulgrave succeeded? What has he done? He has laid to rest that question which you regard as the truly dangerous one. Who has heard in our public assemblies in Ireland the repeal of the Union made a subject of discussion; or if introduced, but incidentally glanced at—a question which, if not dead is dormant? I have not uttered one syllable on the subject; but this I say, that if justice is denied to us here, we have a right to ask for the repeal of the Union; and I wish to show you that this sentiment was uttered by the noble Lord (Stanley) on the opposite side of the House. What is justice to Ireland? Let us examine the question calmly, as such a subject ought to be examined. What is justice to Ireland? And will it not help us in determining that question to ask what is justice to England? The Test and Corporation Acts were at one time regarded as defences to the Church—through them the corporations were regarded as the bulwarks of the Church; and Mr. Canning felt this so strongly that in 1827 he refused to repeal the Test and Corporation Acts. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) refused also to repeal them until he was forced to do so: he had not experienced then the process of soft compulsion which he has since been undergoing, and which I have no doubt he will yet be compelled to submit to. The Test and Corporation Acts were then repealed; but by means of the machinery of self-election in the corporations the people had not the benefit of them. What was then done? The House of Commons came to a resolution that the corporations in England should be placed under popular control; and the Lords did not think fit to reject such a proposition. Do not the corporations, then, which are now made to apply to the Irish Church, apply in a still greater degree to England? In Liverpool the effect of the Corporation Bill had been to transfer power from one party to another. In Liverpool the Tories have been completely prostrated; and the people of Liverpool, struck with admiration of the system of education given by the noble Lord opposite, to Ireland, and this, too, notwithstanding the violent remonstrances of the noble Lord himself against such a course, have adopted it in Liverpool. I do not know whether the noble Lord has not also changed his opinion about his own system of education. You then find the transference of power from one party to another. I should be glad to know if, on that account, Liverpool is to be deprived of its corporate rights? Corporations were considered the defence of the Established Church in England, and yet to England corporate reform has been conceded. What, then, was the course pursued with respect to emancipation? I have now to refer to the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth; and I beg of him to understand that I do not mean to say anything which can be in the remotest degree offensive to him. I submit to him—I beg to remonstrate with him in language respectful as it is earnest—whether he is not bound to fulfil the compact with us that he entered into upon that occasion? Did he wish to exclude Roman Catholics from corporations when the Emancipation Bill passed? In his address to this House he admitted the pressure which my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. O'Connell) had subjected him to. He declared that Roman Catholics were to be admitted into the corporations—to every office in those corporations. Does it stop there? The Emancipation Bill contains two clauses respecting Roman Catholics being admitted into corporations, and providing that they should be admitted into every office. Were you sincere in that declaration? No doubt you were;—the promise you made was to the heart;—you did it unwillingly, but you did it honestly. Can you approve of the course which the Irish Orangemen have pursued? From that day to this—mark it! Englishmen!—from that day to this, despite of that Act of Parliament—despite of the declaration of the right hon. Baronet—not a single Catholic—I repeat it—not one has been admitted into the corporation attached to the metropolis of our country. Do you approve of that? You do not. Will you then now, as the opportunity is afforded to you, carry emancipation into effect? Will you do it? Do you repent of having sanctioned part of the Act of Parliament? Was that the compact? Was it to be a dead letter? Will you permit the law to be still evaded by the Orangemen of Dublin? You tell me that you fear for the Established Church. Why, you had that fear before you when you passed the Emancipation Bill. You had all the arguments, all the danger, all the evils, and you saw those evils as clearly as those who remonstrated with you. You tell me you have fears for the Church. I shall not use any warm language with respect to that Church. If that Church be, as it is said, built upon a rock, it is a very hard one. We are told, too, that there are millions of men ready to die for it. If it will afford martyrs, many of them are as ready to insult and put to death others, as well as suffer such themselves. I will not suggest one word against that Church; but, admitting it to be the asylum of truth, I still cannot but think it unfortunate that that Church is made the plea for refusing every concession. If we ask for the remission of a severe and grievous impost, you answer, the Church—if we ask you for any benefit, you answer, the Church—if we ask you to do justice to Ireland, and make perfect the Emancipation Bill, you still answer, the Church. You say we must have the same Church in both countries; but you cannot have in both the same Corporations, because the same Corporations and the same Church cannot exist together. Then the Church of eight hundred thousand is to be maintained, and the Corporations of seven millions to be refused. I come now to the course which was pursued on the Reform question, and the observations I have to make cannot be at all applicable to the tight hon. Baronet. The Tories stood forward as the opponents of Reform—they objected to Reform being conceded to Ireland. They said that Reform would annihilate their power in Ireland; that "the Roman Catholics would not only drive them from the guns, but turn the guns against them." This was the language of the Recorder of Dublin, and of every other Irish Tory who spoke on the subject. What did the noble Lord then say of the cautions that were thus given by those with whom he was now sitting? Here is the language of the noble Lord. Citations, I know, are not favourably received here; but when the right hon. Baronet spends the recess in groping out speeches—when he even refers to Cabrera's mother—surely a person may be excused for reading such a document as this. It is very short. I begin with a paragraph referring to the Irish Members. The extract is taken from volume 17, page 2278 of The Mirror of Parliament. Lord Stanley thus speaks—" I call upon those who are for Reform in England, to look back, and consider what has been the conduct of the Irish Members with respect to that Bill." We certainly carried the Reform Bill. A majority of English Members, a majority of Scotch Members, voted against it. We insured its success. I invoke, then, the people of England and the people of Scotland in this crisis to stand beside us. The noble Lord then proceeded to speak of Reform in England and Ireland. He said "If it be just here, so it must be just there." I entreat of the advocates of the Conservative interest, and those who consider themselves the supporters of Protestant institutions, to look at the danger to which those institutions are exposed. By withholding the privileges which this Bill confers, you will give to Ireland a real substantial grievance. It will give a handle for agitation—a great argument for the repeal of the Union. Do not let them say that in the House of Commons English interests were treated one way, and Irish interests in another—that in England public opinion is attended to, while in Ireland the public voice is stifled. I, for one, cannot conceive how, in a spirit of fairness and justice this can be done. Agitation will break out, and in a manner that it has never done before. I cannot conceive that anything can be more clear than that there ought to be an extension of the English Bill to Ireland. I cannot conceive how we can refuse to treat both countries equally, and make the same principle applicable to all the Members of the empire." Now the right hon. Baronet speaks of fears for the Church, and shows distinctions between the two countries. If the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) who sits on his right hand will do me the honour of adverting to anything I say, I hope he will have the goodness to extricate the noble Lord from his difficulty; and certainly it will require all the consummate dexterity for which the right hon. Baronet is so conspicuous to serve his Friend, for he certainly is now in need of it. Is it not, after all, a painful thing to see the man who uttered sentiments like these—whose principles were so advocated—is it not a lamentable thing to see him occupy his present position? He will forgive me for saying, that it is more with a feeling of mournfulness than resentment that I see him where he is. It is melancholy to see him where he is; and the pain is aggravated by the tone and character of the speeches he has lately addressed to this House. The man who speaks thus, or who uttered such language amid the acclamations of those who heard him, that is the very man who tells the people of Ireland that they never shall have corporate reform. [Lord Stanley: No, no.] If he did not say so I beg the noble Lord's pardon. What did he say? If he recals the phrase I am satisfied. [Lord Stanley: I never used it.] It is enough. I admit I was not in the House when the expression is alleged to have been used. I unaffectedly retract every phrase I used under the impression that the expression was used by him. I understand from the noble Lord he did not use the expression.

Lord Stanley

The hon. and learned Gentleman has made a personal attack upon me.

Mr. Sheil

No, no! not a personal attack.

Lord Stanley

What! no attack? The hon. and learned Gentleman has made an attack on me, knowing that I have not the opportunity of answering him. I do not complain of this; but as he does ask me to explain that which he had not the opportunity of hearing, and yet to which he is replying, I beg to tell him that I did not use the expression that the people of Ireland should not ever be put in possession of corporate reform; but I stated this, that while the Irish Church was subject to danger, and while the General Association was using threats and intimidation, that the more these threats and intimidation were used, the more would the people of England be determined that they should not have what they thus demanded.

Mr. Sheil

resumed: The people of Ireland relied upon the principles contained in the speech which I have just read. The noble Lord complains that I am making an attack to which he cannot reply. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that although I feel myself, and I speak most unaffectedly, most conscious of my inferiority to him in point of talent, I have never shrunk once when my public duty called upon me to assail him, whether he had a reply or not. I must appeal to the House whether I have made an attack on the noble Lord. I would rather say that there is that in his own breast which reproaches him more than I can do. I stand here, in a constitutional point of view, the noble Lord's equal. The noble Lord knows it. I respect his rank, I respect his talent, I lament his opinions. Let me add that the noble Lord himself is not characterised by mercy to his opponents. No man fears an operation so much as a surgeon. I have always heard that the drummer of the regiment" has the greatest terror of the lash. I will now show the reasons why the "No Popery" cry, which is attempted to be raised, cannot succeed. I wish to show that this question must be carried. We have carried Catholic Emancipation, not against the noble Lord, but against the right hon. Baronet beside him (Sir R. Peel). The right hon. Baronet is as good a debater as the noble Lord, and the right hon. Baronet has discretion, he has great personal influence, and a great hold on the feelings of his country; and with his resistance, which was as immediate and as strong as that opposed by the noble Lord to the present measure, we carried Emancipation. We did that by union, by organization, and by an associated power; we carried it by the Clare election. I beg leave to ask the noble Lord whether, with our power now trebled, we are not able to carry on the immediate result of reform? Let the noble Lord look around. You see the national power: you see Ireland advancing with rapidity in the march of improvement; you see her spirit of union, her intelligence, and, we have to thank the noble Lord for it, her education; you see the character of Ireland gradually changing; you see something of British thought; you see us not only free, but we feel as if we had never been slaves. I may say, without exaggeration, that Ireland not only stands erect, but she looks as if she had never stooped. I may say that this improvement is general. I may point at the bar, and show the second judicial office held by a Roman Catholic. I may point to the Irish Attorney-General, and to many others, if individual cases are necessary, to illustrate the point. It may be regretted, it cannot be denied—the conclusion is irresistible. I say, then, that the Clare election carried emancipation. No! What carried it then? Is not the Duke of Wellington an authority, and has he not said that he could not help it? But if the Clare election contributed to carry that question, what power must we have now? How do we stand in this House? Sixty, at least the great majority of the representatives of Ireland act together as one man, our power is combined and confederated for one great purpose, and do you think that this power you will ever be able to put down? We are here, thank God, in this House. I remember the time when I occasionally obtained admission under that gallery, and I heard men who appeared as the advocates of the rights of Ireland—I heard them, whilst addressing the House, under the necessity of doing so as if in asking for liberty for Ireland they were soliciting alms. Perhaps it was necessary then to take that tone, but shall it be necessary again? We may be less eloquent, we may have less astuteness, we may have less wisdom and less erudition, but we bring to the advocacy of our rights, our hearts, and our hands. Though we may be deficient in the qualities of public speaking, though we may not be masters of diction, in our determination we stand unsurpassed. With this power you have to contend, and this you attempt to meet by raising the "no popery" cry. The noble Lord is not one that will do this, he will repudiate it; I am not telling him what he is doing, but I hope he will forgive me if I tell him what the Tories once did. The actors and the transactions to which I allude are now matters of history, and in speaking of them, therefore, make no reference to what can be painful to any individual. What I allude to occurred in 1807. I am not speaking of individuals, but of the party. That year found the Whigs in Downing-street, whilst the Tories were in possession of St. James's. The Whigs did no more than propose that Roman Catholics should be admitted to the army and navy. The Tories saw the opportunity and seized it, to work on the excited feelings of the people of England against their adversaries. What course did they take? They raised the cry of "No Popery!" On that key the Tories worked; the tocsin of religious warfare was sounded; they alarmed the minds of the people; in public assemblies noble Lords, not greatly distinguished for religion and morality, addressed the people in the most exciting language—"Rally round your King," they exclaimed in 1807! "Rally round your Church," "Rally round your Constitution." They appealed to the passions of the people—they got the Whigs out of office, and in eight years after they passed this very measure. Yes, in eight years they passed the very measure which they made such strenuous and discreditable efforts to obstruct. I ask you, are you playing the same game now? I do not say you are, but if you are, shame, shame upon you. Let the facts speak for themselves. Look at the language of the journals in your interest. Look at the papers containing the names of the subscribers for the publication of "Fox's Book of Martyrs," with the name of the Duke of Cumberland at the head of them. What was the language used at the Mansion-house in Dublin?—ay, at the Mansion-house, the seat of the corporation, and at a meeting at which the hon. and learned Member for Bandon (Sergeant Jackson) attended? What said The Evening Mail? Why, that the moment Lord Roden appeared there with Orange emblems, assuming an attitude of thought-fulness, and exhibiting an Orange handkerchief, he walked up the room. Then, said The Evening Mail, there was a display of Orange handkerchiefs: then came peal after peal of the Conservative or Kentish fire. Does the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, approve of all this? The right hon. Baronet does not, I am sure, approve of all this. The right hon. Baronet's speech at Glasgow was distinguished for its moderation. But the right hon. Baronet could not check this formidable display, although he might entreat for a forbearance to offer gratui- tous insult to the feelings of the people of Ireland. But I am dwelling too long on this subject. I will come to the question. All we ask is simply justice. Can you reconcile it with common sense or justice, that I, who stand in this House as Member for the county of Tipperary, cannot be a member of the corporations of Cashel or Clonmel? The thing is monstrous. We ask for justice, and we will persevere in the assertion of our just cause. If the Tories come into power, they shall find us here; they will find us combined and confederated against them. We beat them before, and we will beat them again. What is our cause? I will tell you what our cause is. You took from us a Parliament. If you left us our Parliament, there would have existed in Ireland the same dominion over that parliament as the British people have over theirs. But you bought our House of Commons, and you paid for it in gold; ay, gold in its most palpable and sordid shape. You affected to enter into a league with us; and the head of the Administration of the time, the great minister of the day, by his classical references elucidated and illustrated that great unnational compact. Twenty-nine years had passed before this House took a single step for the purpose of carrying that contract into effect. At length Emancipation was forced from you, Parliamentary Reform came next, and Corporation Reform was given to England; and now, when we ask you for the same privileges which you exercise yourselves, you refuse them. Yes, that which you did not dare to refuse to the people of England, you have contemptuously denied to the people of Ireland. Is this justice? Oh, but there is an anxiety to do us justice. This is the language that has been always used ever since Strong bow first put his foot on the shores of Ireland. Yes; every Englishman to whom the Government of Ireland has been committed, professed the utmost solicitude to do justice. Even Strafford, the deserter of the people's cause—the renegade Wentworth, while setting his foot on the necks of Irishmen, declared his anxiety to do justice. I am not surprised at this, for the same influence now exists by which Strafford was influenced. But while all others professed to do justice, there is one amongst you of the most distinguished talent, and the most decided character. He is not a Member of this House; but he spoke at least with more frankness than others of his party. He does not profess to do justice to Ireland, he is above imposture, and part of the epitaph on Chartres is applicable to him. This distinguished person tells us, when making an appeal to the passions of the English people, he tells us—the people of Ireland—that in every particular by which strangers can be enumerated, we are aliens to this country. The phrase is certainly a remarkable one, and one which now belongs to history. It is one which must necessarily be the subject of fair and legitimate quarrel now, as it must be the subject of observation hereafter. I am not aware whether that phrase has ever been attempted to be explained. I know the phrase has never been distinctly disavowed. I know that the utterance of that phrase has not been denied, and with respect to the meaning of it, but little doubt can be entertained. I know that in this House, upon one occasion, immediately after that remarkable phrase had been uttered, I took the liberty—if it be one, I beg pardon—but I took the liberty of asking every one who held a conspicuous position on the opposite benches, whether he adopted the phrase or not? I remember more especially, the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tam-worth, on that occasion saying, that he was not responsible for any language but his own. The right hon. Baronet was in the painful situation of being in close connexion and association with a man, in whose expressions he did not think it judicious to express his concurrence. I am surprised that at the moment the phrase was uttered, the Duke of Wellington did not start up and say, that those aliens had done their duty. But the Duke of Wellington is not a man of a peculiarly excitable temperament; his mind is too martial for sudden emotions, but yet I cannot help feeling, that when he heard expressions so affronting to his country, I am surprised that he did not recollect how often in the field, and in the fight, the Irish Roman Catholics have been the auxiliaries of his renown. He ought not to have forgotten Vimeira, and Badajoz, and Salamanca, and Toulouse, and the last and most glorious conflict which crowned all former victories. I will appeal to the gallant and hon. soldier opposite (Sir H. Hardinge), I know he bears in his breast a brave and generous heart. Let him tell how, on that day, when the destinies of mankind were trembling in the balance, when the batteries, with fatal precision, spread slaughter over the field, and men fell in heaps—when the legions of France rushed to the fight, and, inspired by the voice of their mighty leader, rushed again and again to the onset—the gallant soldier opposite will tell you whether, in that last hour of thousands, the "aliens" flinched. And when at length the moment for the decisive charge arrived—when the banner so long closed was at length unfurled, he will tell you—when the mighty champion of that day cried out "Now, boys! at them"—he will tell you, for he must remember, whether the Irishman, the Catholic Irishman, hung back from the charge. No: he will tell you, that on that day the blood of England, Ireland, and Scotland was poured forth together—their children fought in the same field—they died the same death—they were stretched in the same pit—their dust was commingled in the same earth—the same dew of heaven fell upon the earth that covered them, the same grass grew upon their graves. Is it to be endured after this, that we should be called aliens, and complete strangers to that empire for whose salvation our best blood was shed.

Sir Robert Peel

said, his wish was, at the close of this debate, to have confined himself exclusively to the consideration of the proper subject in question, to have stated briefly and simply the reasons why he could not concur in the arguments which he had heard from the opposite side of the House, to have refrained from any reference to the conduct of the Irish Government, although provoked to do so by the challenge of the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell), and to have treated this subject on its simple and proper grounds. But the hon. and learned Gentleman, by the personal attack which he had just made, for the purpose, not of convincing the reason, but of exciting the passions—of stimulating—he did not say with the intention, but with the effect of widening the national differences—had compelled him to depart from the course which he had prescribed to himself. He would ask, was it wise, was it prudent, was it just to ransack every past debate for every angry expression? Was every hasty expression that might have fallen from an individual in this way to be taken up at once, considered as matter of history, and handed down as evi- dence of national prejudice. Was the hon. and learned Member content to abide by the same rule? Did he ever hear that when the illustrious captain of that mighty field—as he designated the Duke of Wellington—that when he to whom life was nothing, staked the mighty reputation which he had gained hy former victories on the field at Waterloo—when he stood there opposed to the legions of France, leading the united bands of Englishmen, of Irishmen, and of Scotchmen—did he ever hear that after the Duke of Wellington had rescued Europe by that great battle from the dominion of Bonaparte, and established the military fame and the peaceful security of his own country—did he ever hear of an Irishman who had so little sympathy for his country's glory, as to be able with all the opulence of his own peculiar vocabulary, to find no other appellation for the illustrious hero of Waterloo, than that of "the stunted corporal"? And if it were unfair to fasten upon words like these, uttered in a moment of irritation, of jealousy, or mortification at his country's triumphs, and at the fame of the most illustrious man his country ever produced, was it not equally unfair to select the expressions used by Lord Lyndhurst as irrefragable proofs of his hostile sentiments against the whole of the Irish? The hon. Gentleman had called on him (Sir R. Peel) to defend the conduct of his noble Friend, the Member for North Lancashire. The hon. and learned Gentleman had contended, and justly, that he had a perfect right at any time to make, on public grounds, any reference to the opinions and conduct of his noble Friend. But when the hon. Gentleman alluded to the meeting at Brookes's, the hon. Gentleman must have known that that was a matter in which he, for most evident reasons, was precluded from giving the hon. Gentleman any answer. It required no ingenuity, no knowledge of petty details, however, to defend the conduct of his noble Friend. What was it that had placed him in the position which he now held? What defence was required for his noble Friend? Why should he require deliberation to devise an ingenious justification for his noble Friend, when, from the facts which the hon. and learned Gentleman had himself stated, that justification appeared so palpable, so evident, as to occur at once to the mind of every man, be he friend or opponent of the noble Lord? What man was there, he repeated, who ever held in public life a prouder position than his noble Friend? What man ever attained, not by the advantages of connexion, or of rank, or of fortune, but by his evident abilities for debate and public business, and through the undivided confidence of a great party to which he belonged, what man had ever attained to greater or more permanent eminence than his noble Friend? What man was there more endeared to the persons with whom he had ever been connected? When his name was mentioned, was there any man who had ever been connected in office with him, who did not express the deepest regret at being separated from him, and a deep sense of the public loss which had been sustained by his quitting office? He (Sir R. Peel) was speaking to those who had been connected with the noble Lord in office, not those whose designs he had combatted. If love of office or ambition for official distinction had been the object of his noble Friend, was there ever any man who had such prospects open to him, such means of gratifying his wishes? What, then, made him relinquish office, but a stern and overpowering sense of duty? What, and what alone, had placed him in the position he now occupied? What, he demanded again, had caused his noble Friend to retire from office, to sever himself with feelings of the deepest regret from his ancient party, what object could he have had in view in so doing, but the highest and purest sense of public duty, which, being obeyed, had placed him where he was, in opposition to his former connexions? What he (Sir R. Peel) had thus stated on the instant, without any communication with his noble Friend, were facts well known to all mankind, and which he perceived were confirmed by the testimony of the former colleagues of his noble Friend; and after stating these facts, it did not require any ingenious dexterity or skilful advocacy on his part, to make out a complete and unanswerable justification of his noble Friend's conduct in quitting office, and taking up his present position. The hon. and learned Gentleman next applied to him (Sir R. Peel) to fulfil the compact which he said was entered into with him at the time of passing the Roman Catholic Relief Act. Let them see for one moment the exact nature of that alleged compact. The hon. and learned Gentleman contended that this compact compelled him (Sir R. Peel) to apply to Ireland the same principle of municipal reform as that which had been adopted for England. Now, on referring to the Roman Catholic Relief Act, he found no such compact. He certainly found a compact to this effect—that Roman Catholics and Protestants were to enjoy equal eligibility to corporate offices. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to a speech he made in 1831, when he gave his advice that Roman Catholics and Protestants should be admitted into the corporations according to their fair merits. There was no compact made that he was aware of, that the municipal institutions of Ireland were to be framed upon the model of those of England; nor, if it were shown that it would be better that those institutions should be altogether abolished, would there be any thing inconsistent with the Roman Catholic Relief Act, in abolishing them. This was not his single opinion only, for in a petition which had been presented to this House by the Roman Catholics themselves, anticipating the removal of every civil disability, the same view had been taken. The prayer of the petition to which he referred was, "that they would cause a reform to be made in the temporalities of the Established Church—that they should declare Orangemen to be ineligible as magistrates—that they should emancipate the Roman Catholics of Ireland—and that they should disfranchise the Irish corporations." So that at the time that the Catholics petitioned for the removal of their civil disabilities, it was not considered an insult to them that the municipal institutions should be retained in England, and should be discontinued in Ireland; but, on the contrary, it was expressly asked as a favour not to reform those institutions, but to abolish them altogether. He admitted, indeed, that at this period the corporations of England had not been reformed, and the Irish Roman Catholics had not these reformed institutions to contemplate; but still those institutions themselves existed in England, and the inference was the same. The hon. and learned Gentleman had relied on the Roman Catholic Relief Bill as a contract, the terms of which they were bound to fulfil. But did he not consider the Act of Union a solemn compact? The inference that must be drawn from the general context of that Act, supposed, implied, and evidently understood, that the protection of equal laws should be extended to Ireland This argument in support of the permanence of the municipal institutions of Ireland was an inference drawn from a supposed article in the Act of Union that the two countries were to be governed by a parity of legislation. There was no such article however, in the act; though he would admit that, generally speaking, the principle might be correct; but in the anxious search which the hon. and learned Genman had made through that Act, he wondered that that article had never struck him in which one institution was particularised, not by remote or doubtful inference, but in express and clear terms, and its existence guaranteed as a condition of the Act of the Union. The fifth article of this Act was as follows:—"That the churches of that part of Great Britain called England, and Ireland, shall be united into one Protestant Episcopal Church, to be called the United Church of England and Ireland; and that the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of the said United Church shall be preserved as was by law established for the Church of England." Would the hon. and learned Gentleman allow him to ask him whether or not the uniform declaration of every Roman Catholic, whether every petition presented by a Roman Catholic, whether every declaration made by them, either individually or collectively, had not, with the force of a compact, led the Protestant mind of England to this conclusion, that the restoration of political equality to the Roman Catholics of Ireland was perfectly consistent and compatible with the maintenance of the Church establishment in that country? Nay more; was it not the express assurance of every Roman Catholic who had spoken on the subject, that the maintenance of the Established Church as the religion of the State was perfectly consistent with the political privileges and civil rights claimed by the Roman Catholics of Ireland? Did not the hon. and learned Gentleman himself once believe that such was the case, and that political privileges once granted to the Irish Roman Catholics, the causes of jealousy and disunion would cease, and the system of agitation subside? Did not the hon. and learned Gentleman himself once say— before a Committee of that House—"that he was perfectly convinced that neither on the subject of tithes, nor on the Union, nor on any other political subject, would the people of Ireland be permanently or generally excited if the civil disabilities of the Roman Catholics were removed; that at present they were aggrieved by the state of the law, and that it was not so much on public grounds as by a sense of personal injustice that they were urged to complaints." The individual injustice here complained of was now done away with by the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill; and the hon. and learned Gentleman himself boasted of the result of that measure, when he stated that the chief offices on the bench and at the bar in Ireland were now filled by Roman Catholics. From these circumstances it appeared that not only had a serious complaint of injustice been removed, but a practical equality established. Now he would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, in pursuance of his express or implied compact, in the expressions he had quoted, whether he considered the present state of the Protestant clergy of Ireland to be consistent with the declarations he had made at the above period? They were now told that religious freedom could not exist in Ireland until the voluntary principle was established, or, in point of fact, until the Protestant religion was destroyed. [Mr. Sheil: I have not said that.] "You never said so?" But you asked me, continued the right hon. Baronet, to be responsible for expressions which had fallen from others, and to check the indiscretions of those who acted with me. And now, when I repeat a plain statement, the hon. and learned Gentleman had no other refuge but to say, "I did not say so, it did not fall from me." Was this, he asked, the promised fulfilment of the compact on passing the Reform Bill—that Ireland was never to be tranquil until the Protestant Church was abolished? The noble Lord (Howick) who spoke last night, had used certain expressions in reference to the part he (Sir R. Peel) had taken in the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, in the course of which the noble Lord had done him the justice to say that he thought that in the year 1829, in coming forward to remove the civil disabilities of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, he had acted upon disinterested motives, and with great courage in remaining in office as he did. The noble Lord had also referred to the taunts which had been cast at him by persons belonging to that party, by whom he had before that period been respected and supported. But the noble Lord, from his experience in public life, ought to know what was the value and weight of expressions of this nature, uttered under such circumstances. He regretted at the time the taunts thrown out on the part of friends whom he had every reason to respect, but the impression made by those remarks had long passed away; they had left no rankling wound, because he knew that the imputations were unfounded; and he could say, that there was no one act of his political life which he was more prepared to justify than remaining in office, in spite of such imputations, for the purpose of relieving the disabilities of the Catholics. The part which he took on that occasion, was approved of by his colleagues; he had the concurrence of the Duke of Wellington, and also the concurrence of his noble Friend, Lord Lyndhurst, on the subject of granting Catholic relief; and acting in concurrence with them and with the rest of the Members of the Government, he resolved to lend his assistance in carrying the measure into effect. Much public indignation had been expressed against his conduct, that at the close of the Session of 1828 he had not adopted the views which he adopted in the following years; and in answer to that he would say, that after renewed applications—after reflecting on the desire evinced by the public mind in England and Ireland, and on the impossibility of forming a united Government without conceding the question—he came at last to the conclusion, that though he did not consider the claims founded on right, it was better that those claims should be granted than resisted. But when he gave his consent to advocate the measure, he gave it under the full conviction of the sacrifices with which it was to be accompanied, and under the full impression of retiring from office, and supporting the claims of the Catholics in private life. And the reason why he remained in office was because he foresaw to demonstration, that if he did not remain in office and brave the storms of calumny (he did not say that from any arrogance, but because it was consistent with truth), these disabilities would not have been removed. An erroneous construction had been put on something which had fallen from him, and it had been inferred that he had been out of office from an unwillingness to redeem the pledge he had given to his noble Friends with respect to the Catholic question; and that a difference of opinion had existed between them. Such was not the case; for, having come to the conclusion of the expediency of conceding the Catholic claims, and having given notice of his intention to bring forward a measure on that subject, he never once thought of shrinking from the performance of that task. But the noble Lord opposite, while admitting that his conduct on that occasion was free from the suspicion of interested motives, asked why he did not take the same course with regard to the Catholic question in 1825 and 1827, as he had done in 1829, and how it happened that at that latter period an entirely new light broke in upon his mind? Now, he declared that he, for one, never professed to entertain in 1829, the sanguine expectations which others entertained with regard to the effect which would be produced by the removal of the Catholic disabilities. He had his misgivings; nay, looking to the state of Ireland, he entertained great doubts whether the removal of those disabilities would restore peace, and afford full security for the Protestant Establishment in that country. But in 1829 he made up his mind upon a consideration of what ought always to have influence over every statesman, upon a comparison of the evils and dangers existing on both sides, and on the whole he came to the conclusion, without the assistance of any new light, and without changing his opinion, that the Catholic claims were not founded on any abstract right, he came, he repeated, to the conclusion that those claims ought to be conceded, and that, if conceded, the concession ought to be full, frank, and generous. The noble Lord opposite asked, why he had not taken the same course at an earlier period? The same question might be put to many other public men. Would the noble Lord have the goodness to ask the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Foreign Department, why he was not an earlier convert than he had proved to reform? He had no doubt the noble Lord was an honest convert, and that, acting with regard to the question of reform on the same principles as he had acted with regard to the Catholic claims; he had chosen what he considered to be the lesser of two evils. Would the noble Lord opposite inquire of the head of the present Administration, why he, too, had not been an earlier convert to reform? If it were blindness in him not to foresee in 1825 the necessity of granting—of conceding the Catholic claims, was not Lord Melbourne blind in 1826, when he made the most vigorous opposition to all reform, even to the transfer of the Representatives from Penryn to Manchester? Nay, even the leader of the House of Commons could not escape the searching question of the noble Lord, his colleague. Had a prophetic vision of what was now passing appeared to the noble Lord some ten years ago, he doubted whether any eulogium on Old Sarum, or any declamation on the necessity of preserving Aladdin's lamp, and cherishing the vestal flame, would ever have proceeded from the pen of the noble leader of that House. He knew not what answer the noble Lord might return to the question, why he had changed his course with respect to the question of reform, but he would freely reply to the question which had been addressed to him on the subject of the Catholic claims. He thought that a man might, without any irrational distrust of the Roman Catholics, have entertained conscientious doubts on the question, whether the removal of the political disabilities of the Roman Catholics would restore peace to Ireland, and secure the stability of the Established Church; and the hon. Member for Liskeard was not justified in saying, that he had been, on a former occasion, carried into office by the force of the "No Popery" cry, if the hon. Member meant to imply that his opposition to the concession of the Catholic claims proceeded from any bigotted motive. He feared danger to the Protestant Establishment. Had he been entirely wrong? He would, however, say, if the question were to be discussed again—if the question carried in 1829 were again to be agitated—looking at the position of parties and the state of public opinion, looking at the hostile elements, the parties in favour and those opposed to emancipation, he should on the balance of opposing evils do as he did before, and resolve that concession would be the wisest course. But had he no reason to relinquish all the fears which he might once have entertained of the danger of conceding the claims of the Roman Ca- tholics? Did he not find that all the public men who appeared as the advocates of the Roman Catholics—all, without exception, made two declarations—first, that they considered the maintenance of the Established Church essential to the well-being of Ireland, and to the maintenance of the connexion between the two countries; and secondly, they gave the most positive assurances that, the disabilities of the Roman Catholics being removed, all fear of danger to the Established Church would be removed? Did not he find those declarations solemnly recorded in the preamble of Mr. Grattan's Act, by which it was proposed to remove the Catholic disabilities? The preamble of that Act declared, that "the Episcopal Church of England and Ireland, and its doctrine and government, were permanently established, and that it would promote the interest of the same, and strengthen our free constitution, of which they formed an essential part, if the disqualifications under which the Roman Catholics laboured were removed." Had he not heard Mr. Grattan declare, that he thought the removal of the Catholic disqualifications consistent with the preservation of the Protestant Establishment, the maintenance of which he considered essential to the peace of Ireland? Did he not find it written in that paper, which that eloquent individual called a testamentary bequest to his country, that the Protestant Establishment should be maintained inviolate? Did not Mr. Canning, Lord Castlereagh, and every advocate or Catholic relief, attempt to banish all fear with regard to the result of the removal of the disabilities? When he (Sir R. Peel) had at an earlier period than 1829 stated his apprehension, that by the passing of a Catholic Bill, animosities would not be subdued, that distractions would still continue, and that the stability of the Church would be endangered, how was he then replied to by Lord Plunket? That noble and learned individual stated, that the Catholics, though they preferred their own religion to any other, looked upon the Protestant Church as an institution established by law, and necessary for the liberty of Catholics along with all the subjects of the realm. And what said the same authority with reference to the Church of Scotland as a precedent for subverting the Protestant Church in Ireland? He said, the assertion that the establishment of the Presbyterian Church in Scotland could form a precedent for the subversion of the Episcopal Church in Ireland was laughed at by the Catholics, because they knew that the Presbyterian religion was the reformed religion, and it was so ordered by the solemn contract entered into at the Union, that the maintenance of the Protestant religion should form a permanent law of the empire, and added, that the Catholics considered the clergy of the Established Church were as much entitled to the possession of Church property as private individuals were entitled to property purchased or devised, and that he would abide by the oath he had taken, and so far from adopting measures for the subversion of that Church, he would offer the most strenuous resistance to those that would overthrow it, from whatever quarter it came. That was the language of Lord Plunkett; and was it not rather late now to say, that religious freedom could not exist unless the Protestant Church were destroyed? Was it not rather late to say, that the Protestant Church was the greatest curse, and to rejoice in the prospect of establishing municipal corporations in Ireland, because these would certainly lead to the overthrow of that Church? Those who held that language might have been no party to the carrying of the Catholic Bill, but he who was instrumental in carrying it—who believed that there was danger in it to the Established Church, who believed that the maintenance of that Church was essential to civil rights and liberty. Was he to be blamed for asserting the principle for which he had always contended; and were they to be surprised if, after the assurances that had been made of the determination of the advocates of emancipation to support that Church, that he should now do every thing in his power to protect what some called a curse, but what he called the greatest blessing? And if he were told, that the establishment of these municipal institutions were subordinate to the destruction of the Protestant Church in Ireland, and that they were to be used as a means to subvert it, was he to blame for not acceding to the Bill till he knew what security they would give against its subversion? He did not oppose the measure on the ground imputed by some. He did not cast any reflection upon Catholics; his only object was to take care, as it was the duty of every Government, that institutions should be established which would be conducive to the peace of Ireland and the impartial administration of justice. The hon. Member for Liskeard had argued the propriety of discussing the abstract principle of the measure, and he concurred with him in thinking, that by adopting such a course they would have arrived at safer conclusions, but they had been led away from that by the indiscreet challenge of the noble Lord who brought forward the measure. The hon. and learned Member had also contended, that these municipal institutions were of great use in former times, and on that point he entirely concurred. He agreed that in the eleventh century the municipal corporations in France and Italy, and Spain, and almost every country in Europe, were great instruments of improvement. In those limes when the great body of the people were vassals to the Crown, or to great Lords, there could be no doubt that municipal institutions were a great blessing; but it did not follow, that because they were good in the reign of Louis le Grand, or when a man could not dispose of his property, or give his children in marriage without the consent of his superior, they were equally good in more civilized times. And besides these there were other causes of civilization at the remote periods alluded to. There were the Crusades. The Crusades improved the manners and enlarged the views of the people. They opened the avenues to commerce, and removed many turbulent noblemen from the different kingdoms of Europe. He referred to those, and he might refer to other causes, to show, that it was not necessary to attribute the progress of civilisation to the sole cause to which it had been ascribed by the hon. Member for Liskeard, The hon. Gentleman then proceeded to talk of the confidence which ought to be reposed in local authorities. He said that the right of paving, of watching, o lighting, ought to be placed in local authorities; and had referred to the Act of 9 Geo. 4th, on the subject. The hon. Member for Liskeard was also desirous for the establishment of municipal institutions in Ireland, because he said the; would inculcate lessons of mutual forbearance and concession. If it could be proved, that such was likely to be the result of the creation of corporations in Ireland, his (Sir R. Peel's) objections to the Ministerial proposition would, in a great measure, be removed. But when he saw the maintenance of political institutions, which all admitted to be perverted, was insisted on, he then suspected that it was the object of the promoters of the present proposition to get hold of political power for their own benefit, and to exercise it through the instrumentality of those corrupt bodies, the existence of which was so strenuously advocated, but to which he was opposed, because he believed they would continue to be perverted to bad purposes. Quo semel est imbuta recens, servabit odorem Testa diu. He feared it was because of the sweetness of the odour that they wanted these corporations. But there was one question from which those who advocated the necessity for these institutions had invariably shrunk from answering—namely, the question, "why they were not in operation in the great towns in England?" Why had not Manchester, Birmingham, Marylebone, and many others, petitioned the Legislature to grant them these so much coveted institutions? The truth was, that Manchester and Birmingham, and the boroughs of Southwark, Westminster, Marylebone, and Finsbury, were satisfied with their present condition, and municipal institutions, such as Ministers proposed to give to Ireland, were not considered necessary by the inhabitants of those places. In Ireland, he did not think they would be found, as the amiable simplicity of the hon. Member for Liskeard supposed, conducive to mutual goodwill, concession, and forbearance. It was much more likely they would be under the control of that species of central government, the General Association, and would constantly interfere with the elective franchise; and the result would be, that the ascendancy of one political party would be effected, while all confidence in the administration of justice by the local authorities would be destroyed. In support of his argument, he might quote a passage from the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into Municipal Corporations. They stated, that a great number of corporations had been preserved solely as political engines, and that the towns to which they belonged derived no benefit, but often much injury, from their existence: to maintain the political influence of a family, or the political ascendancy of a patty, had been the sole end and object for which the powers intrusted to a great number of these bodies had been exercised. It appeared, then, that the most flagrant abuses had arisen from the perversion of the municipal privileges to political purposes, and that the corporations not possessed of the Parliamentary franchise had most faithfully performed their duty. But it was contended by the hon. Member for Bath, that in the present instance, there was a security against corruption and persecution on the part of the corporations in the circumstance that they would be the instruments of a majority. Surely, it would hardly be contended that it was impossible for a majority to persecute? Mr. Fox said, that the ancient republics, whenever danger was apprehended, did, by incorporating every man with the state, excite great enthusiasm in their defence; and yet, that such instances of iniquity, injustice, and oppression were never presented as were presented by those republics. Did the hon. Member for Bath consider the present position of the Church in Ireland as no proof that a minority might be persecuted? Had the hon. Gentleman read the history of the French Revolution? Were not the emigrants, were not the Girondists persecuted, and were they not the minority? Did not the hon. Member for Bath bear in mind that the government of Spain had confiscated the property of General Alava, and that it had lately sent a general into Andalusia with authority to proclaim, that every man who did not join him should be hanged—and was not that persecution? Would it be right, then, to establish the proposed municipal bodies in Ireland, the election of which would, in his opinion, be influenced by pacificators appointed in every parish, and acted upon by Roman Catholic priests? Pacification was, indeed, a noble object, but he did not think it most likely to follow from a transfer of authority from one section in the state to another, and certainly he had serious doubts whether it were conducive to religious peace, above all, that the transfer should be from a minority to a majority. He had been tauntingly reminded of the minority in which he was in that House, but what was his minority compared to the overwhelming importance of the question before them? He felt that it was more important to him to take the course prescribed by justice, than to enter into speculations concerning his minority—to look to the safety and the solidity of the Protestant Church, rather than to the insufficiency of his minority—to provide, in the first place, against his becoming an instrument of doing wrong, and not until he had made that provision to think of his minority. He never felt so satisfied of the justice of any cause as that of that Church, nor was he one whit less satisfied that the House was bound by all the obligations of honour, of justice, and of interest too, to provide for the security of that Church. The noble Lord had asked him, and with considerable anxiety too, which was not to be wondered at, as the noble Lord would soon have to ask the question of himself, what his intentions or designs were under the formidable circumstances which Ireland presented. Yes, the noble Lord would have to ask himself that puzzling question, when, with these Municipal Corporations in the fore-ground, he peered over the battlements of the Church, which he and his Colleagues were ashamed to abandon and afraid to defend. They pointed to the Association, and they asked him how he proposed to meet the power which was in open resistance to the Church, and which meditated a violence as open? Who had made the Association powerful—not he, but they. The existence of that Association was fraught with importance to the Church, for it had determined on the destruction of the Church, had resolved that in Ireland peace should not ensue until that destruction was complete. They were persons fond of secret determinations as to the benefits they might obtain; they never could be satisfied with what they got; they were always asking for more, and each new been was an instalment only, a fraction of some greater claim. This was the way they had received the Appropriation Clause bestowed on them by that House, and this was the way in which everything else would be received. Now, he would ask them, did they think it possible, that if they selected their confidential legal advisers from out that Association, from among its most active members, they would disabuse the public mind of the impression that they approved of it, that they were anxious to encourage it, that they were desirous even of rewarding it? An effort at a retort had been made by the allusion to the appoint- ment of Colonel Perceval, but was there no distinction between the cases? Did the House see none? Was there nothing in the existence of funds regularly collected, which, though now said to be kept sacred for a legitimate purpose, might be used to effect the perversion of justice? Was the man most active in the creation of such funds, which might be applied to defeat the law, to be appointed a legal adviser of the Government? The Prime Minister had declared, that he disapproved of the Association, and thought it ought to be discouraged—that was the declaration of a gentleman; but the mode of discouragement was a singular one. To discourage the Association, they gave office to a gentleman who had tried his 'prentice-hand in that Association; because he had graduated in the normal schools of agitation, they thought him fit to become a professor in Dublin Castle—they had actually created a vacancy for him. If that were their mode of discouraging, to him, it appeared anything but an efficacious one. They might think to limit the evils by the plan they were pursuing, but their turn would come next, their luke-warmness would fail them. He knew that it was difficult, and ungracious, perhaps, for a Government to exert its power to restrain, but it should not lend its power to incite or goad on those who were, or might become, disaffected; if it were so lent, then it was a perversion of power, and became a formidable encouragement. He did complain of such conduct as unjust, ungenerous, and impolitic; it was unjust to discourage one species of association merely, and from another to take an important functionary, whose duties as a lawyer for the Crown ought to be uninfluenced by the spirit of any association; it was ungenerous to avail themselves of the loyalty of Orangemen, to cajole them with praises of their love for their Sovereign and deference to his commands, to confess that the law could not reach them, and to obtain their ends from their goodwill, and then to turn round on them and call them a miserable monopolising minority; it was impolitic, for if a Government did not interfere to restrain, it at least should not interpose to encourage. When did the principle of successive concessions, of constant compliances, of a nervous horror of refusals, ever succeed? Never—it was revolting to common sense to suppose that it would, Such a system, if pursued in private life, would be most injurious to society; in official life, it was much worse, much more pernicious. Persons in official life, should recollect how great the interests were committed to them, and they should never interpose their authority, no matter what the direction of its exercise, to encourage, or to do acts tending to encourage, any party or political sect whatever.

Mr. O'Connell

rose to bring back to the recollection of the House, who the claimants were in this case. The Irish people were the claimants before a legislature which was not Irish, and they asked only for that which an Irish Legislature would concede to them. He stood there an avowed Repealer; he stood there as one convinced that the Union should be repealed. He was, therefore, persuaded that the period had not arrived, and he feared it never would arrive, when a British Legislature would be prepared to do perfect justice to Ireland. Everything he had heard that night, and everything which he had witnessed, convinced him the more strongly that there was not the disposition on the part of a great portion of that House, nor in another place, as it was termed, to do justice to Ireland. And yet he saw sufficient to warrant him in not abandoning the hope that the Irish people would be able to obtain justice for themselves. But he should not be doing justice to those who opposed this measure, if he did not caution them against pursuing that conduct which might induce the Irish people to look to constitutional means for the restoration of their own Parliament. He would bring under the attention of the House the history of the connexion between the two countries. It was a fact admitted, that there was no country in the world which had suffered so much from another, as Ireland had from this. This country had had dominion in Ireland for a period of 600 years, and they were still to be deceived by professions and treachery; and now, at the end of 600 years, the British Legislature were as little disposed to do justice as if they were beginning their work for the first time. The Irish people had always claimed British institutions. In the year 1172, in the reign of Henry 2nd, that claim had been made; in the year 1200, in the reign of John, that humble petition was repeated; and, in the reign of Edward 3rd, in the year 1336, the question was taken into solemn consideration. This happened 500 years since; and, the Irish people were again to be deceived in the year 1837, though the King was disposed to allow them constitutional local government. But the great Lords declared it to be their interest, that Municipal Corporations, on the principle of those in England, should not be created. To the petitions, and the demands of the Irish people, the Government in England had persevered in their refusal to do justice. The excuses which had been made were, to be sure, various. At one time, the Irish were too numerous, and the British were too few; at another period, the English were too powerful, and the Irish too few in number; and, therefore, of course, it was safe to refuse their demands; at another period, it was said that the Irish people were hostile to the Government, and therefore they must be treated as enemies; at another time, it was said that they were friendless, and therefore it was unnecessary to do anything. And thus the excuses which had been made changed, and thus they had varied up to the present day. But the excuse, which hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side now gave was of far greater value, though that excuse had been given before. Last year they were told, that if they granted these Corporations, they would only become normal schools of agitation. Now, they had put their refusal on another footing; namely, that of decided bigotry on the part of the Roman Catholics. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Cumberland, had read what he hoped was a slanderous, as it was a vicious, description of the second order of clergy in Spain, and he had ventured to insinuate the same thing as against the clergy of Ireland. "You have raised the no Popery flag," said the hon. and learned Member, "and under it you think to fight your way into office. Yes; I tell you the right hon. Member for Cumberland did not disguise it. He gave this excuse, to be sure, that if you granted Municipal Reform to Ireland, you would endanger the Protestant Church. What! does the Protestant Church depend upon doing injustice to Ireland? Is this your recommendation of Protestantism? In the first place, then, the Protestant Church cannot exist unless you tax those who have no concern in it for its support; and next, unless you deprive the people of the same rights as you yourselves enjoy." The hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded to say, that he rose for the purpose of distinctly stating that the people of Ireland, though they came forward as petitioners for that relief which had been given to England and Scotland, he was by no means prepared to say that their fates and fortunes depended upon the British Legislature. They were anxious to show, that the Legislature was capable of giving equal laws with the people of England and Scotland. But they knew full well, that seven millions of men never yet were outraged with impunity unless the fault was their own. The overpowering sentiment on his own mind, was the impossibility of getting such laws from a British Parliament, as they would get if the Irish had their own Parliament. It was said, that the Union was not founded on an equality of rights. If it had not been so founded, it was a fraud on the one country and an act of tyranny on the other. He desired to put upon record, his conviction of the necessity of looking to other means for redress.

Lord John Russell

The right hon. Baronet had accused the Government of cajoling the Orange societies in Ireland—of inducing them to abandon their Association, and afterwards allowing similar societies to be raised. He denied that charge. No intention whatever had been entertained of cajoling or deceiving any one upon the subject. But those Orange societies were exclusive in their character—they were formed of persons who were exclusively of one religion; and they were secret in their meetings and conduct. It was on that ground that he had asked them to dissolve; and, it was on that ground that they yielded, saying only that all other secret societies should be dealt with in the same way. Whatever might have been the grounds of the dissolution of these societies, he must own he could not see any resemblance whatever between the Orange lodges and the General Association of Ireland. The latter might be considered dangerous or objectionable in different ways; but it did not resemble those secret societies to which allusion had been made. Having said those few words as to the charge of the right hon. Baronet, he would beg to call the attention of the House to the question then before them, and this was a question for the Parliament of Great Britain as to what in future years should be their course with regard to legislating for Ireland. It was a question, whatever party might be in power, to decide what should be their rule and guide, and to discriminate what course it would be wise to pursue for the promotion of the interests of seven millions of their fellow-subjects, who were united to us, and were ready to apply themselves, as he believed, as cordially in the support of this great empire as any of the great body of inhabitants of England or Scotland. It did then become a great question to say, whether they should adopt the proposition before them, utterly to extinguish corporations in Ireland. He would not go over those arguments which had been so admirably put by the hon. Member for Liskeard with respect to corporations in general, because nothing could be more complete than the proof that hon. Member had given the House that corporations tended to invigorate those excellencies of a free character on which the government of all free countries must depend. The argument of the hon. Member for Liskeard had not been met—it had not been denied. But he must remark on one observation which had been made upon that speech by his noble Friend, the Member for North Lancashire, who, completely misunderstanding and misinterpreting the purport of that speech, stated, that the hon. Member for Liskeard had said that the great recommendation for instituting corporations was, that they might be made the engine for destroying the Church Establishment in Ireland. Now, the hon. Member's argument was, that where, by the establishment of corporations, they created a general interest in local matters, there the power and influence of priests and demagogues would be overwhelmed; but the noble Lord had understood the argument in an opposite sense. He must say, with respect to these corporations (it being allowed that corporations were good in themselves), that they formed a part of the greatness of imperial Rome, nor did they fall when the empire had began to decline. It remained, then, to be shown why corporations were unfit to be adopted at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman said, that in a state of civilization, corporations were not productive of good. And why, at one moment, should it be maintained that corporations could not be adopted under a highly civi- lized condition, and in the next breath tell them that Ireland was not so civilised as to allow them to give her municipal institutions? But he was told, as an answer to every plea that had been urged, that the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny had made certain predictions, and had said that these corporations must be followed up by certain effects. Why, Gentlemen opposite took these predictions as certain consequences. Hon. Gentlemen opposite said, they could not bear the influence of the hon. Member for Kilkenny; they abjured this influence; but here what he said was considered by them infallible, and must come to pass. The hon. Member for Cavan said, his opinion was that at first, parties in these corporations would be likely to use their power to political purposes, but when the offices were vested in merchants and tradesmen of repute they would soon lose that heat which would first be evinced, and men of character, and wealth, and leisure would be the persons chosen in these corporations. That was his belief. But it was said, and it was urged, indeed, as a conclusive argument on this subject, that although these corporations might in themselves be fitting, they would be dangerous to the Church of Ireland. He would not deny, that the Church of Ireland, in the position in which she stood, might be placed in danger by many circumstances; and he knew not that they could save that Church from all dangers by depriving the Roman Catholics of their political and civil rights. In a country where there were more than six millions of a different religion, and not more than one million were Protestants, and the six millions of Roman Catholics were daily increasing in power, it could not be said the Church could remain free from all danger. They were not, however, to look to a supposed contingent danger; and he could see no danger in receiving these new corporations. It was ten times a more dangerous proceeding to tell the people of Ireland, "You cannot have corporations, because the Protestant Church is there established." If they did this, they would indeed most unquestionably, increase the danger to the Church, whilst they would place it in an odious position. He could not refrain from quoting some observations made by Mr. Burke which bore on this subject. Mr. Burke said, "You have an ecclesiastical establishment which, though the religion of the prince, and of the first class of the landed proprietors, is not the religion of the major part of the inhabitants, and consequently does not answer any one purpose of a religious establishment. This is not a state of things which any one in his senses can call perfectly happy. But it is the state of Ireland, and has been the state of Ireland for upwards of 200 years." Mr. Burke also said, "To-day the question is, are we to make the best of a situation which we cannot wholly alter—shall the condition of a body of the people be alienated from a burthen to which they are now subject—the burthen of living under and paying for two religious establishments, from one of which they do not receive any religious instruction or consolation; or are we to aggravate their condition by stepping out of our way to cut off three millions of people from all connexion with popular representation?" Mr. Burke's argument was, do not aggravate the burthens of the great majority of the Irish people—do not aggravate, in the eyes of the people of Ireland, the burthen of having to support an establishment to which they do not belong, and from which they derive no benefit; rather try to alleviate it, and show them that if the Church Establishment cannot be altered, at least that they were not inferior in other respects. "With these observations," continued the noble Lord, "I have now only to beg the attention of the House to the real question before it. It is not a question of degree—not a question of whether any part or parcel of this measure shall be conceded—but a question of whether you will now agree to abolish entirely Municipal Corporations in Ireland, and whether by so doing you will affix upon the people of Ireland the stigma of being unfit to enjoy our free institutions, and whether you will look for the future to nothing but force to enable you to conduct the government of that country."

Mr. Henry Grattan

regretted that he had tried in vain to catch the Speaker's eye. He begged to say, that as Gentlemen opposite had made attacks upon Lord Mulgrave's Government, and certain persons appointed to offices by his Excellency, he held in his hand letters and statements from three individuals, Mr. Berwick, Mr. Lawrence Cruise Smythe, and Mr. Cassidy; and he was authorised to give to the charges advanced against these individuals, the most unqualified denial. Mr. Berwick had actually received the thanks of Lord Bantry and the magistrates of the West Riding of Cork; who passed unanimously a resolution of unqualified approbation of his conduct, and of the appointment made by the Irish Government. So much for the truth of the charges made by Gentlemen opposite.

The House divided on Lord Francis Egerton's motion:—Ayes 242; Noes 322: Majority 80.

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

The House went into Committee, pro formâ, and resumed.

Committee to sit again.