HC Deb 19 April 1839 vol 47 cc418-52

Exactly. The noble Lord is so acute. I was just going to ask the very question which has been answered by anticipation. I was going to ask are these Lord Normanby's principles? I believe, that they are not; but I tell you that they are the principles which you, the Ministers, must adopt if you would avoid a collision with your supporters in Ireland; for otherwise they will tell you that "its social elements will never settle into tranquillity," and that they will moot the question of the Repeal of the Union. Under the vague terms, that "it is expedient to persevere in those principles which have guided the Executive Government of Ireland of late years," the hon. and learned Member for Dublin is going to call upon all those who owe allegiance to him, and are willing to do, him suit and service, to support a Government which is opposed to every one of his demands, save that of corporate reform. And now one word upon that self-same subject of corporate reform. There was formerly a great difference between us on that subject, but latterly it was narrowed down to a small point, and at the close of last Session, I fancied, that this House and the House of Lords had nearly agreed upon it. In the correctness of that notion I am strongly corroborated by a speech which the hon. and learned Member for Dublin made last November at a dinner at New Ross. Addressing Mr. Maher, the Member for Wexford, the hon. and learned Gentleman said— You, Sir, who were present, know that had I not attended a meeting of Members of Parliament in the Home Secretary's (Lord J. Russell's) office, and interfered; and, in fact, threw myself on the compassion of the English and Scotch Members, the bill for the reform of the corporation, or, more properly speaking, for perpetuating corporate abuses, would' have passed with all its defects as it was sent down from the House of Lords.

We have here, then, the boast of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, rather violating, I should think, one of the conditions of the "compact alliance" between himself and the noble Lord—a matter which I leave them to settle as they can between them; we have here, I say, the boast of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that on one of the four points which he deems to be essential to the future prosperity of Ireland, the noble Lord was inclined to come with us to a wise, and safe, and statesmanlike conclusion, and that he was only prevented by the influence which the hon. and learned Member exercised over him. But the noble Lord will perhaps tell me, "in legislative measures we are bound and fettered by the House of Lords; we cannot do what we would, we must therefore be content to do the best we can." Let me, then, ask the noble Lord if he were unfettered by the House of Lords, whether he would think it either expedient or just, or consistent with the safety of the empire, to consent to any other of the three measures without which the hon. and learned Member asserts, that Ireland cannot be satisfied, and without which he shall consider himself justified in again raising the cry for a Repeal of the Union. I know how the noble Lord will answer that question. I know that he will say, if I may use the jargon of the day, that he is a finality man. I know that he will not extend the elective franchise in Ireland; I know that he will not equalize it in the two countries; I know that he will not grant the hon. and learned Gentleman the 170 Members which he demands for Ireland; I know, that he will nut consent to destroy the Protestant Church in Ireland, I know, for he has told us so, that he will have it still the Established Church, and in full possession of all its temporalities. I know likewise, that the hon. and learned Member says, that all these institutions, which the noble Lord declares he will not consent to alter, are fatal to the prosperity of Ireland; and yet we are this night to see the extraordinary spectacle of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and the noble Lord going together to a vote, telling us that the principles of the Executive Government of Ireland have tended to the general improvement of that part of the United Kingdom, and that it is right, expedient, and necessary, to persevere in the assertion of the same principles. But," said the noble Lord, "we do not mean to call upon the House to give a vote in support of our legislation—we merely call for a vote in approval of the conduct of the Executive Government.

Driven in this manner from point to point the noble Lord is "to one thing, constant never;" he says,— The house of Lords have passed upon us a vote of censure; we must, therefore, ascertain whether we have the confidence of the House of Commons.

Does the noble Lord then ask from us a general vote of confidence?—No. I defy the noble Lord, I challenge the noble Lord, to ask the House of Commons to give a general vote of confidence to his Government. I defy him to ask for a general vote of confidence in favour either of his foreign or of his domestic policy. Nay, I defy him to ask a general vote of confidence, even upon the legislative policy which he has pursued towards Ireland. The noble Lord is a most skilful tactician. He says,— As we cannot get a general vote of confidence, let us see whether we cannot find some one resolution in which we can all of us agree—some resolution relative to the conduct of the Government in which no one of us is more involved than another. Can we not, therefore, say, that for a certain, I should rather say for an uncertain time, the Executive Government of Ireland, so far as the Lord-lieutenant's share in it is concerned, has been satisfactorily administered by some person who shall also be nameless.

And on a resolution of that kind the noble Lord flatters himself that he will be able to obtain a majority, and I frankly admit, that I think he will obtain it; but what after all will be the effect of it? The noble Lord then proceeded to say, that he was reluctant to go over the old ground of complaint, which he deemed well-founded, respecting the appointment of the constabulary in Ireland. He happened to be in the House at the time when power to appoint the constabulary was given to the Government as a necessary auxiliary to maintain the peace of Ireland. He had heard the terms under which that power had been granted. The noble Lord opposite had said— With respect to the plan of taking the power of appointment from the magistracy, and conferring it upon the Government, the appointment will be vested nominally in the Lord-lieutenant, but actually in the Inspector-general, and the business will be managed on the same principle as applies to the police force of this metropolis, where, though the authority is nominally in the Home Secretary, it is practically with the commissioners.

His noble Friend at the head of the Home Department, after naming Colonel Shaw Kennedy as the Inspector-General, said:— It may not be unnecessary for me to observe, that Colonel Shaw Kennedy, being connected with no party in Ireland, would perform the duties intrusted to him with the utmost impartiality and exactness, and at the same time in such a manner as would give universal satisfaction.

Some men are not so shy as others of asserting their principles, and his right hon. Friend, the Member for Tamworth, had asserted his principles in the frankest manner on that occasion. After objecting to some details of the measure, Sir Robert Peel said:— I hope that part of Colonel Shaw Kennedy's duty will be to recommend, as he ought in justice to have the power of recommending, all the officers employed in that force, for whose good conduct he will be responsible. I believe it to be of the utmost importance, that the police force should be kept perfectly free from all influence of party animosity or predilection. If honestly administered, it bad much better, I am inclined to think, be committed to the hands of the representative of the Crown than to any local authority. But that admission is made on the assumption, that it would be administered with perfect honesty and impartiality; because, if prostituted to gratify party animosity, or for the purpose of extending party political influence, the integrity and efficiency of the force must be altogether annihilated. We ought to adopt some mule, such as is adopted in the metropolis, those who are responsible for the good conduct of the men being intrusted with their nomination, and Government not at all interfering for the purpose of gratifying any political bias whatever. If the Government appoint Colonel Shaw Kennedy, intrusting him with the nomination of those men, for whose conduct he should be responsible, I venture to pledge myself, as far as I can do for any man, for the satisfactory discharge of all the duties of the office.

Lord Morpeth thanked Sir R. Peel for his support to the bill. He (Lord Stanley) knew not how the patronage of the constabulary force was now exercised. He had, however, heard strange allegations with respect to it, and no titter subject for inquiry could be suggested than the exaamination of Colonel Shaw Kennedy, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the conditions on which power over the constabulary force was granted to the Lord-lieutenant had been carefully, solemnly, and inviolably kept. With regard to the release of prisoners by Lord Normanby, he really thought, that no defence what-soever had been made. That tour through the country, in which whole batches of convicted felons had been let loose again upon society, sometimes after consulting, but oftener without consulting, the learned judges who had tried them—that tour through the country and by the gaols of it, had been given up as indefensible on all hands. He thought, that he had even heard the noble Lord say as much. "It took place," said he, "before 1837. You then made objection to it, and nothing of the kind has happened since." Nay, so cautious had the noble Lord become on the subject—so chary was he now of his mercy, that the hon. Member for Drogheda complained, that though on application to the Marquess of Anglesey and the Marquess Wellesley he had often obtained, by writing to the Castle, the remission of sentences passed upon the very respectable, persons for whom he interfered, he had never been fortunate enough to succeed in any application for pardon which he had made to Lord Normanby on behalf of persons he dared to say equally respect- able. No doubt they were all fit cases for the extension of mercy, but somehow or other it happened, that whenever the hon. Member for Drogheda recommended one of them to the Marquess of Normanby, he was always unsuccessful in obtaining a favourable reply. He would not enter into a consideration of what was the cause of this extraordinary failure. Probably the hon. Baronet had not been skilful in selecting the mollia tempora fandi. He could not help thinking, that if the hon. Baronet had applied to the noble Marquess on his road to Trim; if, when he was followed by admiring thousands, he had gone to his horse's head, seized it by the bridle, and made a public appeal to his clemency and liberality, he could not, he repeated, refrain from entertaining a suspicion that Trim would not have been the only gaol in Ireland which was an exception to the liberal system of the noble Marquess. He rather apprehended, that when the noble Marquess visited Trim, he had distributed amongst the various prisoners of other gaols the 144 months of imprisonment which he had determined to remit. Perhaps the hon. Member for Drogheda had written to the noble Marquess after the proper time: perhaps, when his letter was received, the noble Marquess had disposed of his whole stock in trade: perhaps he had dispensed away all his mercy, and had not even a fraction left. [An hon. Member whispered to Lord Stanley.] "Oh no! pardon me!" said the noble Lord, "that is too delicate a matter to mention. I cannot say a word upon that delicate and romantic interference to procure and promote the happiness of Mary Ryan." Suppose you give this vote which the noble Lord now asks you to give him, what will be the effect of it? Will the House bear with me for a short time whilst I mention to it a circumstance which I have read somewhere, but I forget where, and which appears to me to illustrate aptly enough the present situation of the Government. A country surgeon on his return late at night from visiting his patients, found at his door a messenger who had arrived in haste. His horse was covered with foam, and he himself was "fiery red with speed." He announced to the surgeon, that at the house of his master, a man of rank and property, a frightful accident had occurred, that his master's only son was in great danger, and that he must gallop back home with him without drawing bridle. The doctor did as directed. He found the house in confusion, the servants in distress, the father and mother in extreme agony, and the son in bed. He looked at his patient, then went to the window, looked at the room, and with solemn voice asked, "Can you give me a pair of scissors?" Three or four pair of scissors were immediately brought out and tendered to him. He took one of them in his right hand, put his left into his pocket, drew out a packet, cut a portion from it, placed it on the young gentleman's hand, and, with gravity proportioned to the emergency, assured the family, that the sticking-plaster would produce a cure. Now, to apply. What is the language we have recently heard from Ministers? "A dreadful gash has been made in our characters—our honour is wounded—our places are at stake—we cannot survive this terrible censure of the House of Lords—our days are numbered if we have not relief—we will, therefore, take the most efficient remedies:" and when they proceed to take them, their little bit of sticking-plaster comes in the shape of this paltry vote. Let me tell them, that this sticking-plaster practice will never answer their object. He did not know, the noble Lord proceeded, whether the hon. Member for Finsbury were in the House, but he should like to know how that hon. Member would proceed upon a post mortem examination of her Majesty's Government. If any thing were to happen to the Administration, the case would properly fall under the jurisdiction of the coroner for Middlesex, and he would like to hear the charge which the hon. Member would address to the jury upon such an occasion. Of course, he would consider it his duty to expatiate upon the advantage of having a medical corner to preside upon such an occasion. He would then tell the jury, that the deceased died of a very slight cut, which, to a person of a good habit and sound constitution would have caused no annoyance whatever, but that the patient being of a very weakly temperament, and having of late taken to bad ways, the medical attendants, instead of probing the wound, had been content with skinning it over, leaving it festering and unsound underneath. He (Lord Stanley) hoped, that the jury would not implicate the hon. Friend and colleague of the hon. Member for Finsbury as having had any hand in the lamentable event. It would appear on the evidence, that the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, had uttered melancholy forebodings of the approaching fate of the deceased. But he was quite sure, that let the jury attribute the event to what cause they might, they would have no ground whatever for charging the death upon the house of Lords, either by way of manslaughter or wilful murder. [Oh! oh!] He was sorry that hon. Members did not relish a joke at one o'clock in the morning. [Lord John Russell: Not a bad joke.] It might, perhaps, turn out to be no joke, after all. He asked the Ministry, if they carried their motion, of what advantage it would be to them in their present condition, which had been so well described by one of their own supporters, the hon. Member for Limerick? He asked of what avail it would be to them if the Government obtained a majority smaller than the number of their official supporters in that House? What effect would such a majority produce on the House of Lords? The hon. Member for Coleraine had said, it would have the effect of crippling the proceedings of the House of Lords; he believed it would have no such effect. Depend upon it the inquiry of that House would go on, and the House of Lords would proceed firmly, but moderately, in the discharge of its public duty. The vote upon the present motion would not, they might rely upon it, produce the slightest influence upon the proceedings of the House of Lords, and if that were the case, what would be its effect on the character of the House of Commons? What would be the effect of the vote upon its character for prudence and deliberation, if hereafter it found itself obliged to rescind the resolution which it was now about to place on its records? What would be the effect when its decision was treated, as, he regretted to say, it was likely it would be, with indifference, if it were not altogether slighted, by the co-ordinate branch of the Legislature? He entreated the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, to pause. He knew he was asking in vain—he knew hon. Members had made up their minds, and had decided upon taking the course which the noble Lord, relying upon the support of unwilling friends and of hard task-masters, had pointed out. By the combination of these discordant elements he might succeed in gaining a small majority; but whether that were so or not, it would be to him. (Lord Stanley) and the great party with, whom he had the honour to act—it would be to them a source of satisfaction, that their voices had been raised, and that their votes had been given in opposition to a measure which was one of unjustifiable intrusion and of impotent resentment.

Mr. O'Connell

solemnly assured the House, that he would with the greatest pleasure return to his seat again, without uttering a word, if he did not feel it an imperative duty to express his opinion as briefly as possible. Nothing but a sense of duty would make him obtrude himself on the House, feeling certain that the House had not yet grown cold from the glow which the ardent speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary had caused. The hon. Member for Lancashire had indeed, attempted to reply to him, and, no doubt, thought himself a worthy antagonist, but certainly not with great success. He had read somewhere, that there was nothing finer than a great man struggling with adversity; and if he had not to-night seen that, he had at least seen an able debater struggling with the worst cause that ever was advocated. There seemed to be a difference of opinion as to whether there had been good joking or bad joking in it; but he thought the noble Lord evinced much more thimble-riggery than either, in his sophistications, between principles of legislation, and principles of executive Government. The noble Lord had produced documents; but of what kind? Why, one from his own agent. The next step would be, to quote his butler or footman. He would not say that the letter had been sent over to Ireland, in order to be sent back again, but he protested against thus making quotations from private letters that might have been written to please the steward's master. And why was not the name of the other writer given Because, this Gentleman, who was a Catholic, and more liberal than the noble Lord, was afraid of being murdered. Very singular reasons, indeed, for fearing murder from the Roman Catholics; they would be hardly probable motives except with the Orange party. He was surprised that the noble Lord had not more good sense than to produce such a document. The noble Lord had arrived at his penitential days, and now belonged to that great party which surrounded him. That party must be very compact in its alliance, if any judgment could be formed from what bad passed during the present debate, for he believed, that a greater diversity had never appeared than was to be observed between the hon. Member for Sligo and the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Kent, who was one of the supporters of the noble Lord, and would vote with him, had uttered one of the most atrocious calumnies in that House.

The Speaker

said, that the observation of the hon. and learned Member was certainly disorderly, if he meant to impute that the calumny proceeded from the right hon. Gentleman himself.

Mr. O'Connell

What the hon. Gentleman said, was, that the Catholic clergy of Ireland were an ignorant, benighted, and immoral people. That was the charge made; that was the charge which he said was made; and he now said it was unfounded. He bad a right to fling with contempt and scorn the atrocious calumny back upon the hon. Gentleman. There could be no excuse for it, except ignorance to the extent of brutality, such as was familiar in Kent.

Sir Robert Bateson

rose to order, and appealed to the House whether such language as they had now heard, was either usual or parliamentary.

The Speaker

said, that it was extremely difficult to draw an exact line in such eases as this; but he thought that it must be obvious that it was improper to use such expressions as these. The last word used by the hon. and learned Gentleman was ignorance. Would the hon. and learned Member repeat what he had said?

Mr. O'Connell—

He said ignorance to the extent of brutality, such as had been exhibited in the county of the hon. Gentleman. He repeated that there was no excuse for it. They knew that the charge which had been made against the Catholic clergy admitted of no palliation, but proceeded from bigotry of the lowest and basest description, such also as had been exhibited in Kent, and was made against the laborious, the moral, and the devoted clergy of an affectionate laity. It was not surprising, however, to him, that such a charge should be made, for it was but reasonable that he should expect such an allegation from the genial atmosphere of Exeter Hall. It might be called virtue, but From virtue's self might too much zeal be had, The worst of madmen was a saint run mad. There had been a good deal thrown out by the noble Lord, as to the length of time occupied by the debate. It had taken up a considerable time certainly—the House was now on the fifth night of its duration, and the sixth day was just drawing upon them, but it had not taken up more time than the importance of the question demanded. It involved questions of the greatest magnitude, and its termination might produce consequences of the most disastrous nature. It included two distinct considerations—the first was the jurisdiction and authority of the House of Lords; and the second was a subject of no less importance than the good government of one third of what was called the united kingdom. If it had been earlier in the debate, he would have observed on the paltry sophistries by which it was attempted to be denied, that the vote of the House of Lords was a vote of censure; and he thought that the right hon. Baronet who talked so much of manliness, might have the manliness to admit that which every man of sense knew—that it was intended as a vote of censure in its form and terms, and no less. He was not disposed to detain the House on the first question, the jurisdiction and authority of the House of Lords, the amount of their decision being in itself necessarily censure—it arrogated to them the power of controlling the appointment and continuance of the administration. It was in effect an attempt to take from this House their influence over the change of the ministry, which should belong to this House alone. He did not deny the theory of the constitution—that the two Houses of Parliament possessed equal rights upon this point; but that became totally inapplicable when it was recollected that that was the house of a particular class—an order irresponsible to the people, and not controlled by popular scrutiny. The administration of the country, then, ought not to be controlled by that House; and more especially when it was considered that if the administration had misconducted themselves, they might be impeached. But what was the nature of the inquiry? To judge what they had already misjudged, and to act in the double capacity of accusers and judges in the very case in which they had themselves prejudged. But it went further; it was an attempt to nullify the Reform Bill, the object of which was to take away from the House of Lords the control which it possessed over the House of Commons, for until that measure passed, the House of Commons was nothing more than a sort of other chamber. It was not necessary, then, to be so indecent as now, because they threw their nominees into this House, at least, with an appearance of fairness; but the Reform Bill was passed to alter that state of things, and he hoped that its intended effect would not be permitted to be lost. Let the House of Lords persevere in their course—let them proceed, and there was an end to the Reform Bill, and the people of England would be in a worse condition than that in which they had before been placed. The House of Lords, however, had not yet brought the matter to a close, but they would come to the charge again, and not leave the job unfinished. The question was a simple one, and one which this House was now called upon to decide, so far as they were concerned. With regard to the lively sally which the hon. Member for Wiltshire was charged with making when he spoke of the superior wisdom of the House of Lords, he knew little, but it might, perhaps, be an attack upon him. That was a common practice. The hon. Member had told the House that he was not at the Corn Exchange. He knew that he was not, and he was glad the hon. Member had not been there, for he could have been neither useful nor ornamental; but when he made the scurrilous attack upon him, it was well the hon. Gentleman were not, and he would yet learn that the self adulation of any man, however great and high in title he might be, would be there treated with the ridicule which it deserved. If the hon. Member were told, that the hereditary wisdom of the House of Lords was predominant, he thought that the expression used by the hon. Member for Belfast, which, at the close of his former connection with the party opposed to that which he now supported, he had used, and by which he denominated the Peers as "the tenth transmitters of a a foolish face," might be employed. But there was another topic of infinitely greater importance. How was Ireland to be governed? The House was not asked to approve of the legislative government of that country, but of the executive government of that country, and there he met the noble Lord who had last spoken, at once. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) did not ask any man to support a vote in approbation of the legislative conduct of the government of Ireland, and for this he was taunted by the right hon. Baronet. Undoubtedly the course which the Government had pursued, was such as to entitle them to much of their approbation, and he thought that nothing could be more unfair and uncandid than to refuse to support the government of Ireland. It might be party tactics, but he did not think it was common sense, and he was sure it was not common honesty. But they now wanted to change the executive government. When they did this, they proposed to change the principles upon which that executive government had been conducted. Did they think that they were prudent in doing this? Did they think they were, or could be safe, in changing the present wise and just system of government? Were they so popular in Ireland, that they would venture upon making the experiment? Was British connexion so desirable? Was there so little jealousy felt towards them? Was there so little of justifiable resentment to be found there, that they could set the people of Ireland at defiance, and declare that they would not give them good government? When, he asked them, did they give good government to Ireland? And yet they had had dominion over that country for 700 years. Perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite did not know history. He, at least, should not be surprised to hear that they were ignorant. He could point out to them the mischiefs they had done—he could show what destruction they had sanctioned—what wholesale slaughters they had perpetrated, what crimes they had committed, and what atrocities they had authorised, and how they had violated every treaty they had entered into. He would state these facts—he could, quote the pages of history to prove his assertions. Let them, he said, show him the period in which they had commenced to do justice to Ireland. Ireland had made a struggle for her legislative in dependence, and they had swindled her out of it. They had struck down her native Parliament. Her evil of absenteeism, great before, they had multiplied one hundred fold, till by the report of the railway commissioners it appeared that there were 2,500,000l. surplus of exports above the imports of Ireland, constituting a tribute of 2,500,000l. paid by that country for the union. It was the union which confirmed that tribute to them. Did they then think that the people of Ireland were reconciled to that union in its present shape, and in its existing form of connection with them? Did they think that the people of Ireland did not know what species of bargain they had made with them at the union? Ireland had at the time of the union a debt of 28,000,000l., and England had a debt of 450,000,000l. What was then done? They took upon them the Irish debt of 28,000,000l., and they inflicted upon Ireland their own debt of 450,000,000l. This was the amount of their generosity to Ireland. Did they imagine that these things were not known in Ireland? Then look to their conduct on the Reform Bill. They had given to England a large and extensive franchise. What had they done with Ireland? The effects of this treatment best depicted it. The county of Anglesey had more electors than the county of Cork, and yet in the county of Cork there were 702,000 inhabitants, and in the county of Anglesey there were but 19,000 inhabitants. But was this all? They had given corporation reform to England. The noble Lord had referred to a speech made by him with respect to corporate reform in Ireland, in which he was fortunate enough to persuade English and Scotch Members to reject the Corporation bill as sent down from the House of Lords. Did they not for three years refuse to give any corporate reform at all to Ireland? [No.] Who was it that said no? If it were the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Sinclair) he forgave him. And what, he asked, were the opposition party now about? Planning or concocting a scheme in which they might make the franchise so high as to exclude the people, and give it to the favoured few. The noble Lord (Lord Stanley) might feel attached to his established church; but did they think that the people of Ireland would consider themselves obliged to support the church of the minority? It was not so in England, it was not so in Scotland, and the people of Ireland felt that an injury was attempted to be inflicted upon them. And in addition to this, it was attempted now to restore Toryism to its once triumphant state in that country. It was quite true that there had been no legislative relief afforded upon these points; but he wished to show them that they ought to consider how they could best promote the prosperity of the country, instead of dividing it into discordant portions. Any man who wished to realise the union, any man who wished to place Ireland on an equality with Great Britain, should at least pause before he voted against the motion, when his doing so might have the most disastrous effects on Ireland. They refused corporation reform, and they still insisted that Ireland should support a clergy who did not belong to the people. He then asked them at what period of Irish history had the Irish people expressed themselves satisfied with the executive government? Never before this time. And yet that period was now come; and therefore he, in the name of his constituents—aye, and he might say of the Irish community—expressed their attachment to the Irish executive. They demonstrated their gratitude to the Irish executive, because it had established amongst them the reign of justice and of impartiality. He came before that House with hundreds and thousands of petitioners supporting the Irish executive government. In so short a time never were there so many petitions prepared and sent forward from Ireland. The parishes of Ireland came forward as if it were with a bound—when they found that Orange Tory domination was threatened with a greater number of petitions than had ever before been presented to them, and called upon that House to continue the present system. They declared, that that system had given content and satisfaction to Ireland. They stood before them in that attitude. A monarch of England had never before had a similar declaration made to him. What, then, was the use of discussing returns, what the necessity for making calculations, what the advantage of bringing foul charges against the Government, which came upon them by surprise, and the materials for refuting which were only discovered by accident. They found the people were contented with that system. They might, indeed, have proved, by means of vulgar arithmetic, that the Irish people ought not to be contented. There might be returns to show, that the people ought not to be satisfied, but still the people of Ireland declared, that they were content, and that all they asked of that House, was to continue the present Government. Now, it had been said, that the Irish people were violently and virtually opposed to the Church, and that they would not be satisfied with any man who did not do his best to injure and destroy it. What had been the conduct of Lord Normanby in administering the affairs of that Church? If he wished to injure it—if he wished to defile that Church, would he not have placed among its Ministers hirelings who were unfit for their situation? That was not his conduct. His adminis- tration of the patronage belonging to the Irish Church had been referred to by the right hon. Baronet as particularly praiseworthy; he had given to the working curates valuable livings, and he had given prelacies to the clergymen of the second order. He had appointed a Tonson, and, above all, a Sandes. Yes, he told them frankly, that never yet was there an appointment, that had given more satisfaction to the people of Ireland than that of his respected Friend, Dr. Sandes, the Bishop of Cashel. There was no more sincere Protestant than that rev. Gentleman—no one performed with more attention the sacred duties of his profession—no one was more distinguished for his piety. Such a man, indeed, was much more dangerous to be sent amongst the Irish people for the purpose of converting them, than any one of your Kent fiery Reformers. This, then, was the situation in which Ireland was; she was content, she was anxious, she desired to retain in the Government of her Majesty the Queen, that man who makes the best selection of Protestant bishops and of Protestant clergymen, and who also gives universal satisfaction to the universal people of Ireland. He thought, then, hon. Gentlemen ought to reflect before, by their vote, they put a negative upon the desires of the Irish people in support of the executive. There was an old song which said— Ye gentlemen of England, who live at home at ease, Ah! little do you think on the dangers of the seas. He said to those "gentlemen of England who lived at home at ease," be careful you do not do anything which may break in upon the peace which you now enjoy. He did not say this as a threat. Or, if they said it was a threat, let them so take it. They did not know how soon the people of Ireland might be wanted. Did they know that the people of Ireland were more alive to their rights now than they were formerly?—that the Irish people almost universally were now readers?—that where newspapers formerly hardly went out of the great towns, they were now to be found in every village, and almost in every cabin? Did they know that the mighty mind of Ireland was excited?—that there were millions of arms to be conducted by that mind if they drove the Irish to insanity by their determination to continue the old system? What had been that old system? They wanted inquiry, forsooth! Assuredly they knew what the Orange system was. It was but right to remind them, lest they should forget it, that, in the Orange counties, there was a word invented which was not known in England. If a man talked of wrecking houses in England, it would be thought that his hon. Friend, the Member for Birmingham, had seen realised his dream of the arrival of the Russians at Gravesend, and of that town being wrecked. But the phrase was familiar in Ireland. And why?—because the act was familiar. He could not avoid giving a few instances, to show the character of those to whom they were handing over the people of Ireland. He should come presently to their high-souled protestations of fairness and impartiality; he should come to them presently, if not with the contempt they merited, with the refutation which was so easy. In Ireland the word "wreckers" was a common phrase. He happened to have in his pocket a letter which was not there by accident. He was not exactly like the hon. Member for Bandon, who did not intend to say a word during this debate, and who accordingly came to the House with five or six volumes of returns, with careful marginal notes, and with oranges ready. He intended to produce this letter. It was the letter of a gentleman, now more than twenty years dead, whose name stood high in the annals of Irish history. He was an independent Member of the Parliament of 1782, and was related to some of the first families in Ireland, and his name was Mr. Todd Jones. The letter was addressed to the editor of the Dublin Evening Post, and was dated Newry, March 2, 1814. There, in the open day, twenty-eight houses were wrecked, and the house of the Catholic priest was fired into next day, because he interfered to obtain justice. But there was not a particle of chance of obtaining justice, and the foul deed was perpetrated with impunity. He mentioned this circumstance to show what that party was. He had documents to show that the same-system still continued. During the last administration of the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), in January, 1835, a similar scene of outrage was exhibited at the town of Lurgan. Two Orangemen were assaulted and violently beaten on their return from Armagh: the Government, of course, was perfectly ready to lend the aid of the constabulary and the army to discover the perpetrators and to bring them to punish. ment. The Orangemen were not satisfied, and what was the result? He would read the report of Lord Gosford, which was written in February 1835. The report stated that seven houses belonging to Catholics had been burned, and that the most wanton and atrocious outrages had been committed, and that all attempts to discover the offenders had failed in the object. Seven houses during the very last time the right hon. Baronet was in power were burned in the open day; nay, he found in the report that this was done in the presence of a portion of the army; but the Orangemen and yeomanry were too strong, and Sir Frederick Stovin did not think it prudent to attack them, not wishing to waste human life. Yes, in the open day, and unavenged to this hour, seven houses of the peaceable and unarmed citizens were consumed, to avenge a personal outrage of the day before, which the law was quite sufficient to vindicate. Was that all? He hoped the hon. and gallant Member for Armagh (Col. Verner) was present; as in the presence of that hon. and gallant Member, even during Earl Grey's administration, houses were similarly wrecked. That hon. and gallant Member met the wreckers coming towards him. He was a magistrate, a captain of yeomanry, and an Orange dignitary, and possessed great influence in those capacities, which was still greater in consequence of the amiability of his private character, for no gentleman could be more amiable in his private life; but, notwithstanding all this, the hon. and gallant Member met these people, the wreckers, in the road; and, as he himself stated, he did every thing in his power to prevent the party from proceeding. When he arrived at Magheragh, the people had broken the doors of the houses, and completely wrecked the village in the presence of the hon. Gentleman himself, and of a body of the police. Having done this, they marched on with drums beating and flags flying in regular order, Captain Lloyd being at the head, and the hon. and gallant Member himself' bringing up the rear. He did not charge the hon. and gallant Member with a wilful participation in this transaction. He believed the hon. and gallant Colonel did endeavour to prevent it, and used his best exertions for that purpose, but in spite of all his influence, this happened in the open day, and no man had ever been punished for that outrage from that day to this. And yet they talked of impartial justice to Ireland, when they could not control their own satellites. If any man could have done it, the hon. and gallant Member would have done it. He had every recommendation that a loan could have, yet in open defiance of him, in spite of his influence, and without dread of punishment, this horrible outrage was committed. And were the people of Ireland to be satisfied with the words of the House of Commons or the House of Lords, if they were handed over again to those who must act by and through that party. He hoped the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Lucas) was in the House. The hon. Member did him the kindness to inform him that he would bring before the House another transaction which had occurred so late as 1837. As to that statement he quite agreed with the hon. Member. What was it? In July (the 28th), 1837, on the festival of St. Peter and St. Paul, there was an ancient practice to light bonfires as a token of respect for the coming solemnity. This having given offence to the Orangemen, all the male population and the adults abandoned it; but it was taken up by the children, and at Miriash, in the county of Monaghan, ten or twelve children on that day made one of those little bonfires and were dancing about it. There were savages found—yes, two savages approached as close as they could, levelled their muskets at those children, and fired at them. Two of the children were struck dead—two children of a widowed mother, and four or five others were wounded. And what did the hon. Member reproach him with? Why because he said that this deed was perpetrated by Orangemen. The hon. Member said that it had been investigated and examined, but they had not been able to find out the murderers; and what right, therefore, had he (Mr. O'Connell) to say that the murderers were Orangemen? He should be glad to know why the children were shot? There was no doubt of the massacre of the children; it took place on the 28th of June, 1837, and from that hour to this they had not found out who the murderers were. The murder was not committed by the Catholics. They would not fire upon children for amusing themselves with a Catholic solemnity. It was not done by the Protestants for the Protestants of that neighbourhood had not become Orangemen, and certainly were not animated with such rancour towards their countrymen. It was not committed by the Presbyterians, who were even still more liberal. Was he wrong, then, in saying that it was committed by Orangemen. It was his conjecture, nothing else. He prayed them not to hand over the Irish people to a party capable of such foul and flagitious crimes. Leave them not to their tender mercies. If they took away the protection of Lord Fortescue's government, these men would come triumphantly into office on the shoulders of the vote of the House of Lords. Defeat this by a vote of approval, negative the vote of the House of Lords, and say that they were determined that the principles of the present government should be acted upon. The vote of' the House of Lords, was the proclamation of Orangeism; and had the Orangemen been idle already? It was only the other day that they met at Coleraine, thirteen lodges of them to express their grateful thanks for the conduct pursued by the House of Lords. They never heard professions of Orangeism in the House of Lords—no, but the feeling crept out in their meetings, and in their lodges they showed what they were. Would the hon. and gallant Member for Sligo (Colonel Perceval) tell the House who the present grand officers of the Orangemen were? [Colonel Perceval knew just as much of them as the hon. and learned Member.] He was glad to hear it. There was then another set of officers substituted fin- the former. The society had two relays of officers. But this was not all. During the last six or seven years the grand jury had been decent enough to allow some few Roman Catholics to serve amongst them. He bad received a letter from a gentleman, who informed him that this practice was now put an end to, and that there was not a single Catholic or liberal Protestant left upon the grand jury. He had not the least objection to name the writer of this letter: it was Cornelius Mc Loughlin. The fact was, the Orangemen were in office already. The hon. Member for Coleraine had last night made a peau de velours speech. Did ever any one hear him make a moderate speech till last night? The hon. Member was then gentle as a sucking dog, and he only rose to vigour when he praised the Orangemen. It was at Coleraine that this meeting took place, and the hon. Member for Coleraine now lauded the Orangemen; but this was not all. A meeting took place the other day on the requisition of a Duke and several other members of the peerage, 100 deputy lieutenants, and a great number of gentlemen from various parts, for a limited and specific purpose, that of agreeing to an Address to her Majesty in favour of the present Administration. Well, the Orange men agreed to disturb the meeting, and were discovered with bands round their hats, and buckles in the from of them, as a mark of their fellowship. They sent one Archer, an alderman, to conduct the proceedings; and the waving of an Orange handkerchief was to be the signal for their attempting to rush upon the stage. Would they have done this a month ago? No, no! they looked to the bashaws of the House of Lords and the Conservatives in this country; and they waited for the signal from them. The hon. Member for Coleraine had praised this alderman, who was once lord mayor of Dublin. He happened to recollect a story of this Alderman Archer, which he would tell the House. Alderman Archer summoned a carman for beating him. Both the Alderman and the carman were examined upon oath; but in the end of the investigation his brother alderman, who heard the case, acquitted the carman, and convicted the alderman of an assault, for which he inflicted a penalty of 5l.; and forthwith afterwards the worthy alderman petitioned to be allowed to pay the fine by instalments of 1l. a-week. There's a leader for you. And yet you fancy yourselves already in office, and begin incontinently to count the spoils of office. In expectation of office the Orangemen were again becoming rife in every species of tyranny and oppression, of which he would mention to the House one instance which happened lately, and the statement of which was contained in a letter, which he would beg to read to the House. The hon. and learned Member then read as follows:— I claim a little of your attention to the doings of the Earl of Glengall. Ever since we announced our adhesion to the Precursor Society, he has vowed vengeance against any of the tenantry who should become a member. But the election of guardians has at last afforded the opportunity of executing his threats. He made out a list of guardians for the Fide union—of persons who were either noted partisans, tories of the right sort, or nominal Catholics who are tenants, and of course dependents, and might be managed. In the divisional district of Cahir he placed on his list three rank Tories, to the exclusion of 8,000 Catholics, and he has been signally defeated. His nominees were refused, and three honest, patriotic Catholics returned. He asserted it was a matter of indifference who should be returned, but as soon as Lady-day came on, the mask was removed. It was not usual to call for the March Lady-day gale until harvest, but on this occasion orders were issued to have it paid on the following day. The law agent, J. Barry, had instructions to serve latitats upon every person whose rent was not paid within four days. He sent letters through the Post-office with this warning, and charged 7s. 6d. for the delivery. He went to Dungarvon and did not return till the fifth day. Several went with the rents to the land agent's house, who actually refused until they first settled costs with the law agent. One man called and tendered his rent. He was desired to go to Barry, the law agent. He did so, and while in the act of paying the money a latitat was served on him, the cost of which he was obliged to pay in addition to his rent. Is this legal? I know it is not just. True, these might be the rights of landlords; but he would ask, was there a single English gentleman who heard him who could put his hand to his heart and say that he should not be ashamed to act in this way to any tenant of his? Would the House like to have his authority for this statement also? The letter he held in his hand was written by Michael Tobin, the respectable parish priest of Cahir. The gallant Colonel opposite made a pathetic appeal to the House the other evening, and said he could not go home at night. He (Mr. O'Connell) perceived it was after midnight. He would now beg to call the attention of the House to the circular of the society called the Irish Protestant Tenantry Society, the introductory announcement of which was as follows:— Amidst all the exertions that are making to protect Protestantism in Ireland from the mine and assault of the popish priesthood, and their bigotted flocks, as well as from the artful attacks of the Tyrconnells and Phippses of the day, it appears never to have occurred to the leaders of the Conservative party, that all the while, the only lasting bond of success and security, a Protestant tenantry in Ireland, which forms the connecting link between the two countries, has been, and is, daily disappearing. Large districts of Ireland, which not very long since were peopled with those gallant and faithful men, who form the vanguard of Protestantism and the British monarchy, have been weeded of them to such an extent, that not a single Protestant is now to be found in them. Where the Established Church once stood, and the pure religion of Christ was once disseminated, now stands the popish mass-house, pouring forth the soul-destroying doctrines and immorality of Maynooth. From these districts all rational hope of the revival either of true religion or civilization, through any other means than the replacing a Protestant tenantry, is utterly banished. What more immediately presents itself as a simple and obvious duty to the protection of the Protestant creed and constitution, is the prevention of the removal of the present Protestant tenantry of Ireland, through the operation of those well-known causes which drive them from the homes of their brave ancestors, to make way for the papist, who introduces the misery, superstition, and conspiracy, of which his religious and political creeds are so prolific, and which ultimately are brought to bear against the constitution of England itself. Now, who was at the head of this society? The humane, the charitable, the religious Lord Lorton. Who were the other patrons? The Earl of Dunraven, who was once a Liberal. He (Mr. O'Connell) remembered when he was something more than an ultra-Radical, but he had since bolted into the other House. Then there were the Earl of Enniskillen, Captain Alsager, M. P. Sir R. P. Glyn, Bart., Henry Blanshard, Esq., and the Rev. Arthur J. R. Preston. The hon. and gallant Colonel who defended Lord Lorton's conduct to his tenantry the other day, said that his lordship's pretence was, that he had wished to introduce a Protestant who should teach his tenantry the linen manufacture; but in so doing he had given the newly-arrived Protestant the dwelling of a Catholic; and if the noble Lord wished to drive his tenantry to despair and crime, what better course could he take than this of casting them out of their cherished homes; and for a Protestant, too. Well, then, whatever might be the difference as to the facts connected with the ejectment of Lord Lorton's tenants; and the sums of money which were given them as compensation for being deprived of their holdings, this document showed the spirit by which that noble Lord was actuated. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lefroy) had taunted him for having tittered a calumny as to Lord Lorton. But what did he state? The report of a trial given in a newspaper amongst other circuit reports. It was true the right hon. Gentleman made out a very good case for Lord Lorton, by asserting that a lease for fourteen years to the widow was changed into one for eighty; but the question was tried by a respectable Protestant jury (he hoped there was a Catholic upon it, but he believed there was not); the witnesses were subjected to the scrutinizing eye of the counsel of Lord Lorton (who had the benefit, too, of an excellent active agent), and the jury unhesitatingly found a verdict for the widow. But what did Lord Lorton do? He got a right of possession from the son, who was not entitled to grant it, and he pulled down the House about the widow's ears, and drove her to seek shelter in a miserable sheeling by the road side. He was showing the brutality with which the Irish people were treated on the approach of the time when, if the party opposite came into power, they might be trampled on with perfect impunity. There were some hon. Gentlemen opposite who were familiar with the Scriptures. When they saw the acts of their friends in Ireland, they should call to mind the denunciations there pronounced against those who trampled on the widow and the orphan. On what account? For differences in religion! Frank, avowed, direct bigotry. Because the poor people were attached to "Popish superstition," therefore they were to be turned out of their dwelling. Oh, if you could produce such a document as the Protestant Tenantry Society Circular, from a Catholic, what a hand you would make of it. How you would triumph and rejoice at it. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, promised that he would govern Ireland impartially. He must act with his friends. Who were his friends? Would he show him a single moderate Protestant amongst them? He knew he could show him plenty of furious partisans and Orangemen, such as the hon. and learned Member for Bandon. But the hon. and learned Gentleman had that night made a moderate speech. Did they ever hear such a one from him before? [Lord Stanley: Yes.]—Well, he was sure he never heard more immoderate speeches, both in length and matter. The last time he discussed with the hon. and learned Member a question of this description, he taunted the hon. and learned Member with being at a Brunswick meeting at Cork. The hon. and learned Gentleman utterly denied it, with great personal incivility. This was the report from the Morning Post. He (Mr. O'Connell) had asked him whether he had not attended a meeting held in the city of Cork, in the year 1828, and there made a speech against Catholic Emancipation? And he would answer him, that never in the county of Cork or elsewhere—at a Brunswick or any other meeting—had he made a speech against emancipation. Had the hon. Gentleman known him, he would have known, as his (Sergeant Jackson's) friends well knew, that his opinions were favourable to Emancipation in 1828; but, with the experience he had of late years and a knowledge of the lamentable events which had occurred in certain quarters, were the question now before the legislature, he should ponder well before he gave his vote for the measure. Well, he sent for the Cork papers of the date to which he referred, and he found that on the 12th of April, 1827, Counsellor Jackson was present at a meeting of the Brunswick Club, and that he delivered the following speech there;— Counsellor Jackson said, it never before had fallen to his lot, to have to return thanks for an honour of the kind after dinner. He assured them he was deeply sensible of the compliment conferred upon him. He should always feel interested for the success of the Brunswick Club. Why, this was to be one of the judges under the new regime, and it was right before the time arrived for his appointment that they should know who he was. When the right hon. Baronet said, that he would govern Ireland with impartiality, he was bound in point of courtesy to believe him; but this he told him, that no man, woman, or child in Ireland would place the least faith in his word. The Orange party called to mind their former ascendancy on his return to power—the Catholics remembered the associations of his government, and trembled. And why should they not? Did they not see him taking up the motion of the Earl of Roden, the grand master of the Orange lodges. The noble Lord possessed property in the town of Dundalk. The Catholics, from their numbers and the antiquity of their chapel, thought they were entitled to ask Lord Roden for the new site. They offered him any purchase money or rent he chose. He wrote, then, a taunting letter, saying their worship was idolatrous, and that he could not consent to their application. And that was the man whose opinions and sentiments must be carried into operation under the government of the right hon. Baronet. If it were not so late, there were many observations which he should be anxious to make upon those topics, for the introduction of which the Gentlemen opposite had presumed to insult him. Was it supposed that the accumulating millions of Ireland would hear with anything but disgust the attempt now made to restore the ascendancy of that unholy power by which they had been so grievously oppressed. Let not the members of the different sectarian parties whom he saw waiting for that unrighteous purpose imagine that they would obtain an easy victory over the people of Ireland, who had now been taught to agitate without violence There was but one true maxim in politics—that of being right. The people of Ireland were right. They required not merely executive but legislative relief, and they would have it. "English gentlemen," exclaimed the hon. and learned Member, "rally round an Orange ministry if you please;" but mark the warning which I, as the Representative of the Irish people, give you. I tell you that you may be tyrants, but we will not be slaves.

Sir Francis Burdett

rose to address the House, and continued to speak for upwards of a quarter of an hour; but the loud and general cries of "Question" and "Divide!" which prevailed in every quarter of the House, prevented him from being heard. He was understood to state that he considered the course pursued by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) as most unjustifiable—as being calculated to place the country in a position of great difficulty and danger, and as being in accordance with the views and feelings of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, by whom, he had no doubt, it had been dictated.

Lord J. Russell

then rose to reply amidst continued cries for a division. He said—Sir, had I been able to rise at an earlier period of the evening, I should certainly have made some observations on the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Lancashire; but at this late hour, and after the many able speeches which have been made in support of the motion which I have ventured to lay before the House, I shall certainly not feel justified in occupying your time for many minutes. Sir, it appears to me, that this motion has chiefly been opposed on two grounds, each very different from the other, if not quite contrary. The one is, that the vote to which the House of Lords came is not a censure, that it imputes no blame to the Government, and that it is therefore quite unnecessary to interfere with a proceeding which merely amounts to one of those ordinary cases of inquiry on which either House, at its discretion, is accustomed to enter. The other line which has been pursued by some of those who have resisted my motion is, that there is so much to blame in the Government of Lord Normanby that the House of Lords thought it necessary to institute an inquiry—that this inquiry is in the nature of a trial, and that at present the House ought not to offer any opinion, inasmuch as the trial has not come to a conclusion. Now, Sir, if the first of these grounds is to be relied upon, viz., that this is a mere ordinary case of inquiry and not a censure, then I say that this Government, so much as it has been attaced—so much as it has been calumniated—is, after all, not to be the subject of the inquiry in the other House of Parliament. There is, therefore, nothing to prevent this House from passing an opinion; for if there be no inquiry respecting us there can be no danger of a collision. But if the other ground is to be relied upon—the totally different and contrary ground that the House of Lords have thought proper to appoint a committee to draw up articles of impeachment, and have, therefore, appointed a committee of their own to conduct the whole matter of impeachment in their own House—if this is to be the ground relied upon, then, I say, let us come to a vote here, and decide whether a similar proceeding ought or ought not to be adopted in this House. The hon. Member for Wiltshire, in his able speech, as understood, said that we ought to wait and see what the result of this trial would be. I ask, Sir, those acquainted with the proceedings of Parliament, when was there ever an instance in the constitutional history of the country, of this House sitting still without taking any proceedings whilst the House of Lords was examining the question of the final condemnation of a considerable part of the Executive Government of this country? Let us imagine this proceeding—let us suppose the House of Lords to have gone over the point, having first taken good care to have a majority in the committee—suppose them going over all these proceedings, and with as much decency as they can manage to put into it—and let us suppose that the resolutions which, for aught I know, are already drawn up by the Mover of the committee—resolutions containing neither more nor less than the speech circulated throughout the country—the speech of accusation and crimination made at the beginning—suppose, and it is no great stretch of supposition, that the resolutions should be drawn up in conformity with that speech, and then that this House should proceed to appoint another select committee to search the journals of the House of Lords, and then, for the first time, officially find, that the other House had undertaken to examine and decide upon the conduct of the Executive Government in Ireland—I ask, was the House of Commons ever placed in such a position as it would be placed in then? It is impossible for this House to judge and decide on the evidence of the House of Lords. It is meant to be said by those who hold up the authority of the House of Commons, that we have nothing to do but to wait for three or six months, or whatever time this inquiry may last, before we come to a decision upon the course of government adopted in Ireland? Are we totally unable to decide upon that Government? There was no part of the right hon. Baronet's speech which gave me greater satisfaction than where he said that if the amendment were not approved of he would come to a direct vote against the motion. That at least was right. It was right that the House of Commons should not place itself in so degrading and unparalleled a situation as to give no opinion on such a subject under such circumstances. They would now come to a decision one way or the other. Either they would approve of the Government of Ireland or they would come to a vote of censure, and in the latter case institute for themselves any proceeding which they might think proper, to criminate the late Lord-lieutenant for Ireland. The noble Lord the Member for Lancashire said, that if the House of Commons placed itself in contest with the House of Lords it would not gain by the position, and he went on to give a curious proof of this, because he referred to letters (which he confirmed by his own opinion) which stated that the evils of Ireland were deeply seated, that they had existed for a long period of years, and that they could not be traced to any immediate act of the Government of Lord Normanby. If that were the case, the noble Lord gave a complete contradiction to the vote of the House of Lords, which implied throughout, that these evils, these crimes, these atrocities were produced by the Government that had existed since 1835; and so satisfied did they seem that they were only to be traced back to that period, that beyond that point they did not think it necessary to make any inquiry whatever. There is another point in the observations of the noble Lord to which I must call the attention of the House. The noble Lord asks why I did not state in my resolution that the period it was intended to embrace was since 1835. It is true the motion of the House of Lords only affected the Government so far; but, if I had done so, there would be found a sufficient number of persons, evilly disposed towards the Government, to say that I wished to cast a stigma on the Governments of Lord Anglesey and Lord Wellesley. Now, having the greatest respect for Lord Anglesey, and an equal respect for Lord Wellesley, I certainly took the greatest pains not to have such a thing implied; and yet, notwithstanding all the care taken on that occasion, the noble Lord still maintains that such censure is actually, implied. How much more so, then, would it not have been stated that such was my intention if I had stated a fixed period such as the noble Lord taunts me with not having done? How unfairly the noble Lord attacked the Government on that point is, therefore, before the House. The noble Lord then said that even should the resolution be carried to-night, nothing could come of it—nothing would be gained by the Government. In that proposition I entirely differ from my hon. Friend. I think a great deal will be gained by it, not alone for the Government, but for the country. The effect of the motion of the House of Lords in Ireland must be, if not neutralised by a vote of the House of Commons to create an impression on the minds of the people of that country that under the name of the House of Lords a new Government, in accordance with the feelings of that branch of the Legislature, would be appointed, and it would, moreover, have an effect greatly injurious to the character of the Government. But I am persuaded that the Government will not be defeated, nor the people of Ireland deserted, so long as they have a majority in the House of Commons. It is to that vote I appeal on the part of both. The hon. Baronet, who has just sat down, favoured me with a lecture on consistency—he is himself so very consistent as to be a model for every man in the House. Now, in regard to my consistency, I did not think, when I agreed to vote for the motion of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worcester, in opposition to the House of Lords—I did not think I say, in giving that vote that I opposed myself to the constitution—Even though I concurred with my noble Friend opposite and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Pembroke in giving the strongest advice I could on the subject to the Sovereign. My opinion then was, and is now, that the executive Government of this country should not be placed in the hands of the House of Lords. And I think, moreover, that if they succeed in assuming it, far from its being a source of honour or peace to them, it will be but the commencement of a struggle which may end by putting their undoubted rights and privileges in the greatest danger.

The House divided on the question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:—Ayes 318; Noes 296; Majority 22.

List of the AYES.
Abercromby, hn G.R. Chester, H.
Acheson, Viscount Chetwynd, Major
Adam, Admiral Chichester, J. P. B.
Aglionby, H. A. Childers, J. W.
Ainsworth, P. Clay, W.
Alston, R. Clayton, Sir W. R.
Andover, Viscount Clive, E. B.
Anson, hon. Colonel Codrington, Admiral
Anson, Sir G. Collier, J.
Archbold, R. Collins, W.
Attwood, T. Colquhoun, Sir J.
Bainbridge, E. T. Conyngham, Lord A.
Baines, E. Cowper, hon. W. F.
Bannerman, A. Craig, W. G.
Baring, F. T. Crawford, W.
Barnard, E. G. Crawley, S.
Barron, H. W. Crompton, Sir S.
Barry, G. S. Currie, R.
Beamish, F. B. Curry, W.
Bellew, R. M. Dalmeny, Lord
Bentinck, Lord W. Dashwood, G. H.
Berkeley, hon. H. Davies, Col.
Berkeley, hon. G. Denison, W. J.
Berkeley, hon. C. Dennistoun, J.
Bernal, R. D'Eyncourt, rt. hon.
Bewes, T. C. T.
Blackett, C. Divett, E.
Blake, M. J. Donkin, Sir R. S.
Blake, W. J. Duff, James
Blewitt, R. J. Duke, Sir J.
Blunt, Sir C. Duncombe, T.
Bodkin, J. J. Dundas, C. D. W.
Bowes, J. Dundas, F.
Brabazon, Lord Dundas, hon. J. C.
Brabazon, Sir W. Dundas, Sir R.
Bridgeman, H. Easthope, J.
Briscoe, J. I. Edwards, J.
Brocklehurst, J. Elliot, hon. J. E.
Brodie, W. B. Ellice, Capt. A.
Brotherton, J. Ellice, rt. hon. E.
Brown, R. D. Ellice, E.
Bryan, G. Ellis, W.
Buller, C. Erle, W.
Buller, E. Etwall, R.
Bulwer, Sir L. Euston, Earl of
Byng, G. Evans, Sir De L.
Byng, rt. hon. G. S. Evans, G.
Callaghan, D. Evans, W.
Campbell, Sir J. Ewart, W.
Cave, R. O. Fazakerly, J. N.
Cavendish, hon. C. Fenton, J.
Cavendish, hon. G. H. Ferguson, Sir R.
Cayley, E. S. Ferguson, Sir R. A.
Chalmers, P. Ferguson, R.
Chapman, Sir M. L. C. Finch, F.
Fitzalan, Lord Leveson, Lord
Fitzgibbon, hon. Col. Lister, E. C.
Fitzpatrick, J. W. Loch, J.
Fitzroy, Lord C. Lushington, C.
Fitzsimon, N. Lushington, rt. hn. S.
Fleetwood, Sir P. H. Lynch, A. H.
Fort, J. Macleod, R.
French, F. Macnamara, Major
Gillon, W. D. M'Taggart J.
Goddard, A. Maher J.
Gordon, R. Marshall, W.
Goring, H. D. Marsland, H.
Grattan, J. Martin, J.
Grattan, H. Martin, T. B.
Greenaway, C. Maule, hon. F.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir C. Melgund, Visct.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. Mildmay, P. St. John
Grote, G. Moreton, hon. A. H.
Guest, Sir J. Morpeth, Viscount
Hall, Sir B. Morris, D.
Hallyburton, Lord D. Murray, A.
G. Murray, rt. hon. J. A.
Handley, H. Muskett, G. A.
Harland, W. C. Nagle, Sir R.
Harvey, D. W. Norreys, Sir D.
Hastie, A. O'Brien, C.
Hawes, B. O'Brien, W. S.
Hawkins, J. H. O'Callaghan, hon. C.
Hayter, W. G. O'Connell, D.
Heathcoat, J. O'Connell, J.
Heathcote, G. J. O'Connell, M. J.
Hector, C. J. O'Connell, M.
Heneage, E. O'Connell, M.
Heron, Sir R. O'Connor, Don.
Hill, Lord A. M. C. O'Ferrall, R. M.
Hindley, C. Ord, W.
Hobhouse, right hon. Paget, Lord A.
Sir J. Paget, F.
Hobhouse, T. B. Palmer, C. F.
Hodges, T. L. Palmerston, Visct.
Hollond, R. Parker, J.
Horsman, E. Parnell, right hon.
Hoskins, K. Sir H.
Howard, F. J. Parrott, J.
Howard, P. H. Pattison, J.
Howard, Sir R. Pease, J.
Howick, Lord Visct. Pechell, Captain
Hume, J. Pendarves, E. W. W.
Humphrey, J. Philipps, Sir R.
Hurst, R. H. Philips, M.
Hutt, W. Philips, G. R.
Hutton, R. Philpotts, J.
Ingham, R. Pigot, D. R.
James, W. Ponsonby, C. F. A. C.
Jervis, J. Ponsonby, hon. J.
Johnson, General Power, J.
Kinnaird, hon. A. F. Power, J.
Labouchere, right hn. Price, Sir R.
H. Protheroe, E.
Lambton, H. Pryme, G.
Langdale, hon. C. Pryse, P.
Langton, W. G. Ramsbottom, J.
Leader, J. T. Redington, T. N.
Lefevre, C. S. Rice, E. R.
Lemon, Sir C. Rice, right hon. T. S.
Lennox, Lord G. Rich, H.
Lennox, Lord A. Rippon, C.
Roche, E B. Tancred, H. W.
Roche, W. Thomson, rt. hn. C. P
Roche, Sir D. Thornley, T.
Rolfe, Sir R. M. Townley, R. G.
Rumbold, C. E. Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Rundle, J. Turner, E.
Russell, Lord J. Turner, W.
Russell, Lord Verney, Sir H.
Russell, Lord C. Vigors, N. A.
Salwey, Col. Villiers, hon. C. P.
Sanford, E. A. Vivian, Major C.
Scholefield, J. Vivian, J. H.
Scrope, G. P. Vivian, right hon. Sir
Seale, Sir J. H. R. H.
Seymour, Lord Walker, C. A.
Sheil, R. L. Walker, R.
Shelborne, Earl of Wallace, R.
Slaney, R. A. Warburton, H.
Smith, J. A. Ward, H. G.
Smith, B. Wemyss, J. E.
Smith, G. R. Westenra, hon. H. R.
Smith, R. V. Westenra, hon. J. C.
Somers, J. P. White, A.
Somerville, Sir W. M. White, H.
Speirs, A. White, L.
Spencer, hon. F. Wilbraham, G.
Standish, C. Wilde, Sergeant
Stanley, M. Wilkins, W.
Stansfield, W. R. C. Williams, W.
Staunton, Sir G. T. Williams, W. A.
Stewart, J. Wilshere, W.
Stuart, Lord J. Winnington, H. J.
Stuart, V. Wood, C.
Stock, Dr. Wood, Sir M.
Strangways, hon. J. Wood, G. W.
Strickland, Sir G. Worsley, Lord
Strutt, E. Wrightson, W. B.
Style, Sir C. Yates, J. A.
Surrey, Earl of
Talbot, C. R. M. TELLERS.
Talbot, J. H. Stanley, E. J.
Talfourd, Sergeant Steuart, R.
List of the Noes
Acland, Sir T. D. Bentinck, Lord G.
Acland, T. D. Bethell, R.
A'Court, Captain Blackburne, I.
Adare, Viscount Blackstone, W. S.
Alford, Viscount Blair, J.
Alsager, Captain Blakemore, R.
Arbuthnott, hon. H. Blandford, Marquess
Archdall, M. Blennerhassett, A.
Ashley, Lord Boldero, H. G.
Ashley, hon. H. Bolling, W.
Attwood, W. Bradshaw, J.
Bagge, W. Bramston, T. W.
Bagot, hon. W. Broadley, H.
Bailey, J. Broadwood, H.
Bailey, J., jun. Brownrigg, S.
Baillie, Colonel Bruce, Lord E.
Baker, E. Bruges, W. H. L.
Baring, hon. F. Buck, L. W.
Baring, hon. W. B. Buller, Sir J. Y.
Barneby, J. Burdett, Sir F.
Barrington Viscount Burr, H.
Bateson, Sir R. Burrell, Sir C.
Bell, M. Burroughes, H. N.
Calcraft, J. H. Gordon, hon. Capt.
Canning, rt. hit. Sir S. Gore, O. J. R.
Cartwright, W. R. Gore, O. W.
Castlereagh, Visct. Goulburn, rt. hon. H
Chapman, A. Graham, right hon.
Christopher, R. A. Sir J.
Chute, W. L. W. Granby, Marquess
Clerk, Sir G. Grant, hon. Col.
Clive, Visct. Grant, F. W.
Clive, hon. R. H. Greene, T.
Codrington, C. W. Grimsditch, T.
Cole, hon. A. H. Grimston, Visct.
Cole, Visct. Grimston, hon. E. H.
Colquhoun, J. C. Hale, R. B.
Compton, H. C. Halford, H.
Conolly, E. Harcourt, G. S.
Cooper, E. J. Hardinge, right hon.
Coote, Sir C. H. Sir H.
Copeland, Alderman Hawkes, T.
Corry, hon. H. Hayes, Sir E.
Courtenay, P. Heathcote, Sir W.
Cresswell, C. Heneage, G. W.
Crewe, Sir G. Henniker, Lord
Cripps, J. Hepburn, Sir T. B.
Dalrymple, Sir A. Herbert, hon. S.
Darby, G Herries, rt. hon. J. C.
Darlington, Earl Hill, Sir R.
Davenport, J. Hillsborough, Earl
De Horsey, S. H. Hinde, J. H.
Dick, Q. Hodgson, F
D'Israeli, B. Hodgson, R.
Dottin, A. R. Hogg, J. W.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Holmes, hon. W. A.
Dowdeswell. W. Holmes, W.
Duffield, T. Hope, hon. C.
Dugdale, W. S. Hope, H. T.
Dunbar, G. Hope, G. W.
Duncombe, hon. W. Hotham, Lord
Duncombe, hon. A. Houldsworth, T.
Du Pre, G. Houstoun, G.
East, J. B. Hurt, F.
Eastnor, Lord Ingestrie, Visct.
Eaton, R. J. Inglis, Sir R. H.
Egerton, W. T. Irton, S.
Egerton, Sir P. Irving, J.
Egerton, Lord F. Jackson, Sergeant
Elliot, Lord James, Sir W. C.
Ellis, J. Jenkins, Sir R.
Estcourt, T. Jermyn, Earl
Estcourt, T. Jones, J.
Farnham, E. B. Jones, W.
Farrand, R. Jones, Captain
Feilden, W. Kelly, F.
Fielden, J. Kemble, H.
Fector, J. M. Kerrison, Sir E.
Fellowes, E. Ker, D.
Filmer, Sir E. Kirk, P.
Fitzroy, hon. H. Knatchbull, right hon.
Fleming, J. Sir E.
Foley, E. T. Knight, H. G.
Forester, hon. G. Knightley, Sir C.
Fox, G. L. Knox, hon. T.
Freshfield, J. W. Lascelles, hon. W. S.
Gaskell, J. Milnes Law, hon. C. E.
Gladstone, W. E. Lefroy, rt. hon. T.
Glynne, Sir S. It. Lincoln, Earl of
Godson, R. Litton, E.
Lockhart, A. M. Pusey, P.
Long, W. Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.
Lowther, hon. Col. Reid, Sir J. R.
Lowther, Lord Richards, R.
Lowther, J. H. Rickford, W.
Lucas, E. Rolleston, L.
Lygon, hon. Gen. Round, C. G.
Mackenzie, T. Round, J.
Mackenzie, W. F. Rushbrooke, Col.
Mackinnon, W. A. St. Paul, H.
Maclean, D. Sanderson, R.
Mahon, Visct. Sandon Viscount
Maidstone, Visct. Scarlett, hon. J. Y.
Manners, Lord C. Sheppard, T.
Marsland, T. Shirley, E. J.
Marton, G. Sibthorp, Col-
Master, T. W. C. Sinclair, Sir G.
Mathew, G. B. Smith, A.
Maunsell, T. P. Smyth, Sir G. H.
Maxwell, hon. S. R. Somerset Lord G.
Meynell, Captain Spry, Sir S. T.
Miles, W. Stanley, Lord
Miles, P. W. S. Stewart, J.
Miller, W. H. Stormont, Visct.
Milnes, R. M. Sturt, H. C.
Monypenny, T. G. Teignmouth, Lord
Mordaunt, Sir J. Tennent, J. E.
Morgan, C. M. R. Thomas, Col. H.
Neeld, J. Thompson, Alderman
Neeld, J. Thornhill, G.
Nicholl, J. Tollemache, F. J.
Noel, W. M. Trench, Sir F.
Norreys, Lord Trevor, hon. G. R.
O'Neill, hon. J.B.R. Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Ossulston, Lord Vere, Sir C. B.
Owen, Sir J. Verner, Col.
Packe, C. W. Vernon, G. H.
Pakington, J. S. Villiers, Lord
Palmer, R. Vivian, J. E.
Palmer, G. Waddington, H. S.
Parker, M. Wall, C. B.
Parker, R. T. Walsh, Sir J.
Parker, T. A. W. Welby, G. E.
Patten, J. W. Whitmore, T. C.
Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. Wilbraham, hon. B.
Peel, J. Williams, R.
Pemberton, T. Williams, T. P.
Perceval, Colonel Wilmot, Sir J. E.
Perceval, hon. G. J. Wodehouse, E.
Pigot, R. Wood, Col. T.
Planta, rt. hon. J. Wood, T.
Plumptre, J. P. Wyndham, W.
Polhill, F. Wynn, rt. hn. C. W.
Pollen, Sir J. W. Wynn, Sir W.W.
Pollock, Sir F. Yorke, hon. E. T.
Powell, Col. Young, J.
Powerscourt, Visct. Young, Sir W.
Praed, W. M.
Praed, W. T. TELLERS.
Price, R. Baring, H.
Pringle, A. Fremantle, Sir T.
Lord John Russell

put it to the House whether it would not be convenient to let the original motion pass without a division, as the hon. Member for Finsbury had expressed his determination to divide the House on his rider to the original motion; otherwise the House would have to divide three times in all.

Mr. T. Duncombe

said, that he had at the commencement of the debate that evening declared his determination to move the rider on the original motion, if the amendment of the right hon. Baronet were not carried. He wished, therefore, to have his motion put.

Sir Robert Peel

would be satisfied to have the original motion put and determined Without a division, it being understood, that those who had voted with him in favour of the amendment should be considered to negative the resolution.

Sir S. Lushington

trusted, the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) would not press the House to a division, under existing circumstances. There were many hon. Members, among whom were some of the warmest friends to further reform, who, if the question were put without discussion, could not conscientiously vote for it. The terms of the question were too vague without elucidation by the hon. Member and an understanding of what points of reform were involved. It was very unfair, therefore, that the House should be forced to a division without discussion. He hoped the hon. Member would pause in the course he had expressed it his determination to pursue. If not, the motion would be negatived by many who had not the slightest intention to injure the cause of reform by their votes, and he, for one, should be compelled to vote against it and abide by the consequences.

The House divided on the question, to add the words, "And that it is also expedient to effect such further reforms in the Representation of the People in Parliament as shall conduce to their contentment, and to the security and welfare of the Kingdom at large":—Ayes 81; Noes 299; Majority 218.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A. Collier, J.
Attwood, T. Collins, W.
Bainbridge, E. T. Crawley, S.
Berkeley, hon. H. Currie, R.
Bewes, Thomas Dashwood, G. H.
Blake, M. J. Dennistoun, J.
Blewitt, R. J. Duke, Sir J.
Bodkin, J. J. Dundas, C. W. D.
Brabazon, Sir W. Dundas, hon. J. C.
Brown, R. D. Dundas, Sir R.
Bryan, G. Easthope, J.
Chapman, Sir M. L. C. Ellis, W.
Chichester, J. P. B. Etwall, R.
Cotrington, Admiral Evans, Sir De L.
Evans, G. Phillpotts, J.
Ewart, W. Power, J.
Fielden, J. Protheroe, E.
Fenton, J. Ramsbottom, J.
Finch, F. Rippon, C.
Gillon, W. D. Roche, E. B.
Grote, G. Roche, Sir D.
Hall, Sir B. Rundle, J.
Harvey, D. W. Salwey, Colonel
Hector, C. J. Scholefield, J.
Hill, Lord A. M. C. Seale, Sir J. H.
Hodges, T. L. Speirs, A.
Hollond, R. Strickland, Sir G.
Hume, J. Tancred, H. W.
Hutt, W. Thornely, T.
Jervis, J. Turner, E.
Jervis, S. Vigors, N. A.
Johnson, General Villiers, hon. C. P.
Langdale, hon. C. Wakley, T.
Langton, W. G. Wallace, R.
Lister, E. C. Warburton, H.
Marsland, H. Ward, H. G.
Martin, J. Wemyss, J. E.
Muskett, G. A. White, A.
O'Callaghan, hon. C. Williams, W.
O'Connell, J. TELLERS.
Parrott, J. Duncombe, T.
Pattison, J. Leader, J. T.
List of the NOES.
Abercromby, hn. G. R. Briscoe, J. I.
Acheson, Viscount Broadley, H.
Acland. Sir T. D. Brodie, W. B.
Acland, T. D. Brownrigg, S.
A'Court, Captain Buck, L. W.
Adam Admiral Buller, C.
Adare, Visct. Buller, E.
Alsager, Captain Byng, G.
Alston, R. Byng, rt. hon. G. S.
Andover, Visct. Callaghan, D.
Anson, hon. Col. Campbell, Sir J.
Anson, Sir G. Canning, right hon.
Archbold, R. Sir S.
Attwood, W. Cavendish, hon. C.
Baillie, Colonel Cavendish, hon. G. H.
Baines, E. Cayley, E. S.
Baker, E. Chalmers, P.
Bannerman, A. Chetwynd, Major
Baring, F. T. Childers, J. W.
Baring, H. B. Christopher, R. A.
Barrington, Visct. Clay, W.
Barry, G. S. Clayton, Sir W. R.
Beamish, F. B. Clerk, Sir G.
Bentinck, Lord G. Clive, E. B.
Berkeley, hon. G. Cole, Viscount
Berkeley, hon. C. Colquhoun, Sir J.
Blackburne, I. Colquhoun, J. C.
Blake, W. J. Courtenay, P.
Blakemore, R. Cowper, hon. W. F.
Blandford, Marquess Craig, W. G.
Blennerhasset, A. Crawford, W.
Blunt, Sir C. Cripps, J.
Boldero, H. G. Crompton, Sir S.
Bowes, J. Dalmeny, Lord
Brabazon, Lord Darby, G.
Bridgeman, H. De Horsey, S. H.
Divett, E. Holmes, hon. W. A'C.
Donkin, Sir R. S. Holmes, W.
Dowdeswell, W. Hope, hon. C.
Duff, J. Hope, G. W.
Dunbar, G. Horsman, E.
Dundas, F. Hoskins, K.
Eastnor, Visct. Houstoun, G.
Eaton, R. J. Howard, P. H.
Egerton, W. P. Howard, Sir R.
Egerton, Sir P. Howick, Visct.
Elliot, hon. J. E. Hurst, R. H.
Ellice, Captain A. Hutton, R.
Ellice, rt. hon. E. Ingham, R.
Erle, W. Inglis, Sir R. H.
Estcourt, T. Jackson, Sergeant
Evans, W. Jermyn, Earl
Farnham, E. B. Jones, J.
Fazakerley, J. N. Jones, W.
Feilden, W. Kemble, H.
Fellowes, E. Kinnaird, hon. A. F.
Ferguson, Sir R. Kirk, P.
Ferguson, Sir R. A. Knight, H. G.
Ferguson, R. Knightley, Sir C.
Filmer, Sir E. Labouchere, right hon.
Fitzalan, Lord H.
Fitzroy, Lord C. Lefevre, C. S.
Fitzsimon, N. Lennox, Lord G.
Fleetwood, Sir P. H. Lennox, Lord A.
Fox, G. L. Leveson, Lord
Fremantle, Sir T. Litton, E.
French, F. Loch, J.
Freshfield, J. W. Lockhart, A. M.
Gladstone, W. E. Long, W.
Gordon, R. Lushington, C.
Goring, H. B. Lushington, R. hn. S.
Graham, right hon. Lygon, hon. Gen.
Sir J. Lynch, A. H.
Grattan, H. Mackenzie, T.
Greene, T. Mackenzie, W. F.
Greenaway, C. Macleod, R.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir C. Macnamara, Major
Grey, rt. hn. Sir G. M'Taggart, J.
Grimsditch, T. Maher, J.
Grimston, Viscount Mahon, Viscount
Hale, R. B. Manners, Lord C. S.
Handley, H. Marshall, W.
Harcourt, G. S. Martin, T. B.
Hardinge, right hon. Master, T. W. C.
Sir H. Maule, hon. F.
Harland, W. C. Melgund, Visct.
Hastie, A. Mildmay, P. St. John
Hawes, B. Miles, W.
Hawkes, T. Miles, P. W. S.
Hawkins, J. H. Mordaunt, Sir J.
Hayter, W. G. Moreton, hon. A. H.
Heathcoat, J. Morpeth, Viscount
Heneage, E. Murray, A.
Heneage, G. W. Murray, rt. hn. J. A.
Hepburn, sir T. B. Neeld, J.
Herbert, hon. S. Norreys, Sir D. J.
Heron, Sir R. O'Connell, M. J.
Hinde, J. H. O'Ferrall, R. M.
Handley, C. Ossulston, Lord
Hobhouse, right hon. Owen, Sir J.
Sir J. Packe, C. W.
Hobhouse, T. B. Paget, Lord A.
Hodgson, R. Pakington, J. S.
Palmer, C. F. Stansfield, W. R. C.
Palmerston, Viscount Stewart, J.
Parker, J. Stewart, J.
Parker, M. Stuart, Lord J.
Parker, R. T. Stuart, V.
Parnell, rt. hon. Sir H. Stock, Dr.
Pease, J. Strangways, hon. J.
Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. Strutt, E.
Pendarves, E. W. W. Style, Sir C.
Philipps, Sir R. Surrey, Earl of
Philips, M. Talbot, C. R. M.
Philips, G. R. Talbot, J. H.
Pigot, D. R. Talfourd, Sergeant
Planta, rt. hon. J. Teignmouth, Lord
Plumptre, J. P. Thomas, Col. H.
Ponsonby, C. F.A. C. Thomson, right hon.
Ponsonby, hon. J. C. P.
Power, J. Thornhill, G.
Praed, W. T. Townley, R. G.
Price, Sir R. Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Price, R. Vivian, Major C.
Pryme, G. Vivian, J. H.
Pusey, P. Vivian, right hon. Sir
Rae, rt. hon. sir W. R. H.
Redington, T. N. Waddington, H. S.
Reid Sir J. R. Walker, C. A.
Rice, E. R. Walsh, Sir J.
Rice, rt. hon. T. S. Westenra, hon. H. R.
Rich, H. Westenra, hon. J. C.
Richards, R. Whitmore, T. C.
Roche, W. Wilbraham, G.
Rolfe, Sir R. M. Wilbraham, hon. B.
Round, C. G. Wilde, Sergeant
Round, J. Wilkins, W.
Russell, Lord J. Williams, R.
Russell, Lord C. Williams, W. A.
Sandon, Viscount Wilshere, W.
Sanford, E. A. Winnington, H. J.
Scarlett, hon. J. Y. Wodehouse, E.
Scrope, G. P. Wood, C.
Seymour, Lord Wood, G. W.
Shelburne, Earl Wood, T.
Sheppard, T. Worsley, Lord
Shirley, E. J. Wrightson, W. B.
Slaney, R. A. Wyndham, W.
Smith, J. A. Wynn, rt. hon. C.
Smith, B. Wynn, Sir W. W.
Smith, G. R. Young, J.
Smith, R. V.
Spencer, hon. F. TELLERS.
Standish, C. Stanley, E. J.
Stanley, Lord Steuart, R.
Paired Off.
Douro, Lord Duncan, Lord
Dungannon, Lord Wyse, T.
Campbell, Sir H. Campbell, W. F.
Hughes, B. Winnington, T. E.
Johnstone, H. Sharpe, General
Liddell, hon. N. T. Stanley, W. O.
Rose, rt. hn. Sir G. Milton, Lord
Rushout, G. Busfield, W.
Stanley, E. Aglionby, Major
Sugden, right hon. Pinney, W.
Sir E.
Benett, J. Attwood, M. (ill)
Butler, hon. P. Damer, Hon. G. D.
Clements, Lord (abroad)
(abroad) Follett, Sir W. (ill)
Grosvenor, Lord R. Gibson, T.
(abroad) Harcourt, G. (Oxford-
Heathcote, Sir G. Shired (abroad)
Jervis, S. Howard, hon. W.
Molesworth, Sir W. Shaw, right. Hon. F.
Wakley, T.
White, S. (abroad)


Ayrshire, Carlow, and Tyrone.

Analysis of the House of Commons on the Division on Lord John Russell's Motion, April 19.

Voted for Lord John Russell's resolution (tellers included) 320
Voted for Sir Robert Peel's amendment (tellers included) 298
Pairs (10) 20
Absent—Ministerialists 9
Conservatives 7
Vacant—Ayrshire, Carlow, Tyrone 3
Speaker 1
Total 658