HC Deb 31 January 1840 vol 51 cc936-1073

The order of the day for resuming the adjourned debate having been read—

Viscount Morpeth

* said, after the speech which the noble Lord (Stanley) delivered last night, though I am most fully aware of the immense disadvantage to which I must expose myself in attempting to follow the noble Lord, and conscious of the immense superiority of his powers of debate, I did rise for the purpose of shewing you, that notwithstanding I might have shrunk from all competition with him in those respects, yet that I did not shrink from the subject, or from the merits of the case with which we have to deal. However, Sir, the House very naturally shewed that it was not disposed, at that hour, to listen to such a successor to the noble Lord, and it has, consequently, afforded me the opportunity of considering the question, and questioning myself as to the weight which ought to be given to his representations. The noble Lord has stated very fairly, and boldly, as I must say, he was sure to do, the question with which * From a corrected report. the House has to deal. He has stated, that it is not confined to the question which my right hon. Friend, the Judge Advocate, rejoiced to have raised, whether the present Government has the confidence of the House, but that it would also indicate that the Gentlemen who filled the benches opposite are prepared to take the Government. Now, Sir, I also rejoice that this option is fairly to be put to the Parliament and the people, and that it is to be proved whether they do really pant and languish, as the noble Lord expresses and flatters himself, for their advent to power, and for the blessings which may be expected under their sway. I also rejoice, with the noble Lord, that, by the results of this vote, all parties in this House will stand plain and unmasked, and that they will have to intimate, by the vote which they will be bound to give, to which of the two parties in the State they think it advisable that the powers of the State ought to be entrusted. Now, the noble Lord, in the course of the very effective speech which he made last night, I think, laid the main stress of his argument in common with his right hon. Friend, the Member for Pembroke, who preceded him the evening before, embracing, as they did, many collateral points, and various side-blows; but the main staple of their line of attack on the Government was this, that many Members of this House support the Government who go much further in politics than the Government itself. Now, Sir, it is not my intention, or my wish, any more than it is in my power, to deny the position. It has been so from the beginning—ever since the formation of the present Government; and if I do not greatly forget the composition of the majorities during the Government of Lord Grey, it was eminently the case with that Government when the noble Lord and the right hon. Baronet cordially acquiesced in the support of many Gentlemen in this House, and of large bodies in this country, who, undoubtedly, went much further in politics. It is, no doubt, true, that the hon. Member for St. Albans, and the hon. Members for Finsbury and Dublin, or the hon. Member for Kilkenny, do wish to carry particular views much further than the present Government. And the result, according to the noble Lord, seems to be, that we ought to turn round and say to to them, Gentlemen, on no account commit the immorality of voting that we possess your confidence, but, as you have votes, and must give votes, and those votes may turn the scale in the division, give them to the Gentlemen opposite, and make them the Ministers of the country. Both the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and the noble Lord seem to claim, with considerable satisfaction, parts of the speech of my noble Friend, the the Member for Northumberland. They admitted, indeed, that they could not claim all. They claimed some of his premises, but gave up to us the benefit of his conclusions. Thus, as the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. D'Israeli) said, if we are a weak Government, we have the perquisite of weak Governments—we have the oyster, and they the shell. I regret the defections from the Ministry, to which my noble Friend adverted, especially his own Colleague, my hon. Friend, the Member for Halifax (Mr. Wood). I think their abilities, industry, and virtue well make a loss, a sensible injury to the public service. But my noble Friend did not anticipate, that there would be necessarily any point of difference between us. When the present Ministers abandon opinions, then on them will be the responsibility—it will be for them to account for the abandonment; and if it should appear, that it has taken place on improper grounds, from impure motives, then on them will be the shame of that abandonment. But till those things take place, my Friend, and every other hon. Gentleman, for whose verdict they cared, will reserve their condemnation. True the present Government have some open questions, and this is one of the fearful engines of attack directed against us from the opposite side, an accusation we quietly admit, and which we do not dream of. If to make the Ballot an open question—if not to be prepared to admit any modifications of the Corn-laws—I admit, if those two circumstances disentitle us to the confidence of the House, then this vote should go against us. And I may here remark, in passing, that I think there lurked in the two speeches we have heard from the right hon. Baronet and noble Lord, some intention on their own part of proposing certain alterations in the Corn-laws as they at present existed. I admit, that they said, that they should always maintain protection for the agriculturists, and they should also support a graduated duty. Now, undoubtedly, a graduated duty is a material ingredient in the principle of the present Corn-laws; but I very much question whether a great many of those who sit behind the noble Lord would not think the amount and proportion of the scale a very material element in the consideration of the question. But I own, Sir, I think it is somewhat preposterous to hear so great a theme made of open questions from the benches opposite, from those persons; and this does not apply so much to the noble Lord and right hon. Gentleman, as to the main body of their present adherents, who, for upwards of a score of years, made not the question of a preference between open and secret voting—not the question of the "bread that perisheth," but a question, as they themselves have been at all times telling us, which, in their opinion, went to the welfare, and even the existence of the Protestant religion, an open question. Perhaps, Sir, this is akin to the policy which has endeavoured, with the exception of a short parenthesis in the speech of the noble Lord, to keep the whole subject of religion most unwontedly, and almost for the first time, quite out of view in this discussion. I shall take the liberty of adverting to that point before I conclude, and also to the justice of the pretensions which the noble Lord has put forth as to the Gentlemen who sit around and behind him, that they constitute one great individual party. Now, the noble Lord says, besides assuring us that he and the Gentlemen who sit around him are ready to undertake the Government—he tells us that if they lose the vote of to-night (and here I think that he fully expressed a coincidence of opinion with the hon. Member for Droitwitch, who regrets that the question was not brought forward last year, because he thinks they might have carried the vote then, while he has very prudent misgiving as to the issue of the present measure, and I may be allowed to express a hope, that every succeeding year we shall become stronger and stronger, and that we shall grow in favour as in years)—he tells us, that besides being ready to undertake the Government, if they should be foiled in the present assault, the course they would pursue would be to watch, direct, control, and obstruct the Government. [Lord Stanley made an observation across the table.] These were the words, for I took them down at the time. The great climax ended, after saying, that he should watch, direct, and control, with the word "obstruct." I must say, I do not doubt either their talents or their goodwill in that department; they have already frequently tried their hands at it with considerable success, and have repeatedly found most valuable auxiliaries elsewhere in the good work. The noble Lord has further said that the Government lays claim to the confidence of the public, not for what it has done, but for what it has undertaken to do. I do not mean to deny, that the Government has proposed and introduced many measures which they have not been able to carry. Whether the principle of obstruction which, in those cases, was brought into play, was always dictated by public spirit, could always be justly referred to patriotic motives, or always ended in the public good, it is not for me to decide; no doubt it has been highly detrimental to the best interests of the public service, but this result is not, perhaps, so much to be attributed either to the demerits of the Government, or to those of the opposite side in politics, as to the balanced state of parties, and I greatly question if the substitution of the hon. Gentlemen opposite in the place of ourselves would effect much of a cure in this particular. But yet this Government, with a scanty majority in its favour in this House, and an enormous majority against it in the other House of Parliament, has introduced and passed measures of the greatest magnitude and importance. I may mention the measure for the reform of the English Corporations as one of these. I may refer to the measure of the Commutation of English Tithes, aided and assisted, I do not deny, by men of all parties; but I put it to the House, whether on a subject of such vital importance there was ever exhibited—[Immense cheering from the Opposition which drowned the conclusion of the sentence.]—At all events it is the first Government who ever encountered the difficulties of this question—who ever carried through Parliament, or suggested to the attention of Parliament—which I contend was the only permanent mode of settling the question—a compulsory settlement in contradistinction to a voluntary one; and they have further carried a measure which, in my opinion, in its deep and pregnant consequences, outweighs centuries of ordinary legislation, whether those consequences be for good or whether they be for evil; and from all the information I can obtain I verily believe they will be for good—I mean the establishment of a system of Poor-laws in Ireland. And this I mention in reply to the taunts of the noble Lords opposite, that the Government has been unable to carry any measure of importance; and in reply I mention measures, not of transitory or trivial importance, but measures the effect of which will be felt for ages yet to come. Nor will I omit the consideration of the Irish Tithe Bill, but most distinctly avow my participation, and shrink not from responsibility in any thing contained in the Appropriation Clause. I think it a misrepresentation to say that the Government of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel) was displaced merely on account of the Appropriation Clause. The opposition with which the Government of the right hon. Gentleman was met, and the difficulty by which its whole course was impeded, extended for the whole duration of that Government. And the reason we thought the right hon. Gentleman ought not, with all his high qualifications, to be Prime Minister of this country, was that, with the principles he professed, he did not command a majority, either in the House of Commons which he dissolved, or that which he assembled; and I think, that if the same state of things should arise at present, and an abiding majority of this House should declare on the side of the right hon. Baronet, he would be justly and immediately entitled to succeed to our places. But with respect to the Appropriation Clause, I think, that if there was a principle just, wise, and politic, it was contained in that clause which we introduced into the Tithe Bill; and we, moreover, declared, that no bill for the settlement of the Tithe question would be satisfactory without it. For four successive years, we did our best to carry the House with us in that view, but we failed to do so. I admit the failure, the abandonment of the appropriation clause, and the inconsistency with our previous declaration. What was the motive which led us to adopt this course? It was to avoid the risk of further bloodshed in Ireland, and to secure peace to that country. I find I stated at the same time of the motion of the hon. Member for St. Albans:— That after the unsuccessful attempts of four successive years, it became our duty to do our best to terminate the agitation, collision, and estrangement of the clergy, Catholic and Protestant, without risking further bloodshed, by the settlement of the Tithe Question in Ireland. And I added:— As far as the interests of Ministers is concerned, it would, probably, be better for them to leave it in the same as during the last three Sessions of Parliament, but the point to consider was, whether it was for the good of the people of Ireland so to leave it. At that time, there was no remonstrance or rebuke directed against us for the course we then adopted, from the other side of the House; on the contrary, what were the words at that time of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth:— I am not about to censure the course which the noble Lord has so manfully taken; a course, I think, the best adapted, looking at the difficulties with which this great question is surrounded in Ireland, to secure the peace of that country. Contrast the tone of these declarations with those of the speech of the noble Lord and the right hon. Baronet last night. Did they not represent the conduct which the right hon. Baronet had described as manful, as the very climax of dishonour. We find in the conduct of those who constantly opposed us, a difference—a very wide difference—from that of he noble Lord and the right hon. Baronet, but then, to be sure, they always sat opposite us, and have never crossed over from our ranks. The right hon. Baronet says, that the adoption of the measure secured the peace and contentment of Ireland. Well, then, such being the case, I shall never repent the part I have taken, and I will leave the other side to enjoy the triumph, if such they consider it, of having compelled the Government to deny the assertion of their principle. The noble Lord, after touching on these high points of policy, condescended to speak on the subject of Irish railways. I certainly admit, that I did bring forward a proposal on the subject last year, which I expected would be adopted by Parliament. I thought its benefits so manifest, and the objections so slight, that it would secure a general acquiescence; but in that I was disappointed, and it was very much at the concurrence and at the suggestion of those who sit on the same benches with the noble Lord that I consented to withdraw that measure till the present Session. But then the noble Lord makes it a matter of charge, when I was asked, the other night, whether I intended to renew the subject in this Session, that I stated, that this must depend on the prospect of support I should receive from the House. What would the noble Lord have me say? Would he have me to say, that I would introduce no such measure, when I firmly believed it was calculated to do great good? Would he have me say that I would introduce it at all hazards, when his main charge is, that we bring forward measures which we cannot hope to carry? Sir, I should have thought, the noble Lord would have been more inclined to show indulgence to abortive propositions. I think I can remember a loan of 15,000,000l. speedily converted into a gift of 20,000,000l., though I can sincerely say I hope the noble Lord may to the end of his days, wear unsullied the glory of that great measure. There was also an important clause, known and well remembered as the 147th clause of the Church Temporalities' Act. Having launched that clause into existence, he then consented to its withdrawal. I think I can likewise remember, Sir, a celebrated Arms Bill which was introduced by the noble Lord; and on the 8th of the same month he stated that he had received several communications from Irish Members, and that, in submission to their opinion, he had been induced to abandon the clause providing that persons possessing unregistered arms should be liable to transportation, "though," at the same time, the noble Lord said, "he did not think these were times when precautionary measures as to the importation and possession of arms should be relaxed." He, like his successors, can abandon measures which he yet thinks of vital importance to the country's welfare. But what was the view which the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, took of this withdrawal? Concordes animœ nunc et dum nocte prœmuntur, while they sit on the opposition benches. The right hon. Baronet said, he considered the course which the noble Lord had taken most improper—in first bringing forward a measure without due consultation, and then in abandoning it without discussion. Now, Sir, as to the noble Lord's animadversion on the adoption of the Penny Post, I am willing, if he pleases, without further discussion, to go to the country, or to the House, on the merits of that measure. Supposing, even, it should be necessary to impose some other tax, I am quite willing to take the responsibility of having concurred in a measure reducing postage to one penny for all her Majesty's subjects. The noble Lord said, that with regard to the Chartist insurrection, the Government had vaunted itself on the absence of prosecutions. If the noble Lord had attended to the speech of my hon. Friend, the Under Secretary for the Home Department (Mr. Maule), a speech containing as much, if not more, of pertinent matter, than any other speech on either side the House—the noble Lord would have found, that if there was anything on which the Government "vaunted" itself, it was on the number and success of the prosecutions, for my hon. Friend informed the House that out of 290 prosecutions which had been instituted, 232 convictions had been obtained. I am not dissembling from myself, and her Majesty's Ministers do not dissemble from themselves, the grievous and lamentable character attaching to the Chartist outbreaks and Chartist insurrections. Her Majesty, in the gracious speech which she addressed to this House, at the commencement of the Session, expressed how deeply she deplored the excesses which had stained and disgraced several portions of the country, and the treasonous practice which had incurred the recent condemnation of the law. It is plain there will arise excesses which no Government can at all times anticipate, and that they cannot be made at all times responsible for the traitorous spirit which give rise to the overt act. It is to the mode in which they encounter those lamentable crimes when they do occur, that their responsibility mainly attaches, and I will not here go over the ground which I think was so successfully trod by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Home Department, in contrasting the conduct of the present Government with the Government who held the reins of power in 1817, 1818, and 1819, but I cannot on this subject refrain from reading an extract from a letter, which I have received from a most intelligent gentleman who is intimately conversant with the spirit which exists in the manufacturing and disaffected part of the country. As I do not give the Gentleman's name I cannot ask the House to attach any authority to the letter except what may be attached to the opinions he expressed. He says— That during the New Poor-law, Ten Hour's Bill, and the Chartist agitation, Government have acted with that combined moderation and firmness which evidently becomes a conscientious Government. Their forbearance has been wise. We have seen demagogue after demagogue expire, and combination after combination break up amid the quarrels of its members and public scorn—we had the late National Convention as a proof of this. Had the Government been more disposed to punish, the Chartists would have been more malignant; but as it is, the Chartists orators have not dared to charge the Government with tyrannical conduct. Thus when Government has interfered it has carried public feeling entirely with it, which it would not have done, had it previously put down popular meetings, and enacted laws restrictive of liberty. The noble Lord has ventured to come upon that ground upon which I should be most anxious not to stand in disadvantageous contrast with him, and has asked whether the present Ministers have the confidence in Ireland. It is the noble Lord that asks whether the Government have the confidence of Ireland, and he asks of what parties in Ireland have they the confidence. Perhaps I may say the different parties in Ireland are divided into three sections. The Ultra-Protestant—the moderate Liberal party, and there is the great bulk of the High Catholic party. The present Government does not possess the confidence of the Ultra-Protestant party. It shares that misfortune with the administration of the noble Lord. Mr. Dawson on the 24th of January, 1832, when the noble Lord opposite had been two years Secretary for Ireland, began his observations thus:— Ireland is in truth without a government. That was, when I suppose Ireland was panting and languishing for what might be called a Government, a normal government. The Government of the noble Lord— Is a laughing-stock to the Catholics, and an object of aversion and disgust to all the Protestants. I do not think that there is a person of the least judgment in the country who would bestow on the Government his approbation of the conduct they have pursued during the last few months. I think the conduct pursued towards the magistrates of Ireland had been disgraceful to the Government, and has completely shaken the confidence of the respectable classes in the prudence of those at the head of affairs to preserve tranquillity. Was he single in his opinion? I find another speech from Sir Robert Bateson, the present Member for the City of Londonderry, and I find that he said— Both parties in Ireland, Roman Catholics as well as Protestants, are dissatisfied with the conduct of the present Government. The only persons who are not displeased with it are the dependents on the Castle of Dublin, who, I need hardly observe, constitute a very small portion of the people of Ireland. The conduct of the Irish Government has alarmed and disgusted the thinking portion of the people of Ireland. It is not now a question of Protestant ascendancy, but of Papist ascendancy. There appears to be a determination to rule the country according to the beck and nod of a particular party. It is a faction, and a set of political and religious demagogues who rule the Government of the country. Equal justice is not administered to both parties; the people are driven from their country. If the Government continues to pursue its present policy, all the respectable portion of the community will be expatriated. The Protestants feel that Government do not afford them sufficient protection to enable them to live with safety in the country. The population of Ireland is now armed, one part against the other, and they must soon come into collision; and the communications from the magistracy to the Government on these matters, receive no other answer than that of a contemptuous silence. Then we come to the next party, and I ask, do we not possess the confidence of the bulk of the Catholic party, who are the bulk of the people of Ireland? I think I need hardly ask the question—Is it the moderate liberal party of which we do not possess the confidence? Is it the party headed by a long list of noblemen and gentry? Is it such men as the Duke of Leinster, the Earl of Charlemont, the Earl of Munster, the Earl of Meath, Lord Carew, or many others that I might name? But I have stated these, because they were all men who were honoured with the friendship, and reciprocated the hospitalities of the noble Lord, when Secretary for Ireland. Now, I take it upon me to say, that this party and those men, repose confidence in us, and have withdrawn it from the noble Lord opposite. I want the House and the country to determine whether it is that a change has come upon the principles and conduct of the Noble Lord, or upon the principles, or conduct of all those independent and high-minded men, whose names I have just given to the House? It certainly is clear, from the whole course of the debate, both from the speeches that have been made, and from the absence of other speakers, that the affairs of Ireland have been far less prominently brought forward than almost any other topic, or than upon almost any previous occasion. At this forbearance I own, whatever gratitude or pleasure I may feel, I feel no surprise. They have undoubtedly been passingly and slightly alluded to, and indeed, they could not be wholly omitted in a question, which has for its subject matter, the general conduct of the Government, and the general state of the country. But prominently and unceasingly as the affairs of Ireland have been brought forward on all previous occasions, in any way affecting the general character of the Government, which is now formally arraigned for its entire conduct and policy, however it may be the clue on the other side to pass it over slightly and gingerly now, I do feel that I cannot refrain from adverting briefly to that topic. And connected, as I am, with the Government of Ireland, and having had to take a large share in its concerns, I may say here, that I take no shame for the present state of affairs in that country. When the concerns of Ireland had been previously the subject of discussion in this House (although I trust I never improperly shrunk from repelling any attacks which I conceived to have been unjustly made, or from stating my opinions upon the actual state of affairs there), it so happens that I never originated any boast, nor ever challenged any credit for the comparative state of tranquillity for the time being. I felt how much there was that could not be referable to the mere agency of any Government, or the conduct of any Ministers. I felt how many disturbing causes were always at work in such a composition and state of society, and how easily might the speculations of the one day be overthrown by the results of the next. However, Sir, whatever may be the issue of the present motion, or whenever we have to transfer the duties of the Government to other hands; be that soon or late, I can only say, that I can form no fonder wish, either for the sake of our own reputation, or for the sake of the hon. Gentleman opposite, or, I trust, what I value more than either, for the sake of Ireland itself—I can form no fonder wish than that the discharge of these duties may be as useful and as satisfactory in their hands, as I conscientiously believe they are in ours. The hon. and learned Member for Coleraine, who is, perhaps, the only Member who has addressed himself to the Irish part of the question, stated, that he would not question any part of the conduct of the Government till within the period of the last six months, and that he would put aside all returns and official documents. Sir, I shall be glad to follow him in that example. The question, upon a motion like this, must turn on great principles and broad results. What is the present state of Ireland—what is the main principle of our policy, I wish to put to issue, and on which I wish to call for a verdict. No doubt, if there was a laborious ransack into the proceedings of five long years, irregularities and mistakes may be found—a wrong person may have been appointed a chief constable, or a wrong man may have been let out of prison; but if the present state of Ireland is beyond all precedent tranquil; if the key-stone of our policy is, as I conscientiously believe it to be, the impartial administration and vigorous enforcement of justice between all creeds and parties, and an anxious and persevering, although, I must confess, not always a successful, endeavour to raise Irishmen, in point of rights and privileges, to an equality with their British fellow-subjects—if that is the state of Ireland, and the guiding principles and spirit of our policy have been such, I feel proof to all your sneers and clamours, and I leave everything else to the evidence of facts, and the appreciation of a liberal and intelligent people. Sir, I observe that the question of the withdrawal of troops from Ireland seems to give particular umbrage to the benches opposite. However, the House will, perhaps, bear with my just enumerating the numbers of late years, and the amount withdrawn. The return in my hand goes back a good many years, but perhaps it will be sufficient to begin with the year after the services of the yeomanry were dispensed with. The last year they were employed was in the year 1831, when there was, of regular military troops 16,000, and of yeomanry 27,000, making a total of 44,000 men. In the subsequent year, the services of the yeomanry were dispensed with, and I find, that in 1833 the number was 24,000; in 1834, 23,500; in 1835, 19,000; in 1836, 17,000; in 1837, 18,000; in 1838, 17,000; in 1839, 16,000: and in 1840, 14,000. Of the troops withdrawn from Ireland since last March, there were of the 1st Dragoon Guards 200 men, and of other regiments, of cavalry and infantry, draughts amounting in the whole to 3,494 men. In the course of the debate, the noble Lord, the Member for Tyrone, has spoken with that grace and good humour of which he cannot divest himself, but without that Orange symbol of which I am glad he has divested himself. That noble Lord has stated, that the reduction in the amount of troops in Ireland has been made up for by additions to the constabulary force. Now, the constabulary force had not attained anything like its present state of organization until about the year 1828, at which time the number of the force amounted to 5,284. In the year 1832, the amount of the force was 6,264; in 1833, 6,867; in 1834, 7,110; in 1835, it amounted to 7,046; in 1836, to 7,200; in 1837, to 7,944; in 1838, to 8,044; and 1839, to 8,370; so that, during the period the present Government has been in office, the army in Ireland has been reduced from 19,000—if I were to take the amount from the year before the Government took office—I should say from 21,000 men to 14,000; that is to say, the army has been reduced by 5,000 men, while the increase to the constabulary force, during the same period, amounts to 1,200 men; and I will put it to the sense of the House whether, if an increased force is considered necessary, it is not much more desirable that such increase should take place in a force like the constabulary force, rather than in the regular army? I will further take upon myself, on behalf of the Irish Government, to say, that if any necessity had arisen in England for an increase in the amount of the military force, the Lord-lieutenant would have felt himself fully warranted under the circumstances, had such emergency arisen, in sparing, in addition to those already sent over, at least one-half the reduced force now remaining in Ireland. I am not contending that Ireland could permanently spare from her reduced force such an amount as that which I have just mentioned. That is a matter which cannot be summarily decided upon so short experience. The better state of things which I flatter myself now prevails, cannot yet have grown into a settled habit of the body politic, and until that happens I shall be the last person to advise stripping ourselves of the means of defence—of the means of prevention and cure, without being in a condition to have them speedily recalled and replaced. I am only conveying my own impression from the present state of things. We have, during the past year, spared a large amount of the usual military force from Ireland, and we should have been prepared, if the occasion had arisen, to spare more. During the past year, very few and slight occasions have arisen for the military being called out in Ireland; indeed, I think their main occupation has been to keep order, and secure ingress and egress for the crowds who flock to give the pledge of unqualified temperance from the hands of the rev. Mr. Matthew. And, let me observe in passing, let not the House think lightly of this moral aspect of Ireland. I am not saying of this, any more than the reduction of the military force, that we can calculate on it for more, or for longer, than it has already gone. But I boldly say, so far as it has gone, it is an immense good—and gives prospects of more good—leaves room for good habits to grow and become permanent—affords opportunity for happy results to manifest and develope themselves. And as I have touched upon this subject, which, though rather beside the present debate, yet has a close connexion with the present condition of Ireland, I must permit myself to observe, that I think what has occurred may be taken as a reasonable rebuke to those who, for so long a period, and especially during the late recess, have been heaping the most unmitigated and wholesale, and, I must say, uncharitable stigmas and revilings on the whole body of the Roman Catholic priesthood—I think it may be taken as a rebuke to all such indiscriminate censures upon that body, that the greatest movement towards good, towards a regeneration of life and manners, towards an earnest of national improvement that has been effected in our day, though I rejoice to think, at the same time, that many Protestants—many of all denominations—have hailed this movement with unaffected pleasure, and cordially co-operated in it; yet still this great movement was originated mainly—almost singly—by the unprompted, the gratuitous efforts of a humble and exemplary Roman Catholic friar. I must say, that during the recess there has been a sort of Helotism on the part of the press connected with the Gentlemen opposite, and of all meetings held by their adherents, on everything bearing upon their Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen, which supplies a lesson, to use the least offensive term, most instructive. It is well to say they do not object to the persons appointed as Catholics, but this is not the language of the recess. This is not the language by which the party out of doors was lashed into excitement, by which it seemed to be hoped you would be floated into power. I do not wish to cull anything from the leading articles of newspapers, or from excited speeches on the public platform, but what do I find in a formal manner, in regular resolutions, adopted with full concurrence of crowded meetings? What says the petition of the inhabitants of Brighton? But what say these inhabitants of Brighton? "We had much sparring last night on the sentiments of a single clergyman of Brighton, of the highest character, the most exemplary morals, as well as of distinguished talents." The hon. Member for Droitwich most distinctly laid it down, and challenged us to contradict him, that no objection had proceeded from any part of the country to the appointment of the Secretary to the Admiralty; but what is said in the petition of the inhabitants of Brighton? It was with great concern they "had heard that her Majesty's Ministers had selected to fill important offices at the Admiralty, the Treasury, and the Board of Trade, three gentlemen"—not whose political conduct was objectionable, but "who were members of the Church of Rome." And that one of these persons had been admitted to the rank and privileges of her Majesty's Most Hon. Privy Council, and that it was "with great alarm they saw a disposition on the part of her Majesty's advisers to abuse the power reposed in them, for the injury of the Protestant religion." I will not detain the House long. What was the language of those called by the high sounding designation of the Protestant Association. "We have observed with deep concern, that your Majesty has been advised so far to depart from those Protestant principles, as by law established as the condition of the succession to the Throne, as to confer"—on whom? On Ultra-Reformers or Repealers? No, but "on members of the Church of Rome, high and responsible situations in several departments of state;" for example, for fear we should not know whom they meant, "in the Admiralty, the Treasury, and the Board of Trade; and this concern is further increased by the fact, that one of those individuals has been admitted to the rank and privileges of one of your Majesty's most hon. Privy Council, the first instance that has been of such a departure"—so much for their acquaintance with matters of fact—"from the principles of the constitution, since the deliverance of the country from Papal tyranny. Again, a petition was presented, the day before yesterday, from the clergy, merchants, bankers, and inhabitants of Bristol, and I wish to call attention to what ground they wished the House to withdraw its confidence from her Majesty's Government, and repose it in Gentlemen of the Opposition. They say—"The first and highest interests of a great nation are based in Protestantism, and ought not to repose in an Administration which made the great interests of national faith subservient to party purposes." This is fair; this is an opinion; this is speculation. Now for the illustration—"The admission of Roman Catholics to office excites our most serious alarm for the existence of our Protestant institutions." I must say, that if anything seem preposterous beyond all comprehension, it is the use and adoption of such language as this. I think somebody called my hon. Friend, the Member for Waterford, a Repealer. Why, he lost his seat in consequence of his opposition to the repeal of the Union.—[Sir J. Graham—No one called him so.]—My impression certainly is that he did—but I have quite enough without referring to that. However, I will tell you what they say of him—they say he is put into the present office for the purpose of administering the funds and conducting the education of the people of this country. Last year, when we purposed to transfer this charge from the Lords of the Treasury, what an outcry was raised! and now we have transferred it, the cry is against the Lords of the Treasury having the control and management of the fund. Because my hon. Friend, who has on many occasions shewn a cultivated and accomplished mind, and my right hon. Friend the Vice-president of the Board of Trade, whose addresses to this House command an attention, second to none which is given to any other Speaker, and my hon. Friend the Secretary for the Admiralty, who, if he has put himself forward less prominently than the others, possesses as sterling qualities both of the head and heart as any person whom it has been my good fortune to come across, because those three Members have been appointed to the three offices of Vice-president of the Board of Trade, Secretary of the Admiralty, and Lord of the Treasury. I say this without considering who have filled those offices before, whether under Tory or Whig Administrations, because this is the case, in the words of the petitioners, those appointments are ominous, and fraught with danger to the Church, the Country, and the Throne? I must say, if the accusation had come from the other side, if it had been alleged as a matter of complaint, that ten years after the passing of the Catholic Relief Bill, ten years after it had been declared that every appointment in the State should be opened to every Catholic as well as every Protestant, with, I think, two defined and stated exceptions in each country, with a Roman Catholic population in this kingdom, amounting at least to eight millions, it was alleged that not one Catholic had found his way into the Cabinet, that only two Roman Catholics had found their way into the English Privy Council, consisting of above two hundred persons—that in Ireland, with such a preponderance of Roman Catholics, only eight Roman Catholics had been admitted into a Privy Council of eighty-two: if that had been alleged, I might have tried to account for it by the shortness of the period during which they had been eligible, I might have congratulated myself on being a Member of that Government, which, I trust, is the harbinger of a better and more equal state of things; but I own I should have thought the primâ facie difficulty of the argument lay on the opposite side of the question from that on which it has been brought forward; and so far am I from agreeing in the proposition, that the appointment of a Roman Catholic to be a Member of the Privy Council, or the appointment of three Roman Catholics to three subordinate offices, is contrary either to the letter or the spirit of the Constitution, that if any Roman Catholic, Peer, or Commoner, had shown himself to be qualified for the post, by his position, or his abilities, or his actions, I, for one, should look upon it as a virtual breach of the spirit of the Constitution, as an infraction of its recorded enactment, if we denied to such a person, on the score of his religious education, the post of Prime Minister of this country itself. Why, this was the view taken by the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), and I have no doubt he will confirm it tonight, and it is good for the illumination of his party out of doors that he should so confirm it. This was the view taken by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, long before he acceded to the propriety of conceding the Catholic claims. The right hon. Baronet said in a debate on the 9th of March, 1827— I would here suggest a question to my right hon. Friend; I would say, when you have placed the Roman Catholic and Protestants on an equality in point of law, do you mean to admit them to an equality in the enjoyment of office? and if you do, you will see the Roman Catholics and Protestants administering, equally, the affairs of a Protestant State. If you do not mean to look forward to this state of things, and merely intend to give the Roman Catholics nominal equality, I say that that practical exclusion from office will be far more galling to them than any disability under which they now labour, because it will be an exclusion on personal grounds. These were the right hon. Baronet's words; and I have often indeed blushed of late to see what outrage has been made with the name and principles of Protestanism. Far be it from me, like some in very high places of reputed orthodoxy, far be it from me to stigmatize the name of Protestant as odious, or to decry its vital and essential principles, but I have ever conceived that Protestantism in its original aim, and in its vital principle, was not intended to draw out any line of demarcation, or to parcel out any spot of separation on this earth, but to facilitate the access of apt under the generic name of Christians; and I, for one, think we are all sometimes to attach to various principles, doctrines, and habits—the epithet of "Protestant," which, it is to be remarked, is in itself occasional and temporary, and to overlook that of Christian, which is for all times and for all races, to fill and survive the world. The only tangible fact which I think I have heard alleged against the actual proceedings of the Irish Government—I am sure it was the only tangible fact alleged against them by the hon. Mover of this vote—on which is to be founded our exclusion from office, and the substitution of the Gentlemen opposite in our places, was the circumstance of the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland having entertained the hon. and learned Member for the city of Dublin at his table. Now, I must say, that these dinners seem to pro- duce a great impression on hon. Gentlemen opposite. Ever since I have been connected with the Government of Ireland, in one Session of Parliament or another, there has been much said about the circumstance of the Lord-lieutenant in Ireland having entertained at dinner my hon. and learned Friend—a pleasure which I have shared in common with the two distinguished noblemen under whom I had the honour to serve. Now, of one thing I am quite confident, that if the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland should be asked whether he disapproved of any speech, or of any expression, or of any proceeding by whomsoever adopted, he would not have hesitated frankly to express his opinion, and I will go further and state there are very many things which have been said by the hon. and learned Member, and some things moreover done by him, of which we not only do not approve, but of which we very strongly disapprove. Allusion particularly has been made to recent speeches made by the hon. and learned Member for the city of Dublin, and to some talk of arming 500,000 men. Now, the difference is, that when in 1829 the hon. and learned Member talked of arming 500,000 men, the Government of that day receded from their opinion, and gave way to him highly to their credit; whereas we, in no one particular that I can charge my memory with, have abandoned any one opinion in deference to my hon. and learned Friend. But others have made allusions, which I think are always to be deplored, to physical force. Allow me to refer to the speeches of the mover of the memorable Committee in the House of Lords—I mean the Earl of Roden—and nothing shall fall from me questioning the patriotism or the honest, but I think, misdirected exertions, for what he conceives is for the public good, which distinguish that nobleman. He said on one occasion, Notwithstanding the apparently awful odds in this country, we have, thank God, the moral energy, as well as the necessary accompaniments of sinew and bone, on our side. On another occasion, and before a very large multitude of people, he said, It is not people of high station we seek after. If they come, we shall be most happy to receive them, and we are ready to unite with them, but it is to the bone and sinew and the strength and unanimity of the people of Ireland, emphatically so called, that we look for support. [Mr. Serjeant Jackson: What is the date of that?] 1832, during the constitutional agitation which was got up in the north of Ireland against the passing of the Reform Bill. I can assure the hon. and learned Member opposite that I can supply him with several very choice passages to the same effect; I do not say all from Lord Roden, but from those who assisted at such meetings. I do not think Lord Roden meant to take the field in opposition to his unoffending Roman Catholic countrymen. I suppose he thought they would act upon the offensive, and that he would be prepared to meet them. I hope the same meaning was intended to be conveyed by the hon. and learned Member; and that if unconstitutional, illegal, and violent practices were resorted to under the domination of the Tories, he should be prepared to wage open war against them, and to resist them, even to the death. However, I do regret that he did not more explicitly convey his meaning, and that he left himself liable to misconception. The Government of Ireland has frequently disapproved of many things which have been said by my hon. and learned Friend; but then you say we invited him to dinner—but I beg pardon of the House for condescending to such a topic—and that we bestowed lucrative appointment, in a public department, on one of his sons. Now I have no hesitation in saying, for myself, that not denying the many objectionable things which may from time to time have been said by the hon. and learned Member,—not concealing the many objectionable things which also have been proposed by him, some of which those on this side of the House have shewn themselves the foremost to oppose; and if I know those with whom I am associated,—if the occasion should arise, they would again shew themselves the foremost to oppose,—not denying or concealing from myself those things, yet, taking into consideration all that has occurred since the accession of the present Government to office, all that has occurred in England, all that has occurred in Ireland, all that has occurred with respect to the combination of trades in Dublin, all that has occurred with respect to the Chartist insurrection in England, I do believe that the energies and abilities of the learned Member for Dublin—sure to have great weight and to exercise prodigious influence on whatever side they are exercised—have, on the whole, been exercised for the maintenance of order. I am not asking your agreement or sympathy in that opinion. I am stating my own honest impression of the actual state of things, and I say that, on the whole, my belief is, that the hon. and learned Member's influence has promoted the maintenance of order and the peace of the country. I shall advert for one moment to a charge, which I understand to have been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pembroke, that my noble Friend, the late Lord-lieutenant for Ireland, had encouraged, by a speech which he made in the House of Lords, assemblages of large bodies of people. Now, I contend that the words used by my noble Friend, in his place in Parliament, do not bear that interpretation. His words were these:— In answer to the noble Lord's question, as to the course Government intend to take, I beg to state the Government intend to watch the proceedings of those meetings, but I know of no power to prevent those meetings, provided their object is legal. We are all aware that large public meetings not legally convened sometimes take place in England. There have been very great Anti-poor-law meetings, and though some inconvenience has been occasioned at those meetings, yet so long as we live under the British Constitution, there is no power to prevent the holding of meetings for legal purposes. I regret there should be meetings on the question of Tithes. I believe they have not been so frequent since I have been in office as before, and all that have been assembled, have passed off peaceably. This I can assure the noble Earl, on the part of the Government, that if it should be found those meetings are not held for the purpose of petitioning Parliament, but for intimidation, every possible means of precaution and intervention will be employed. Perhaps I ought to leave it to lawyers to decide as to the strict law, but with respect to the practice of the two parties, all I have to state is, that when hon. Gentlemen opposite are in power, it is found necessary to dispel large public meetings at the point of the sword; whereas on the occasion specially referred to in the quotation I have read to the House, so far from any such painful necessity being imposed on us, the course of the Irish Government was, by remonstrance and persuasion, to prevent any meeting taking place at all. I feel how much I have trespassed on the attention of the House, and I therefore come at once to touch very briefly on the main point, which is to be put to issue by the vote of this night. You tell us that we are a weak Government, and that we ought to give place to make room for a stronger. Now that the circumstances of the country do call for a strong Government, and that the interests of the public service would be benefited thereby, no one is more firmly persuaded than myself; but when you tell us to make way for yourselves, I want to know, where do you point out the elements, and how do you guarantee to us the formation of a strong Government? Is it among those who formed the Ministry in the latter part of 1834, and in the early part of 1835, who began their period of official existence in this House in a minority, and afterwards, as the right hon. Baronet on the opposite side very good humouredly remarked the other night, counted their nights by their minorities? Since that period the party in question have received the formal adherence of a section of the utmost possible weight in point of talents, and of the least possible compass in point of numbers. And since that, their united efforts have never been able, on one single question of Constitutional importance, to wrest a majority from her Majesty's present Ministers. Is it that the accord in your language and sentiments will make up for the comparative scantiness of your numbers—do you take upon yourselves to say that there is anything now among you which separates itself from the cheerers of Canterbury, of Ashton, and of Derby? Are you and your party out of doors, if not, your party in-doors, agreed on the policy of carrying out the Catholic Relief Bill? Are you agreed on the subject of Irish Education? Or do you think that the vote of endowment for the College of Maynooth is a vote to propagate idolatry in the land? Do you think that the admission of a Catholic chaplain into our gaols is a merciful provision for the good of the people who are there incarcerated, or that it is the admission of the "abomination of desolation?" Why, upon your great stalking-horse, the present Corn-law, and its matchless and immutable perfections, one of your supporters told us last night that he was decidedly opposed to the principle and working of the present Corn-laws. I have perceived that you are very sensitive on the subject of privilege; and I have no doubt the right hon. Baronet, who took so distinguished and honourable a part in those debates, is prepared to launch, before this debate closes, a very vigorous and effective speech against her Majesty's Ministers, with all the skill and means which his great dexterity and resources place at his command; but as to any abiding cordiality between you, the discussions of last week have offered a very striking, but by no means the first and only proof. When in this debate it was so important for you to exhibit a show of unison, the hon. Member for Durham stated that the conduct of his leader was marked by tyranny and injustice. Those who have only perused what took place here, must have perceived sufficient indications of a great difference of opinion between what is termed a fraction of the Conservative body—a small fraction of the Conservative body, but no less than its future Cabinet—and its other component parts; but we who sit opposite could collect even more significant tokens—we could read "silence that speaks, and the eloquence of eyes." Then we have again repeated that argument so often urged, that in the month of May last, we declared that we did not possess an adequate degree of the confidence of this House. That is true. And did we not hear, a few nights afterwards, the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, declare, that if he undertook the Government of the country, Ireland would be the chief source of his difficulties. And do you think that in the intervening period Ireland has been so soothed by the dulcet strains of sympathy and conciliation which have been poured forth through all your organs, and from all your gatherings—do you think that the mind of Ireland has been so enlightened, so irradiated by the glimpses you have let fall upon her, of the sentiments you entertain towards her, and of the purposes you cherish on her behalf, that the difficulties to which the right hon. Baronet alluded in so emphatic and so remarkable a manner, are removed—that the dark cloud will pass away which before closed round his accession to office, and open a horizon of serenity and confidence, where all was mistrust and alienation? Have there been no indications of late from England and Scotland, as well as from Ireland? Why, since you gave the notice of this motion, so big with menace and hostility—what has been the confirmation given by all the constituencies which had, in the nick of time, to be con- sulted? We could appeal to no others. We are satisfied with the vacancies which did exist. And the self-same verdict, so far as the vote of this night is concerned, has been returned from the most different bodies of men, and from the most distant parts of the empire—from a great suburban district of the metropolis—from a first rate seaport town—from the crowded manufactories of Birmingham—from the ducal borough of Newark—and in two consecutive instances from the enlightened capital of Scotland. We hail, with right good will, from the different constituencies which have been consulted, their commentary on the motion of to-night. And if it pleases you so to continue it—if heedless of "the better part" which is still open to you—you decline to co-operate in the work of assisting to smooth the difficulties and to lessen the obstacles which we do not dream of denying, beset and impede many of the complicated relations of our internal, our foreign, and our colonial policy—to soothe the irritations which prevail in the public mind—to disarm jealousies—to allay dissensions—in one word, to consult together for the public good, why, we, as a party, and in a selfish point of view, have only to bid you to go on—stir up, or rather (for that seems more consistent with the course hitherto pursued) suffer to be stirred up the fierce embers of past intolerance—re-illume the fires of expiring bigotry—scatter the elements of distrust amid the inhabitants of the same soil—the children of the same Creator. We shall put our trust in the increasing spread of intelligence—in the confirmed sway of toleration—and in the returning sense of a disabused people.

Mr. Serjeant Jackson

said, he had listened with great attention to the eloquent speech just delivered by the noble Lord, and had anxiously endeavoured to discover throughout that speech something like an answer to either one or the other of the able addresses which had been spoken from his side of the House, and to which the noble Lord had directed several of his observations. But he must acknowledge, with all possible respect to the noble Lord, that he had not heard even an attempt to answer one of the arguments which had been delivered on his side of the House, when that argument was correctly stated. Were anything required to add to the effect of those admirable addresses to the House which had proceeded from some distinguished Members of the Opposition, either on the minds of hon. Members or on the mind of the public out of doors, which was far more important, he conceived it would be found in the speech of the noble Lord, who having, as he told the House, had an opportunity of weighing and considering the speech of the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, from the previous night to that evening, had entirely failed to give an answer to one single statement, or argument advanced by the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire; and, therefore, what he had said, was only calculated to increase the effect of those arguments and statements both in and out of that House. The first topic upon which the noble Lord had touched, he had treated in the tu quoque style. He had said "You charge us with having availed ourselves of the support of a section of the Radical party in this House. Did not the Government of Earl Grey do the same? Was he not most emphatically supported by the Radicals in this House?" Now the fact was, that the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, made no charge of that kind: he applied his remarks to this point—"Let us know," said he, "what are the principles, if principles there are, which guide the counsellors of her Majesty at present?" The noble Lord complained that there were found in the cabinet noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen representing all shades of opinion, and that it was impossible to say what principles governed the cabinet; not of the differences of opinion between the cabinet and those hon. Members who supported it, but of the differences between members of the cabinet themselves—differences between the noble Lord at the head of the cabinet, and those who were admitted into it. But what was the conduct of Earl Grey's Government with reference to the persons of like politics who supported it? How did Earl Grey act towards the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, when he considered that his conduct was subversive of the peace of the country, and of the cause of order and good government? He brought the law to bear upon him. He brought him to the bar of the highest judicial tribunal in the country, and obtained an admission of his guilt from the hon. and learned Member. It was perfectly true, that such admission of guilt, though placed on record, was not followed by any sentence of the Court, because it unfortunately happened that the law on which the prosecution was founded, expired on the dissolution of Parliament. Therefore the Court of King's Bench in Ireland, could not pronounce sentence upon the evidence, the truth of which the hon. and learned Gentleman was ultimately obliged to admit. The noble Lord had quoted a passage from the speech of his noble Friend, the Member for North Lancashire, upon which he laid considerable stress. But he had misquoted, and probably did not hear the passage in question. He charged his noble Friend with the factious intention, which he said he had proclaimed from his place, of obstructing the proceedings of the Government. But the language used by his noble Friend, as well as he (Mr. Sergeant Jackson) could remember it, was to this effect: "We tell you plainly we will direct and control, and we will suggest measures which are calculated to produce the good of the country, and we will oppose and obstruct such measures as we consider are not likely to produce any such result." Was it therefore right, in order to give an answer to the speech of his noble Friend, which, in itself, was unanswerable, to make a different statement from that which he had uttered? He did not accuse the noble Lord with having wilfully misquoted and wrongfully charged his noble Friend, but in the heat of debate, in the excitement created by his anxiety to support a bad cause, and in the necessity of the case, he had been led to take such a view of the statement of the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, as made him confound propositions which could not be answered if taken in their strict and straightforward sense, with mistakes of the noble Lord's own, which might be easily refuted. No one hon. Gentleman on that (the Opposition) side of the House, had said that he would obstruct the course of the Government. On the contrary, to every measure which was likely to do good, they would give their support. The noble Lord had furnished a catalogue of measures which had received the support of the Opposition. Such as the English Tithe Bill, and the Irish Poor Law. Had they been disposed to offer a factious opposition to the measures of the Government, might they not have opposed these? But did they op- pose them? By whom was that measure, which perhaps was the most valuable amongst them, opposed? Who opposed the Irish Poor Law Bill? Did the Conservatives offer any opposition to it? No: the opposition came from the professed supporters of the Government. He knew that the noble Lord would not deny this; and he was merely stating it to show that the imputation thrown out upon hon. Gentlemen on his (the Opposition) side of the House, that they were factiously intent upon obstructing measures which were good in themselves, was entirely without foundation. The Irish Poor Law Bill met with formidable opposition from the supporters of the noble Lord and his colleagues, but none from his political opponents. So much, then, for the obstruction of good measures. But what had they obstructed? They had obstructed what the noble Lord must now admit was a most pernicious proposition for carrying into law the appropriation clause. They resisted that, and he was happy to say, they were successful. Might he not say, that the noble Lord was impressed with a conviction that they had been well warranted in that opposition? The noble Lord had said, that Government had given up the appropriation clause to prevent bloodshed in Ireland. But what was the course pursued by the Government? What did they do when they assembled in conclave at Litchfield-house, when they bartered principles for votes—when they entered into that most iniquitous compact—he would not say compact—it was only a "compact alliance." Did they then say, that the appropriation clause was to be followed out? Did they say, that it would produce bloodshed in Ireland? If so, why did they propose it? Why did the head of the Government in the other House declare that it was a question with which the very existence of the Government was identified? Why was Ireland kept in continued agitation, and why did effusion of blood take place in Ireland? And why did the Government at last bring in the Tithe Bill, omitting the appropriation clause? From year to year they brought in their propositions; now, one which was called "a heavy blow, and a great discouragement to Protestantism," and then a plan for extinguishing 850 Protestant places of worship. Yet, after the resolutions adopted at Litchfield-house after declaring that the appropriation clause must be insisted on, the Government actually adopted, almost verbatim et literatim, the very bill that was brought in by the right hon. Baronet in 1835. But the charge of factious opposition had been made in reference to the Jamaica Bill. What was the effect of that bill? Was it not to annihilate the representative constitution of Jamaica which had existed there for upwards of a century? What did the Opposition do upon that occasion? They objected to such an unconstitutional measure, and resisted successfully, for the Government were compelled to subscribe to the bill of the right hon. Baronet, and now they saw the happy consequences of adopting his suggestions. A greater proof of want of skill and foresight to legislate for the colonies on the part of the Government, could not be found than the case of Jamaica. It had become very much the fashion of late with hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House to laud the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, and certainly not without good reason. The Government could not have carried the resolutions on the privilege question had it not been for the chivalrous support of their honourable and manly opponent. They praised the right hon. Baronet, but some little reduction must be made when that praise was given for an invidious purpose. The contrast which had been drawn between the right hon. Baronet and the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, was not a just one. The conduct of his noble Friend, upon the appropriation clause, was not open to the observations of the noble Lord; for both he and the right hon. Baronet agreed in opposing the appropriation clause, and both alike rejoiced to see the tithe question settled by that clause being abandoned. His noble Friend condemned the adoption of the appropriation clause, and not the withdrawal of it. The noble Lord had taunted his noble Friend with having brought forward abortive measures, and he mentioned the Arms Bill for Ireland. But that bill was the bill of the present Prime Minister, who then had charge of the police of the country, by virtue of his office as Home Secretary. His noble Friend, was only Secretary for Ireland at the time. Such a bill a0s the Arms Bill for Ireland was scarcely to be compared with those great measures to which he had been adverting; but was the noble Lord aware that in his allusion about it he was taunting the present head of the Cabinet? If any individual was responsible for proposing that bill, and for withdrawing it after it was proposed, it was the noble Lord, the present Prime Minister of England. ["Hear" from Lord John Russell] Was he wrong? Did the noble Lord deny, that though the bill was proposed by his noble Friend, as Secretary for Ireland, the noble Lord, now the prime Minister, being then the Home Secretary, was not responsible for it? [Lord J. Russell: He did not approve of it.] That made the matter look very extraordinary, and he thought the noble Lord had placed himself in a dilemma by making such a statement. The noble Premier, then the Home Secretary, must either have approved of the bill or not. He was responsible for it. If he disapproved of the bill, why was it brought forward? What sort of a Government must that have been when such things took place—when the head of the department to which the bill applied and belonged, disapproved of it, and yet allowed it to be proposed? He was afraid that many things of that kind were done at the present day. He was not at all surprised to see that the noble Lord did not look so complacent as when he interrupted him upon that point. He suspected, that if the proceedings of her Majesty's Ministers among themselves were to go forth to the public, it would be more easy to find a great variety of opinions among them, than fix upon any point on which they were agreed. The noble Lord (Lord Morpeth) had taken great credit to the Government from an anonymous letter which he read to the House. Indeed, the noble Lord must have felt that the Government was in great need of support when he called such a document to his aid. He must have had some misgivings as to the Ministers having dealt with the disturbances in the country in that firm, decided, and energetic manner which ought to be expected from a Government, and, he, therefore, quoted a private letter, to the noble Lord himself, in which Ministers were praised for their manner of dealing with the disturbances of the country. Now, he should like to know whether the writer of that letter were from the West Riding of Yorkshire—whether he were a constituent of the noble Lord's. He should be glad to learn as the noble Lord declined giving the name, whether the writer were an officer in the employment of Government—what was his situation—in order that the House might judge of his means of information—or was he a candidate for office? For if he were, then they could all understand the grounds of his praise; but whoever the writer was, for the noble Lord to have brought such a document to his aid in a discussion of this kind, was altogether unworthy of the noble Lord, who, from his experience in public life, so well understood matters of this kind. It was, he repeated, unworthy of the noble Lord to rely in an important question of this kind, on an anonymous correspondent, and it showed the great straits to which he must have felt himself put for argument. The noble Lord had next adverted to what he was pleased to call another of the abortions of his noble Friend, the Member for North Lancashire, and taunted him with a failure in that great measure for the abolition of slavery in our West India colonies, for which this country had so generously consented to pay the large sum of 20,000,000l. How, let him ask, could he call that measure a failure which the noble Lord had brought in within three months of his coming into the Colonial-office, and which eventually was attended with great success? This reference to the payment of 20,000,00l. for the abolition of slavery reminded him of a pledge which he gave on the third night of the Session, that he would take the first opportunity of bringing on a subject to which he had then called the attention of the House. It would be in the recollection of the House, that on the evening to which he referred he had put a question to the noble Viscount (Palmerston) respecting a letter which had been addressed by Lord Howard de Walden, our Minister at Lisbon, to the Viscount De Sa da Bandeira, on the 19th of May, 1838. Instead of an answer, the noble Lord made a speech of nearly three-quarters of an hour long, in the course of which the noble Lord alluded to him, personally, more than once, in reference to observations made by him elsewhere, as to the conduct of the Government in that transaction. He was about to reply when he was called to order by a partizan of the Government, the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, and the Speaker reminded him that it would be irregular to proceed, as there was then no question before the House. As he was ever unwilling to press himself on the attention of the House against its wish, he bowed immediately to the decision of the chair, and he did so the more readily, because he had ever found his decisions guided by the greatest fairness. From the first moment that he was placed in his present high station, he had been distinguished for the impartiality, dignity, and courtesy with which he had discharged its duties. Bowing then, as he did, to the decision of the Speaker, he pledged himself that he would take the first opportunity which presented itself of bringing that subject before the House, and he would now redeem that pledge. The subject was one which affected the honour of this great empire, and the character of its Government; and, if not satisfactorily explained, would form a strong ground for supporting the motion now before the House. He would now read the letter. It was written in the course of negotiations carried on between this Government and that of Portugal for the suppression of the slave trade. It was not his intention to tire the House with any declamation about that iniquitous traffic, nor on the great merits of that excellent man, Mr. Wilberforce, whose name would be immortal as the friend of humanity, true liberty, and sound morality; he would confine himself to the letter. In 1837, this Government was engaged in negotiations with the other powers of Europe with the view of engaging them to join in putting down that infamous traffic, by agreeing to make it piracy. Portugal was bound to become a party to the proposed treaty, and our Minister, Lord Howard de Walden, was engaged ostensibly in carrying on that negotiation, and he was instructed from home to make the adherence of Portugal to that treaty, by which the slave trade was made piracy, a sine qua non. A bill had been introduced into Parliament here, in the course of the discussions on which the Government of Portugal was charged with shuffling, and some of the correspondence between our Minister and the Ministers of Portugal was published, with the view of proving that such shuffling did exist on the part of the government of Portugal. The Portuguese government finding this, and the charges that had been brought against it, published the letter which he was about to read. Let the Government now explain it, and most sincerely and heartily did he wish that it would be able to do so satisfactorily, for the honour of his country was much dearer to him than any considerations of party. It was from this feeling that, in adverting to this matter in another place, he had used the strong language to which the noble Lord had alluded. He would now read the letter. It was thus addressed:— Lord Howard de Walden to Viscount de Sa da Bandeira. (Most confidential.) Saturday night. My dear Viscount,—Here is a note upon which to hang your declaration as to piracy. You will probably state—1. Your objections and difficulties if insurmountable. 2. The fact of having established a penal law, inflicting a secondary punishment for (illegible) concerned in the slave trade. 3. Remark on no European power besides England having actually declared the slave trade piracy; and, fourthly, conclude with a declaration of the readiness of Portugal, either simultaneously or jointly, to unite with other Powers of Europe in any resolution to the effect of declaring the slave trade piracy, although, circumstanced as the Government is now, you cannot venture to take the initiative." [Now he (Mr. Sergeant Jackson) begged the attention of the House to the concluding passage:]—"This, in short, strikes me as the outline of the best case to make out, wording the conclusion as strongly as you can, in a general sense denouncing the slave trade.—Believe me, &c. HOWARD DE WALDEN. He, when he first saw this note, believed it to be a forgery. He could not bring himself to believe that any such document would have been signed by any British Minister who had been instructed by his Government at home to make the accession of Portugal to the treaty, making the slave trade piracy, a sine qua non. Indeed, this would be seen from the letter which he addressed to the same Minister on the very next day, the 20th of May, in which he said, The undersigned cannot too earnestly appeal to the Viscount de Sa da Bandeira, the Minister to whom the glory is due of having, during the short period of dictatorship, proclaimed the abolition of the slave trade, to take into his most serious consideration, in the same philanthropic spirit by which he was on that occasion influenced, the consequences which will be involved in the rejection of this proposal on the part of Great Britain to make slave trade piracy, which is made a condition sine qua non of the conclusion of the proposed treaty, by the loss of which such immense benefits to be conferred thereby on the human race, and of advantages to the possessions of the Crown of Portugal in Africa will be destroyed. So that, on the 20th of May, the noble Lord declares that to be a sine qua non, which his note of the preceding day had pointed out to him the excuses for evading. He would challenge the whole history of diplomacy to produce any case parallel. The country is most anxious to have an end put to the slave trade, and urges its Minister to press on the Government of Portugal, as a sine qua non, its acceptance of the treaty or convention, making slave trade piracy, and vet that same Minister tells the Portuguese Minister with whom he is negotiating, to evade the very thing which he is instructed to press upon him in these words:— This, in short, strikes me as the outline of the best case to make out, wording the conclusion as strongly as you can in a general sense denouncing the slave trade. The Government was anxious to take credit to itself at home with the Quakers, Dissenters, and others, who took a strong interest in the suppression of the slave trade, for its exertions to abolish that trade; and the correspondence which was published here as to the negotiations in Lisbon for that purpose, afforded a clap-trap, of which they were willing to avail themselves. But if, notwithstanding this, they allowed their minister to suggest a mode of evading the signing of the treaty, what was it but saying, "Give me a handful of dust to throw into the eyes of John Bull?" He again expressed his sincere hope that Government would give a satisfactory explanation of the matter. He had found, that on the same night on which he mentioned the subject in this House it had been referred to in another place. The explanation given there did not exactly tally with that given by the noble Lord opposite, and neither was satisfactory. The explanations were twofold—first, that two friendly powers might communicate and privately consult as to the form or terms of any document, the subject of negotiation. This might be true of two friendly powers negotiating with a third power for a joint object, but that was not the case in our negotiations with Portugal. The second ground of explanation was, that under the circumstances in which the negotiation then stood, it was desirable that the refusal of Portugal to accede to the treaty should be conveyed in as mild terms as possible. Now, he would ask what was it to us whether Portugal refused in mild terms or otherwise? If she was in the wrong, it was our business to let her put herself as evidently so as possible. This explanation was therefore as unsatisfactory as the other. He would not touch further on that point, but hoped to have it explained. He would next advert to some other topics which the noble Lord had urged in favour of the Government. The noble Lord had taunted his noble Friend, the Member for North Lancashire, with the present Government having a greater share of the confidence of the people of Ireland than former Governments. He would not deny, that the Government had the confidence of millions of one class of the people of Ireland, and not without good cause, for concessions had been made to that class which had been denied to another class. The partiality was too evident not to be noticed and felt. He did not apply this to the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who up to a very recent period had pursued that fair and impartial course which procured him the respect and confidence of the Conservative body in Ireland. He believed, that if left to his own suggestions he would have continued the same course, but he had lately paid a visit to London, and probably called at the Home-office. Whom the noble Lord saw there, he would not say, but since then it was evident the noble Lord had changed his course—had turned over a new leaf. The Government did possess the confidence of the party to which he referred. Of what others did it possess the confidence? He would admit, that it had that of a few of high rank—names which would serve to make a figure at the head of a list; but it had not the confidence of the Protestant people of Ireland, nor ever would it while it continued to deal heavy blows and great discouragement to Protestantism. It had not the confidence of the middle or lower classes of Protestants—of men who firmly, conscientiously, and boldly adhered to their obedience to the laws and constitution, and their attachment to their religion. He wished he could say the same of some among the higher classes of that body. He must be permitted again to say that the conduct of the middle and lower classes of Pro- testants in Ireland was deserving of the highest praise. In his opinion it put to shame many amongst the higher classes in that part of the United Kingdom. But the tranquillity now prevailing in Ireland could not be imputed to that cause alone. It would seem that that tranquillity had given rise to much triumph. There was no one, of course, who could feel otherwise than rejoiced that the state of Ireland was one of tranquillity, but that condition of society there was not a little owing to the settlement of that vexatio questio, the tithes. The tithe agitation was at length at an end, and he fully believed that the present tranquillity was in a great degree owing to the settlement of that question. But though he had assumed that that question was settled, he did not feel quite certain that he was warranted in saying so; he doubted, after all, that it really was settled. It was not altogether certain that the hon. Member for Dublin would allow it to remain settled. It would be in the recollection of the House that the Conservative party had resolved upon opposing the Government measure respecting municipal corporations in Ireland; they were told, however, that the people of Ireland desired that measure, to which the reply from his side of the House was, "Give us a good tithe bill for Ireland, and a good poor law, and we may then take into consideration your measure for establishing municipal corporations in Ireland." Since that time, however, her Majesty's Government became alarmed, and what course did the hon. and learned Member for Dublin take? He proceeded to re-construct another of his pernicious societies. The proceedings of the Precursor Society he brought to a speedy close, and a part of the balance of their funds was handed over to the Loyal Registration Society, an association the main object of which was to return those candidates to Parliament who were patronised by the priests, and who were prepared to do the will of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, one of whose recent propositions was a transfer of the tithe rent-charge for the purpose of forming a substitute for the Poor-law fund. Now, was that fair towards the Protestants of Ireland? Was not the arrangement respecting Municipal Corporations conceded in consideration of the tithe measure? The Conservative party said, "Give us the seventy-five per cent for our clergy, and we may then not object to your Corporation Bill." But, without the least regard to considerations of this nature, the hon. and learned Member for Dublin began a fresh agitation, talked to his followers of actual physical resistance, and proceeded to instruct the people how they might best oppose and defeat an exercise of the undoubted prerogative of the Sovereign—namely, the choice of her own Ministers, and immediately thereupon the representative of her Majesty in Ireland chose to invite the hon. and learned Gentleman to his table. Nothing could be more utterly unimportant than where the hon. and learned Member might happen to dine, provided he did not become the object of such a public mark of the favour of the Government as to receive an invitation to dine with the representative of the Queen in Ireland; it was no laughing matter though some hon. Members might think proper to smile; the affair was exceedingly serious, that a man guilty of offences amounting to sedition should become the guest, not merely of a Minister of the Crown, but of the Viceroy. If the hon. and learned Member for Dublin dared to do one act in furtherance of the doctrines set forth in his speeches, it would be high treason—there was not a lawyer in the House would dispute that opinion. To alter the existing laws by force, was nothing less than high treason, and again he would say, that if the hon. Member ventured upon a single act in furtherance of his seditious harangues, it would be a crime for which he must forfeit his life on the scaffold. This opinion he took upon himself to give as a lawyer. It was then no trifle that such a man should be invited to her Majesty's royal castle of Dublin. What were the poor people of Ireland to think of such a proceeding? What inference were they to draw from hearing that such a guest was invited to the table of the Lord-lieutenant—that be came there piping hot from seditious meetings, where he openly avowed that which, if carried into practical operation, would be neither more nor less than treason against that very Sovereign whose representative entertained him? All this was transacted in the midst of an exciteable population—among an amiable and generous people, but one easily led either to good or to evil according to the hands into which they might happen to fall. He need not now dwell further upon the opinions which he entertained of the hands in which a portion of the Roman Catholics of Ireland had for some time been placed; but he thought it might not be unprofitable to remark that the Government of Earl Grey entertained a very different opinion of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin from that which was held by the Melbourne Administration. When Lord Grey was at the head of affairs, the hon. and learned Member was dragged to the bar of the court in which he practised as a barrister—he was indicted, and had he not pleaded guilty, and had not the act expired under which he was indicted, he must have been committed to the custody of one of his Majesty's gaols. Being now called upon to give his vote on a motion declaring a want of confidence in the Ministers of the Crown, he confessed it did appear to him that if there were no other ground for feeling that want of confidence than their conduct towards the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, sufficient justification might be derived from that alone. When the House of Commons were called upon to express their confidence in a Ministry, that Ministry ought to display something like fixed principles. Moreover, they ought to show, not only that they understood what was for the public good, but that they had the capacity to carry out and execute their measures. Now, looking at the present Government, he would ask, did their character and conduct answer to that description? Above all, did they take the part which a Government ought to take in reference to the conduct of that individual to whom he had so often had occasion to allude? Had they dealt with him as they ought to deal with a man who often talked of going out to die in the field? He even thought that the Ministers, as English gentlemen, were called upon to mark with their reprobation—at least to discountenance—the terms in which that hon. and learned Member spoke of his and their political opponents. Surely, noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, could not sympathize with that individual when he spoke of the Duke of Wellington, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, and the Conservative party generally, as a body of men with whom the Queen could not be safe if they were called to the administration of public affairs—who insinuated that her cup would be drugged—that the Conser- vatives would poison her: that was the language which the hon. Member held just before he went to dine with the nobleman who was the representative of Majesty in Ireland. At the meeting which he attended immediately before his dinner with the Lord-lieutenant, the hon. and learned Member distinctly declared that he would not retract the language in which that insinuation was conveyed. He repeated with the most solemn asseverations that he believed all he had said, and with the utmost solemnity declared his conviction that the life of the Queen would not be safe. This declaration he made in the same solemn manner in which he made a declaration on the floor of that House respecting a person named Murphy, and no doubt both declarations were of a like character. He said, repeatedly, that if her Majesty changed her Ministers, he did not believe that she would survive for six months after the accession of the Conservatives to power. Could it be possible for any Gentleman to do otherwise than condemn such language as most atrocious—could the hon. and learned Member himself believe what he said? Did he expect those who were usually his dupes, to believe him on that occasion as they did upon others? The enormity and wickedness of his assertions were exceeded only by their absurdity. It was impossible not to feel astonished that any man with the feelings of a gentleman—still more was he amazed that any nobleman of the high character which belonged to the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, could invite to his entertainments, or sit down at table in any place, with a man capable of casting such a stigma upon any set of English gentlemen. It appeared to him incomprehensible how a man could be tolerated in society who was capable of conduct so outrageous and abominable. The noble Lord opposite had sought to draw a parallel between the language held by a noble and beloved Friend of his (The Earl of Roden), and the sentiments expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin—surely no two cases could be more widely different. A more upright, pure minded, and excellent human being than that noble Earl it never had been his lot to know; while virtue and sound principle existed in England, the name of his noble Friend would never be uttered without a tribute of respect, and it would be a fatal sign of the times if the expression of that respect were withheld, The declaration of his noble Friend was made in the year 1832, a period at which the country was much disturbed—a time at which the hon. and learned Member spoke of the noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen opposite as the "base, brutal, and bloody Whigs." At that lime the hon. and learned Gentleman agitated for a repeal of the union. The yeomanry were called out to preserve the peace. His noble and gallant Friend did not consider whether the Government might have been composed of Whigs or of Tories, or might be of its present motly composition—he was a man resolved to uphold, under any circumstances, the course of good order and of British connexion in Ireland. His noble and gallant Friend felt as he did, that the best protection good order and British connexion could have, was to be found in the loyal Protestants of Ireland. The noble Earl said, that that class had the strength, the spirit and the sinews to preserve the integrity of the empire. No men were more loyal, more constitutional, more firmly resolved to stand by the union with Great Britain than were the Protestants of Ireland; and if ever the awful day came when an attempt should be made to disturb that union, the whole Protestant community would stand forth as one man and resist. Those were the sentiments of his noble Friend, and he shared them. In addition he would say, that the great mass of the Catholic body, of which the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite might be called an unworthy Member, were opposed to any dissolution of the union, and in the day of trial, he had no doubt that there would be a miserable defalcation from the 7,000,000 on whose assistance the hon. and learned Gentleman so confidently reckoned. He begged, before he sat down, to say, that if in the warmth of discussion, any expression had escaped from him calculated to wound the feelings of noble Lords or right hon. Gentlemen on the other side, he meant nothing approaching to personal offence; and he begged to thank the House for the indulgent attention with which he had been heard.

Mr. C. Wood

said, that the noble Member for Northumberland having explained to the House the circumstances under which he had retired from office, and how apart from all personal considerations the noble Lord's motives had been, he, unwilling as he was to trespass upon the House, felt anxious to throw himself on its indulgence for a short time, that he also might relieve himself from the possibility of any such imputation on the motives which had actuated him, in his situation, also in retiring from office. He had always held that those who were engaged in the public service should be prepared to take that position in which the leaders of the Government deemed their services would be most useful; and therefore when, at the close of last session, it was proposed to him by his superiors in the administration to accept the situation vacated by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, though he was not very willing to quit the situation which he had hitherto held, and with the duties of which he had become conversant, and though he was very sorry to quit his noble and gallant colleague, yet he immediately acquiesced in the proposed new arrangement, and undertook the duties of Secretary of the Treasury. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would bear him out in the assertion that he had had a long conversation with him, as to arrangements which could only be necessary in the event of his being engaged at the Treasury during the autumn; and certainly, but for circumstances having no connexion with any personal views of his own, he should now in all probability have been engaged in the discharge of those duties so much better done by his hon. Friend, the Member for Windsor. The noble Viscount had stated to the House the grounds on which he quitted office, the views which he took on the political state of the country last summer, and the course which, in his opinion, should have been pursued in re-constructing the Government. Not as the right hon. Member for Pembroke had misquoted his noble Friend's expressions "to the exclusion of all those persons whose opinions might go further than his own," but so that the general effect of the arrangement might be to strengthen the Government, by re-assuring the country against further and indefinite changes in the constitution. He agreed with the noble Viscount in those views; and though it was not for him, holding a subordinate situation in the Government, to attempt to enforce those views, he had stated them to the noble Viscount in frequent conversations, and when he found that the noble Viscount considered himself bound to resign on these grounds, he felt that he could not, with satisfaction or honour to himself, remain longer a Member of the Government. He was aware the conduct of the noble Viscount and himself had been blamed by those whose censure was most painful to them; but, deeply as he regretted it, he was borne up by the consciousness that he had acted solely upon the feeling that what he did was right. He did not mean to say, that he did not regret the loss of office. He thought office an object of honourable ambition to any English gentleman. He regretted the loss of the power, and the interest and the occupation which office gave. In the present instance it was rendered peculiarly painful to him, by separating him from those with whom he had acted during the whole of his political life, and with many of whom he still entirely concurred—from many personal friends, to whom he was bound by the strongest ties of warm and, he trusted, undiminished friendship and respect; but he had felt that, in the situation in which he was placed, he had no alternative but to resign. The right hon. Baronet opposite had asked him and his noble Friend to pass over to the right hon. Baronet's present side, trying to tempt them by the example which he himself had set; but, much as he admired the talents of the right hon. Baronet—much as he felt himself that right hon. Gentleman's inferior—he must say, that, in that one point, his conduct to his former friends, he should be very sorry to imitate the right hon. Baronet's example. The right hon. Baronet sought further to tempt them, by stating a new profession of faith for hon. Gentlemen opposite; he said, that whilst they were content to maintain the provisions of the Reform Act, they were the advocates of progressive reform. The profession might be specious, but it had been up to the present moment sadly belied by the actions of the party whom the right hon. Gentleman had joined. It must have sounded strange to Conservative ears to hear themselves now held up as the advocates of reform; and a new instance of the much vaunted unanimity of hon. Gentlemen opposite was afforded, by the right hon. Baronet claiming credit for progressive measures, whilst a distinguished leader of the Conservative party elsewhere made an annual boast of the Bills they had thrown out, and the measures they had obstructed to the principle of progressive reform, adhering however to the main features of the Reform Act itself, he had invariably since the passing of that act given his support. That principle he understood to be the principle professed by the Government; it was the principle on which Lord Grey's Government, as well as Lord Melbourne's had acted. The difference between his noble Friend (Vis. Howick) and his late colleagues was not a difference of principle, but a difference as to the means by which that principle could best be carried out. On this ground, therefore, and in this belief, he gave his support to the Government. This principle of progressive reform had invariably been opposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, nor did he believe that they would now act otherwise, notwithstanding the delusive profession of the right hon. Baronet. He must, however, say, that he was most sorry to hear the definition of progressive reform which had been given by the hon. Member for Sheffield, in which he could discover nothing but a continual and indefinite extension of the principles of the Reform Bill—a recurrence to that system of bit-by-bit reform which those who introduced the Reform Bill and the majority of those who supported it, hoped, for a time at least, had been put an end to by that measure? He respected the opinions of that hon. Member, and of other Gentlemen who sat near him, as he respected all opinions which he believed to be sincere; but he must express his own opinion, and it was no new one on the part either of his noble Friend or himself that it was to the manner in which those extreme opinions had been urged by some that the ministry owed the decreased confidence of many of the former supporters of Whig principles, and that their majorities had gradually dwindled away. There was no inconsiderable alarm on that subject amongst a large portion of the community. He alluded not to those who held opinions adverse to those of his side of the House, and his own, but to a large class of persons who had been well described in an able pamphlet of last session; "A Letter from a Radical Member of the House of Commons to Mr. Grote," and which he had the greater satisfaction in quoting, as he believed that the writer went much further in his political opinions than himself. The persons to whom he alluded were described in this pamphlet as "the best and most influential men of the middle classes," men of practice, and not of theory; "sound reformers," but "attached to old habits and associations"; and these men were stated by the author in language stronger than he himself would use, to be "alienated and disgusted" by the intemperate conduct of the ultra Re- formers. They were men who, in ordinary times, took no part in politics, and were averse to party struggles, but whose weight when thrown into the scale, necessarily turned the balance. It was because they had in 1831 been convinced of the necessity of reform, because they joined the more active partisans of liberal opinions, that the Reform Bill received such general support throughout the country. But when that measure was passed, when the struggle was over, they relapsed into their ordinary state, they were anxious to reap the fruits of the Reform Bill, and became disinclined to the further agitation of constitutional reforms, knowing that whilst such struggles continued all other legislation must cease. This was their feeling, and they had withdrawn their support from Government, because there was no assurance offered them that no further changes in the constitution were in contemplation. To what else but to this could be attributed the difference between the numbers of those who sat on the ministerial side of the House in 1832, and those who took their seats there in 1837? He would omit any mention of the election of 1834, because that took place under extraordinary circumstances; but in 1837 there was no disunion among the Reformers—the united strength of all the Liberal party was brought forward together—the election took place at a favourable time, and under favourable circumstances; and to no other cause, therefore, than to the falling away of the class of persons referred, to could be attributed the difference between the appearance of the ministerial benches now, and that which they presented in 1832, between the majority which supported Lord Grey's Government, and that which supported the present ministry. If these considerations had weight at the time of the publication of this pamphlet last session, how much stronger was the case now, when the state of the country presented so alarming an appearance; when the public ear was filled with Chartist demands, which no ten Members of the House would comply with, and which could not be complied with at all without a subversion of the constitution. To such progressive reforms as those pointed out by the hon. Member, he could as little accede as to the principles of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The right hon. Member for Pembroke had gone into long statements, from the time of his own retirement from the Government in 1834, as the ground for the present mo- tion: concluding with representing his noble Friend the Secretary of the Colonies as having encouraged the Chartist agitation, to which after all it appeared that the speeches and publications of the right hon. Baronet himself had afforded far more encouragement, than any distorted misrepresentation of what fell from his noble Friend at Liverpool. Into those statements it was not for him to go, beyond those which related to the Naval department. The right hon. Baronet accused the Admiralty of having grossly abused its patronage for political purposes. The right hon. Baronet had stated a number of cases, in which, as he said, naval officers, who had taken a part in elections in favour of Government, had since been appointed by the Admiralty to the command of ships, and of this number he had called the particular attention of the House to two cases. The first was that of Captain Plumridge, who, having taken a part in the election for Falmouth, had been appointed to the command of the Astrea frigate. The words had scarcely passed the right hon. Baronet's lips before the statement was contradicted by the gallant Member for Kinross, and immediately afterwards the right hon. Baronet himself stated facts which disproved his own assertion. The right hon. Gentleman was not a little incautious when he made a statement to the House, holding in his hand at the very moment a paper which proved that statement to be erroneous. The right hon. Baronet himself stated, that the appointment of Captain Plumridge took place in the month of April; the election did not take place till the following August, so that it was at once obvious that the appointment had nothing to do with the election. It was quite true that Captain Plumridge started for Falmouth, but he started for Falmouth, not only without the wish, but without the knowledge of the Government. No sooner was it intimated to the noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty that the gallant officer had taken this step, than his Lordship wrote to him to express his strong disapprobation of the proceeding, and to inform him that the holding his situation was incompatible with a seat in Parliament, and the only reason why the gallant Officer did not at once withdraw from the contest upon this intimation from the Government was, that having started in obedience to the requisition of a large body of the electors, he did not feel that, as a man of honour—he could desert the pledge he had given these electors to go through the contest. On a subsequent occasion, a rumour, he believed an unfounded rumour, reached his noble Friend at the head of the Admiralty, that the gallant Captain was attempting to create an interest in the borough of Falmouth, upon which his noble Friend wrote to the gallant Officer to state, that any interference whatever on his part in the election, or with political interests in Falmouth, would be totally incompatible with his situation. The right hon. Gentleman being driven from the charge that the appointment of Captain Plumridge was the reward of political support, intimated, rather than made another charge, that Sir James Gordon had been removed from Chatham in order to place Captain Plumridge at Falmouth. Was that the charge which the right hon. Gentleman meant to make? The right hon. Gentleman was in possession of information which effectually negatived the possibility of such being the case. The removal of Sir James Gordon, and of others similarly situated, was a matter of purely naval administration, which he would not now intrude upon the House; but he would tell the right hon. Baronet, that if he thought proper at any time to bring it as a distinct question before the House, he would be perfectly ready to meet him. The right hon. Gentleman knew that Sir James Gordon was removed upon a principle universally applied, and that he could not have retained his situation, unless a rule was made for the first time for the special purpose of exempting him from the application of the general principle. The removal of Sir James Gordon did not necessarily make the opening at Falmouth to which Captain Plumridge was appointed. He would tell the right hon. Gentleman and the House, that the appointment at Chatham, when Sir James Gordon was removed, was offered to one, if not two, other officers before it was offered to Captain Clavell, whose removal from Falmouth made the opening for Captain Plumridge. It was offered to the brother of the hon. and gallant Gentleman near him (Captain Pechell), who, if his health had permitted, would have made a most excellent officer, and whose non-acceptance of the office was a great disappointment. If that gallant Gentleman had accepted the situation, there would have been no vacancy whatever for Captain Plumridge. From these facts a fair judgment might be formed of the other statements of the right hon. Gentleman. What was the next? That Lord Clarence Paget, having stood for Southampton, had been appointed by the Admiralty to the Howe. That was a charge which the right hon. Gentleman, with the knowledge of naval administration which he possessed, ought not to have made. It might be true to the letter, but the right hon. Gentleman knew full well that the impression which that statement would convey to any person not acquainted with naval affairs was directly the reverse of the truth. Lord Clarence Paget was flag Captain to Sir R. Otway. He would appeal to his noble Friend the Member for Staffordshire (Lord Ingestrie), whom he saw opposite, a naval officer. He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman himself, and ask him whether, in point of fact, Lord Clarence Paget owes his appointment to the Howe to the Board of Admiralty. [Sir James Graham: To the Admiralty altogether.] He would ask whether it would not be considered a reflection upon the Admiral if his nomination to that command, except for some extraordinary reason, was refused. It was literally true that Lord Clarence Paget was appointed by the Board of Admiralty, but the person who named him to that situation was the Admiral, Sir Robert Otway, and not the Admiralty. These were the two first cases upon which the right hon. Gentleman insisted, as proving that the Admiralty had prostituted its patronage to political purposes. One turned out to be entirely incorrect, and the other, though correct in the letter, was yet totally incorrect as to the real nature of the transaction. The right hon. Gentleman had also said, that Sir John Ommanney had been defeated as a candidate for Hampshire, and was appointed to the command at Lisbon. He did not deny the fact. But did the right hon. Gentleman mean, that from a single instance the mode of administering the affairs of the navy was to be judged of? Look at other appointments. He would take the first appointment to each of the foreign commands, of which Sir John Ommanney's was one. Was Sir Robert Stopford appointed to his command, because he was a political supporter of the Government? Was Sir F. Maitland appointed to the East Indies because he was a supporter of the government, or on account of his own distinguished professional services? Was Admiral Elliot appointed to the Cape for political services? Admiral Elliot had sat for six or seven years at the Admiralty Board; and the hon. Gentleman knew, that according to the usual courtesy of the service, an officer who had held that situation, had, at the expiration of his time, a fair claim to hoist his flag on the first opportunity. Was Admiral Ross appointed to the Pacific because he was a supporter of the present Government? Was Sir P. Halket appointed to the West Indies because he was a supporter of the present administration? He believed he might state of these appointments, that three out of five were decided opponents to the present Administration. And was it to be supposed, that because Sir John Ommanney happened to be a candidate for Hampshire that to that circumstance he owed his appointment? Was it just, or was it generous, not only to the Admiralty, but to the gallant officer himself, to suppose that he owed his appointment to his political opinions, and not to the services which he had rendered to his country, or to the honours he had won in battle. But the next case of the right hon. Baronet did really show his charge to be most absurd. What was the next case of the right hon. Gentleman? The appointment of Captain Napier to the Powerful. "Good God, sir!" exclaimed the hon. Member, "is Captain Napier so unknown by his services, not only in his own country, where he ranks among the most distinguished of her officers, but by his services to foreign states? Was he not the hero of the last naval victory on record, by which the fate of a kingdom was decided? And is it of such a man that the right hon. Gentleman is forced to seek, in the circumstance of his having been a candidate for Greenwich, the grounds for his appointment? Such are the facts on which the right hon. Gentleman has grounded his charges of an abuse of patronage. I wish the right hon. Gentleman, in the discussion of the grear matter before the House, could raise his mind above such petty insinuations, and believe, that men whom he once called friends, and whose honour he had no reason to doubt, can, in the administration of a great department, be actuated by higher motives than the paltry ones which he imputes." The hon. Gentleman went on to say, that if he had troubled the House at greater length on these points than he ought to have done, in a discussion not on naval affairs, but on the great interests of the empire, the fault was not his. An attack had been made, and it took a longer time to give explanations than to make mere assertions. With respect to the real question of debate, his noble Friend, the Member for North Lancashire, seemed to consider that he had made a point last night, when he said, that the vote to be given that night would not be so much a vote of confidence in the Government, as a vote for retaining them in office, and for retaining the Gentlemen opposite in opposition. He must confess he did not see how that made for the argument which the noble Lord was urging. It was certain that such would be the practical result of the motion if it succeeded. He should not stop to inquire, with his right hon. Friend, the Judge Advocate, whether the motion were brought forward to fix waverers on the other side, or whether it were with a little gentle violence urged by the great majority of the party opposite upon the leader whom they professed to honour, but whom they practically disdain to follow. The result of the motion, if successful, would be to place the right hon. Gentleman opposite in office, and he considered that so great a misfortune to the country, that he would most unhesitatingly give his vote against it. There was one subject of paramount consideration on which he wished to touch very shortly, the question on which the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Tam worth, had very fairly and candidly stated last year that his difficulty consisted—he meant the question of Ireland. It had been no slight satisfaction to him that throughout the whole course of the debate they had not heard, even from Irish Members, those accounts of the disturbed state of that country which usually occupied so prominent a situation in former debates. Even the hon. and learned Member for Bandon had abstained from references of that kind. The noble Lord, the Member for Tyrone (Lord Claude Hamilton) thought he saw danger in the tranquillity; but he admitted the fact. He was content with that admission—an admission now made for the first time. He regarded little the opinions of such active Orangemen as the noble Lord as to the dangers of tranquillity. Disturbance or tranquillity seemed the same to them. In their opinion, danger and misrule were sure to prevail in Ireland, if others than themselves were in power. How was that tranquillity produced? Not by the presence of an overwhelming force, but in the presence of fewer troops than had ever yet been left for the protection of Ireland. His noble Friend, the Member for North Lancashire, had reproached the Government with not having left a sufficiency of troops, to meet the possible contingency of disturbance on the accession of a Tory Government. But did not his noble Friend see, that instead of that being a reproach, it was a triumph to the Government? For the noble Lord's anticipation implied, that at the accession of the right hon. Gentleman to office, it would require a large military force to keep Ireland free from disturbance; while the present Government had the proud boast of having preserved Ireland in a state of tranquillity without troops or external force, but simply by the hold which they had in the confidence and affections of the people. He wondered when were the last accounts of tranquillity of Ireland? He wondered what prospect there was of tranquillity if the hon. Gentleman came into power. He must say, that those representations which had been made on his side of the House though somewhat anxiously denied on the other, of the violence which prevailed in some quarters during the recess, did afford considerable matter for alarm. The attempts to rouse religious bigotry and intense hatred, not only against the Roman Catholic religion, but against those professing it, being the great majority of the people of Ireland, did not augur well for the peace of that country, if the party by whom these attempts were made were to get into power. He was aware that these sentiments had been disavowed by the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, and by the right hon. Member for Tamworth; but they could not avoid the consequence of the necessary connection between the leaders of a party and their followers. For how much of the violent and intemperate language of some of their supporters had the present Government not been held responsible, though they disclaimed it? And in like manner, right hon. Gentlemen opposite must expect to be held responsible in some degree for the language of a large portion of their party. He confessed he had no apprehensions of 500,000 men assembling in arms upon the accession of a Tory Government to power; but he did believe that such a Government must carry on the affairs of Ireland upon a system opposed to the declared opinions and anxious wishes of seven eighths of the Irish people. A state of things in his opinion fraught with danger to the tranquillity, he had almost said, to the integrity of the empire. To avoid this, much sacrifice of personal feeling and private opinion must be made. He would go farther and say that even some evils should be endured. Before he sat down, he wished to guard against an erroneous interpretation which might have been put on the observations addressed by him, at an earlier period of the evening, to the House on the subject of further reforms. Like his noble Friend near him (Lord Howick), he disclaimed what, was called the doctrine of finality. He was opposed to the Ballot, not because it was excluded from the Reform Act, but because it was mischievous in itself. He was opposed to the extension of the 10l. franchise, not because the present suffrage was the best that could be devised, but because he held it most inexpedient, especially in the present temper of the country, to agitate those questions again. When he remembered how far the Reform Bill went beyond the hopes of all—beyond the wishes of no inconsiderable portions of the Reformers of the day—he thought, that such a settlement of the great question of reform ought not to be lightly disturbed. The time might come when increased intelligence and education might render a revision of that measure necessary, but he should be the last man to disturb it unnecessarily, or for mere love of change. Change was in itself an evil, for even then it became necessary, it caused the suspension for a time of all useful legislation. He would put it to hon. Gentlemen who held extreme opinions, whether there were not questions on which all Reformers were agreed, to which they might direct their attention, without urging in a hostile manner on the Government those on which they differed? Were there not such questions as those in which the hon. Member for Lambeth took so prominent a part—the improvement of prison discipline and our criminal law. Was there no improvement in the commercial policy of the country? Was there no relaxation to be obtained in the question of the present Corn-laws?—upon which Reformers in that House ought not to follow the example of the Chartists, who last year, interrupted the exertions upon that great question, and sacrificed practical good for visionary and unattainable objects. Were there not within the limits of the Reform Bill itself measures on which all Reformers were agreed—measures for the improvement of the registration—which the Government were prepared to take up with large and extended views, which even the right hon. Member for Pembroke advocated though he feared in a more limited sense? It was his firm conviction that an amended and perfect system of registration would indirectly extend the franchise almost more than any measure framed directly for the purpose upon which any considerable number of Gentlemen on that side could agree? If they attempted such measures they would contribute far more to improvements in legislation than by any other course. To support the Government in such measures as these was not inconsistent with the honest advocacy of the opinions which any Reformer might hold, whilst the necessary result of opposing the present Government would be to displace a Liberal Administration, and replace it by one to which all classes of Reformers were opposed. If, as he hoped and believed, the Government intended to maintain untouched the principles of the Reform Act, and to devote themselves to such improvements as he had mentioned, they would re-assure the country and would secure the support and confidence of those parties without whose assistance they could neither hope to hold power permanently nor to carry out those further reforms which it was their object no less than the wish of the country to see effected.

Sir James Graham

said, that the hon. Member who had just sat down was perfectly aware that the rules of the House prevented him from replying to him. He was strictly limited to explanation. He, therefore, told the hon. Member that his original statement he would now repeat. It was, that at no period in the history of this country had naval patronage been prostituted to political purposes to the same extent that it had been within the last five years. He was but in explanation. He had stated, and he now repeated the statement, that there was no officer who stood a contest at the last election, above the rank of lieutenant, who was not now in full pay, or in the enjoyment of some civil situation. He illustrated that by the cases he had mentioned. He mentioned especially the case of Captain Plumridge. He was under the correction of the Speaker. The first moment that right hon. Gentlemen intimated to him that he was exceeding the strict bounds of explanation, he should resume his place. He had stated that Captain Plumridge was one of the officers who fell within the category. When he stated that, some Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House said that Captain Plumridge was on full pay before the general election. He then said he would explain the special circumstances of the case, and before he sat down he gave that explanation. To that explanation he now adhered. He did not think himself at liberty to go into any circumstances which passed between him and other persons; but he repeated his statement that Sir James Gordon was compelled to vacate his appointment at Chatham.

Mr. Wakley

rose to order. He wished to know from the Speaker whether, when an hon. Member rose to explain, he was not first of all bound to state in what manner he had been misrepresented.

The Speaker

said, that the right hon. Baronet was in order. He was merely restating part of a speech which he had made the other night, which appeared to have been misunderstood by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax.

Sir James Graham

would proceed, under the Speaker's permission, to re-state what he had said the other night, and in which the hon. Gentleman opposite had misunderstood him. He had stated then, and he stated now, that Sir James Gordon, having; the situation of superintendent of Chatham Dock-yard, was compelled by her Majesty's Government to relinquish that situation; that Captain Clavell had been moved from Falmouth to fill it; and that Captain Plumridge had replaced Captain Clavell at Falmouth, shortly before the election for that place. He had stated further, that Captain Clavell still retained his situation at Falmouth. His next position was, that Lord Clarence Paget, having stood for Southampton, had, since the election, been appointed to the Howe—an appointment which could not take place, under any circumstance, without the sanction of the Admiralty.

Sir C. Adam

was somewhat surprised at the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, because, if he did not prove, in a few minutes, that that explanation was totally devoid of what it ought to contain, he meant to say, totally inconsistent with facts, he was very much mistaken. The right hon. Gentleman had stated what was true to the letter, that Sir James Gordon had been removed from the situation of superintendent of Chatham Dock-yard. But mark why. Sir James Gordon was appointed in 1832 to the situation by the right hon. Baronet. He (Sir C. Adam) could use stronger terms of eulogium on the conduct of that gallant Officer than those used by the right hon. Gentleman. He would employ them now. As far as he (Sir C. Adam) was concerned, and as far as his noble Friend at the head of the Admiralty was concerned, they were per- sonally attached to Sir James Gordon. They had every motive for keeping Sir James Gordon in the situation, if he wished it, and it were consistent with the rules of the service. But it was not consistent with the rules of the service. When the right hon. Baronet had appointed Sir James Gordon to that situation, he was a captain. Chatham Dock-yard was inferior to those of Plymouth and Portsmouth. The rule was, that at Portsmouth and Plymouth a flag officer should be superintendent of the dock-yard, but at Chatham a captain. Upon this rule, Chatham was not a fit appointment to be held by Sir James Gordon. He was not removed to make way for Captain Plumridge, but because he was made a flag-officer in the general promotion of January, 1837. Sir James Gordon came to him with tears in his eyes, upon being removed from the appointment. He felt for the gallant officer's situation, because he had a large family, and his means were not great. But it was incompatible with his rank as a flag-officer to continue at Chatham, because it was contrary to the rule.

Sir J. Graham

Where does that rule appear?

Sir C. Adam

Where does the rule appear that there should be a flag-officer at Portsmouth? If it was not a rule before, we made it a rule then, and we considered Chatham not a proper place for a flag-officer. But what was the right hon. Baronet's insinuation? That Sir James Gordon was removed in order that Captain Clavell might be put there. That was a misrepresentation. The fact was, that Sir John Pechell was offered the superintendence of the dock-yard; and, if he had accepted it, how could it be said that Sir James Gordon had been removed to make way for Captain Clavell? It was clear, therefore, that the vacancy was not made in order to appoint Captain Plumridge to Falmouth. Was the situation offered to Sir John Pechell bonâ fide or not? He would appeal to his gallant Friend the Member for Brighton. Besides, the election took place in August. The appointment was made in the April before. As his hon. Friend had stated, Captain Plumridge received an invitation to stand. When Lord Minto heard of it, it appeared that Captain Plumridge had pledged himself, and could not withdraw. Lord Minto wrote to him. There was no copy of the letter; but it stated that if Captain Plumridge became Member for Falmouth, he must give up the command of the Astrea, and the superintendence of the packet. Did this prove an intention of putting Captain Plumridge there in order that he should become a political partisan? On another occasion, when his learned Friend Baron Rolfe became Baron of the Exchequer, it was mentioned that Captain Plumridge had received an invitation to stand for Penryn. What was the course which his noble Friend at the head of the Admiralty pursued? He wrote to Captain Plumridge to the following effect:— I take not for granted the report brought to me, which probably proceeds from the sensitive watchfulness of others on such subjects, that you are engaged in cultivating a political interest at Falmouth. As the matter has been mentioned to me, however, I should not act fairly by you were I not to give you a caution, that, in the event of your having such views, they would be considered by the Admiralty utterly incompatible with your present appointment, which cannot be held with a seat in Parliament. If read a little farther, some hon. Gentlemen might not be so pleased with it. Lord Minto, in the letter, went on to say that, From his experience in that department, he should say that it was the wiser course for officers to refrain from taking a conspicuous part in party politics. Was not that enough? Did it not prove that there could be no intention that Captain Plumridge should become a political partizan? If it was not enough to satisfy hon. Gentlemen opposite, he was sorry; but it appeared to him sufficient to disprove the inference of the right hon. Baronet, that his noble Friend at the head of the Admiralty was capable of prostituting his patronage for the sake of his political interests.

Mr. Maclean

was certain that the Gentlemen on his side of the House were perfectly satisfied with the explanations just given. If there were anything wanted to satisfy him of the propriety of the vote which he meant to give on the question now before the House, those reasons would be found in the speech which his hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Wood) had just delivered, and the speech which had been delivered on the preceding evening by the noble Lord the Member for Northumberland. What was the reason which that noble Lord and his hon. Friend had given for doing that, which they themselves thought ought not to be done with- out the fullest and gravest consideration, and which they had done not without the utmost personal reluctance? The reason which had been given by that noble Lord and that hon. Gentleman was, that they who were in the confidence of the Government—who for five or six years had acted with the Government—who, feeling with the Government, had acted in accordance with that Government—that they abandoned the Government because they perceived that it had resolved to carry on its political measures in the ensuing Session in a manner of which they could not approve. If that was a reason for their quitting the Government, and placing it in the hazard and peril to which such an abandonment must expose it, ought it not to be also a reason for conservatives to come forward at this juncture, and show to the country that the Government had no more the confidence of this House, than it had the confidence of the noble Lord and the hon. Gentleman who so lately belonged to it, and who ought to be best acquainted with its real character and intentions? Was there no other reason that would suggest itself to hon. Gentlemen for taking this step on this question? Was there not also the evidence of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, Lord Melbourne, who declared a short time since, that any Government which did not possess the confidence of the country, and which could not carry on its measures, was the worst possible form of Government with which a country could be afflicted? If these were the opinions entertained by the noble Lord now at the head of the Government, and by the noble Lord and the hon. Gentleman who so lately belonged to it, let them see whether they were inconsistent with the declarations of other hon. Members of that Government. What was the language of "the first Cabinet Minister," the right hon. Member for Edinburgh? The House might recollect, that when that right hon. Gentleman lately addressed his constituents, he told them that the position in which he found the Ministry on his return was very different from their position in 1834. Then they were stronger in the favourable opinion of the people. On his return to Parliament, he should find them solely dependent on the support and favour of the Sovereign. But that hon. Gentleman who had this evening addressed the House in defence of Ministers, appeared to overlook the grounds of accusation which had been so ably put forward by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Pembroke. The charges put forward by the right hon. Baronet were, that in the course of last year and the years preceding the last year, the Government had given its support and countenance to those who chose to take on themselves the agitation of the people, and that Chartism had arisen because the Government was either too feeble to repress it, or wicked enough to countenance it. The answer which it had been attempted to give to that was, that Chartism sprung from the agitation against the Poor-laws. The argument of the hon. Gentlemen opposite was, that agitation commenced from this side of the House. Now he would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite this question, whether it were not true that long before the speech delivered by the noble Lord opposite, that noble Lord was not cognisant of the fact that doctrines of a most inflammatory kind had been promulgated under the very nose of the noble Lord in different parts of the country, and especially at Monmouth? Two Gentlemen of this House who supported the Administration, but one of whom was no longer a Member, were in the habit of making use of language which appeared as lamentable in its character and tendency as it had proved in its effects, without receiving the slightest rebuke from the noble Lord. If the noble Lord should say that Chartism was attributable to the agitation against the Poor-laws, he would ask, had not that very agitation originated with Gentlemen who had given the Ministers the most valuable support, and whom the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) himself had raised to offices in the state? Had not Mr. Whittle Harvey been an active agitator against the Poor-law? Had he not attempted to publish, and did he not publish evidence taken before a select committee of this House on that measure, in direct opposition to the recommendation of the House? The Chancellor of the Exchequer brought forward the case for the consideration of the House, and yet Mr. Harvey persisted in claiming for himself the privilege of publishing that evidence. Whom, then, he would ask, had the noble Lord selected to fill a post not existing by the common law, but actually created by statute? Whom? he would again ask. Why this very Gentleman, Mr. Whittle Harvey. Was it fair, then, to charge on his side of the House, exclusively, that agitation against the Poor-law which the noble Lord himself had thus encouraged, and when he had sitting beside him the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, who was of all men the most bitter in his opposition to a measure of Poor-laws for his own country, and had used every endeavour to obstruct its enactment? His hon. Friend, the Member for Lincolnshire, was kind enough to say that he had prophesied that Ministers would be unable to carry on the affairs of this country for a year without going to war. If the hon. Member for Lincolnshire would allow him to prophesy again, he would prophesy that if that hon. Member should on his return to his constituents, tell them that he had come forward this night to resist the motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Devonshire, and to support this Government, because they were a Government of progressive reform, which would terminate in the abolition of the corn-laws, he would prophesy that the hon. Member would not have another opportunity of supporting this Government. But, in reference to his former declaration, he would acknowledge that he had said that the Government could not exist for a year without going to war; and he had said that because he did not think it possible that a British Government would ever submit to what this Government had submitted for the purpose of avoiding the consequences of a war. The noble Lord opposite might boast that he had preserved the peace of Europe; but he would ask whether he had not preserved it at the expense of the national honour and national character? He would ask the noble Lord, whether the flag of England had not been foully insulted lately, on two separate occasions? Ought the noble Lord to congratulate himself on preserving the peace of Europe at the risk of national dishonour? When the flag of England was, a few months since, grossly insulted by France, was the noble Lord satisfied with the apology offered by the French Government? [Viscount Palmerston.—Perfectly satisfied.] The noble Lord said that he was perfectly satisfied. Now he would tell the noble Lord why he was not perfectly satisfied. It was true that the French Government tendered an apology, in which they stated that they would not have permitted the insult to be offered, had they known that the vessel belonged to the Queen of England, but it had not reprimanded the captain, and had suffered its officers subsequently to insult our flag. He would ask the noble Lord whether, in preserving the peace of Europe, he was satisfied with the state of affairs in the east? There was no man better acquainted than the noble Lord with the ambitious projects, the power, the aims, and the progress of Russia, or more conscious how essential she deemed it to her own plans of aggrandizement, that as she had not the physical means to destroy the national greatness of England, she should undermine our commercial and political influence with other nations. What did the noble Lord think of the opinion entertained of this country through the whole of the continent in consequence of the manner it had submitted to the insulting course pursued by Russia—its utter want of vigour in not demanding redress for the insults heaped—and utter humiliation, in not accepting, but framing apologies for those insults? Was the noble Lord satisfied with the course which had been pursued by the French in Algiers? Was he satisfied or not with the state, progress, and position of the French in that country? It was under a positive guarantee given to this country by the French ambassador, that no more was meant than to chastise the insolence of the barbarians, who had insulted their honour, that they were permitted to invade the Algerine territory. He would ask the noble Lord whether he had taken any steps to prevent the further progress of the French in Africa, or to restrain them within the limits which were originally guaranteed, or even to those which they subsequently acquired? In the French Chambers there was lately a discussion on the question of Algerine colonization, and it was then given as the opinion of a gentleman of high rank who had lately come from Algiers, that it was now their interest to continue to possess the whole of the territory which they had already acquired, and to extend her system of colonization, so as to embrace the largest possible tract of the continent of Africa. He would next beg leave to direct attention to the state of our relations in Asia. It would be in the recollection of the House, that a more disgraceful outrage was never perpetrated on a British subject—and that subject an ambassador to a foreign court—than had been perpetrated last year on our ambassador at the court of the King of Persia. The causes from which that insult originated were detailed in the papers laid on the table of this House. In those papers Sir John M'Neill told them that it was attributable to the baseness of Russia, and the undisguised intrigues of her ambassador. There could be no pretence on the part of the Government, that they were not aware of the correspondence which their northern rival had been carrying on with the different Governments of the east for overthrowing British supremacy. The same course had been pursued by every Czar from Peter to Alexander. The sole aim of all, was the exclusion of British commerce from the markets of the east. For the attainment of this object, they had preserved with a consistency worthy of a better cause—[Cries of "Divide."] He would not trouble the House at any length on these subjects, but as no other Gentleman had touched on them, he would throw himself for a few moments on its indulgence. He was about to show the rise and progress of Russia, previously to 1830. Previously to the commencement of the negotiations with Persia, the commerce of England with Georgia and the neighbouring nations, amounted to a million and a half annually. He would ask the noble Lord whether that commerce was in a flourishing condition now;—and, if it were not, what had prevented its prosperity? The noble Lord had had opportunities of impeding the operations of Russia in that quarter, and of preventing that country from disturbing our relations in the East Indies. He would ask the noble Lord, had he availed himself of those opportunities? What was the reason of the march of those troops to whose victories they were so much indebted, and in whose triumphs no man delighted more sincerely than he? What caused the movement of those troops? What brought them into that position? The noble Lord knew perfectly well, that it was the intrigues of the Russian Government at the court of Persia. The noble Lord knew, not by suspicion but by facts, which were in the possession of the Government, that the negotiations of the Russian Government, were the cause of that expedition, which had been crowned with such success. That being the case, did the noble Lord not feel that some attention should be paid to the immediate steps taken by the Russian Government in consequence of that victory? Had he remonstrated with that Government for its expedition to take possession of Chiva, the key to Teheran? The schemes partially developed, previously to 1828, were now realized. The Russian Government had never lost sight of its object, of planting its standard in our Indian possessions. Was the noble Lord satisfied with the progress of that Government? There was also the case of Poland. He considered this coun- try in some measure responsible for the miseries to which that unhappy nation was subjected—as it had taken no steps to secure any of its rights or privileges, much less to restore its nationality. There was another portion of our foreign policy—he meant that part of it concerning Spain. Every one must be aware of the unfortunate state in which Spain now was. He would ask the noble Lord, in connection with this subject, had any steps been taken to liberate Don Carlos? The hon. and learned Member proceeded to discuss the state of the national finances, but the impatience of the House was so great, that we could not catch the purport of his observations. The hon. and learned Member in conclusion observed, that he felt convinced that the motion would be carried by an overwhelming majority.

Mr. O'Connell

Sir, it is not my intention to trouble the House with any reply to the speech, the able speech, no doubt, which has just been delivered by the hon. und learned Member for the University of Oxford. I certainly had not the good fortune to hear that speech throughout, and I therefore leave the unbroken force of whatever arguments the hon. and learned Member has adduced, to the benefit of the party of hon. Gentlemen opposite; and I leave the Ministry to bear the whole brunt of whatever arguments the hon. and learned Member had adduced against them. I solemnly assure the House, that it is with unfeigned regret that I feel it my inevitable duty to address them on this occasion; and that regret is not a little enhanced by the circumstance, that, although various matters have been brought forward, so abundant as to tempt me to trespass on the House at greater length than the House would, probably, be willing to endure, and certainly, than I should be disposed to occupy, I do not think that this debate is likely to raise this House in the opinion of the public, or of the statesmen of Europe. I do not think there has been any of that sagacity which might have been expected to have been exhibited by statesmanlike minds; on the contrary, a species of paltry controversy has arisen, undeserving of such an occasion as the present—this momentous occasion. The great question which the House has to decide is, how this great empire is to be governed and managed, because the manner of management in the present case depends on the men who have the conduct of public affairs. We have to decide upon what principles twenty-four millions of British subjects are to be governed; we have also to decide upon the fate of probably 100 other millions of human beings dependent on our control. And how has this subject been discussed? Seven or eight Gentlemen who have spoken, have talked of where I dined. Yes, this has been a fruitful subject of eloquence for the great statesmen who have addressed the House on this most important occasion. I really do think that the ridicule will be interminable, the laughter inextinguishable, when it goes abroad that the greatest question which has ever agitated this House, has been decided by the frequency with which I have dined with the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland. The case, indeed, is twice as strong as it has been put, for I have dined twice with his Excellency. I am glad that the Gentlemen opposite did not discover this sooner, for then, instead of five, we should have had ten discourses on the subject. If the hon. Gentlemen opposite only knew the excellence of the wines and the dinner, so as to have described them, there can be no doubt that they would have carried by a great majority, a motion in opposition to anybody who has dared to give me a good dinner. I dare say I keep a fair ledger account of my hospitality with most people, and I hope I have given quite as many dinners as I have received. I will now pass to another subject. I have been the subject of many observations in the course of this debate. I have been called a repealer. Why, Sir, I am a repealer, and has anything happened in the course of this debate to shake me in that opinion? What said the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Liddell)? Did he speak of this being the Parliament of the United Kingdom? He talked of English and Irish majorities. He stated as a charge against the present Government, that they had an Irish majority. The question has been asked publicly, and I ask it again, is there any difference between an Irish and an English majority? And the hon. Gentleman has introduced into discussion the fact of my having been honoured with the offer of the Chief Barony of the Exchequer in Ireland. And what was the defence? Why, at that period the repeal agitation had ceased in Ireland, because the people of Ireland had hopes that that House would do jus- tice to Ireland. But I refused that offer, and I do not think that that is an example likely to be followed by the other side. I am sorry to speak of myself, but really I am forced to do so. I refused that offer upon two grounds. First, because I could not trust myself to accept it; for I own candidly, that I was afraid that I should fall into partiality to one party or another, that I should either show favour to those who agreed with me in religion or politics, or, which is the worst sort of partiality, that I should decide in favour of my opponents when they were in the wrong, in order that I might avoid the accusation of doing wrong myself. Thanking respectfully those who made that offer, I refused and rejected it on the grounds stated. I have seen some men talk loud and long—men violent in their politics, and truculent in their language—merely to force themselves into notice, in order that they might have the chance of such an offer. The right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir James Graham) has done me the honour to notice me particularly, and with that candour for which he is so eminent, has charged me with having compared myself with Papineau; and then the right hon. Baronet proceeded to state, that Papineau was a traitor, who had fled from his country, not daring to stand his trial when a charge of high treason was brought against him. I appeal to the House whether the right hon. Baronet did not assert that I had compared myself to Papineau. The right hon. Baronet ought not to have forgotten, and if he had not learned, he ought not to have assailed me—he ought not to have forgotten to read the remainder of the passage in which I compared myself to Papineau. I did venture to do so. I said that we both had considerable popular influence, but that he had an advantage over me, because he had a majority in the Commons' House of Parliament in his favour; but I went on to say, that he was a traitor to the people as well as to the Crown; because, instead of using moral means, when it was in his power to do so, he had resorted to physical force. The right hon. Baronet took care to omit the remainder of the passage which I have just quoted. I succeeded, Papineau failed, and for this very reason, that I looked to nothing but moral means, he resorted to physical force. I have said more than enough on this subject. I now ask the House, after this debate has lasted so long, what are the principles of Government that have been held out by hon. Gentlemen opposite? Their case is this, they come before the country and ask this House to turn the present ministry out and let them in, not merely to declare a want of confidence in the present ministry, but to declare confidence in those who must replace them. That is a matter of course. What foundation do they lay for this? Have they declared on what principles they intend to govern? We have heard a great deal of attacks on Ministers, of gibes and jeers at the result of the division, and yet we have not heard one distinct affirmative anunciation of the principles on which the Gentlemen opposite intend to govern. We have not heard what they will do in England, and least of all, what they mean to do in Ireland. I ask, what are their principles? Hon. Gentlemen opposite, say that the country is much disturbed, that disaffection prevails amongst numerous classes, that dissatisfaction is widely spread, and we heard terrible accounts of the state of the midland counties from the hon. Member for the county of Nottingham (Mr. Gaily Knight). That account, I dare say, was not exaggerated, however frightful it may be. Armed Chartists, secret lodges, organization of men, weapons of a most fearful character, and, worst of all, English conspiracies for assassination—yes, nine or ten victims marked out for assassination—such is the state of England as described by the hon. Member. We have heard of outbreaks at Sheffield and at Bradford, of rebellion in Wales, and that the situation of England is so bad as not to be described, and at such a period as this, have hon. Gentlemen opposite no panacea to offer? Have they no cure? Do they think that the people of England have no grievances? Will they tell us that they will redress those grievances? Will they redress any of them? We have now been debating four nights, and we have not yet been told of any plan for the redress of grievances. Talk of force, every constitutional force has been used, and whenever an outbreak has occurred, it has been met by the present Ministers with more than abundant force to suppress it. What will hon. Gentlemen do? Will they redress the grievances of the country? Will they turn Thorogood out of gaol and free the Dissenters? Will they prevent the gaols from being filled by those who, following Thorogood's example, and acting under what Gentlemen opposite call a mistaken, but certainly what I call a conscientious feeling, offer resistance to the impost of church-rates? Will they do this? No, they talk not of doing it. They dare not do it, for if any of them thought of doing it, instantly the party would break up. How stand hon. Gentlemen opposite on this subject, which is so interesting to the Dissenters and Roman Catholics? Will the Gentlemen opposite decide this question and give relief? When the present Government proposed a plan to ameliorate the law upon this subject, by a better collection of the revenues of the church, having the additional advantage of giving a fixity of title to the tenants of ecclesiastical property, and applying the surplus to relieve the country from the payment of church-rates, this plan was successfully resisted by the Gentlemen opposite, and they thus left that grievance festering in the country, and producing very naturally disaffection and disturbance. But hon. Gentlemen opposite dare not do otherwise. The hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University (Sir R. Inglis) chuckles at this, and will no doubt point to the number of petitions he has presented in favour of church extension. I tell the hon. Baronet, and he will not deny it, that this means a grant of public money. I ask at once, does the hon. Baronet mean to give the public money to the present church? You cannot give church extension without money. I ask, then, is this one of the cures, one of the emollients for the grievances of the country which the Gentlemen opposite are ready to administer? If they gave public money to the Church of England, must they not give it to the Church of Scotland, and with what face can the Protestant Dissenter, and the Roman Catholic, be called upon to support a party whose great object is to protect Protestanism by drawing out of the public purse the greatest possible quantity of money they can lay hold of? Perhaps, if the Gentlemen opposite have not already staled it, they will now state what they are determined to do upon the corn-laws? In the present state of the country, I ask them, do they think that the working classes, disaffected as they are, breaking out into rebellion as they are, do they think that those classes will be pacified by holding out to them the impossibility of altering the corn-laws? Talk of difference of opinion on this side of the House, but what is it compared with the difference amongst the trading Members on the other side on this subject, leaving to the present Ministry this advantage, that with them it is an open question, and some of them voted for going into committee, and making an inquiry, the first great step towards the repeal of an unjust law; but Gentlemen opposite tell the starving manufacturers, that they are to have no relief from the present graduated scale of duty—a duty increasing as the price falls, and diminishing as the price rises. Will Gentlemen opposite ask the country to rally round them on this question? I do not think they will be wise to do so. Let me remind the Members of the House, who may be disposed to place confidence in Gentlemen opposite, to pause before they admit those Gentlemen to be capable of curing the public diseases, and of putting an end to the disaffection of the operative classes. It is advisable first to look abroad and inquire what is the feeling of the people. There have been three meetings held of late at the great town of Manchester. The first was a meeting of the middle classes, composed of three or four thousand men, and need I inform the House what was the result of that meeting. The second was a meeting of the operative classes, amounting to about 5,000 men. Did hon. Gentlemen opposite hear of the conduct of those men, of the propriety of their demeanour, of their respectful attention to those who differed with them in opinion, and of the distinctness with which they applauded everything that was argumentative, and rejected all that was mere declamation? Talk of danger to the Throne, and of the disaffection, of the people, if that danger really exist, if there be that disaffection, if they placed themselves in opposition to the general and just call for the repeal of the Corn-laws, see how they would aggravate the mischief and increase the disaffection. There was a third meeting at Manchester, on Tuesday last, the very day on which this debate commenced. That meeting was composed of 7,000 persons, and the discourses there delivered would do no discredit to this House; and I ask, are such men to be shaken in their determination by those who refuse any remedy? It is worth while to ask this question, when we recollect that what we have to consider is, whether we shall have as Ministers, men who will give no relief whatever to the manufacturers, or those who leave the Corn-laws an open question, who leave it for discussion and evidence, to convince even those who are unwilling yet to yield? I say choose between them, but before you choose, hear the voice of those principally interested, and hear the interpretation put upon those laws by the operatives. At the great meeting to which referred, an operative of the name of Filligan spoke in the following terms:— I too will say, that if I were to come forward and say, as a working man, that the repeal of the Corn-laws is a final measure of reform, I should deserve all the opprobrium you can heap upon me. I come forward to advocate the repeal of the Corn-laws as a step towards getting that which is the inherent right of every individual to have who is a born subject in this country. I do not attend here tonight for the purpose of asking the aristocracy to pass a law to make bread cheap. I only ask for a repeal of that law which makes bread dear. I do not stand here to get the aristocracy to pass a law that will infringe on the private property and vested rights of any individual, but I ask for a repeal of that law which infringes upon my private property and vested rights. The aristocracy say, that if you repeal the Corn-laws you infringe upon their vested lights, but I ask every working man, has he no estate? Was I not born to a most noble estate, the industry of these hands? And I contend that any law which prevents me exercising my industry is an infringement of my private property. Consequently, I stand here to demand a repeal of the landlord's robbing law. This language comes from a man who as yet has not joined the Chartists, but he calls the Corn-laws robbing laws. The Gentlemen opposite tell this man that they stand by these laws; that they are necessary for landlords; that they are, like the laws of the Medes and Persians, unalterable, whatever be the consequences, and do they expect that such a man would give them his support? Is such conduct likely to allay this dissatisfaction of the country, and, I ask are those wise statesmen who, because the landed aristocracy and the clergy have joined their party, refuse to hear the working man pleading for his just rights, and entreating to be allowed to earn the greatest possible quantity of bread by the labour of his hands? There is another topic upon which Gentlemen opposite have no kind of hope. Hon. Gentlemen, on this side of the House, have been taunted with finality upon the subject of reform. The word "finality" dropped from them, and has been fathered on them by some friends and by many enemies. There is no doubt of the finality of the Gentlemen opposite on this subject. I cannot but regret the secession of the noble Lord, the Member for Northumberland, but in that secession I do not know that he has shown as much of good sense as of nobleness of feeling. This I know, that his secession has shown that there is a desire for progression on this side of the House, for the noble Lord has forsaken Ministers. I know not the limits of their differences; but he has forsaken them because they were more progressive than he wished. With Gentlemen opposite it is quite otherwise. There is to be no extension of the present franchise, not one other Englishman is to be admitted into the franchise; no, the Gentlemen opposite are determined to restrain the community within the paltry measure of the extent of the Reform Bill. What sanctity have Gentlemen opposite discovered in the Reform Bill, that they refuse to persons, equally well entitled with those who enjoy it, a participation of the benefits of the franchise. I am not speaking to you alone, but to the people of England whom you exclude from the franchise, and who, when they apply to be restored to it, you turn away and refuse to listen to them. You place yourselves in the high and lofty situation of being solely entitled to political power, and you spurn from you those who would claim to share it with you. Now, upon what hereditary prescription do you lay claim to this exclusive authority in the state? The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Pembroke,—he, to be sure, is of high descent—he traces his pedigree to John of the Bright Sword; and the noble Lord—he claims descent from no less a personage than Edward the Confessor—and they tell the artizan, from their high and irresponsible position, not to come "between the wind and their nobility." This might possibly be borne from them; but the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, his case is different—he came from a lower, but a more illustrious origin—his position and circumstances were the rich reward of talent and industry, which, however, would never have produced their fruits but for the high and unblemished integrity with which they were accompanied. The industrious people of England had therefore a right to complain of the right hon. Baronet, for he had belonged to their class, and now he turned about upon them, and would deprive industry and integrity of that participation in the legislation of the country to which they were as entitled as himself. Why, what was the theory of the constitution but this—that taxation was just because the people were represented, and were taxed by their own representatives; but that it would be a robbery if the people were taxed by other authority than that of their representatives? The party opposite said the people should not be represented; and yet their own writers told them that if they were not represented it would be a robbery. They have told the people of England that there are two classes in the state; the first, a master class, being householders of 10l. a year, and that these should be represented; and a slave class, which did not come within their category, and who were not to be represented. These were told to be gone: ample as were their grievances—just and equitable as were their claims, redress they should have none. And yet that party now dare to appeal to the country, and say they would govern the country supported by the sense of that people whom they would exclude for ever from their franchise. No; they do not even hold out a hope that at some future period the unenfranchised shall be admitted to their rights. No; they have taken their stand upon this point, and they thought they would be right in taking the sense of the country upon it. And what said the people upon this subject? At the same meeting to which I have just referred, an address was agreed to to this House, in which he read the following passage:— Still we are burdened with sinecures and pensions, outraging the feelings of every honest and industrious man, a political state church, that, by its extortions and intolerance, under the cloak of religion, brings the sublime and hallowed doctrines of Christianity into disrepute; a standing army as numerous and expensive as if we were at war with all Europe; a ponderous debt that presses most disastrously on the financial interests of the country; a new poor-law brought into existence, whilst the cursed and abominable corn-law exists, by which the food of the people is restricted, at the same time they are starving by thousands in the land of their birth; and in the midst of all this we are told that the reforms already effected are to be final, and that no farther relief from our present state of political slavery shall be afforded us by you. Already has this doctrine of finality been productive of the most disastrous effects. A spirit of disaffection has exhibited itself in different parts of the empire, and the lives of some of our fellow-subjects have been sacrificed. We deeply deplore this; we are as much opposed to violence as yourselves or any other body of men in her Majesty's dominions. We have never joined in any effort that has been made to alter the present state of things by force. We are determined to seek for and obtain our rights by all lawful and constitutional means; but we hesitate not to express our apprehension, that unless such concessions be speedily made by you as shall meet the wants, the wishes, and the intelligence of the people, the recent outbreaks are only the forerunners of an amount of destruction and loss of life that will be productive of incalculable mischief to the best interests of the country, and will leave a stain on the character of its legislation that will not be easily obliterated. This was their declaration. Now he would ask, the hon. and learned Member continued, were these people to be excluded for ever from a voice in the state; and above all, was the doctrine about illegal meetings to be pressed to this extent, that it would be in the power of the Government of the day to prevent these meetings, which might properly be looked upon as the safety valve in our political scheme, allowing the evaporation of passions, which explode and burst the whole machine. He did not advise an appeal to force; but when they found a total refusal to accord the just rights of the people—a flat denial of all redress for any of their grievances—when they found this producing irritation and disaffection throughout the country, he asked, how could the party opposite pretend to undertake the administration of affairs under such circumstances? Yet the noble Lord opposite said last night that he was ready to take office—that he was prepared to assume this responsibility, and at this very moment. Let him do so—let him come into power, and then let him immediately proceed to increase the army, to increase the police force, and to arm the yeomanry throughout the country; and with these materials risk the edifice of the state to its very foundations? But what would they do with Ireland? How would they govern Ireland? By whom, and for whom, would they attempt to govern Ireland? Would they attempt to govern her by the party who had in this debate expressed their dissatisfaction of the present Government, by such perfect specimens of meekness and modesty as the learned sergeant for instance, and of course with a total absence of political feeling. He asked again, how would they govern Ireland, and by whom? He knew that the right hon. Baronet would this evening give the House some very excellent phrases of conciliation, and make ample professions of his intention of doing justice, with impartiality, to all. But he had heard the same sentiments before from the right hon. Baronet, and uttered, he had no doubt, with equal sincerity; and the right hon. Baronet's entire sincerity he would not for a moment call in question. But was not the right hon. Baronet the same man as when he was last in office? Were not his opinions the same? And the gallant officer, too, than whom a braver soldier did not live; he had not changed his opinions since he last governed Ireland; and yet when he went over to Dublin in 1834, where did the Orange flag wave? It was hoisted as the right hon. and gallant officer's banner, No! The fact was the right hon. Baronet had not the materials amongst his party to govern Ireland. Ireland was in a state of suppressed rebellion, which would break out into open insurrection at the very idea of such a Government coming again amongst them. The hon. Member for Wakefield, whom he was sorry to see abandoning that protection which Ireland had been proud to receive from him, had talked in this debate as if there were two parties to determine between. But now, what were those two parties? There was a whole people on one hand, and a party on the other. If that party prevailed, the cause of the people was lost. He would entreat the House to consider something of the history of Ireland. It would be taxing their patience too much to go back to the times before the union. Ireland had suffered for 600 years. [Ironical cheers and laughter from the Opposition.] Was that laugh intended to deny the fact? If so, he pitied their ignorance who uttered it; or if it were not so intended, and the fact once admitted, he could not respect the feeling which dictated it. Ireland had suffered 600 years of oppression; and this was a fact which hon. Gentlemen opposite laughed at. But what was the history of Ireland since the union? For between twenty-nine and thirty years—for the Whigs had been in office for one year during that period—the Tory party had governed Ireland, and for twenty-five years out of that time, the Habeas Corpus Act had been suspended, or the Peace Preservation Act had been in operation, depriving the people of their constitutional rights. Twenty-five years had they thus coerced Ireland, and why had they not quieted her. And how would they hope to quiet her now, if they came into office? Was there one individual of that party who would not raise the shout of exultation if the right hon. Baronet were to come into office—and would they not kindle bon fires from one end of the country to the other to signalise their new advent to power. The learned Sergeant had been obliged to admit the present tranquillity of Ireland; and was ever such an admission made before in this House—was there ever a four days' debate in this House in which so little had been said about Ireland? How different from the learned Sergeant's course on former occasions, when he came down with his hand full of lists and documents, and papers as bulky as a volume of the statutes at large, and gravely impeached magistrates and officers without number. But if tranquillity was shown to exist in Ireland, had the party of the learned Sergeant done anything tending to promote it? Not by any act of their Government, for, thank Heaven, they were not in power; perhaps they had done so by their recommendations; but was there any one who could get up and say, that he had heard anything of a conciliatory nature uttered at any one of their meetings? If there had been such, it had since been buried, and lost in silence. But, on the other hand, had they not by their press worked in a way directly the reverse, pouring out the phials of their wrath, against every person and every principle dear to the people of Ireland? Their leading journal had gone to an enormous extent in order to assist in walking them into power to-night. What was the language used in this journal in respect to the Irish people? They were called "brutes," "ignorant savages," "worse than the cannibals of New Zealand." What was said of their clergy? That they were "surpliced ruffians," "sanguinary monsters," "a demon priesthood." Good heavens! Was he in a civilized—a Christian country? Day after day, and week alter week, were these abominable insults poured out against the clergy of the people of Ireland—men who had clung to the cause of their suffering fellow-countrymen with desperate fidelity—who were their only comfort and friend when deserted and oppressed by all the rest of the world, and when at the bed of sickness and death, the blood of youth was prematurely sapped by disease and poverty. He repeated it—the opposite party had done nothing to promote the tranquillity which existed in Ireland at the present moment; but, on the contrary, the very reverse. How had their clergy acted? The noble Lord last night pronounced an eloquent eulogium upon Mr. M'Neile, he had spoken of his charity, of his eloquence, and of the admirable tenets which he had heard in a speech delivered by him. He (Mr. O'Connell) would now beg to read a passage from a sermon delivered by that reverend gentleman at Manchester. What said this reverend and charitable minister of God?— War, war to the knife. They tell you that we are ministers of peace, but where are we to find that, I ask? Not in any part of the Scripture that I know of. There is nothing like it in the Bible. We are the ambassadors of Christ, [Oh, oh!] What! were they tired with so short a sermon?— We are ambassadors of Christ—Christ, who said, 'you think that I come to bring peace amongst you, but I come to bring a sword—what peace can you expect to have whilst the woman Jezebel lives in the land?' This was one of their moderate supporters! But who was this woman Jezebel? He knew there were many persons who said it was the Queen. He did not say so himself, though he had thought it so when first he heard the observation, but its application in that manner had been denied by the rev. gentleman, and therefore, he did not take it in that light now. But if it was not the Queen, who was the woman Jezebel? What could the term mean, but the religion which was professed by the great majority of the Christian world? It was either the Queen, or the religion of Ireland, and of the greater part of all Europe. The Irish people were still tranquil, although the Tory party put the English clergy in the pulpit to preach down their clergy and their religion in this abominable manner. And this was the preacher who, together with Mr. M'Ghee, was invited by Lord Wharncliffe, a gentleman not naturally given to fanaticism, but perverted to it by the baneful influence of politics, to meet the Protestant Association at Sheffield. Now, he wanted to know what had been preached here. Had there been no fanaticism directed against the Queen? Had there been no treason directed against her? The man who spoke of Victoria might say he did not mean the Queen; but he (Mr. O'Connell) could hardly lend credit to the assertion. However, when he came to the person whose speech he meant bye and bye to read, he would give him the benefit of any explanation he had made or could make. But what were the sermons that had been preached? He knew that the House was averse to the reading of extracts, and he would not intrude upon it by any lengthened quotations, but he held in his hand a couple of documents, from which he could not withstand the temptation of selecting a few passages. The first was a sermon delivered at Worcester on the 5th of November last, by a remarkable preacher, the reverend Frank Hewson, who said, We see a striking resemblance to the dispensing power which James the Second assumed, now pursued by the Government in not enforcing the remaining laws against Popery. More, we see a striking resemblance to the foreign influence which James was under, in the present position of affairs at Court, in the crowds of followers who infest the palace of our Queen, and fill her mind with Popish and un-English sentiments. The orator went on to Universities, Education, Papists, the Privy Councillors, Dissenters, Horror, Town-Councils, and winds up with Lastly, there is a striking resemblance to the supposed birth of a prince of Wales in the time of James the Second, to the supposed marriage of our Queen to a German prince, whose family are all Papists. When an heir was born to James, the hope of England fell to the ground. In the prospect of a nominal Protestant becoming the husband of our Queen, is the prospect any better. James II. lost his throne, and deserved to lose it; but what was the inference which this preacher would draw from the parallel which he instituted? Why, that as James the II. lost the throne for leaning to Popery, so Queen Victoria should be deprived of her Crown for marrying a pretended Protestant. He (Mr. O'Connell) came next to the sentiments of a man who took a higher tone. He was now going to direct the attention of the House to the celebrated speech at Canterbury. Before he did so, however, wishing to act with per- feet fairness to the person whose name was at the head of this speech, he must observe that that person had declared that the object of his attack was not the Queen but the Ministry. He would only observe, let those who knew that person best, believe him most. He would read the speech and leave the House to judge of the person to whom it was intended to be applied. Thus it begins:— First, I shall direct your attention to the fearful growth of Popery, allied as it is with atheism, infidelity, and the voluntary or anythingarian principle. Her Majesty's Ministers have recognised this medley as their rule of faith, a? exemplified in their precious scheme of education without religion; and I grieve to say, that her Majesty herself has shown too much countenance to the enemies of the Protestant Church. Brought up under the auspices of the citizen King of the Belgians, the serf of France, and guided by his influence, the Queen thinks that if the Monarchy lasts her time it is enough. Meaning thereby, as the speaker afterwards explained, the Ministers. Truly, an ingenious inuendo—reduced to plain English, it was to read thus:— Brought up under the auspices of the citizen King of the Belgians, the serf of France, and guided by his influence, the Ministry thinks that if the Monarchy lasts its time it will be enough. 'But the people of England will never consent that the Crown shall be degraded and debased for the inglorious ease of any created being.' (Here there were 'tremendous cheers).' 'Nor will they consent that the personal wishes and caprices of the Sovereign' (the Ministry again) 'shall direct the conduct of the executive. The Monarchy has its rights; but it has also its duties; the people of this country will not be trampled on by Pope or Sovereign'—(still less by the Ministry) 'still less will they endure that a petty German Prince shall hold the fair realm of England in fee farm. We have not forgotten the forced abdication of the Second James.' (This, of course, applied to the Ministry.) 'Nor are we ignorant that the title to the throne of these realms is that derived from a Protestant Princess. No one can regret more than I do the growing unpopularity of the Queen' (meaning the growing unpopularity of the Ministry) 'and her court'—(meaning the court and the Ministry.) 'But look at the composition of that court and its acts. The courts of former Sovereigns have been as frivolous—more vicious, even, than the present; but the Government of the country and the direction of public affairs have been carried on by statesmen of known and recognised ability, honour, and independence—men who were neither the boon companions of the Sovereign, nor the willing slaves of his follies and caprices.' (This was all the Ministry.) 'I believe, in my conscience, that the favorite equerries are younger, better looking, and better dressed men than Sir Robert Peel—that Lord Melbourne can tell a tale meet for a lady's ear far better than the Duke of Wellington, and that neither Lord Stanley nor Sir James Graham can compete with my Lord Norman by in getting up a pageant. He supposed that every loyal man in the House wished to have the Queen spoken of in that manner. Was there a gallant Officer on the opposite benches who did not feel indignant that such language should be applied to the Queen. Was there a really loyal man in the House who would not deplore and denounce such ribaldry. 'Twas said that these observations were not intended for the Queen—that they were insinuations against the Ministry. He would read a few more extracts, and leave the House to judge for itself:— Look at the appointments that these men and women have lately made. There is not one of them that is not a direct insult to the nation. See the Irish Papists preferred to place, to power, and to patronage. I shall take leave, on thus referring to them, to contrast the solemn oath sworn by her Majesty at her coronation with her subsequent acquiescence in these acts. This oath is the compact made between the Sovereign and the people—its obligations are mutual. I will now read it to you, and be you judges whether or no they have been truly fulfilled. Here are the late appointments of Papist councillors. I take them together, and thus I cast them from me with disgust and indignation. One passage more he would read, which really related to the Ministry. But before he did so, he must observe that, as a man of conscience, he could not do otherwise than believe that all the passages to which he had just called the attention of the House related to the Queen, and to no one else. It was painful to him to contradict any assertion that any Gentleman might make; but was there a man in the House—was there one on the opposition benches who would not stand up and say that the passages he had quoted applied to the Queen? The speaker came afterwards to the Minister, of whom he said, His sheet anchor is the body of Irish Papists and Rapparees whom the priests return to the House of Commons. These are the men who represent the bigoted savages, hardly more cirili2ed than the natives of New Zealand, but animated with a fierce, undying hatred of England. I repeat, then, deliber- ately, that the Papists of Ireland, priest and layman, peer and peasant, are alike our enemies—aliens as they are in blood, language, and religion. The last remark he (Mr. O'Connell) did not attribute to the Canterbury orator. He admitted that it was a quotation from a much greater man, a quotation borrowed from a speech of the leader of that party which they were told made the Ministry weak in the House of Lords, and gave to the Conservatives power. Aliens in blood, language, and religion. Yet on these— Here again the speaker came back to the Queen— Yet on these men are bestowed the countenance and support of the Queen of Protestant England. But alas! her Majesty is Queen only of a faction, and is as much a partisan as the Lord Chancellor himself. The "partisan!" there was of course the Ministry. But shall we quail at this impending danger, and meanly submit without a struggle? No; we will present the same bold front as did our fathers of old, and God defend the right. This was magnanimous, but nothing to what followed: We will resist to the death ill-government and unjustly usurped authority. Petitions to the Crown are an idle mockery. We will no longer submit to be governed by a profligate court. It is in your hands, my friends—it is in the hands of the people of England that her destinies are placed for good or for evil. Some comment had been made in the course of the debate upon a reply which he (Mr. O'Connell) had made to that speech. He did not deny the statements attributed to him. He did say that against such a traitor—against the Tory dominion of such traitors, he was able and willing to bring into the field 500,000 fighting men. He admitted that he said so, and he repeated it now. He had a kind of title to take such a course: for one of his ancestors, at the head of a regiment, fought and bled for the unfortunate James Stuart. He, therefore, had a sort of hereditary right to adopt this course. The hon. Member for Maidstone the other evening entertained the House with some curious infelicities of literature. He spoke of the ruin of Charles I., and accused the House of Commons of that day of having; fanatically brought the Quaker James Naylor, before if, adding, that the House had the barbarity to cut out his tongue. Now it was hardly fair to accuse Charles I. of having any share in that act of brutality, because, in point of fact, it was committed five years after that monarch had been in his grave. The House of Commons who mutilated Naylor was not elected under the King's writ, but was summoned in soldier-fashion by Cromwell. He was not defending the House of Commons which committed so barbarous an act; he was merely reminding the hon. Member for Maidstone how it was that the fanaticism of which he spoke was brought about. It was brought about by the M'Neils and M'Ghees of that day. Ministers of the gospel were sent forth to preach of the Sovereign as a Jezebel. Thus it was that the fanaticism of that day took its rise, and he (Mr. O'Connell) would warn the hon. Member for Maidstone, and the Gentlemen who thought with him, that the fanaticism, which at that period was guilty of such barbarous crimes, might, by the employment of similar means, be raised again in England. Had he not seen within these few days placarded on large carts ostentatiously driven through the streets of the town "The horrors of Popery?" Were not meetings constantly held during the vacation? He could remind the House of dozens of them. Had not fanaticism been preached up in almost every corner of the kingdom. Did they want to have another Bradshaw to preside at the trial of a Queen. There was something ominous in that name. He called upon the House not to countenance by its vote anything which could lead to such abominations. But had this fanaticism no partizans, no organ by which it could appeal to the public; had it no newspaper press, no protector? Why, he found that it was embodied in a volume, and dedicated to Lord Lyndhurst. The book was called "The Metropolitan Conservative Press;" and he found on reading the pompous list of subscribers that the names of the commoners began with that of Sir Robert Peel. Then came the right hon. F. Shaw, M. P., recorder of Dublin, and shortly afterwards James Bradshaw, Esq., M. P. Then turning back the page, he saw that the motto was "Fear God—honour the Queen." He was aware that he had trespassed at some length, perhaps at too great length, upon the patience of the House; but he was anxious if possible to confirm by his testimony the fact that tranquillity which all admitted now prevailed in Ireland. He defied those who followed him in this debate, and he knew that he should be ably followed, for some of the ablest men in the nation had not yet spoken; but he defied those who should follow him to show that there was now anything of disturbance in Ireland. He was counsel for Ireland, and he appeared there to plead her cause. England was discontented and disaffected—Ireland was tranquil. England was distracted by lawless bands of physical-force Chartists—Ireland did not seek to attain her ends by violence, by resistance to the law, by destruction of property. In England, rebel bands were led against the armed soldiery; but those soldiers knew their duty, and performed it. What were they? Irishmen. In England the lives of the gentry were threatened. A spirit of assassination had sprung up. The hon. Member for Nottingham had described how the amiable fathers of families—respectable, unoffending men—had been marked out for assassination. Had the Irish in England joined the Chartists? Had they evinced a desire to link themselves with these assassins? With a few wretched exceptions, there were none. Had the Irish in England taken any part with the Chartists? They had grievances—they had sufferings—they had many causes of complaint. Did they join the Chartists? No. Even the tradesmen of Dublin, whose combinations he opposed at the peril of his life, even they rejected Chartism. Ireland had become tranquil—no more calumnies would be uttered against her upon that score. Her military force was diminished; and why? Because the troops which were necessary to struggle against rebellion, sedition, and treason in England, were not required to maintain the good order which prevailed in Ireland. Another speech of his had been referred to, or at least a part of it had been referred to, by the hon. and learned Member for Coleraine, who had made extracts, and commented upon them, with about the same sort of candour as the hon. and learned Sergeant (Sergeant Jackson) had shown in dealing with another speech. The hon. and learned Member for Coleraine read that part of a speech of his (Mr. O'Connell's), in which he spoke of the downfall of the fund9 and so on. He asked, in that speech, what the three per- cents. would be worth if Ireland were in rebellion, and the men of Kerry led on by himself, even though that news should be accompanied with intelligence that the chief agitator was put down, and the rebellion put down. How did he say that? What he said then he would repeat now. He was addressing himself to the Conservative party in England, and the purport of his address was this:— You, the Gentlemen of England, who have property acquired either by yourselves or your ancestors—who have all the blessings of this world surrounding you; oh! send us not over a ministry that cannot govern us well—drive not the people to despair; let not an almost eternal civil war prevail—oh, if you have mercy, stand between Ireland and an Orange ministry. He would now make that appeal again. He might make the appeal in vain. He knew that the party he dreaded—the party whose dominion in Ireland had been so fatal to all the best interests of that country—were summoned, on the present occasion, from every quarter of the kingdom, to see if it were possible, by a vote of that House, to regain something of their former ascendancy. He trusted he should never live to see that day. One of the most respectable amongst them had been chosen to be the leader of the attack. "Up, guards, and at them!" was their cry. Oh! he had seen these noble guards many a time; but he well remembered, that the meteor flag of England, borne by their intrepid hands, had never waved in triumph in the foughten field, where the commingling blood of the heroes who achieved the victory, had not flowed in equal streams from the veins of the gallant Irish. He was a repealer only when he could not get justice. He asked only for equality. If there was a union—a real union—he was entitled to ask for equality. If he had not equality, he cared not for the union. He wished not for repeal if he could get justice without it; but if he could not get it, then he knew of nothing that could prevent his applying for repeal. He had a right to do so; and if the necessity arose, he would exert it. Never before had the House heard of the tranquillity of Ireland. But there was another feature in her case—a feature which had been slightly touched upon by the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland. He had received a newspaper that day, which stated that more than 600,000 per- sons had given the pledge of temperance to Father Matthew. What was the result? A striking diminution in the amount of outrage and crime. At Waterford, where the monthly return for outrages, for years past, had amounted to no less than 150, there was, during the last month, not one single case. They might think that this tranquillity was temporary. Oh! they did not know the tenacity of the Irish people. They had shown it in matters of war and contest, and they were capable of showing it in matters of the sublimest morality. It was that people who were now before the House of Commons, and who had been assailed only with the ribaldry of such as the learned would-be sergeant, the Member for Coleraine. That people had come scathless from every one else. It was that people who now made their demand upon them. In the name of that people (said Mr. O'Connell in conclusion) I present this Ministry to you, the first Ministry that ever did justice to Ireland. I present them to you in the attitude of our friends—ay, and of your friends also; for they enabled us to afford security to you; and, though they were not permitted by you to grant us the parliamentary franchise in so complete a form as they desired, yet they did all they could to administer impartially the law which they could not amend as they wished. In the name of the Irish nation I present them to you. Will you vote against them with the Hewsons, the M'Neils, the M'Ghees, and the Bradshaws? or will you vote for them, as I demand of you, in the sight of heaven, and in the name of God.

Sir R. Peel

rose, but gave way to

Mr. Bradshaw

, who was understood to say, that with respect to any expressions which might have been used by him in any address he had made at any public meeting, connected with the name of the Sovereign, he could assure the House that nothing was further from his intention than to make any personal allusion to her Majesty. But he begged to say that, from, the manner in which the royal name had been mixed up by the Government on bringing forward their measures upon every public occasion, it was almost impossible for any one who had to speak on political subjects to do so without mentioning the name of the Sovereign. After what took place in May it was well known that the watch word of the Government was, "The Queen and Reform!" and at every public meeting of the friends of the ministers it was stated, "We must support the Queen." This he thought was a most unconstitutional course. He was certainly much to blame for bringing forward her Majesty's name—on the occasion alluded to, and no man could more regret it than he did. He hoped, and he believed, that there were many Gentlemen on the opposite (the ministerial) side of the House who would give him full credit for what he now stated, that, for anything he might have asserted in a moment of excitement disrespectful to her Majesty, he felt the deepest regret. He could not, however, submit to have his loyalty questioned. He had been attacked by hon. Gentlemen opposite in the most violent and unjustifiable manner. If he had been the vilest incendiary, or had been a rank Republican for thirty years of his life, he could not have been attacked in a more ungracious manner. No man was more anxious to support the honour and dignity of the Crown than himself; and no man felt a more loyal attachment to his Sovereign than he did. He regretted most sincerely the interpretation that had been put upon his expressions. He allowed that the few words that had been used by him admitted of that interpretation. He was fully aware of it, and could only say that he deeply regretted it.

* Sir R. Peel

I am very confident that there is no Gentleman present, however weary he may be of this protracted discussion, that will not admit, that, considering the nature of the motion, and considering the position in which I stand, I have no alternative but to solicit the indulgence of the House. I am confident, moreover, that if I must vindicate myself from some accusations, and must detail my opinions upon many important matters, considering the prominent part which I personally have been made to occupy throughout this debate, that I shall not be charged with any silly vanity, or presumptuous egotism. Two demands have been made by the opposite side in the course of this discussion, the one, that he who is about to give his vote of want of confidence in the Government, should specify the grounds upon which that vote is given, the other, that those who from their position may be regarded as the pro- * From a corrected report. bable successors of the Government which it is sought to displace, should state upon what principles of public policy they propose to conduct the affairs of this country. The absolute justice of the first of these demands I willingly admit. The other demand, namely, that I should explain in detail my views of public policy, is, perhaps, not equally imperative in point of strict obligation, but it is a demand to which, from considerations of prudence, I shall most willingly accede. I will answer every question that has been put to me upon that point. There shall be no limit to the fulness and unreservedness of the answers which I will give, excepting your impatience. I know too well the little value that can be placed on that support which arises from misconception of one's real opinions—I have seen too much of magnificent professions out of office, and of meagre performances in—I have had too much experience of solemn engagements, entered into for the purpose of overturning a Government, violated when that object had been obtained—I have so little desire to procure a hollow confidence either on false pretences, or by a delusive silence, that I rejoice in the opportunity of frankly declaring my opinions and intentions on every point on which you challenge unreserved explanation. I proceed, however, in the first instance, to a compliance with that demand which calls upon me to specify the grounds on which I intend, with perfect cordiality, to join in the motion of my hon. Friend, and record my denial of confidence in the present Government. I withhold my confidence from you on every ground on which confidence can be withholden—I withhold my confidence from you on the results of your public policy—on your own confessions of incompetence—on the testimony of your most valued friends—I withhold my confidence from you on account of the constitution of your Government, on account of your measures, and, above all, on account of the principles which you are now forced to avow, in order that you may retain your majority, and therefore your offices. I said, that I withheld my confidence from you on a consideration of the results of your public policy. I will compare those results not with any remote period, not with the results of Conservative policy; I will compare them with those results of which you must be proud, if you have any recollection of events in which you took a share, and have any respect for the character of those by whose counsels you were then content to be led. In the year 1834, the Minister under whose guidance you carried the Reform Bill retired from office. I will read to you the account which Lord Grey gave on his retirement, of the condition in which he left the country, and I will compare that condition so testified by the authority of Lord Grey, with the condition of the country on this day, on which you are urging your claim to public confidence. On the 9th of July, 1834, Lord Grey observed (and mark the contrast in every particular):— With respect to the internal state of the country, we leave it in improved circumstances—trade in a sound and healthy condition—the manufacturers generally employed public credit improved, and all interests in a better condition, with one single exception—agriculture; and even the depression of that interest less affecting the tenantry than the landlord, through the reduction of rents. Political and trades' unions have disappeared. We have exerted the ordinary powers of the law for their suppression, and by administering it with a firm hand, the result has been complete success. That was the testimony borne by Lord Grey to the public acts of that administration, of which Lord Grey, of which my noble Friend, the Member for North Lancashire, of which my right hon. Friend, then Member for Cumberland, formed a part, and from which they were compelled, by a sense of public duty, to withdraw. You have had an unlimited control, with the exception of about four months, over the affairs of this country since, and I call upon you now to render an account of your stewardship, and to tell me by whose fault it is that this country now presents such a contrast with its condition in 1834. You boast that since 1834 you have effected many great public measures, that reform has been progressive, that no obstruction has been sufficient to control the steady march of your advance in the career of improvement. How comes it, then, that in 1840, trade should be in an unsound and unhealthy condition?—that public credit should be injured?—that for months your public securities should have been at a discount? Agriculture, indeed, has improved since 1834. Do you take credit for the improvement? Is it owing to your fostering hand—to your manly and decided tone on the Corn-laws? How happens it, if Lord Grey had succeeded in dissolving political and trades' unions,—if by a firm administration of the law he had suppressed the spirit of disorder—if his efforts had been attended with complete success—if you, too, be justified in your boast that you have advanced in a course of useful reform to an extent which no former Government ever went or could have anticipated—answer me this question—To what is it owing that this country is now convulsed with political disorder, that a spirit of insubordination is spreading far and wide, nay, that rebellion and insurrection are rearing their heads? If the test of good government is the concord and satisfaction of the people governed, can you abide a trial by that test? The noble Lord (the Member for Northumberland) has said, that he had observed from month to month that the supporters of the Government were gradually falling off. Have not these defections been concurrent with changes in the Ministry? with the gradual retirement or expulsion of every Minister (with one splendid exception, I admit, Lord John Russell)—of every Minister conspicuous for talent, for resistance to restless innovation, for a desire to protect and preserve institutions in Church and State? Let us review the changes in the personal composition of the Government since the retirement of Lord Grey. Since the spring of 1834, Lord Grey, Lord Stanley, Sir James Graham, the Duke of Richmond, Lord Ripon, Lord Brougham, Mr. Charles Grant, Mr. Spring Rice, lastly, the noble Lord himself (Lord Howick) have separated themselves from you. Step by step these men have been gradually expelled; and for what reason? Because it was necessary to make a sacrifice of them, in order to conciliate parties holding opinions which they could not sanction. I said I was justified in withholding my confidence from you on the testimony of friends most partial to you, and best qualified to judge of your claims to confidence. Why has the noble Lord (Lord Howick) abandoned you? Because he distrusts the principles on which you profess to act, and foresees the consequences of the concessions you have made, and will continue to make, to the demands of radical supporters. And (turning to Lord Howick), do you read us a lecture about withdrawing confidence? What justifies you in your abondonment of your colleagues but your utter want of confidence in them? You left the Government upon public principle. It was no paltry squabble about office; no pique that you or your relatives were not promoted that induced your retirement. The time was one of extreme difficulty; your colleagues stood in need of every support; and bear in mind the peculiar circumstances under which you had very recently resumed office. You resumed office from an imperative sense of duty, according to your impressions of duty, to protect your Sovereign. In this debate you have said, that an unjust and ungenerous attempt was made to control the Queen in respect to a part of her household. My views are; totally different from yours. I think a condition was required from me which it would have been humiliating and unconstitutional to assent to. But, assume that you were right and that I was wrong. What overpowering motives for distrusting a Government must you have had, that could impel you, amid all the pressing embarrassments of public affairs, when the Ministers, the men whom you profess to esteem and love, were tottering from their weakness—when the Queen required protection from "unjust and ungenerous demands"—that could impel you to separate from your colleagues, and to abandon your Sovereign? Changes in the Government, altering its character, were the ground of your withdrawal from I office. The chief addition to the Cabinet at the time of your retirement was the appointment of Mr. Labouchere to be President of the Board of Trade. I was not aware that he held extreme opinions, calculated to increase the discontent and alarm of moderate men. Have the subsequent additions to the Government tended to increase your confidence? Has the appointment of your successor abated your distrust? What think you of the lecture on the sacred duty of agitation which has been delivered by that successor (Mr. Macaulay)? No! no! if you have been justified in abandoning your post, in withdrawing your co-operation from colleagues whom you know and esteem, you cannot quarrel with our much fainter demonstration of distrust. I have thus given you the testimony of a partial friend to your demerits,—I proceed to redeem my pledge of convicting you on your own confessions. Upon what ground did you retire from office after having carried your bill for the government of Jamaica? You had a majority of five only on that bill, and you determined to resign office. I presume it was not the increasing difficulties of the country that induced you to retire from the post of danger, that it was the bonâ fide belief, after the decision upon the Jamaica bill, that you did not possess a sufficient degree of public confidence to enable you to administer the affairs of this country. In the debate of the 7th of May, when you declared the grounds of your withdrawal from office, the noble Lord the Member for Stroud, and the leader of the House of Commons, gave the following explanation:— It seems to me that there is no option but to give up the bill which we thought it our duty to bring forward. It is then a question whether, having brought forward a bill of that importance, we shall leave the state of affairs in Jamaica, in the West Indian colonies, and in our colonies generally, in that state in which the Ministers of the Crown ought not to be content to leave them. It is obvious that in Jamaica the authority of the Crown will be greatly weakened by a vote of the House of Commons, giving, in effect and in impression, support to the contumacy, as I must call it, of the House of Assembly against the proposition of the Ministers of the Crown. The Canada Bill was pending:— We cannot," said the noble Lord, "calculate on that support which is necessary for the settlement of the affairs of Canada. Therefore, in continuing in the administration of affairs, not hiving, as we think we have not, a sufficient degree of confidence and support to carry on those affairs efficiently in this House, we should be exposing to jeopardy the colonial empire of this country, many of our colonies being, I will not say in a state of hazard, but in a state of uncertainty, concerning which questions of considerable importance are pending. After the vote of last night, I do not think we are entitled to say, that upon the great and important affairs of the colonies, upon which Government is obliged to come to a decision, we have such support and such confidence in this House as will enable us sufficiently to carry on the public business. It was not, then, a mere personal dissatisfaction with the vote; it was not wounded feelings of honour that induced you to resign; your reason for resigning was that you were so deprived of confidence and support, that you were placing in jeopardy the best interests of the colonies by continuing in office. What security can you give to those colonies that you are better enabled to administer their affairs now than then? What said Lord Melbourne in the House of Lords? After mentioning a conversation between Bishop Burnet and King William, in which the Bishop, after discussing the different forms of government, inquired which his Majesty preferred? was answered by the King, I know not which may be the best, but the worst I consider to be a monarchy which does not possess the full power and prerogatives of a monarchy. Lord Melbourne went on to say, in allusion to this conversation, I am sure I do not know what is the best Ministry, but this I do know, that unquestionably the worst Ministry is that which does not possess sufficient of the confidence of Parliament and the country to carry those measures which it may think necessary for the public service. Lord Melbourne did not then draw the distinction which has since been drawn between the responsibility of an Administration for executive Government and for legislative measures. Lord Melbourne said, that that was the worst Government which had not sufficient confidence on the part of Parliament and the country to carry such measures through Parliament as it thought necessary. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Macaulay) differs from Lord Melbourne in that respect; he draws a distinction between executive and legislative functions, and offers it in vindication of the Government for continuing in office without public confidence. Can you maintain the doctrine that a Government is merely responsible for the execution of departmental business? If that doctrine be correct, there may be complete abdication of every legislative function. How is it possible, in a country with a popular form of government—in a country whose affairs have been administered (as in this country they have) mainly through the intervention of the House of Commons—how is it possible for the Government to maintain public respect if it limit itself to the mere discharge of departmental duties? If you exclude legislation from your duties, how would you deal with the case of Jamaica? You felt it absolutely necessary, according to your conception of duty, to annihilate the Assembly of Jamaica, and substitute a despotic for a free Government. You clearly thought good executive Government in Jamaica impossible without legislative in- terference. The case of Jamaica is the case of every colony, of almost every function of Government. There is scarcely any one of the most important duties of Government which is limited to mere administration of departments, and which does not involve duties of legislation as well as of execution. But there is a new resource for an incompetent administration, there is the ingenious device of "open questions," the cunning scheme of adding to the strength of a weak government by proclaiming its disunion. It will be a fatal policy indeed if that which has hitherto been an exception—and always an unfortunate exception in recent times is hereafter to constitute the rule of government. If every Government may say, "We feel pressed by those behind us, we find ourselves unable, by steadily maintaining our own opinions, to command the majority and retain the confidence of our followers; our remedy is an easy one; let us make each question an open question, and thereby destroy every obstacle to every possible combination." What will be the consequence? The exclusion of honourable and able men from the conduct of affairs, and the unprincipled coalition of the refuse of every party. The right hon. Gentleman has said that there have been instances of "open questions" in the recent history of this country. There have been; but there has scarcely been one which has not been pregnant with evil, and which has not been branded by an impartial posterity with censure and disgrace. He said that in 1782, Mr. Fox made parliamentary reform an open question; that Mr. Pitt did so on the slave trade; and that the Catholic question was an open one. Why, if ever lessons were written for your instruction to guard you against the recurrence to open questions, you will find them in these melancholy examples. The first instance was the coalition of Mr. Fox with Lord North, which could not have taken place without open questions. Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that that very fact, the union in office of men who had differed and continued to differ on great constitutional and vital questions, produced such a degree of discontent and disgust as to lead to the disgraceful expulsion of that Government? The second instance was that of the slave trade; but has not that act of Mr. Pitt, the permitting of the slave trade to be an open question, been more condemned than any other act of his public life? I will read what the most recent historian says upon the subject of that very coalition, and of Mr. Pitt's conduct on leaving the slave trade an open question. Of Mr. Fox and the coalition it is said, On such grounds Mr. Fox and Lord North succeeded in overturning the Ministry, and took their places, which they held for a few months, when the King dismissed them, amidst the all but universal joy of the country, men of all ranks and parties, and sects, joining in one feeling of disgust at the factious propensities in which the unnatural alliance was begotten—and apprehending from it, as Mr. Wilberforce remarked, 'a progeny stamped with' the features of both parents—the violence of the one party and the corruption of the other.' What is there to prevent me, if such a doctrine were tolerated, from coalescing with the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Leader) and the hon. Member for Cornwall (Sir W. Molesworth) in opposition to her Majesty's Government, from subsequently dividing the spoils of office, discharging the mere executive duties of it, and evading the exhibition of disunion by alleging that Parliament was responsible for legislation, and that we had nothing to propose which there was a chance of carrying? What says the same historian of Mr. Pitt in reference to the slave trade? These are heavy charges; but we fear the worst remains to be urged against the conduct of this eminent person. No man felt more strongly on the subject of the African slave trade than he. His speeches against it were the finest of his noble orations. Yet did he continue for eighteen years of his life suffering any one of his colleagues, nay of his underlings of office, to vote against the question of abolition if they thought fit. His conduct on the slave trade leaves a dark shade resting upon his reputation—a shade which few would take to be on the first of orators and greatest of ministers. The next instance cited by the right hon. Gentleman, was that of the Catholic question. I have had some experience of the evils which arose from making Catholic Emancipation an open question. All parties in this House were equally responsible for them. Fox made it an open question—Pitt made it an open question—Lord Liverpool made it an open question—Canning made it an open question. Each had to plead an urgent necessity for tolerating disunion in the cabinet on this great question; but there cannot be a doubt that the practical result of that disunion was to introduce discord among public men, and to paralyze the vigour of Executive Government. Every act of administration was tainted by disunion in the cabinet. Each party was jealous of the predominance of the other. Each party must be represented in the Government of that very country which required above all things an united and resolute Government. There must be a lord-lieutenant of one class of opinions, a secretary of the opposite, beginning their administration in harmony, but in spite of themselves becoming each the nucleus of a party, gradually converting reciprocal confidence into jealousy and distrust. It was my conviction of the evils of such a state of things, the long experience of distracted councils, of the curse of an open question as it affected the practical Government of Ireland, it was this conviction, and not the fear of physical force, that convinced me that the policy must be abandoned. I do not believe that the making of the Catholic question an open question facilitated the ultimate settlement of it. If the decided friends of Emancipation had refused to unite in Government with its opponents, the question would have been settled at an earlier period, and (as it ought to have been) under their auspices. So much for the encouraging examples of the right hon. Gentleman. They were fatal exceptions from the general policy of Government. If, as I before observed, such exceptions are to constitute the future rule of Government, there is an end to public confidence in the honour and integrity of great political parties, a severance of all ties which constitute party connections, a premium upon the shabby and shuffling conduct of unprincipled politicians. I give the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Macaulay) full credit for the purity of his own intentions, but without this new doctrine of "open questions" how could you, with your opinions on the corn-laws, on free trade, on the abolition of all protective and restrictive duties, how could you justify your union with the Prime Minister, who does not content himself with mere dissent from your opinions, but who has publicly declared that the measures for which you contend are among "the wildest and maddest schemes that ever entered into the imagination of man?" Again, how can you, who think the suffrage ought to be extended—who think there is no security for the honesty of the elector except in secret voting—who think the duration of parliaments ought to be reduced—who think the Septennial Act ought to be repealed—how can you, with the faintest hope of effectually serving your country, co-operate with the noble Lord, who tells his constituents and the world that he considers these very measures, which you deem imperatively necessary, to be tantamount to the commencement of a revolution? The noble Lord tells his constituents, after declaring himself in favour of some amendments to the Reform Act, such as a new Registration Bill, and some measure with respect to the payment of rates, "that minor changes such as these, introduced when the public mind is prepared for them, and they have been duly weighed, differ very much from the proposal to found a new Reform Bill on the basis of triennial parliaments, vote by ballot, and universal suffrage." [Mr. Macaulay.—I am not for triennial parliaments.] No; but you are for quadrennial: so there is but a year between your measure and that denounced by the noble Lord. Thus then the question will stand between two members of the cabinet:—One says, triennial Parliaments would be pernicious; the other says, quadrennial Parliaments are necessary for the satisfaction of the country. One says, household suffrage will not only be dangerous and convulsing to the public mind—[Lord John Russell, we believe, made some gesture of dissent.]—Have you heard this night the speech of the hon. Member for Dublin, Mr. O'Connell? Did you hear the appeal he made to me? Did you hear him say, that any party which refused to admit to the franchise the great body of the working classes,—the real elements of strength in the country—were unworthy the confidence of the country? Does the right hon. Gentleman believe, when he shall have drawn his new line,—merely admitting to the franchise the 10l. householders now resident out of the boroughs—that he will stop agitation? The noble Lord would soon convince him that such limited extension of the suffrage would have the double evil of increasing discontent, and compelling further and indefinite changes. But the ballot! the most important of unsettled constitutional questions! how can the right hon. Gentleman, who considers secret voting indispensable to the honest discharge of the duty of an elector, how can he act cordially in public life with the noble Lord, who considers the ballot pregnant with evil in itself, and entailing what would be tantamount to revolution—namely, household suffrage? How do you meet in the Cabinet to discuss the state of the country totally differing on a great question like this, involving others of still greater magnitude? The right hon. Gentleman proclaims the sacred duty of agitation. He says, that no great measure can be carried without agitation. Are these mere clap-traps to deceive the Radicals behind him? If your doctrine be good, do you intend to agitate as a Member of the Government? You profess to believe in the efficacy and necessity of the ballot, and you say no great question can be carried without agitation. Does your position as a Cabinet Minister exempt you from the duty of agitating in favour of the ballot? If you agitate in its favour, the noble Lord must agitate against it. Here is the first result of your open questions. How edifying will it be to see the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman, after a conference in Cabinet on the convulsed state of the country, or other arcana imperii, part company at the end of Downing-street, each to carry on his separate system of agitation! Great indeed will be the vigour of your Administration, and cordial the concert of your Cabinet. But suppose you abstain from agitation; suppose, in order to prevent collision in the Cabinet, you never discuss either Corn-laws or ballot, or any other of the open questions, what answer will you make to your constituents at Edinburgh? Out of office you declared yourself in favour of these measures,—in office, you repeated the assurance that you were faithful to your principles. From the proud Keep of Windsor you proclaimed your fidelity to them, not from the gratification of any vulgar personal vanity, but from the firm resolution that truth should be spoken in high places, and that from the palace of kings the comfortable tidings of Radical Reform should be conveyed by a voice of authority. Will it suffice to answer, when your constituents require the fulfilment of your promises, "I gave you no pledges; declarations in abundance I admit, but pledges! I utterly disclaim them." They will remind you, that they hailed your return from foreign lands to the shores of England,—that they found you panting for distinction, and lifted you through their favour into the councils of the empire. If their native tongue will not suffice for this classic constituency, you have taught them, by reminding me of former reproaches, where they may find, in the passionate exclamations of Dido, the fit expression of their sorrows:— Nusquam tuta fides! Nay, they may proceed with the quotation, Nusquam tuta fides! ejectum littore, egentem Excepi, et regni demens in parte locavi. "Shall there he no fruit," they will exclaim, "of our mutual love, no little Bill stamped with the image of the father, and reflecting in its face the features of paternal vigour and intelligence?" Saltem si qua mihi de te suscepta fuisset Anti fugam soboles, si quis mihi parvulus Œula Luderet Æneas, qui te tantum ore referret Non adeo omnino capta ac deserta viderer. You remain deaf to their entreaties; with all your protestations of fidelity, you have nothing to return but the miserable answer of Æneas, after all his coquetting in the cavern, Non hæc in fœveni—I gave you no pledges, The noble Lord tells his constituents at Stroud, that the measures to be dreaded, as ending in revolution, are the ballot and its consequence, indefinitely extended suffrage; and he exhorts the inhabitants of Stroud to act on the principles of true Whiggism, and above all, "not to raise the anchors of the monarchy while a storm is blackening in the horizon." And what does the noble Lord do as the fury of the storm increases? He enlists an able-bodied seaman who thinks there is no safety from the storm but in heaving the anchors, and is whistling away with half the crew at work at the capstan. And what is the consequence? The vessel is lost while the officers are squabbling and fighting about the management of it. One insists on remaining at anchor and riding out the storm; the other, on heaving the anchor and braving the open sea; neither has strength enough to prevail, and amid the distractions of the crew the gallant ship drags along with imperfect and loosened holding, till she drifts on the obscure and dirty mud bank of progressive reform. So much for "Open questions." I now come to consider the acts of the Government, and, in the first place, I will look at the state of the revenue. There has been of late a great excess of expenditure over revenue. Every quarter produced a greater increase in the expenditure, and a corresponding deficit. On the 5th of January, 1839, the actual expenditure exceeded the actual revenue by the sum of 345,000l., on the 5th of April by 430,000l., on the 5th of July by 518,000l., and on the 10th of October by 803,000l. On the balance of three years there is a deficiency of 3,500,000l., comparing revenue with expenditure, and yet in such a state of the finances the Government, for the sake of a little momentary and only momentary, popularity, consented to sacrifice the revenue of the Post-office. I have a right to speak with some authority on this subject. Suppose I had acted in regard to the malt-tax as Ministers have done with respect to the Post-office. I was in far greater difficulties, as Minister, in 1835, than the present Government, and more pressing demands were made for the repeal of the malt-tax than for the repeal of the postage duty. Did I evade the difficulty of forming a united Government by making the malt-tax an open question? Did I not forego the aid and co-operation of my noble Friend the present Duke of Buckingham, because I was resolved that the malt-lax should not be an open question, but that the repeal of it should be opposed by the whole authority of Government? When my hon. Friends saw my determination to maintain the malt-tax or to relinquish office, they consented to support me, and the House, generally, gave me that support, which enabled me to oppose the repeal of the malt-tax by an immense majority—350 to 192. Had this Government acted on the same principle, had they told the House that the reduction of the postage duty was a step which could not be taken without extreme danger to the revenue, had they refused to be parties to the reduction, they would have received similar support. They are, therefore, responsible for the results of the measure which they have so rashly and so needlessly adopted against their own opinions. While the revenue is thus diminished how stand the establishments? What progress has been made in redeeming the magnificent pledges of retrenchment and economy—the flatter- ing promises, that a reformed Parliament would secure respect for the Government and peace both at home and abroad, with greatly reduced establishments! What are the facts? In 1835, the expenditure of the Army, Navy, and Ordnance establishments was 11,400,000l.; in 1836, it was 11,800,000l.; in 1837, it was 12,194,000l.;in 1838, it was 12,681,000l.; in 1839, it was 13,565,000l. In the spring of 1835, the present Ministers took the administration of public affairs into their own hands—they promised emphatically to secure tranquillity and concord throughout the country by "progressive reform," and declared that the name of England would be so respected throughout Europe, that universal peace could be maintained with diminished establishments. They had, notwithstanding, progressively increased the military establishments of the country; not, as he believed unnecessarily: he threw no blame upon them for that increase, but let them no longer boast of the blessings of profound peace abroad, and tranquillity at home. There stood the fact, that they had increased the military establishments of this country from 1835, when they were 11,401,000l., to the present period, when they were 13,565,000l., and this during a time of peace. Do you look to the possibility of a war? What have you done to prepare for it? You blamed the Duke of Wellington and my right hon. Friend Mr. Goulburn for their financial extravagancies. What did we effect in the three years of our administration? We reduced the principal of the public debt in the short period of the three years preceding the Reform Bill, by a capital of twenty millions; we diminished the annual public charge by one million and a half. This was done in the Unreformed Parliament; this was the work of that Government which you said had increased establishments for the sake of patronage and of corruption. What is the amount of public debt now, as compared with the public debt on 5th January, 1831? On the 5th January, 1831, the amount of funded and unfunded debt was 783,000,000l. Had it been reduced during these nine years of peace and reform? No! greatly increased. The true test, however, is not the amount of capital, but the amount of annual charge. Has that been diminished? No! increased to the extent of one million. The annual charge of the National Debt on the 5th January, 1831, was 28,349,000l. On the 5th January, 1840, it was 29,300,000l. So much for your financial administration, and your promises of retrenchment. Let us now consider the stale of the country in respect to internal tranquillity and the contentment of the people. Account to us for the progress of Chartism and Socialism. Lord Grey, speaking in 1834, said that mischievous political combinations were suppressed. Why have they revived and spread to a formidable extent? Because you, the Ministers, have encouraged them by your example, by your acts, by your principles of Government. You are now encouraging them by your exhortations to agitation. When you make a Chartist delegate a magistrate, you offer a direct premium to Chartism. You invert the relation of Government to the people by acts like these. Instead of being a control over evil passions, and a check upon unruly acts, you make the Government and the magistracy the actual fomentors of disaffection and insubordination. It is no excuse that Radical corporations have recommended Chartists for the magistracy; it is no remedy that you afterwards dismiss them when they disgrace the magistracy by their violent language or conduct. The evil is done when the appointment is made. I do not ask you to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act, or to pass coercive laws of extreme rigour; I have every confidence in the power of the ordinary law, when enforced by a vigorous Government, commanding the sympathy and co-operation of a loyal people. But you paralyse that law, and alienate that sympathy, when, for the sake of courting popular favour, you lend your sanction to evil principles, by bestowing the favour and confidence of the Crown on those who profess them. You confound and unsettle the public mind when, as Cabinet Ministers, you exhort to agitation as a positive duty. What right have you to complain of Mr. Oastler? I do complain of him. I have never sanctioned his agitation—I deem it most pernicious. But you cannot so limit agitation that it shall just be subservient to your interests. You can't have agitation on one side merely. The men opposed to you will tell you that the importance which you attach to your purposes they attach to theirs. And the dangerous, and, I think, wicked agitation on the Poor Laws will be defended on the principles on which you rely. If there be danger in that agitation, why should there not be in yours? Mr. Oastler has excited, it is said, and inflamed the people against the poor-law. Suppose he thinks the poor-law a greater grievance than the want of the ballot. If agitation is allowable to you (Mr. Macauley), a Cabinet Minister, can you with any consistency denounce Mr. Oastler for the consequences of his agitation? Then, again, take the case of the Socialists. Have you given them no encouragement? Are you aware of the progress of this society? Are you aware of the opinions they profess? This debate commenced by the hon. Member for Dublin asking the Secretary for Ireland "whether Socialism had extended to Ireland?" And this with the view of showing that the good sense and loyalty of the people of Ireland, on the first ingress of Socialism, repudiated and rejected it. A cheer followed this question, and credit was given to the people of Ireland for the effectual discouragement of this system. Are you (the Ministers) entitled to the same compliment? Have you marked your reprobation of the doctrines avowed by the president of this society,—the shameful doctrines, that religion is a fraud, that the right of private property ought to be abolished, and that marriage is an unnatural institution? I don't want you to rush hastily to the prosecution of Mr. Owen; but I do require from you (and there is not one impartial man, of whatever sect or party, who will not join with me) I do require that the Prime Minister of England shall not present to a Maiden Queen the patron and chief promoter of such doctrines. So much for the president of the institution; now let me put a question to the Government with respect to the Vice-President. The Vice-President of this Institution was Mr. Pare, of Birmingham. In the course of the year 1839 Mr. Pare, being Vice-President of this society, the Congress of Socialists came to a resolution, "That it is expedient to address the General Convention of the labouring classes now sitting in Birmingham." This address appears to have been presented by Mr. Pare on the part of the deputation who proceeded with the address. He reports to the Congress That they were received very courteously, but very cautiously; that Mr. Feargus O'Connor complimented the Congress on being composed of men of high intellect; and he thought the address one which should be answered; that Mr. O'Brien—(Mr. Bronterre O'Brien, I presume), moved 'that the address be received, and taken into consideration after the simultaneous meetings were over, which were previously agreed upon.' Here is proof of the connection between the congress of Socialism and the convention of Chartism. I have it also in my power to prove that the life and soul of this institution, next to Mr. Owen, was Mr. Pare. Now, will the House believe that this vice-president of the congress of Socialism, of that institution which holds that the right to property should be abolished, and that the marriage tie is an unnatural obligation—will the House believe that this vice-president occupies a place under her Majesty's Government? The president of the institution was presented to her Majesty. The vice-president holds an office under the Government, and what office do you suppose? The registrar of marriages in the town of Birmingham! Now, by whom was Mr. Pare appointed registrar of births and marriages? Birmingham, I believe, is not under the operation of the new Poor-law. If it had been, the guardians of the union would have had the appointment. But Birmingham not being so circumstanced, Mr. Pare must have received his appointment from the authority of her Majesty's Government. Is it conformable to the dictates of common sense or common decency, at a time when principles of Socialism are convulsing and disgusting the land, to select for the particular office of registrar of marriages, in such a town as Birmingham, the vice-president of a society which holds marriage to be an unnatural tie? The presentation of the president to her Majesty may have been—it surely must have been—a casual, an unfortunate oversight. Is the appointment of the vice-president an oversight also? If it be, I hold you only one degree less culpable, in the present state of the country, for not ascertaining the principles of the men whom you select for such appointments; and how can you hope to discourage Chartism and Socialism when you exercise your patronage and authority in favour of those who are their chief supporters? It does appear to me, that a more grievous and wanton insult could not be offered to the females of those religious sects for whose relief the Marriage Act was introduced, than the selecting for that particular office the vice-president of a society which holds the marriage ceremony to be an unnatural institution. The office of registrar was held in the same House in which the congress of Socialists met. It is true that Mr. Pare found it necessary to relinquish the office of vice-president of the Socialists; but on withdrawing from that office, he declared he would continue a member of the board, and would devote all his energies to the interests of the society. Is it fitting that such things should be done by the authority of the Government,—and can you be surprised at the progress of Socialism, when the chief patrons and propagators of it receive marked encouragement from Ministers acting in the Queen's name? Again, have you taken effectual precautions against the overt acts to which the principles of Socialism and Chartism might fairly be expected to lead? You had timely indications of the probable result; there were symptoms, which could not be mistaken, that there would be open resistance to the law. In what condition is the militia force of the country? In case of necessity, could it be embodied? Have any steps been taken so to amend the law that the militia force might be available within a short period of the demand for its services? How can you now vindicate your reductions of the yeomanry? You cannot allege unwillingness to employ them as an unsuitable force to maintain the public peace, for you have employed them on every occasion, and have acknowledged the zealous and effectual services they have rendered. You employed them on the occasion of the disturbances at Nottingham, at Bristol, at Birmingham, at Newport. You may allege that you are organising a rural police as a substitute; but surely, in the present condition of the country it was unwise to throw away, at least to impair an instrument of proved efficacy for maintaining public tranquillity before any sufficient substitute was provided. I will not enter into the great department of foreign policy, for I have yet to answer all the questions that have been put to me as to the principles on which, if in Government, I would undertake to act. But do not construe silence into approbation: I see ample ground both for anxiety and for condemnation in reference to our foreign policy. There is but one remark which I will make. I cannot observe without deep pain the indications of growing distrust and uneasiness in our rela- tions with that powerful neighbour (France), with whom, for the interests of peace in Europe—for the interests of commerce—of civilization—of humanity, it is so important to maintain, not merely the relations of peace, but those of mutual confidence and good-will. Of course I speak only of such a maintenance of those relations as shall be perfectly compatible with a studied regard on our part for national honour and the rights of our own subjects; but I shall deeply regret if a cordial good understanding between two mighty countries, the relations of which must influence the destinies of the world for good or evil, cannot be maintained consistently with every regard on the part of each for national dignity and national rights. I shall here close my enumeration of the grounds on which I withhold my confidence from the Government, and shall now proceed to reply to the several questions which have been put to me respecting my opinions and intentions on various questions of public policy, the chief of which are the following:—The Privilege Question now pending, the Poor-laws, National Education, the Reform Act, the Corn-laws, the Roman Catholic Relief Act, and the Government of Ireland. It is said that I cannot venture to declare an opinion on these important matters, without at once exhibiting the divisions and dissensions which are alleged to prevail in the Conservative party. But I declare, once for all, that I prefer incurring that danger, to the purchasing of a precarious support by the concealment of my views and intentions. I ask no man to relinquish his own conscientious convictions, in order that he may adopt mine; but, on the other hand, I will not be the instrument for giving effect to opinions in which I do not concur, and no man shall have a right to upbraid me for having acquired his confidence by a pretended acquiescence in his views, or by a reserve liable to misconstruction. I am taunted with my inability to form an Administration concurring with me on the matter of Privilege, and able, through the support of its followers, to execute my intentions in that respect. This taunt surprises me. Suppose I could not rely for the support of my views in regard to Privilege on my general supporters, how would my situation be worse than your own? I was informed by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) that without my support he had not the hope of maintaining, through its own authority, the privileges of the House of Commons. I was thanked by him publicly for the efficiency of that support, but especially thanked by him for having refused to make this a party question, and for having left each Member to act on his own impressions and conviction. It is found convenient in this debate to take another course, to insist on the necessity of a Government united on the question of Privilege, and making it a party question, and to reproach me with the defection of my friends. On one account I rejoice in this rather inconsistent and ungrateful reproach. It is an evidence that the present Government is united on the Privilege question; that those Peers, including the Lord Chancellor, who are members of this Government, cordially concur with their colleagues in the House of Commons, and are prepared, if necessary, to maintain in the House of Lords the course which their colleagues have taken here. I see then, (if this be the case, as it must be, after the taunts I have referred to,) the prospect of a solution of our difficulties. Let the Lord Chancellor, after the requisite previous communication to this House, introduce into the House of Lords a declaratory bill ensuring both for the House of Lords and House of Commons the unquestioned exercise of essential privileges, and supplying the defect and imperfection of our powers to vindicate those privileges, especially during prorogation. The point, however, so far as this debate is concerned, is merely this, that if I should be unable to carry into effect my views as to privilege by the aid of my friends, and should be compelled to presume upon the honest support of my opponents, my position, as a Minister, would clearly be no worse than yours. I come to the new Poor-law. The leaders of the Conservative party have been accused of giving a lukewarm support to this great change in the Social system, and (though we ourselves abstained from exciting the public mind) of having made no manly declarations of opinion in support of the law, calculated to discourage and repress the agitation carried on by others. Nay, I have been distinctly accused of having maintained silence on the subject of the Poor-law, for the express purpose of gaining support at the late general election, on account of the unpopularity of the law, and the clamour directed against it. I have disdained to notice these and all similar accusations of the public press, false and malignant as they may be, in any other place than the House of Commons. I supported the Poor-law in Parliament when brought forward by a Government which I opposed, and, let me add, if we, the leaders of the Conservative party, had followed the examples which we might have found in the conduct of former oppositions; if we had availed ourselves of the unpopularity of the law, and of the facilities it afforded for exciting public discontent, the law could not have passed. I shall continue to support the law; and in saying this, am I making a tardy declaration in its favour? am I justly chargeable with having declined my share of the responsibility attaching to it, or with having sought to profit, for party purposes, by the tacit encouragement of a cry against it? My own election was among the earliest at the general elections of 1837. I had to address my constituents in the open air upon the hustings. Then was the time for reserve about the Poor-law, if I had wished to set the example of encouraging agitation for election purposes. Here is the speech which I delivered on that occasion. In the course of it I was interrupted by a cry, Did not you support the Poor-law?" (This was my answer.) "There is no question of public concern from which I wish to shrink; and I tell you frankly that I did support the Poor-law; and further than that, I admit that my opinion of its leading enactments and provisions is not changed. I did not support it for the purpose of making a reduction in the amount of the rates, which, in my opinion, is one of the smallest parts of the advantage derived from the measure; but because I saw the moral and social condition of the poor gradually lowered by the operation of the old Poor-law; and I wanted by an approved system to elevate their character and improve their comforts. I wanted to see them raised from the dependent situation of supporting themselves by alms derived from the workhouse to a respectable station, earning their livelihood by their own exertions. These are the grounds on which I supported the bill. I did it out of real friendship for the poor; being convinced that it would secure their permanent interest and improve their condition. If, however, any of its enactments are harsh, I would have them revised and altered. I will not try to throw odium on others by declaring myself hostile to what I have supported. I believe the ultimate operation of that bill will be to raise the character and elevate the position of the poor in. the social scale. Objectionable enactments I shall be glad to reconsider, and make any re- gulation to secure the comfort and welfare of the poor. I adhere to the opinions I then expressed, and I ask any honourable man of those most opposed to me, whether I could have taken more effectual means of discouraging agitation than by such an address to my constituents, on the eve of a general election, frankly declaring myself in favour of an unpopular law? I am reproached with being indifferent to national education. I am hostile to your system of national education, but a warm friend to extended national education on right principles. I have no new declarations to make on this head; I adhere to the opinions I expressed last year. I would give every aid which the state could give to the extension of education on the following conditions:—that the instruction to be provided for the children of the Established Church should be based, not merely on religion, but on the peculiar tenets and doctrines of the Church; that the Church should be invited, nay, if possible, compelled, to take its full share in the education of its own flock; that you should not act as if you were jealous of the Church in its own proper sphere of duty, as if you merely tolerated the Church as an inconvenient incumbrance established by law of which you could not get rid; as if you were ashamed of those doctrines and principles which are the distinguishing marks of the creed which we profess. I would give the Church ample means of extended education to all classes on such principles, but not the slightest power to interfere with the instruction of those who were unwilling to accept it, and I would not refuse to those who rejected it, and who dissented from the Church, the means of education based on the great truths of Christianity. I would, in short, act upon the general principles on which Parliament did act in the years 1836 and 1837. Some members have justified their support of the present Government, while they profess no great respect for it, on the ground that the Reform Act would be endangered if those who were notoriously hostile to the Act during its progress in Parliament were now in power, and there is a frequent attempt at ridicule of the "new-born zeal for reform," and the conversion of former enemies of the Reform Act into cordial friends determined to stand by every enactment of it. This is my case; and yet I see no ground for ridicule or re- proach. What inconsistency is there, after a momentous change in the representative system has been effected, at the expense of great convulsion and disorder, in accepting that change as a final settlement, rather than seeking, directly or indirectly, to disturb it at the risk of renewed and more violent convulsion and disturbance, and with every prospect of ultimate defeat? I will maintain the Reform Act:—first, because I think it impossible to revive the system of representation which that Act extinguished; secondly, because the professed friends and chief authors of that Act are inclined to destroy the work of their own hands, and again to agitate for a new Reform Bill, based on more democratic principles. If I can resist them more effectually by maintaining, not every letter, not every palpable defect in the Reform Bill, but all its main provisions, than by disturbing the settlement which it made, where is the inconsistency in an opponent of the bill, during its progress, becoming a supporter after its enactment? In the progress of this moving panorama of questions, the view is at length presented of the Devonport election and the corn-laws. The Judge-Advocate came down to the House, with his pockets filled with scraps of newspapers, detailing the proceedings of the Devonport election, and the speeches of Mr. Dawson on the Corn-laws. The right hon. Gentleman inferred that I was a party to the declaration which Mr. Dawson had made on the subject of a modification of the existing Corn-laws, and that I had employed Mr. Dawson as a convenient instrument for publicly notifying some change of opinion on my own part. Now I assure the right hon. Gentleman, that when he changed his own opinion on the ballot; when he, who was previously adverse to the ballot, and still doubts its efficacy, found it convenient, at the time of an election at Devonport, to signify to his constituents that he would in future vote for the ballot, I never inferred that his relatives (Lord Grey, or Lord Howick) had changed their opinions on that subject, and had employed his conversion as the signal of their own. I gave him credit for being allowed to exercise his own discretion on a public question, and to act independently without being subject to the control of others. Such, however, is not the indulgent construction which the hon. Gentleman puts on the speeches of Mr. Dawson; and it becomes necessary for me, therefore, publicly to declare not only that Mr. Dawson's profession of opinion on the Corn-laws was wholly unauthorized by me, but that I never had the slightest communication with Mr. Dawson on the subject of the Corn-laws, either previously to the Devonport election or during its progress. Nay, more, I will also publicly declare, that on no occasion have I ever resorted to the paltry device of employing another person to speak my opinions, of putting forth a feeler, (as the phrase is) of making an experiment on the public mind, with the view of ascertaining the policy of maintaining or abandoning any given course. I should have credit for this, I hope, on my simple asseveration; but I will put it beyond all question as to the particular case which has been mentioned, assuring the right hon. Gentleman that his surmise that Mr. Dawson was employed by me, in 1828, to indicate a change of opinion on my part on the Catholic question, is as utterly unfounded as his impression that Mr. Dawson's late speeches at Devonport on the Corn-laws were made with my sanction or previous knowledge. When I saw, by mere accident, in some newspaper, that Mr. Dawson had expressed an opinion at Devonport in favour of an alteration of the existing Corn-laws, and that an inference was drawn from this circumstance that my opinion had undergone a change, I wrote to Mr. Dawson, expressing my regret that he had not unequivocally declared to the electors that he alone was responsible for the opinions he was expressing, and that they were delivered without the slightest previous communication with me. I have not a copy of my letter, but I hold in my hand his reply, which will demonstrate the truth of what I am asserting. It is dated Devonport, 18th of January:— I have received your letter, which I was unable to answer before, from incessant toil. It gives me great pain to think that you disapprove of anything I have done. I was surprised to see the manner in which the few words which I uttered upon the Corn-laws were taken up by the London press. If I had had any suspicion that my words would have been noticed at all, I should have made it distinctly understood that I was expressing my own, and my own sentiments only, but it never occurred to me that such an explanation was necessary. I said generally, that my opinion might put me in opposition to the Conserva- tive party, without mentioning any names—a caution which appeared to me sufficient to prevent any misunderstanding—which words, I believe, passed unnoticed by the London press. This, probably, will be conclusive as to my responsibility for Mr. Dawson's opinions on the Corn-laws. On that great question my opinions remain unchanged. I adhere to those which 1 expressed in the discussion of last year. I did not then profess, nor do I now profess, an unchangeable adherence to the details of the existing law—a positive refusal, under any circumstances, to alter any figure of the scale which regulates the duty on foreign corn. I did profess, and I now repeat, that I consider a liberal protection to domestic agriculture, indispensable, not merely to the prosperity of agriculture, but to the general interests of the community—that I think a graduated duty, varying inversely with the price of corn, far preferable to a fixed duty; that I object to a fixed duty, first, from the great difficulty of determining the proper amount of it on any satisfactory data; but, secondly and chiefly, because I foresee that it would be impossible to maintain that fixed duty under a very high price of corn, and that, once withdrawn, it would be extremely difficult to reestablish it. I have reserved for the last place the most important questions of all; namely, those that are involved in the consideration of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, the policy of maintaining it, the spirit in which, if maintained, it ought to be executed, especially with reference to the administration of affairs in Ireland. The question has been repeatedly and reproachfully put to me out of this House—Do I contemplate the repeal of the Emancipation Act? Do I sanction the proceedings of those who are exciting public discontent with its enactments with a view to the re-imposition of disabilities? Sir, I should be ashamed of answering such questions, of thus implying any doubt as to the stability and permanency of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. Is there any man living who has greater interest than I have in maintaining that Bill, or who ought to view with greater pain obstacles to its satisfactory and conciliatory operation? Can it be justly required from me to contradict every newspaper report, to disclaim the speech of some utter stranger to me or my opinions, who may choose to declare his belief, that I repent of the part I took in the passing of the Relief Bill? Repent, indeed! My repentance must either be from conviction that my motives were dishonest or corrupt, or that the course I took in 1829 was justified by no considerations of necessity or true policy. As to motives, I may say, without presumption, that I can claim credit for one virtuous act in public life. I can claim credit for having incurred, in the performance of a public duty from which I might have shrunk, not merely obloquy and vituperation, but the heavier sacrifices of the alienation of private friends, the severance of party connexions, the interruption of yet nearer and more binding ties. I say nothing of the loss of power. I look with scorn and contempt on the insinuations that, having opposed Catholic Emancipation while it was profitable to oppose it, I became a convert for the sake of retaining office. Who could doubt that the certain consequence of my proposing the Relief Bill must be that which actually followed—the loss of the support of those with whom I had heretofore acted, and the inability to conduct the Government? The right hon. Gentleman prophesies a speedy renewal of those feelings of dissatisfaction (disgust, indeed, was the word he used) with which the Tory party viewed the course which my noble Friend the Duke of Wellington and myself felt it our duty to pursue in regard to the Relief Bill. I do not deny the existence of those feelings at that time. They were prompted, I believe, and not unnaturally, less by the decision to which we came, than by the circumstances under which it was our painful duty to act—the apparent reserve which we maintained until the last moment—the apparent distrust of those with whom he had previously cordially co-operated in public life. The events of those days are now becoming matters of history; and I have been supported, through all the reproaches I have endured and the sacrifices I have made, by the conviction that justice must be ultimately done, and that the light of truth will at last dispel every mist, every shade on our character that imperfect knowledge and unjust suspicion may have thrown. Why did we conceal from our friends the course we had determined to pursue? Because we had not the power, consistently with our duty, with our solemn Obligations to the Grown, to declare it. Immediately after the Session of 1828, my noble Friend and I came to the conclusion, that it was impossible for us, as Ministers, consistently with our views of the public interests, to continue our opposition to the settlement of the Catholic Question. We felt it absolutely necessary that an united Government should consider that question, either with a view to permanent resistance, or to early concession; and that we could not advise the attempt to form a Government on the principle of permanent resistance. We felt deeply impressed with the belief that, in the state of the public mind, and in the state of parties at the time, that attempt must fail, and that its failure would only serve to aggravate every evil. It is notorious that the Sovereign in whose service we were, whom we were bound to advise, not as party-men, but as responsible Ministers, had decided objections to the alteration of the then existing laws. Those objections were not abated or relaxed until a very short period before the meeting of Parliament in 1829. It was not until the month of January of that year that we received permission to consider the Catholic Question in Cabinet, and, if the Cabinet should be agreed, to tender our united advice as a Cabinet to his Majesty—his Majesty reserving to himself the entire power of acting upon or rejecting that advice. How was it possible for us, under such circumstances, to make any communication to our friends and supporters? My own impression in January was, that I should be permitted to relinquish office, being at the same time prepared, out of office, to make every sacrifice which the resolution zealously to co-operate with my noble Friend in bringing this question to a settlement, might have required. I remained in office, because my assistance in office was absolutely indispensable; but so uncertain was I, so uncertain was my noble Friend, of the tenure by which we held office, that on the very day before I brought forward the Catholic Question in the House of Commons, we actually resigned it. I moved the Relief Bill in the House of Commons on the 5th of March, 1829; but it is the fact, that on the preceding day the Duke of Wellington, Lord Lyndhurst, and myself, after a long interview with his Majesty, at Windsor Castle, felt it necessary, on account of his Majesty's scruples with respect to parts of the intended measure of relief which we deemed indispensable to tender our resignations of office. Those resignations were actually accepted, and we returned from Windsor on the evening of the 4th March, no longer Ministers of the Crown. In the course of the night we were reinstated in office, having received from his Majesty the full authority which we required to proceed with the Relief Bill. Such were the circumstances under which we felt ourselves precluded from entering into communications on the subject of that bill, and of the course we meant to pursue, with a great body of attached friends and supporters, whose confidence and esteem were of inestimable value. There are some, however, who do not question the motives of our conduct in undertaking the Relief Bill, but deny the necessity for the measure. We felt the necessity imperative, not from the dread of violence, not from submission to menace, but from the fact that, in four out of five Parliaments preceding 1829, the House of Commons had declared in favour of the measure, and that the influence of public opinion in this country, united with the undivided Roman Catholic feeling in Ireland, was too powerful to be resisted; or made it impossible at least to continue the system of open questions and divided cabinets. If it were no longer possible to maintain disabilities in 1829, surely to dream of imposing them now, is among the wildest visions that ever disturbed the imagination. Repeal the Emancipation Bill!—and what next? Will you leave to the Roman Catholics the privileges which they held before the Relief Bill, and independently of it? But those privileges (the elective franchise in particular), and the substantial power which they conferred, were the main instruments by which the Relief Bill was carried. If you are prepared to withhold those privileges (and withhold them you must), the measure you advise is not the mere repeal of the Emancipation Act, but the retracing all the steps of gradual concession for a century back, till you remount to the Penal Laws and absolute servitude. Can any man who reflects on the state of Ireland, and on its relation to this country, entertain for one moment so absurd a speculation? Then comes the question,—if the Relief Bill cannot be repealed, in what spirit shall it be executed? Shall it be nominally retained on the Statute Book, but be defeated, so far as civil office and distinctions are concerned, through the distrust of the Crown? I answer, decidedly not. And is this answer now extorted from me for the first time? Is it true that I have countenanced, by silence, an opposite opinion? What could be more explicit than the declaration which I made—not in paragraphs of newspapers, but in my place in Parliament, in the month of April of last year? I then observed, As the law has decreed a civil equality to all classes in Ireland, without reference to religious distinctions, the Crown ought not, by the interposition of its prerogative, to create practically a difference which the law does not recognise. I think the Crown ought to act on the principle of the law, and not make the religious opinions entertained by any man the ground of disqualification for the exercise of civil functions. I then claimed for myself what I now claim—the same right which you exercise, and which every Government ought to exercise—that of preferring its own friends and supporters to such appointments as imply mutual trust and confidence, and which could not be usefully filled for the public service, without a concurrence in political opinions. But I added, I have never taunted the noble Lord with selecting Roman Catholics for such appointments. I defy him to produce the instance in which I have sought thus to limit him in the exercise of his patronage. I adhere to these opinions; and having avowed them, not once, but repeatedly in Parliament, I consider myself relieved from the necessity of recording them, during the recess, in letters to newspapers, or speeches after dinner. I readily subscribe to the position, that the Crown ought to act on the great principle of the law; but, in fully recognising the principle of civil equality as the rule of action for the Crown, I beg distinctly to declare that I consider it an abuse and perversion of that rule to patronise agitators because they are Roman Catholics. I would place Roman Catholics, in this respect, on a footing of equality with Protestants; and, as I would withhold grace and favour from the Protestant agitator, so would I, without hesitation, withhold them from the Roman Catholic. There is but one qualification which I would place on the principle of civil equality, and that is a qualification distinctly recognised by the law. recognised by every advocate of the Roman Catholic claims; recognised and fully assented to by the Roman Catholics themselves. It is this, that, concurrently with the enjoyment of civil privilege by the Roman Catholics, the Protestant Church shall be inviolably maintained as the Established Church, and protected in the possession of its rights and privileges as such. The respected authority of Mr. Grattan was decisive and unvarying in favour of the maintenance of this principle; every bill which Mr. Grattan brought in for the relief of the Roman Catholics recited, almost ostentatiously, in its preamble, the absolute right of the Established Church to protection: his dying declarations were in favour of the combined principle of civil equality and the maintenance of the established religion in Ireland as well as in this country. I will conciliate no support by the concession or compromise of that principle. I am accused, however, of having acted, in respect to the administration of Ireland on a different system from that which I profess. I have had but a brief connexion with the Government of Ireland since the passing of the Relief Bill, but is it just to draw an unfavourable inference from the experience of that connexion? In 1835 I was called upon to constitute a Government for Ireland. Of whom was it composed? Of Lord Haddington, as Lord-lieutenant, an uniform and able supporter of the Roman Catholic claims, and the intimate friend of Mr. Canning; of Sir Henry Hardinge, as Chief Secretary, the friend and relation of the late Lord Londonderry. For the office of Lord Chancellor I selected the chief ornament of the bar of England, a man conspicuous for the mildness and moderation of his opinions, who, in the course of his short career in Ireland, conciliated the esteem and respect of the bar in that country, and the warm approbation of his political opponents. My Attorney-general had been the Attorney-general of Lord Melbourne; my Under Secretary of State had been his; my Solicitor-general was Mr. Pennefather,—and can any man hear the mention of that name without admitting its claim to honour and respect? What better indications could I give of the intention to govern Ireland with justice, with impartiality, and with kindness, than such appointments as those to the chief offices that constituted the Government? You complain of the injustice and absurdity of condemning the existing Government of Ireland for trivial acts, such, for instance, as the invitation of Mr. O'Connell to the table of the Lord-lieutenant. Did you extend that forbearance to Lord Haddington's Government? Is it not the fact, that the chief, almost the only accusation that you could find to prefer against him was, that some vagabond waved an orange flag in a Dublin theatre over the box of the Lord-lieutenant? Do I make light of the studied exhibition of a flag, if intended as an insult? No; but I complain of the grievous injustice of making Lord Haddington responsible for an act of which he was utterly unconscious, and which he was the first to reprobate. I have done. I have fulfilled the purpose for which I rose, by specifying the grounds on which I withhold my confidence from the present Government, and by declaring the course I mean to pursue on the great questions of public policy, on which the public mind is divided I cannot answer the question you put to me, "What principles will prevail if a new Government be formed?"—but I can answer for it, that if the principles I profess do not prevail, of that Government I shall form no part. It may be, that by the avowal of my opinions, I shall forfeit the confidence of some who, under mistaken impressions, may have been hitherto disposed to follow me. I shall deeply regret the withdrawal of that confidence; but I would infinitely prefer to incur the penalty of its withdrawal, than to retain it under false pretences, or under misapprehensions which silence on my part might confirm. It may be, that the principles I profess cannot be reduced to practice, and that a Government attempting the execution of them would not meet with adequate support from the House of Commons: still I shall not abandon them. I shall not seek to compensate the threatened loss of confidence on this side of the House, by the faintest effort to conciliate the support of the other. I shall steadily persevere in the course which I have uniformly pursued since the passing of the Reform Bill—content with the substantial power which I shall yet exercise—indifferent as to office, so far as personal feelings or personal objects are concerned—ready, if required, to undertake it, whatever be its difficulties—refusing to accept it on conditions inconsistent with personal honour;—disdaining to hold it by the tenure by which it is at present held. Every stimulus to continued exertion will remain, Every distinction that my ambition aspires to will be gained. I shall have the cordial co-operation of many friends whom I honour and esteem, and with whom I have acted from my first entrance into the troubled career of political life; with those friends also, not less honoured and esteemed, who, having made the noblest sacrifices of power and political connexion to public principle, have been united with me by an overpowering sense of public duty. Above all other encouragements, above all other distinctions, I shall have the proud satisfaction of acting in entire and cordial concert with that illustrious man on whose right hand I have stood throughout the varying fortunes of the great contests of recent years, who is still devoting faculties, unimpaired by time, to the service of a grateful country, and achieving a reputation as a statesman, not inferior to his pre-eminent fame as a warrior, through the exercise of the same qualities, "rare in their separate excellence, wonderful in their combination," which ensured his military triumphs; the same acuteness, the same sagacity, the same patience, the same true courage, the love of justice, the love of truth, the noble simplicity of mind without fear and without reproach. Encouraged by such an example and supported by such aid—holding opinions which I believe to be the opinions of the vast majority of those intelligent and powerful classes which used to influence and which ought to influence the constitution and the march of governments—the clergy, the magistracy, the commercial classes, the yeomanry of this country,—I can hardly believe that such opinions are incapable of practical execution. But be that as it may, of this I am sure, that they must so far prevail, that he who holds them will be enabled effectually to assist you (the Government) whenever you resolve to refuse improper and dangerous concessions; and, if you are inclined to make them, to offer those impediments to your downward progress, which you will call obstructions to public business—which the country will consider the real guarantee that this free and limited monarchy shall not be convened, through the folly or the weakness of its rulers, into an unqualified and unmitigated democracy.

* Lord John Russell

said, Sir, at the end * From a corrected Report. of four nights of debate, the right hon. Gentleman has made a speech of about three hours' duration, in support of a motion asking this House to give advice to her Majesty, to pray her Majesty to dismiss those Ministers in whom she has placed her confidence, and to take other Ministers to her councils. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was divided into two parts. During the first half of it, he endeavoured to prove, that, this country is in a state of calamity, of internal discoid and disorder, that our finances are embarrassed, that our credit is nearly ruined, and that our difficulties are almost irretrievable; and having for about an hour and a half proceeded in this strain, the right hon. Gentleman devoted the remainder of his speech to prove, that he was ready, and capable, and willing, to remedy all these disasters, and that he was qualified to fill the highest place in the councils of the Crown. Sir, I have a right at least to expect some attention in my answer to that speech. I complain not of the motion; I complain neither of the motion itself, nor of the time at which it has been brought forward. On the contrary, I think, that if this House is prepared to give advice to the Crown upon the subject of the dismissal of Ministers, at no time can it be more fitting to be given than at the commencement of the session, when those who may take the great offices of the state, may have some time to look into our complicated affairs, that the session may thereby not be lost, and that some measures may at least be proposed by those to whom the confidence of the Crown is to be transferred. It is, therefore, with great satisfaction that I find this is not a motion, like that which was brought forward last session with respect to Canada, as a kind of postscript to a different motion; that it is not a motion like that regarding the reversal of our resolutions respecting the Irish church, which, after plausible professions, tended to make any arrangement consistent with our character impossible; and last of all, that it does not resemble the motion that was brought forward last year, to which the right hon. Gentleman so much alluded in the beginning of his speech—a motion going to the foundation of the Ministry, obliging them, as the result proved, to resign office into the hands of her Majesty; but nevertheless, brought forward with the declaration, that it was not to be made a party question; and I am glad, that at least, such is not the nature or aspect of the question with which the House has now to deal. Some complaint I may indeed make, and it is this, that the greater part of the debate has been employed in charges against the conduct of our internal affairs, and against the means taken for the repression of disorder and dissatisfaction, during the whole of last session of Parliament, when I had the conduct of those affairs—when during many anxious months I was employed day by day in providing against the dangers which day by day arose, and had in the evening to conduct the affairs of Government in this House: and during that time, there was neither a general complaint, neither was there what might have been fairly demanded, if there were grounds of complaint, a demand for papers to be laid on the table of the House, as has been done on several former occasions. I do not say this because these papers would have given a different aspect to the complaints of the right hon. Gentleman; but because it is but fair that the House should have at least some materials to go upon before they are called upon to form a judgment. I am compelled, therefore, to take a course which may be tedious, but which, in consequence of statements made on the other side, in justification of my conduct as Home Secretary, I am compelled to take. In doing this I am obliged to do, what I fear will be very unpleasant to the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, who wishes to confine our attention entirely to the last five years. The noble Lord would not go beyond the last five years, he would not even refer to what had happened in 1829, nor allow us to quote proceedings in which he had no small share of credit, but on a different side and with a different party in politics. I cannot consent to adopt the limitation of the noble Lord. Regarding this question of the state of the country, I must beg to observe, that towards the end of the last century there was a great increase of population, an increase especially in the manufacturing towns, where people were gathered together in large masses without, as I remarked at the end of last session, allowing a gradual growth under the proper means of civil Government and religious instruction, which had attended the slower growth of the country. Thus there sprang up a people whom it was easy to inflame and excite by popular harangues, and by the press; by large meetings, and by inflammatory newspapers, which it was extremely difficult to keep within the bounds of law. Means were in those days taken to suppress these disturbances. The Habeas Corpus Act was suspended, and new laws were passed against treason and sedition, and prohibiting the attendance at public meetings of this kind, which proceedings were renewed from time to time till 1801, and which were justified upon the ground that they were necessary for the safety of the country. Lord Eldon many years after said, in the House of Lords, that he believed he had instituted more prosecutions than any Attorney-general, but that he found the existing laws totally insufficient to meet the emergencies of the times, and Mr. Pitt's Government was accordingly obliged to provide new laws for the purpose. In 1817, new disturbances broke out, and in consequence a secret committee was appointed to inquire into the state of the country. The Habeas Corpus Act was suspended, and remained so during the whole of that year. In 1819, fresh dangers arose, in description of which, he would beg to quote the statement of a noble Lord, then the foreman of the grand jury of Lancaster, and the father of the noble Lord opposite, That he was directed by the grand jury, as their foreman, to forward a statement, deduced from their inquiry into the state of the county (Lancaster), from which the following are extracts:—'From the result of that inquiry it appears, that the most inflammatory publications have for some time been industriously circulated at a price which puts them very generally into the hands of the poorest classes of society. The training and military drilling of large bodies of men, under regular leaders, have for some time been carried on to a great extent, and the times chosen for the purpose are principally during the night, or at such hours as seem best calculated to elude observation. Marching and other military movements are practised with great precision, and the words of command are promptly and implicitly obeyed.' 'Whatever may be the real object of those who have obtained an influence over the minds of the misguided, there is reason to believe, from the declarations which have been openly and avowedly made, that the object of the lower classes in general is no other than to reverse the orders of society which have been so long established, and to wrest by force from the present possessors, and to divide among themselves, the landed property of the country. 'Indeed, in one populous district, no warrant for ordinary offences, or other legal process, can be executed; the payment of taxes has ceased, and the landlords are threatened with the discontinuance of their rents. In consequence of that state of things the Ministry in that year introduced six different Acts for the maintenance of the peace of the country. I am not going either to defend or to arraign the course which the Government of that day took in suspending the Habeas Corpus Act, and restricting the right of public meeting. If there is anything which I have learned from official experience, it is not to judge presumptuously or harshly of ray predecessors in power, who, no doubt, considered that there existed very forcible reasons for the course which they then adopted. But if they thought themselves justified in suspending some of the most important laws of the constitution, I beg to say that I have been bred in a different school: I believe in the opinion expressed by Mr. Fox, that in such cases of great public danger it is necessary to put the laws into force, and that except on very extreme occasions there is something in the laws, and in the power of the constitution, by which such difficulties may be overcome, and such dangers suppressed, without having recourse to any violent interference with the constitutional liberties of the people. In one of the years just referred to, I, being a Member of this House, opposed a proposition for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, not with any purpose of obstructing the Government of the day, but because I thought such a proceeding unnecessary. This I did in company with Sir Samuel Romilly, Sir James Mackintosh, and others, some of the wisest and best men of our time. When, therefore, I came into office in later years, I did not follow the course which was vulgarly, but often falsely, asserted to be usual with persons coming into office, namely—that of succeeding to the policy of the Government which had gone before, and abandoning the principles which I had declared when in opposition; but with those principles still in my mind, I have still thought that public dangers of this kind may be met with greater safety by not suspending any part of the constitution; and accordingly, when the occasion arrived, I set myself to work, endeavouring by means of the law, and the law only, to suppress the disturbances which have broken out. Now, with re- spect to the nature of these disturbances, I think of them as I have on a former occasion intimated to the House, that they were so far the more dangerous, as they appeared to be the result of two different sets of persons working to the same end; one of these parties, very honestly, perhaps, but I think very injudiciously, and certainly very violently and intemperately, culling for the repeal of the Poor-law Act, amongst whom was Mr. Oastler, who threatened that unless that object was soon obtained, he would resort to the dagger and the torch; the other of those parties demanding universal suffrage, but with it combining all those great and dangerous objects which my Lord Stanley, in 1819, said were in agitation in the county of Lancaster. The agitation of these topics, separately and together, produced a very great effect in stirring up the lower classes of society. In 1837 immense meetings were held. In 1838 the same proceedings were continued, but they generally dispersed quietly, without any violent infraction of the public peace. But soon after this Mr. Oastler called upon and advised the people to arm themselves, and in the beginning of December in that year, I wrote to Lord Melbourne, stating that various accounts had reached me, which convinced me, that there was a very dangerous spirit rising in some districts; that at the same time, I did not think that any general insurrection was to be apprehended, or that the disaffected parties had any regular leaders, but that I was afraid violent outbreaks might ere long occur, and probably be attended with loss of property and of life. Under these circumstances, I asked my noble Friend to order a proclamation to be drawn up, which, with the assistance of the learned Attorney-general, was accordingly framed, and appeared in December, warning the people against the practice then prevalent of meeting at night by torch-light. In consequence of this proclamation, these meetings were almost immediately discontinued, the leaders of them having put out placards to put a stop to the practice. Other meetings, however, took place, to which arms were brought, and another proclamation was issued, prohibiting such illegal assemblies. After this, I thought it my duty to correspond with the various authorities in the country, to see that the laws in these respects were properly executed. The House, I am sure, will ap- preciate the difficulties which beset me at this time, when compared with the former occasions of disturbance to which I have alluded, there being no peculiar circumstances to give weight to the public dissatisfaction displayed, of such amount as the agitation of the Poor-law question occasioned; and the Government of that day inspired terror by the extraordinary powers they had obtained from Parliament. In the course of this correspondence I found that the Lord-lieutenants generally, acted with the greatest intelligence and alacrity in giving assistance and conveying instruction to the magistrates; but it was not long before I thought I discovered that there was not a sufficient direct control over the constabulary of the country. With regard to the magistrates, they are not in this country, as in almost all others, a regular body of men, functionaries under the Government, corresponding with the Government, and executing their duties in conformity with its directions. I have found, however, amongst these gentlemen every disposition to do their duty; but at the same time, in some cases I think the feeling of alarm has been carried to excess, while in others, individual magistrates thought the peace and safety of their own neighbourhoods might be better secured by their abstaining from any vigorous measures of suppression, and that if left to itself the threatening danger might pass on to other neighbourhoods. But when the magistrates did attempt to the utmost to do their duty in the suppression of outrage, it was found that they had not the means of putting down the infractions of the peace by the civil power, without calling in the aid of the military force. They had no means, nor funds at their disposal to meet the emergency, and the consequence was, that in many instances there were districts containing many thousand inhabitants, and having only one, two, or three constables at the disposal of the magistrates. I soon found, therefore, that although the law was strong, the means of enforcing the law were defective; and I then mentioned the fact to a noble Lord in the other House, who is generally opposed to me in politics, and stated at the same time, that I did not think it would be safe to prorogue the Parliament without making provision for a sufficient constabulary force. In the mean time, whenever the military were called out, I took care to give such direc- tions, as to their operations, as I thought most likely to give them efficacy in the preservation of the peace. I also gave directions against organization and training, and I believe that, in consequence, such practices did not take place in those counties, which, in other respects, were most disturbed. Some of the letters which I wrote on those occasions, the House is already acquainted with; but I believe that the number of those which are before the House is comparatively few; and, therefore, I hope that the House will take my word for it, in which I have also been borne out by the statement of my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State, that during the whole of that trying period, I anxiously employed myself in giving such directions as I thought would be most conducive towards the preservation of the peace of the country. I had then to consider, that having employed the power of the law, under circumstances of great agitation and disturbance, when under similar circumstances it had hardly ever before been attempted to be employed, without the extraordinary assistance of a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, or other rigorous measures, and finding that the executive machinery, in the hands of Government, was not adequate to the occasion, how it might be improved. It has been before stated, not by myself only, but by Sir Richard Jackson, a most experienced officer now in Canada, that it would be difficult to maintain the peace of the country without a more efficient civil force. This, at the time it was first announced, was considered by many a new and unconstitutional project, and I experienced the greatest difficulty in obtaining the consent of Parliament to it. But when I found that, without a measure of this kind, the safety of the country could not be relied on, I, at the end of the last Session, brought the question before the House, and the House, with great unanimity agreed to increase the military force of the country, and to give powers to the Government, with the view of placing the civil force of the country on a more efficient footing. Objections were now being made, however, to putting this project in operation, on the ground, that one of the Commissioners was a Poor-law Commissioner. But, in fact, the Speaker of this House, who combined a practical knowledge of the law with an extensive acquaintance with rural affairs, was the Commissioner in question. Let us now consider what has been the result. I confess it does not appear to me, so much as it has done to others, that the disorders of the country are completely suppressed. But in many parts of the country, quiet and tranquillity has taken place, where, previously, the inhabitants were in a state of the greatest alarm. Prosecutions also had been undertaken which have been most successful in their result; out of 290 prosecutions there having been 232 convictions. Of course, in many instances, persons have been discharged at once, without proceeding to trial, and, upon the whole, I do not think, that with regard to these proceedings, and the verdicts which have been obtained in cases which have been prosecuted, Parliament have a right to complain, either of my conduct or that of the law-officers of the Crown. A complaint has been urged, that publications of a seditious character have been allowed to go on without prosecution. Upon this point all I can say is, that I do not think it safe to order any prosecution, unless the law officers of the Crown have previously given their opinion that it is one likely to lead to a conviction. There is one case in particular, that of the Western Vindicator, in which, after referring it to the law officers of the Crown, they informed me that it was undoubtedly a seditious publication, but they did not think it a case in which they could obtain a conviction. Now my great object has been, to show that the juries of the country will support the laws, and that the laws, with their aid, are sufficient to put down disturbance. I felt that if I brought an action of this kind, and failed, it might lead to a very fatal prejudice in the popular mind, that these parties were unjustly prosecuted, and that the law was being strained to meet a particular purpose, which would lead to great danger of making the laws really fail, and occasion an absolute necessity for my calling for those extraordinary measures for the preservation of the peace of the country, which it has all along been my object to avoid. In like manner, there are many cases in which persons may have used exciting and seditious language, and yet there may be no means of bringing them within the pale of the law; but still they do not form a sufficient ground for such extraordinary measures, as the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, which I opposed in former years, and of which opposition I saw no cause to repent. I thought, that unless I found that I was totally unable to maintain the peace of the country by the existing laws, the subjecting Englishmen to other laws than those which they knew and revered, looking only to a temporary object and difficulty, might be productive of a long and rankling feeling of discontent, the influence of which might extend to many future years. I have thus stated the general course which the Government pursued. I will now consider the charges brought against me. One is the reduction of the yeomanry. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) should remember, that the yeomanry was increased in 1831, and that the yeomanry which I have maintained, remained 4,000 stronger than the yeomanry when the Duke of Wellington was in power; and though the present Government has reduced the yeomanry, there remains 14,820 men, a force amply sufficient for all the purposes for which that force was instituted. Another charge was, that Mr. Frost had been made a magistrate, and that, too, after he had been convicted of a libel. It does not appear to me that the latter ground alone should be deemed sufficient to exclude a person from that office; but, under all the circumstances, when the name of Mr. Frost was proposed for the magistracy, immediate reference was made to the Lord-lieutenant of the county, who returned for answer, that he considered Mr. Frost a fit and proper person to be so appointed. Much has been said against the Reformed Town Council, but it is not at all improbable that the same appointment would have been made, supported by the opinion of the Lord-lieutenant, had there been no such body as the Town Council of Newport in existence. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Pembroke, has, in his very acrimonious speech, compained also that a gentleman of the name of Muntz has been placed in the commission of the peace. From the information which I have obtained, I have every reason to believe that Mr. Muntz is a gentleman extremely well informed, that he possesses a good deal of property in the borough, and devotes the strictest attention to the business entrusted to him; and that, although he has once been somewhat violent in politics, he has become more moderate in his views. It appears no uncommon case, for I often find that men who begin in politics very violently, gradually become more temperate, or, if the term is better liked, more conservative; but, at the same time, without entirely abandoning their old friends and their old principles. I have heard but one opinion of Mr. Muntz, which is, that that gentleman has well, ably, unflinchingly, and impartially discharged his duties as a magistrate. Such, then, are the charges; for I do not remember any other. Yes, there is one other, which I did not think the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Pembroke would have brought forward; but I was mistaken. The right hon. Gentleman said, that the speech which I made last year at Liverpool, was dangerous in the then circumstances of the country. I stated my opinions with regard to public meetings; I stated then, as I have done since privately and in letters, that as long as meetings are held for the sake of discussion only, I do not think they ought to be suppressed, and that if they are confined to free discussion, that ultimately common sense and truth will get the better, and that as long as Government allows every liberty to free discussion, the Government has a right to expect that there will be no infraction of the law; and that until such infraction of the law takes place, it is not advisable to interfere. I distinctly made this qualification at the time, trusting that if my speech was published at all, it would receive publicity through the usual channel of the reporters. But it so happened that there were no reporters at the meeting, and some gentleman present, writing from memory, sent the speech to the public papers, as it afterwards appeared; and although the qualification of my opinion with regard to public meetings was omitted in that imperfect report, I did not think it necessary to send for publication a more full and accurate report of what had taken place, being of opinion, that my own well-known sentiments, and the general policy of the Government, could not have fairly left any person room for a doubt or misconstruction of my meaning; and I do believe, that those who have since quoted that speech have done so only for a purpose, and knowing that it was not fairly liable to the construction which they put upon it. These, then, are the charges with which the right hon. Member for Pembroke has made the first attack of importance against the Government—these are the charges, ranging over two years of some difficulty, that two persons have been appointed to the commission of the peace, whom some thought ought not to have been appointed, and that a speech had been made which has been misinterpreted. When hon. Members are asked in this House to pass a vote of want of confidence in the Government these charges do, after all, appear a very inadequate ground to stand upon. However I may have conducted these affairs, I have still the same belief—it is possible that this Government or some other Government, may be compelled to have recourse to severer measures for the preservation of the public peace; but I do not think it probable, that such measures will be necessary. I have firm reliance on the constitution, and on the existing laws to provide means of repression for any emergency that may arise. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last, has proceeded to another class of accusations against the Government which do not belong to Ministers as a matter of Administration. The right hon. Gentleman has made it a matter of grave complaint against the Government, that they should allow such things as open questions; and, dilating upon their inconvenience, states it as his opinion, that there should be no open questions. In some of the opinions put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, I agree; but I believe, that it is impossible at present, whatever may be the inconvenience, to avoid entirely open questions, especially when every Member is directly responsible to a body of constituents. But it is a new charge to be brought against a Government, that they have been guilty of what every man of any name or political character may be charged with for the last fifty years, Lord North, Mr. Fox, Mr. Burke, Mr. Canning, Lord Liverpool, Lord Melville, Lord Castlereagh, and others I might name, have all acted in Governments in which very important questions were open questions; and yet the present Government are to be condemned because they have taken a similar course. I will conceive their laying down a rule, (though I do not believe they will be able to practise it), that no Government in future shall have open questions; but to bring forward for four nights the accusation, that they have not adopted a new view of the Government and Constitution, and merely pursued the course which Other Governments have done, which were subject to the same risks and inconvenience, are matters of indictment and charge of a very extraordinary description. At all events, it will bind those who are in favour of excluding open questions, to lay down an inflexible rule on this point never to be departed from. Be the accidents of the State what they may; be the fortunes of the Empire what they may; it is impossible, if this rule is once laid down by those who succeed in office to the present Government, to depart from it under any exigencies under which the State may be placed. There have been certain times when the persons composing the Government would not have done their duty if they had not consented to open questions. Mr. Pitt has been subjected to great obloquy for allowing open questions. Now, suppose he were conducting a war against France of so formidable a character, as to have required the assistance of the talents of Mr. Dundas, on whom he placed the utmost reliance for carrying into effect his plan of operations, I maintain that at such crisis, when every thing was at slake, and the whole Empire was on fire, Mr. Pitt was justified in taking Mr. Dundas into his cabinet, though on the slave-trade he took an opposite line from himself. The same cause of danger during the war of 1812, when other parties were unable to form a Government, justified those who did undertake it, in making the Catholic question an open question. I agree, that as to the latter question the course was full of danger, and continued too long, but I have often heard, and I can even believe it to be the case, that those most in favour of that measure found a great difficulty in telling Lord Liverpool, under whom they acted, "the time is come when you must break up the Government." But will the right hon. Baronet, with his strong opinions, and his experience of the difficulties which he has actually encountered—will he say, that he has absolutely determined, that in any Government in which he should act, there shall be no open question? There was a question (I know not how the right hon. Baronet would have determined it), with regard to which a person holding office under his Government declared, after it was dissolved, that he should have voted against the proposal of the right hon. Member for Launceston. I allude to the Education Grant for Ireland. I know not, I repeat, how the right hon. Gentleman would have acted on the occasion, but I certainly do think, that if the party—the united party which I see before me—were to come into power, and some of the most valuable members of that party had very strong and conscientious opinions upon such a subject, it would be hardly just to these persons or to the country, were they perpetually excluded for such a difference of opinion. I can not believe, that there will not arise in the course of years some question on which they as a party, would not be divided. And I am not sure, that even on the subject which is most strenuously charged against us (the Ministers), there will not be entertained adverse views by the Members of the right hon. Gentleman's Cabinet. I allude to the question of Corn-laws. It is not my intention to refer to the declarations of Mr. Dawson, but do the Duke of Buckingham and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Lascelles) agree entirely in opinion on this question, belonging as they do to this united party? Do either of them agree in the opinions stated by the right hon. Gentleman? By no means. The noble Duke (as I understand him) is for standing by the Corn-laws without the least alteration.—The hon. Gentleman is evidently in favour of some alteration in the Corn-laws, and advocates greater freedom of trade in that commodity; while the right hon. Baronet the Member for Pembroke (Sir J. Graham), the noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire, and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, agree in two principles of protection to agriculture, and a graduating scale of duty. But I presume, that in wisdom and prudence, they have not bound themselves absolutely to any particular amount. I do not quarrel with that opinion—very far from it; I will give my views upon the subject of the Corn-laws when the debate conies on, but for the present debate, it is quite sufficient to shew, that the Duke of Buckingham, the hon. Member for Wakefield, and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, are very far from entertaining the same views with regard to the Corn-laws. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to those questions on which he was attacked while in office, and when a leader of this House, on the ground of economy. There were certainly attacks made upon him; and though I belong to the party from which those attacks proceeded, I never strongly urged those opinions, and certainly never took any leading part with regard to the economical questions, because I was aware that there was a right hon. Gentleman of my party who had entered on this subject with great industry, matured all the details, and brought forward his propositions with such poignancy and pungency, that they became, not merely economical statements, but conveyed some of the bitterest attacks which could be made on the right hon. Gentleman's Government. It was not I, I repeat, or any of those around me, who urged such a warfare, but the right hon. Member for Pembroke. And I must say, when we hear of so much of Radical motions, that of all the motions which I have ever voted for, that upon which, on reflection, I think myself most wrong, was the motion brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman with respect to the Privy Council. I really do think the motion, without being directly aimed at such an object, gave the public such a false notion of the amount received by the judicial and executive authorities, that it must be looked upon as tending to weaken the respect of the people towards their rulers, upon unsound premises. [Sir J. Graham was understood to assent to the noble Lord's view.] I have come to the same conclusion on this point, though we unfortunately differ on so many others in which we once agreed. But then comes the particular question of the Ballot, and of Universal Suffrage, with regard to which they have charged upon us a difference of opinion, and contended that we have suffered proposals to be made with regard to these questions of which we do not approve. My answer to that is, that those approving of such opinions could not be blamed for supporting them; and that if, on the other hand, those disproving of them, had declared their hostility, and had opposed them, blame could not, fairly, be imputed to the Government. The course which I remember some persons, pretending to be friendly to the Government, recommended was, that those professing these ultra-Liberal and Radical opinions should be allowed to bring them forward, and be met by those opposed to them, without any part being taken on the part of the Govern- ment. I at once repudiated adopting any such course, and it appeared to me that when those opinions were stated in the House, it had a fair right to hear my views with respect to them. And had I concealed my opinions? Had I not put the Government in peril, and voluntarily and willingly put it in peril by the open declaration of my opinions? The hon. and learned Member for Dublin had, in the course of one summer declared his opinion at various public meetings, that the House of Lords ought to be an elective body. I took the opportunity on the occasion of an address being presented to me, to state that, with regard to organic changes, I thought it most undesirable to introduce them—that they could not be discussed without division, or adopted without peril to the monarchy. That opinion was delivered in 1837, and it produced, as it naturally might, irritation amongst those who held such opinions with regard to the House of Lords,—so far was it from being true, that it was after the accession of the present Queen I had declared my opinion on this subject. Then, with regard to any further important changes in the constitution of the House of Commons, as soon as that proposition was made, I declared my opinion upon the subject; I declared it strongly. I offended many of my friends and supporters by that declaration; in fact, I actually put the Government in danger. The noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, who hardly ever spoke in my support when I had these contests to undergo, took care to recollect an epithet made use of—certainly a very disparaging one to the Government—by the hon. Member for Finsbury; but he totally forgot to mention the opposition which I had given to the motion itself. On other occasions like it I opposed these motions for extensive changes, and I have placed on record, by means of the pamphlet which has been quoted, my opinions upon this subject. I have not changed those opinions. I considered that to enter upon a new Reform Bill, even granting, what I am not ready to grant—but even granting that all the defects pointed out in it are real defects, and the plans proposed to be substituted were in themselves better, I still will say that to change the Suffrage by which the House of Commons is elected, and to enter upon a new Reform Bill, will cause such doubt and uncertainty as to our whole future course with regard to the institutions of the country, that I cannot see it adopted without a great deal of alarm. Notwithstanding this, I have agreed that the Ballot should be one of those questions which should be made an open question. I will tell the House that I did not think the Ballot was consistent with anything else than Universal Suffrage; but I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that that would be the immediate effect of it. On the contrary, my belief is that it will be so unpopular a change, that when it takes place there will be such opposition against carrying further, to any great extent, the Suffrage, that either by practice or by law, open voting will very soon be reverted to. Secrecy could not be made popular in this country without, at the same time, making the Suffrage, if not universal, much more extensive than it is at present. I do not think that it will be the least popular in this country that there should be one set of persons giving their votes in secrecy, and all the rest voting openly. But among those who maintain opinions in favour of the Ballot, there prevails various opinions on the subject. Some say that although they may have Vote by Ballot, no further changes would be adopted: this was the opinion of one who had long advocated the Vote by Ballot, and was of considerable authority on that question, I mean Lord Spencer. That nobleman told me, that the adoption of the Vote by Ballot, in his opinion, would make very little change in the country; and I recollect, that soon after the general election of 1837, Lord Spencer told me, that in his opinion, if the Ballot had existed, there would have been but one or two elections which would have terminated differently than they did. Such is the variety of opinions prevailing on this subject, that I certainly do not think that there are sufficient grounds to induce the Government, seeing how much those on this side of the House are divided on the subject, to refuse that this should be made an open question, and that every one holding an official situation be at liberty to vote as he pleases on the subject. I come now to another part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, in which he maintained that he was ready to state the measures which he thought were practical, and which he thought might be carried on consistently with the Government of this country. Omitting the other topics, I may say a few words with respect to that vital question, namely, the Government of Ireland. We have heard to-night from no suspected authority—from an authority as little doubtful on such a subject as the hon. and learned Sergeant the Member for Bandon, that there is existing tranquillity in Ireland. He spoke of the "existing tranquillity" and the "present tranquillity" as a known and admitted fact. They had then admitted that there is now tranquillity in Ireland. They had admitted that the people of this country have confidence in the Lord-lieutenant and the present Government. They had it admitted that that country, torn by so many dissensions—the scene of so many oppressions—the theatre of so many barbarous cruelties, where those dreadful scenes occurred in the rebellion of 1798, which made the Duke of Wellington say, that he would rather lose his life than see a month of civil war in Ireland—they had it admitted that that country was at the present moment in a state of tranquillity. The right hon. Gentleman who last year made a speech, in which he explained his reasons for refusing to undertake the government of the country after disposing of all his difficulties—difficulties far greater than any he has shown to affect the present Government—after showing that on the Jamaica Bill he was in a minority of five—that many of the Gentlemen who sometimes voted with him, did not give him their general support, not holding the same opinions as himself—after stating, with regard to the Speakership, he should probably be in a minority, came at length to the vote which the House of Commons had given in favour of Ireland, and stated, that he knew his difficulty was in Ireland. Therefore, they had, on the one hand, this existing state of things in a country forming such an important portion of the empire as Ireland, where the people, tranquil, awaiting with confidence the decision of the Government, making themselves amenable to the law, increasing in trade, improving in education. On the other hand, what? The utmost the right hon. Gentleman had been able to maintain, was, that he thought it might be practicable to govern Ireland. I say, then, why make the exchange of present tranquillity and peace for probable discord and certain ruin? But let us see what the supporters of the party opposite have been doing. A great meeting took place at Manchester. It was stated, that on the day previous great anxiety was felt by the public to attend the meeting, and then an account was given of its proceedings, in which one speech appeared more particularly to excite interest than the rest, and to have been received with very great applause. It was the speech of the Rev. Mr. Greg, of Dublin, and what said he? He said, It was their duty to encourage the good work (that was the conversion of the Catholics), and he would tell them the manner in which that was to be done. For instance, were the Queen a true Christian (they all knew what he meant), and had she a Christian Ministry, a Christian cabinet, and a Christian court, they should see the Protestant ministers not standing up in tubs, and at the corners of the streets, sometimes getting pelted with mud; but they should see them supported with all the power and authority of the Government, with the military to keep order, if necessary; and a park of artillery to fire a signal for the commencement of divine service. I should have thought that such language would have excited an expression of disgust, but I observed it was printed, as having been received with marked applause. The rev. orator proceeded to say, that a royal proclamation under the hand and seal of Queen Victoria should be issued, to compel all Roman Catholics to attend the Protestant service, and a resolution was proposed in accordance with the views of that rev. gentleman; it appeared that that resolution was put and carried quite unanimously, and that there was also a great deal of money raised for the purpose of the meeting. Let it be remembered, that this spirit was got up by persons who had been very active in what was called the Protestant cause. Yet the House was at the same time told by the hon. Gentlemen opposite—by those whose friends had been so zealous to awaken this feeling in the country—that they were desirous of carrying into effect the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act. What was the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act? In the first place it allowed Roman Catholics to enter Parliament. That part of the Act I imagine none of the hon. Gentlemen opposite would be bold enough to alter. In the next place the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act permitted Roman Catholics to come into office. It was a question in the other House of Parliament, when the Bill was under discussion, whether the First Lord of the Admiralty plight be a Roman Catholic. A noble Duke, the Duke of Rutland, proposed, that the Prime Minister, or in other words, that the First Lord of the Treasury should not be a Roman Catholic. The Duke of Wellington rejected any such alteration. The Duke of Wellington said what was quite true, although it was not commonly a matter of practice, that the Prime Minister might be Foreign Secretary, or in fact, might hold any place in the cabinet. Bat the Duke of Wellington said more than this; he said, that he had taken a security in the Bill, which security was this: that if the First Lord of the Treasury were a Roman Catholic, he should not have the disposal of livings and benefices in the Church. That was the security which the Duke of Wellington took; evidently implying, that care be taken that the bishoprics, the dignities, and the benefices of the Church should not be given by the voice of a Roman Catholic First Lord of the Treasury; that even to that high office it was his inlention—the large and generous intention which he entertained, that the spirit of exclusion should not enter. And did the hon. Gentleman opposite now come and say, a Roman Catholic may not be Secretary to the Admiralty? Why, county meetings were held upon the subject. There is this day a report of a county meeting, at which it was said, that the great advance of Popery was shewn by a Roman Catholic being made Secretary to the Admiralty. How do the Gentlemen opposite answer that? Suppose they were to come into power to-morrow. They assert, that they are willing to carry out the Emancipation Act; but if they appointed a Roman Catholic, great violence would be immediately shown by a large number of persons to whom they are politically allied, and who at the present moment are highly excited against the existing Government. Excited! for what? not that they differed from the Government upon many questions of dispute in that House—not that they differed upon many of the questions upon which there was a contest of principle between the Government and the right hon. Baronet Then it was necessary to find some question on which the people could be roused. Sir, the excitement, and the motive for raising it in the public mind, had this origin. It was in order to induce the people to feel some interest in the reinstatement of the right hon. Baronet into power, that these means had been taken to revive the flames of religious intolerance. It was to make them believe, that if the right hon. Baronet came into office, there would be an end to the Roman Catholic party—an end to Roman Catholic Privy Counsellors—an end to Roman Catholics in office, and that, therefore, the Roman Catholic Emancipation, although it remained upon the statute book, should to all intents and purposes be dead, and inoperative in its efforts, A Ministry brought in to exclude, and proposing to admit, praised for one set of principles, and acting on another, would have to encounter great discontent, and would be able to meet that discontent only under very great difficulties. But there is another question. The present Government has acted all along upon principles of religious liberty. The present Government holds that however one person may be a member of the Church of England, another attached to the Presbyterian communion, and another to the Roman Catholic communion, still, with regard to civil offices and civil qualifications, all ought to be equal; and that no man should be insulted on account of religion. No Roman Catholic, therefore, has any difficulty in acting under them. But, supposing that the right hon. Baronet got over the first difficulty, and consented to admit Roman Catholics to office, how many Roman Catholics does he imagine would be ready to accept office under such conditions as they would find imposed upon them? When they found that their religion was everywhere reviled—when they found that those who belonged to their communion were constantly held up to execration—when they found, that their religion was pointed to with abhorrence, as idolatrous and profane—when they found that wherever they went, they were looked upon as destroyers of the Protestant Church, and, therefore, were watched as enemies—when they found all this, what probability is there, when the right hon. Baronet had persuaded himself that he had found a Roman Catholic fit for office—when he had found one with none of the many disqualifications which were insisted upon by his party—when he had found one who had never made a violent speech, who was not eager to advance a particular system of education; one, in short, who had none of the disqualifications which were so readily found in a Roman Catholic—when the right hon. Baronet had found such a person, what probability is there that a difficulty would not arise in the mind of the Roman Catholic himself? Might not the party whose service the right hon. Baronet sought to receive, very naturally say to himself, "If I am to serve under a Tory Government, let me well consider whether I shall not be serving under a party which will degrade me—whether I shall not be committing an act of self-degradation by accepting any office which such men can bestow?" I maintain that this would be the effect of the outrageous spirit which has been excited. This would be the effect of endeavouring, by meetings and inflammatory speeches to make the people of this country believe, that the Roman Catholics were idolators. This is a spirit which would render it most difficult for the party opposite to govern, not only in Ireland, but in England, and likewise in the colonies: for I can assure those hon. Gentlemen that this intolerant spirit would suit as little in the colonies as in any part of the United Kingdom. I have already told the House what I have done with regard to the Ballot, and the extension of the suffrage. I have said, and I think I may do so with truth, that whenever opinions which I think dangerous are proposed in this House I have invariably been ready to take my part against them. And I say, further, that it was in consequence of that resistance on my part, that many of the supporters of Government were lost, and that in May last, the Government felt bound to resign. But when I look to the other side of the House, and look for the speeches made from time to time by the great leaders of that party, in which they might have expressed their disgust at the attempts made to disunite the people, and to substitute discord for harmony and good feeling; when I look for this—when I remember that the principles advanced by that class of their followers, were principles upon which they would not and could not act, and yet saw the silence they had observed, I must say, I think that they were culpable in withholding the loud and open expression of their condemnation. But, omitting all other subjects, I think, that with regard to Ireland, it would not be safe to place the Government in the hands of those who formed the great party which now assumed to take the direction of affairs. I observe, that during these four nights' debate, and in spite of the announcement which was made, that all the faults of the present Government should be dragged into light—I cannot help observing, that having the conduct of the affairs of this great empire in every quarter of the globe—having foreign powers to negociate with from day to day upon matters of the deepest importance—having colonies to govern in every region of the earth—countries where existed different races of men, different forms of religion, different laws; countries, therefore, difficult to govern—I cannot help observing that with all these difficulties to encounter the charges actually made against the Government comprehend but a small portion of our conduct—comprehend, even if made good, but very trifling instances as compared with the whole duties of Government. If there were so many of the interests of the empire which have not been neglected—if, for instance, the affairs of Belgium have been brought to a satisfactory conclusion—if England has still an ally in the Queen of Spain: if the Basque provinces have been pacified; if the Canadas at length assume a prospect not only of returning tranquillity, but of permanent freedom and happiness—I do think that when the House is called upon to pronounce a general opinion, an opinion not merely upon those items of charge which have been brought forward by the Opposition, but upon the general conduct of affairs—I do think, that in giving that opinion, the House ought not to leave out of view those many important interests—those many vast concerns upon which not a syllable has been uttered, that the Government has ever betrayed its duty, or neglected to pursue the policy essential to the interests of this country. Now, last of all, I come to allude to that upon which it has been said by the noble Lord opposite we were utterly inefficient, namely, to measures of legislation. Obstructed, as we have been, to use the noble Lord's own term, obstructed as we have been by a large party in this House, by a very decided majority in the other House, I think that during the four years, that have elapsed since 1835, the legislative measures proposed and carried by the Government have been neither few nor unimportant. I maintain, that there is scarcely a time to be found of equal duration, in which measures of more importance have been carried. In the year 1835, was passed an act reforming alto- gether the municipal corporations of this country; placing them all upon a new foundation, admitting popular control, regulating all their affairs with the greatest minuteness and detail. In another year, there were questions with regard to the Church. The state in which the present Government found the Church was this; that there was one Bishop, as in the case of the Bishop of Durham, with 22,000l. a-year, and another Bishop, as in the case of the Bishop of Rochester, with only 500l. a-year. In this state of things, the wants of the poorer bishoprics were made up by deaneries and other lucrative offices in the Church. There were likewise pluralities to the greatest extent; so much so, that I remember counting sixteen names in a catalogue of the benefices of the Church, and afterwards finding, that those sixteen persons held sixty-five different species of preferment in the Church. We took measures to prevent any clergyman from holding more than two pieces of preferment, or any two benefices more than two miles apart. That act is one of the greatest importance that has been passed since the Revolution—perhaps since the Reformation. There were also other acts introduced by the same Administration for the registration of births and marriages, by which the Dissenters were allowed what they never had had before—the privilege of being married according to their own forms. Before that time, all Dissenters must be married by clergymen of the Church of England, by a form of which they disapproved. There was also another act passed for the introduction of a Poor-law into Ireland, and although it was at the time made the subject of much contest, and although it might again be made the subject of dispute, yet it is undoubtedly an act of the utmost importance, and I believe the greatest benefit; there has been the Act for the settlement of tithes in England, an act beneficial to the clergy, advantageous to agriculture. I have mentioned these few measures, in order to show that Ministers have not been idle as far as their legislative functions were concerned. On these grounds it is, that I say that the Gentlemen opposite have not made out their case that the Government ought to be displaced—that her Majesty ought to be advised to dismiss councillors in whom she now places confidence, and substitute others in their room. One other subject there is, which I cannot help noticing—I allude to the state of the finances. I am ready to admit that the estimates which we think necessary for the army, and navy, and the ordnance, in order to keep up the character, and power of the country, will perhaps require, in the present state of the finances, the imposition of fresh burdens on the country, the present revenue not being adequate to keeping them up. But this is not by any means an occurrence new to the history of this country; and it must be remembered, that during those years we had to sustain the expenses of the civil war in Canada. Had it not been for that occurrence within the last year, there would have been rather a surplus on the revenue. Soon after Mr. Pitt created his sinking fund, the Russian armament became necessary, and he increased the public debt in order to provide for it. The noble Lord opposite, asked how it was possible to expect the revenue to keep up, while Government was without the confidence of the House. I can only say, that if I went into opposition that would be no reason with me for refusing to vote for the estimates that might be necessary in order to enable the country to keep up those establishments which were necessary for the safety and the fame of the country. [Lord Stanley intimated his dissent.] What the noble Lord said was, "How can it be expected that the means will be voted by hon. Gentlemen who have no confidence in the Government?" The House would look to the state of the empire, and see whether the Government had been justified in making the demands they were about to make; they would see if the estimates were no more than the necessities of the public service required. If they thought so, they would give their votes, not to gratify party, but to serve the interests of their country. I confess I do not feel any very great anxiety on the subject of this motion, seeing that all the charges made are of the most flimsy nature, and that they have been fully answered.

Sir J. Y. Buller

said, At that late hour (twenty minutes to five) he would not trouble the House with a reply.

The House divided—Ayes 287; Noes 308: Majority 21.

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