Commons Sitting of 12 July 1843

Preamble
MINUTES.] BILLS. Public.—1°0 Apprehension of Offenders (France); Apprehension of Offenders (America); Holy-rood Park.
20 Municipal Corporations (No. 2).
Reported.—Hackney and Stage Carriages;' Gorbal's Police
Private.—M'Culloh's Estate.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Gisborne, from Nottingham, Doncaster, Gloucester, and Winchester, against the Coroners Bill; and by Viscount Sandon, from Liverpool, to the same effect.—By Mr. Hawes, from the Landowners of New Zealand, against the introduction of Convicts into that Colony.—By Mr. Bankes, from Dorsetshire, against the Repeal of the Corn Laws.—From Halifax, Frome, Selwood, Winchcomb, and Godalming, in favour of the County Courts Bill.—From Lambeth, for hastening the removal from thence of the Fire Work Manufactories.

STATE OF IRELAND — ADJOURNED DEBATE (FIFTH DAY).
Mr. Sergeant Murphy,in resuming the debate, congratulated the House on the tone and temper which had been observed during the progress of this debate, and assured the House of his desire to promote and maintain the feeling which prevailed. He would not go at large into the subject of the admitted grievances of Ireland. There was one circumstance admitted on all hands, and that was, that viewing the social position of Ireland, united as that country was with England, the most prosperous and the most powerful kingdom of the world, she did suffer under great and heavy grievances; and the only point now to be decided, was, what was the remedy which was to be applied. The noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland had admitted, as he said with sorrow, that the grievances of Ireland were of a serious character. It behoved the Government, then, to look for a remedy to apply to them. The noble Lord had admitted the grievances; but he said—" Give us a remedy and we will adopt it." He, for his own part, maintained that it was the duty of Government to suggest the remedy. He denied that such duty devolved upon the Opposition; for the principle of a responsible Government was this, that where such grievances existed, it was the duty of the Government to discover and apply a remedy, and not to turn to those who pointed out the grievances, and say, "We will not apply a remedy, because you do not tell us what remedy should be applied." He asked whether there was no example of the sort of remedy which was wanted in Ireland? Could not her Majesty's Government, within the compass of the last six or seven years, find an example to satisfy them of the nature of the remedy to be applied? Let them look to the state of Ireland during the administration of the Marquess of Normanby. It was very well for the
1018
hon. Member for Belfast, when he admitted that there was, during that time, peace in Ireland, to tell the House that that merely arose from the judicial appointments and promotions of political partisans. He ventured to tell the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, that even if that were the source from which it had arisen—if peace and prosperity followed from its adoption, he ought to take the same course. The noble Lord (Lord Elliot) had also said, when another example, derived from the experience of the Government itself, had been referred to—he meant the case of Canada—that that was no parallel. He admitted that Ireland was not a parallel case with Canada. It was true, inasmuch as there had been no rebellion in Ireland that there had been no tumultuary or armed outbreak on the part of the people of Ireland —there had been no commission of san guinary outrages against the Queen's loyal subjects, and there had been no necessity to assemble a large army to put down rebellion. But, in that country, after a rebellion had broken out, and after its suppression, those very principles in support of which the insurrectionary movement was made were admitted. So strong was the impression on the mind of the late lamented individual to whom the government of the colony had been intrusted as to the propriety of removing those strong grounds of discontent, that, without waiting for instructions, upon his own responsibility he did away with the objectionable system of governing the majority by the minority, and did away with the family compact, and thus got rid of this most objectionable mode of government. Such was the policy adopted by Sir Charles Bagot in Canada, and such was the policy which should be adopted in Ireland if they desired peace, and to put down these vast assemblages which were of daily occurrence. He repeated, if peace was their object in Ireland, why not do the same in Ireland? for be it remembered that that was not a policy which had only been urged by enemies, but it originated with your own party. The noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland had drawn a contrast between the conduct of the Catholic clergy in 1830 and 1834, and the part which they took in the agitation of the present day, but he begged to remind the House, that in 1830 the Emancipation act had been

1019
only just past, and that the Catholics did not believe it to be intended to be no more than a mere verbal compact—but, that from that time all civil distinctions between Catholics and Protestants would be at once abolished. It was now admitted by all parties that emancipation was not a concession, but a right; yet the Catholic people of Ireland were at that time inclined to take it as a boon. In 1834 what was the state of things? There was a Government at that time in accordance with the political views of the Irish people. But that Government, instead of governing them upon the principle of good feeling, tried coercion. That Government failed in its attempt at coercion. The opposition of the Irish people to that coercion was such, that it was deemed necessary to make an authoritative declaration from the Crown that the grievances of Ireland should be considered with a view to their removal. When this was commenced, and when a different course was pursued, could it be denied that peace and tranquillity was restored to Ireland? What was the state of things when the present Government came into power? There was peace in Ireland. The right hon. Baronet said, that Ireland was his great difficulty. The right hon. Baronet asked for time to mature his measures with reference to both England and Ireland. The people of Ireland had given him time to mature his measures; there was a perfect lull in that country. There was a general belief that whatever might be the complexion of the Government, they must govern in accordance with the feelings of the majority of the Irish nation. The right hon. Gentleman last night read to the House a very remarkable letter written by himself to the Lord-lieutenant, and embodying his opinion and recommendation as to the distribution of the patronage of the Irish Church. How had the distribution of the ecclesiastical patronage in Ireland, since the present Government came into office, been in conformity with that letter? Could any one lay his finger on any appointment in connection with the Church since that letter was written, and say, that the spirit of it had been acted on. Could it be said, that the principle which the right hon. Gentleman had laid down had been acted on in the appointment of the well-known Dr. Daly, whom be had seen in Exeter Hall haranguing
1020
a large assembly, composed chiefly of young females, in terms most calumnious of the religion professed by the great majority of his countrymen. Was it fitting that a dignified clergyman should seek such an arena to excite the minds of a large number of young English people against their fellow subjects in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman said, that he had adhered with good faith to the national education system in Ireland. If this was the case, and if the right hon. Baronet was, as he had stated, the friend of the Protestant clergy, he should like to know how he could please them, for he had the declaration of most of the clergy, and above all, of those recently raised to the episcopal bench, against the national system of education; nothing therefore, could displease them so much as the support of that system by the right hon. Baronet. Even if the right hon. Baronet had supported the education system, he had sought amongst the clergy for the most ardent and zealous opponents of that system, and had promoted them to the episcopal bench. In speaking of the Established Church of England in Ireland, he had no wish to speak in a spirit of animosity; but he spoke of it merely in its connection with the state. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Colquhoun) said, that the Catholic clergy in Ireland at the present time possessed a revenue of, as nearly as possible, 600,000 1. a-year: and that the revenue of the Protestant church did not exceed 500,000 1. Supposing, observed the hon. Member, that you transferred the proportionate share of the revenue of the Protestant church to the Catholic clergy, would the latter be satisfied with taking seventy-five per cent. in comparison with what they now receive? It was not a question as to the amount that would be received by the Catholic clergy, for they repudiated the reception of any such boon from the Government. But what was the inference to be drawn from the circumstance, that while under the voluntary system, the poor Catholics of Ireland paid 600,000 l. a-year to their own clergy, they were made to pay 500,000 1. to the clergy of a very small portion of the people? He never would say, that the Protestants should not have a fair means of supporting their religion. He had, however, the fairest example in his own religion,

1021
that money was not that which would sustain it. It might be very well for the right hon. the Recorder of Dublin to complain that the revenues of the church had been so dealt with and so reduced, that fathers no longer thought it fit to educate their sons for the Church. He had, never, until then, heard an attempt made to justify the keeping up the Church for the sake of making provision for the younger branches of families; and had never, either in the Catholic or Protestant church, found any authority to admit such a doctrine. The right hon. Baronet admitted, that a grievance did exist, namely from the abuses which arose from the possession of land, and from the ejection of tenantry. It was all very well for hon. Gentlemen to say, that because we could not immediately fix upon the principle on which to proceed, that it was intended, by dealing with the tenure, to promote a system of confiscation. In some parts of Ireland at present the parties who were ejected from a farm obtained a certain return for the outlay that they had made, but in no other parts of the country. He did not see, why some general principle might not be adopted on this point which would remove a ground of corn.. plaint. The principle was recognized in the case of planting tares and other matters, and why not extend it? He had met with accounts of the sufferings undergone by those who had been ejected from their holdings, without the slightest provision being made for them, which made humanity shudder, and he had himself known the most cruel inflictions perpetrated to clear farms which had been in the possession of the same families, and handed down from sire to son for centuries. Would any one say, that this was an evil that did not require dealing with? The right hon. Baronet said, that he did not know how to deal with the question of landlord and tenant, and said, that as regarded the system of wholesale ejectment, the matter must be left to the moral feeling of the landlords to get rid of the evil. He had recently met with an extract from a work lately published on Ireland, which contained a most affecting account of a circumstance which the writer describes to have occurred in the county of Meath, connected with one of these cases of ejectment. A man was taken before the magistrates for having been found inhabiting with his
1022
family a hole which he had dug in the ditch surrounding the parish church-yard, within thirty yards of the road. When called upon for his defence, he stated, that on the 8th of May, he was turned out of his cabin into the wide world, and that he could not get any place of shelter for himself, his wife, and five children, and that persons occupying cabins or houses would not take his family in for fear of giving offence to the landlord, and that after lying for nine nights in the ditches, and fearing that the children would be killed by the inclemency of the weather, he searched about, and at last found out this hole in the churchyard, which had formerly been occupied by some unfortunate person, situated as he was, and he added, "if your honours turn me out, I shall not know where to go." [An hon. Member asked, on what authority the hon. Gentleman relied?] Mrs. Hall's Sketches of Ireland, and Mrs. Hall stated that she was present and heard the case, and knew it to be true. This lady would not be inclined to adopt or express views opposed to those of Gentlemen opposite. Here was a striking instance of a man with his family being turned out of their dwelling, so utterly without provision that they were obliged to resort to the companionship of the dead for shelter. Was that a state of things that ought to be allowed to remain, or when an appeal was made to the Legislature, should that House be satisfied with hearing the right hon. Baronet say, that the whole matter must be left to the moral feelings of the landlords? The right hon. Baronet ad.. mined, that the political franchise in Ireland was restricted, in a manner to be considered a grievance. In all the observations that had been made in the course of the present discussion, there was not one of all the cumulative grievances which Mr. O'Connell had laid down, and with respect to which he had recently said, that if they were removed he would give up repeal, which had not been admitted by one or other of the hon. Gentlemen who had addressed the House from the opposite benches. Hon. Gentlemen complained of the influence that the priests possessed over the Irish peasantry. To whom else were they to resort for advice and consolation when involved in trouble? They naturally resorted to the priest in the hour of difficulty and danger, as their best and only friend. Some hon. Mem-

1023
bers had deprecated the interference of the priests in the recent agitation for Repeal. He believed, that, but for this interference, the agitation would assume a character infinitely more dangerous than at present. The priests stood between the Government and danger, and he rejoiced to see them—not at the head, for it had prevailed for a long time before they joined it—take up the subject. In doing so they never, by their conduct, appeared to forget their sacred functions as ministers of religion. As regarded the Irish Registration Bill, it was now admitted by the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) and his colleagues, that it was impossible to pass it without convulsing the country. Was this conclusion arrived at as a new light of office, or was the bill forced on as one of those envenomed arrows which were shot to displace their predecessors? He thanked the right hon. Baronet for the manliness with which he adopted and carried Catholic emancipation, but it should be remembered that two years before he brought forward that measure he was as strenuous against the admission of Catholics. Although the right hon. Baronet might refuse to lead the van in any measure for the further appropriation of the Church revenues, still he was convinced that it was impossible for the right hon. Baronet to resist the admission that the Church of Ireland was overgrown when compared with the duties she had to perform, and that it was not the best type that could be afforded for a religious establishment. The right hon. Baronet, had had some days to deliberate on the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Limerick, and his only reply was, that he had done the best he could, and that he had endeavoured to govern in a spirit of fairness, and complained that he could not find any one Catholic who agreed with him, and to whom, therefore, he could give place. The noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, however, had succeeded in fishing out one Catholic, certainly a most respectable man, whom he had made a stipendiary magistrate, he meant Mr. Coppinger, who was known to be a Conservative. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues admitted the statement of the social grievances that had been made with respect to Ireland, and the right hon. Gentleman meant to wait until the end of the chapter of accidents before he endeavoured to apply
1024
himself to consider a remedy. What did the Government mean to do after Parliament had broken up? The right hon. Member for Dorchester said, that he relied on the support of the House. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman had no great reason to depend even on those who sat behind him. First of all, the gallant Member for Westminster had thrown in his broadside against the Irish Church, and then an hon. Member, who might be supposed to represent the modern religious, came forward in antagonism to the policy of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman did not say, upon what portion of the House he meant to rely, but he talked of all glorious England, and of the importance of keeping up this state of things. Did the Government mean to abstain from doing anything until it got rid of the badgering from that side of the House? Did they mean to invest the Lord Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, with additional powers to put down agitation immediately after Parliament broke up, and then come down next year to that House and ask for a bill of indemnity? It was no answer to talk of the dismemberment of the empire, when hon. Members came forward and asked for the redress of what were admitted to be grievances. The right hon. Gentleman should at once endeavour to govern in conformity with the feelings of the people, and should rely on the good sense of the people of England. If lie did this, he would find a full and satisfactory response from the Irish people, who were always so ready to forget injuries. If, at the time of the Union, the policy dictated by Mr. Pitt had been followed, what a different state of things from the present would appear ! They waited, however, and postponed from year to year any measure of concession; and it was not till a wound had been indented in the hearts of the people that they gave any boon. The right hon. Gentleman, in defiance of the first principles of good government, admitted the existence of the grievances complained of, then met them by referring to the most insignificant trifles as palliatives. If frittering away principles was the perfection of debating, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman never could be surpassed. He did not find in it the slightest reference to any remedy for their admitted evils, nor was there a single scintilla to point towards

1025
the regeneration of Ireland. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to wait with folded arms for the agitation, which was now so formidable, to cease of itself? The Government had still the means of allaying it in their power; but if, instead of this, they would imitate him of old, who fastened the dead to the living—if they allowed this to continue, they would find that the infection would fester from one body to the other.
Lord Bernardwas fully aware how desirable it was that the present debate should be brought to a close; and how necessary for him to make an apology for trespassing upon the time of the House. The ground upon which alone he could excuse himself, in his opinion, furnished an answer to one of the grievances put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who complained of the restricted nature of the Irish franchise, whereas he came forward to throw himself upon the indulgence of the House as a Member, occupying the only seat in the hands of the Conservative party in the province of Munster. He was anxious to state the grounds upon which he should oppose the motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the county of Limerick, who had brought forward the motion in a speech of much ability and moderation. If the motion was simply for a Committee of the whole House, to inquire into the state of Ireland, it was impossible that at this late period of the Session it could lead to any practical result. If, on the other hand, it was a vote of censure on her Majesty's Government, he would give it his decided opposition. He gave his support to the Government, because they had declared their intention to maintain the integrity of the Established Church in Ireland. The hon. Gentleman opposite said, that grievance and discontent existed in Ireland. If the fact that life and property were insecure in Ireland, that the peace was interrupted by unprincipled agitation, and that large meetings congregated, causing fear to the peaceable inhabitants of the Crown, constituted a grievance, then a grievance certainly did exist in Ireland; but he denied that there was in other respects any national grievance existing in Ireland. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to the injuries Ireland had received from the Union; but he omitted to state the advantage from free trade in corn, and from the importation of cattle being placed on the footing of a coasting trade. He also said that there were no dockyards in Ireland; but let the
1026
hon. Gentleman remember, that it was Lord Grey's Government that removed the flagship from the station of Cork. With regard to absenteeism, he asked whether that evil was not felt before the Union? Did not Mr. Flood make a motion on the subject in the Irish Parliament, proposing to tax absentees 10 per cent., who were absent from the kingdom between 1773-4? And was that not negatived by the Irish House of Commons, though, during the existence of Poyning's Law. Lord Harcourt gave the consent of the Crown to the measure. Topics of a painful nature to discuss bad been introduced into the present debate. He had hoped that the claims of the Roman Catholics having been granted, they would have put aside all political quarrel, and would have met their Protestant brethren to promote the welfare of their common country. The hon. "Gentlemen opposite had decreed otherwise; and it was no fault of hon. Members on the ministerial side if, when they passed the political rubicon, they did not find the Irish Conservative Members sleeping at their posts—if when they have thrown down the political gauntlet, though with a determination to discuss the question with calmness, with temperance and moderation, we do not hesitate to pick it up. The hon. Member for Waterford had made an attack on the Protestant Church in Ireland, and had drawn a picture calculated to excite bad feelings in that country. The hon. Member had described the people of Ireland as worshipping by the side of the religious edifices of their ancestors, which were in the hands of the Protestants. The hon. Member would find that this picture was not borne out by history. The Established Church of England and Ireland was the identical ancient Church of the Irish people. The conquest of Ireland was a double conquest, when Henry 2nd subdued the temporal, Adrian 4th subdued the spiritual power of Ireland; and it has been the contest for temporal power between the Roman Catholic Church and the Crown of England, which has caused the miseries of Ireland; for before 1153, there was not a suspicion of any one bishop in Ireland being in the least degree connected with the Church of Rome. lie did not mean to impute anything to the hon. Gentlemen opposite, but he fearlessly declared that at die time of the passing of the Roman Catholic emancipation, it was understood that the Church Establishment of Ireland was not to be assailed. He would

1027
quote from the work of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Wyse) on the Roman Catholic Association:—
" It (the Relief Bill) abolishes all civil disabilities on Roman Catholics, by repealing the oaths of Supremacy, Abjuration, &c., and substituting an oath of Allegiance to the Protestant succession of the House of Brunswick, binding the Catholics to defend the settlement of property as established by law, and not to injure or subvert the present Church Establishment."
And in his work "1829. Political Catechism," p. 47,
" Q. The Catholics are disposed to invade the temporalities of the Established Church—in favour of their own persuasion?—A. Very far from it. There are many Catholics lay impropriators, and in actual possession of these temporalities. There are many also who at this moment enjoy the right of presentation to benefices. These men cannot be induced to attack Church property—it is their own property.
"Q. Are not their (the Protestants) lands secure?—A. Certainly. The Catholics swear ' That they will defend to the utmost of their power the settlement and arrangement of property in this country, as established by the laws now in being.' Catholics, besides, hold land themselves so generally under the same Act of Settlement, by leasehold or purchase, that any disturbance would affect them quite as much as the Protestant.
" Q. Is not their Church secure?—A. Certainly. The Catholics disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any intention to subvert the present Establishment for the purpose of substituting a Catholic in its stead; and further, they swear that they will not exercise any privilege to which they are or may be entitled, to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion, and Protestant Government in Ireland."
He would state the grounds on which he supported the Church Establishment in Ireland. He supported it not merely (strong as this consideration was)because the Church in Ireland was the Church of the majority of the people of the united empire; not merely because he believed that that House and the country were bound by the most solemn ties of national faith and honour to uphold the Church Establishment, according to the Act of Union; not merely because he believed that if the Church Establishment were destroyed in Ireland, the property of the Protestants in that country would not be worth two hours' purchase; not merely because he believed that the destruction of the Church Establishment must lead to the repeal of the Union; but because he believed that it was the duty of
1028
a Christian, and moreover of a Protestant State, to support that religion which it felt to be true. The hon. Gentleman who had last spoken (Mr. Sergeant Murphy) had blamed the Government for having appointed bishops of the Established Church, who were unfavourable to the system of national education in Ireland. Do the Gentlemen who are not members of the Established Church wish to have a veto on the appointment of the Protestant bishops? Are men to be appointed not from their piety, learning, and devotion to their own Church, but from their adherence to a particular political measure? He (Lord Bernard) then spoke in commendation of the appointments of the Bishops of Cashel and Ossory, Bishops Daly and O'Brien, and the Dean of Cork (Dean Newman). He was not going to discuss now the question of national education in Ireland, to which system he was strongly opposed; he was simply going to take the argument as made use of by the hon. Gentleman opposite; and, if words meant anything, they plainly said, we have a system of education of which we approve; we are not satisfied with that, but we will make you (the Protestants) adopt one of which you conscientiously disapprove. Would not this be the practical effect of appointing bishops opposed to the feeling of the clergy of Ireland. A poor clergyman must either give up all hope of promotion, or accept it from a bishop opposed to his conscientious opinions. He then alluded to the objections which had been urged against the Government for their legal appointments in Ireland; commended the selection of Baron Lefroy, Judge Jackson, and Baron Pennefather; said that the quarter sessions were the poor man's court, where the cases of ejectment tinder 50l., and those cases in which he was peculiarly interested, were tried; and that the only appointment to this court made by the Government was Mr. Coppinger, Roman Catholic barrister. The noble Lord the Member for London, had admitted that he had offered the place of Master of the Rolls to Mr. O'Connell; and though he could not deny that he was an active politician, he justified it on the ground that he was active on the popular side. What was the court over which he was invited to preside—an equity court, where cases of property were to be tried, nine-tenths of which is in the hands of Protestants: again, in the case of the puisne judges, they bad two duties to per-

1029
form, civil and criminal; and though the majority of those whom they might have to try in one case were Roman Catholics, in the Nisi Prius Court it was exactly the reverse. Another question, which had been brought under the consideration of the House was fixity of tenure. If this proposition regarding fixity of tenure were a bond fide proposition, it was neither more nor less than an agrarian law; if it were not a bona fide proposition, it was the most wicked delusion ever practiced on the people of any country. Many attacks had been made on the landlords of Ireland, but those attacks were most unjust; and he believed that the condition of the peasantry had been greatly exaggerated. These complaints against the landlords arose not on account of their conduct, but were owing to the system of the subdivision of land, and the conduct of middlemen. As to the state of the franchise in Ireland, he thought that not only numbers but property ought to be an ingredient in the representative system. With regard to the social condition of that country, he would yield to no man in the desire to see improvements effected in Ireland by the formation of railways, by the increased employment on a large scale of the population, by which the misery they at present suffered would be alleviated, and by an advance of the science of agriculture. He wished to see England and Ireland united, not by concessions, but by each endeavouring to develope the resources of the other. By these means, Ireland in turn would amply compensate this country for any outlay she might make. He was anxious to see the harbours of Ireland filled, not merely, as now, by fishing-boats, but by ships engaged in a valuable and increasing traffic. He appealed to the hon. and learned Member for the county of Cork, who was now agitating Ireland; he appealed to him by his professed love to his country, by the calamities which the present agitation (whether successful or not) must entail upon it; by the prospects which till now had been dawning on the horizon of Ireland, but which the present agitation had retarded, by his desire to be considered the father of his country—
" Si quæret PATER URBIUM
Subscribi statuis, indomitam audeat Refrenare licentiam"—
And then he may be what he never otherwise could be,
"Clarus postgenitis."
He would address those who joined in
1030
the present agitation, in the words of the great Athenian orator, who, when addressing those who were exulting over the successes of a foreign foe, and looking with satisfaction upon the anticipated calamities of their country, said,
" Infuse into these men a better spirit, inspire even their minds with purer sentiments."
But if they still persevered, lie had the satisfaction of feeling that they had at the head of affairs a Minister not inferior in ability and statesman-like qualities to that great Minister who carried the Union with Ireland, supported by a large majority in this House and the country; supported in Ireland by a body of men confined to no one religious body, included in no one political party, who would use every energy to avert from Ireland the dire calamity of a dissolution of the Legislative Union, and the consequent separation of the two countries, and were willing to sacrifice their properties, and if need be, to lay down their lives to preserve to their beloved Sovereign the Crown of Ireland.
Sir W. Barron,denied, that the dispute in Ireland was between Catholics and Protestants, and he denied that the system of education in Ireland was deservedly called Catholic. He and his friends found fault with the Government for appointing persons to the highest stations in the Church, who were opposed to that system of education. That was one of the just causes of complaint which had made many persons, Protestants and Catholics, oppose the Government in Ireland. The appointment of Dr. Daly was, in this sense, most impolitic. He admitted, with respect to the appointments to the bench, that it was not to be expected that the Ministry should take their judicial officers from the ranks of their opponents; but he com-plained that they had taken the judges and other judicial officers from the roost extreme political opponents of the people. He himself had for many years stood aloof from all political associations; but within. a short time he had been compelled, by the conduct of the Government, to join a Repeal association. It was the act of the ministers which had driven him to this; and several of his neighbours, gentlemen of property and respectability, had been driven to adopt the same course. He was ' anxious to preseve the connection between the two countries. Any attempt to separate them would be fatal to Ireland. He

1031
had entertained that conviction for years, and he could only regret exceedingly that the course of the Government had driven him to join such an association. The majority in Parliament rendered it futile for the Irish to appeal to Parliament, and drove him and others to seek redress by other means. He put it to the House what would be their feelings if they saw the property which their ancestors had devoted to a particular Church, taken from that, and given to a minority of the people. The Catholics, at least, feel this as a stigma and an insult. They wished that at least a part of that property should be devoted to the relief of the poor. He had never heard that the Catholic clergy desired any part of that property for themselves. He complained, too, that Ireland had been unjustly taxed, and the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who sneered at him, had been obliged to admit that lie had done Ireland an injustice by his Spirit Duty, which the right hon. Gentleman had withdrawn. The right hon. Gentleman had promoted crimes in Ireland by the course he had taken. Latterly another grievance had been added, in the dismissal of those magistrates in whom the people could confide. He believed that upwards of fifty had been dismissed and he supposed that his turn would soon come. He cared not for the honour of the magistracy; he wished it only to be of service to his countrymen; and he regretted the dismissals he alluded to more on account of the increasing distrust it would inspire of the Government and magistracy than on any other account, It would strengthen the conviction of the people that they must not hope for justice. He, with others, complained that landlords created disturbances, by the manner in which they ejected their wretched tenantry, and cast them on the estates of their neighbors, or left them to die in the ditches. Landlords ought to be compelled to make compensation for the improvements on their estates, by those who were ejected. It often happened that men who had laid out money in improvements to the amount of two or three years' rent, were often turned out, when they were but a short time in arrear. There might be a Court constituted, with the assistance of the local courts, to determine the value of the improvements; and when a jury was necessary, it might he composed of
1032
six landlords and six tenants. The Irish complained that they were not represented sufficiently in that House. He said they should take, as the basis of their calculations, numbers and property. Let them take up these things fairly, and they would soon put down agitation, and the cry for a Repeal of the Union. The Irish were disposed to place confidence in those who treated them with kindness; but they were very sensitive on the point of religion, and those opposite insulted and outraged their feelings. The journals of the party opposite called the Catholic clergy of Ireland "surpliced ruffians !" This was most disgraceful and discreditable, and he hoped that this course would be abandoned. They complained in Ireland that a grant had been withdrawn, formerly given for the improvement of the harbours and fishery in Ireland; and yet the grant was continued in Scotland. He recommended the Ministry to take the advice of those Members, who, on the opposite side of the House, had advocated the cause of Ireland. He alluded particularly to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Lascelles). The Irish people feel deeply grateful to him, and on the part of his countrymen, he returned their thanks to him. The advice of such a man ought to be listened to by the Government; for they must know that hon. Members, as well as the hon. Member for Canterbury, were influenced by no party feelings. If Ministers did what was suggested, he for one would give up party, and cordially support the Government opposite. He said they ought to follow the example of Lord Normanby and the advice of Lord Fortescue. Let them reject Repealers, if they would; but let them do justice to the people. He begged to say, that he did not fear any outbreak in Ireland. Mr. O'Connell had too great a personal interest in the peace of the country. It was Mr. O'Connell's interest, as long as he had everything within his own domination, to keep the peace of the country. And then, as to the priests of Ireland, however Gentlemen opposite might doubt them, yet he in his conscience affirmed that there was not one of them who would lend himself to any insurrectionary outbreak in the country. Independent of these securities, and they were most valuable on the present occasion, he believed, too, that there was not one—not a single one in whom the people had confidence—who would become a leader in

1033
any insurrectionary movement. He believed, too, that a great security was to be found in the love the Irish people bore to their Queen. There was no part of her Majesty's dominions in which she was so much beloved, as by the Irish people. He did not state this on light grounds; but he stated it from a knowledge of the people for a long series of years; and from that knowledge he affirmed that their attachment to their beloved Sovereign was extreme. These were, he conceived, securities enough to make him believe that no danger could occur in Ireland, unless some false step were taken by the Government, and irritating topics were used by them, calculated to excite outbreak. He implored the Government to follow up their professions by deeds. The people of Ireland required something more than mere words. They had real grievances, and the Government must follow up their professions, otherwise the people of Ireland would be too apt to think that their speeches were "vox, et preterea nihil." He implored the right hon. Gentlemen opposite to propose measures—large measures of conciliation. If they did this, they would not only preserve the peace of the country, but the people of Ireland would be found ready to lay down their lives to maintain the peace and security of the British empire.
Mr. G. Hamiltonwas one of the many Members who had endeavoured to find an opportunity of speaking on the preceding night—and he should have been sorry to have given a silent vote on so important a question, and the more particularly, because the opinion he entertained with regard to the state of Ireland, or rather the causes of the discontent there, differed in some respects from any opinion he had heard expressed in that House. All parties admitted that Ireland was now in a state of the most alarming excitement. In consequence of that the minds of the people of all parties, had become unsettled. They had been withdrawn from their ordinary business. The improvement of the country had been retarded. There was a feeling of insecurity amongst all classes—trade and business had become stagnant—discord had been introduced. Irishmen were arrayed against Irishmen, and distinctions, recollections, and associations revived, which all good men must wish to see consigned to oblivion. To trace the causes of this excitement, was
1034
certainly a matter of great public importance and interest, to trace them for any useful or practical purpose; they must be examined calmly—they must be examined honestly—they must be examined fearlessly, and, as far as possible, irrespective of any party considerations. He was anxious to do this. He could sincerely declare that he preferred the interests of Ireland to any party interests—he had always felt so, he had always said so. People may differ and will differ as to what these interests really are, and the means of promoting them; but mixing much as he did in Ireland with parties whose political opinions were at variance with his own, he was not afraid to say, that however strong might be his opinions on some subjects, it was thought of him that he had the interests of his country, rather than of his party, at heart. He would add, there was no reason why he should be a partisan on this occasion. 11c owed nothing to her Majesty's Ministry—in his case, at least, it could not be brought against them that they had evinced any particular partiality towards one who, in connection with his lamented friend, Mr. West, as well as on other occasions, had endeavoured to render them some political service. He was glad it was so, if on the present occasion it would give to his observations a greater degree of weight than perhaps they would otherwise be entitled to. In the first place, with respect to the character of the present excitement, admitting to the fullest extent its great danger—feeling, as he did, that the present state of things in Ireland is perfectly incompatible with the maintenance of tranquillity, and indeed of the social system; and that, if it should continue, it must shortly come to this—either that it must be overpowered by law—or else that it must overpower the law. Feeling all this, he was prepared to say, however paradoxical it might appear, and however contrary to the statement of his hon. Friend the Member for Limerick, that the present excitement is a forced excitement, an unnatural excitement, rather than a deep-rooted discontent arising from the pressure of political grievances. He believed it to be created for political purposes, rather than to have emanated from the people themselves; and, as far as there is discontent, he believed it to arise from that excitement—the effect, and not the cause of that excitement—or else a

1035
discontent connected altogether with matters of a social character, and irrespective altogether of political considerations. In speaking of that excitement, he begged to be understood as speaking of it in reference to the mass of the people, and not in reference to those who have been instrumental in occasioning it. With respect to the cause of that excitement, he believed it to have been deemed expedient to make Ireland again the arena of a political struggle between the two great parties, and that the present excitement had been fomented for that purpose. It was unnecessary for him to attribute unworthy motives to others in saying this—of course he supposed that hon. Members on the other side of the House were sincere in believing that the interests of Ireland could be promoted by their return to office—although he thought they were greatly mistaken in that opinion; and there were circumstances certainly which were favourable to the plan of making Ireland the arena for a political struggle. He was quite ready to admit, what he believed to be the fact, that the present Ministry, on their accession to power, found Ireland in a state of unusual tranquillity. It had ceased to be the purpose of Mr. O'Connell to excite the people—political excitement had accordingly subsided, and, as a necessary consequence, the condition of the people had improved. lie firmly believed the people of Ireland at that time were wearied of agitation—and that the accession of an administration, which it was expected would prove a strong one, and capable of working the machine of Government efficiently, was regarded with satisfaction by the middle and upper classes of all parties. The people of Ireland, of both parties, felt, and felt strongly, that they had been used and abused for political purposes. They hoped this would be the case no more—both parties in his opinion despised equally the weakness of the late Government, but still it had happened that popular agitation had not suited the purposes of the supporters of that Government—that consequently the country had subsided into tranquillity—that the effect of this tranquillity was a rapid diminution of party feeling, an improvement in the state of the country, an improvement in the feelings of the people, a disposition to unite on neutral grounds amongst men of different parties—they were learning to
1036
forget their party feelings, or rather, which is much better, they were learning the more difficult but more honourable task of amalgamating without a compromise of principle, and of differing without bitterness of feeling. He believed that at that period, and he would say also at the present—he could certainly speak his own sentiments, and he thought they were the sentiments of the great body whom he had the honour to represent, there was no desire whatever but to see the spirit of the Roman Catholic relief act fairly carried out. Their Roman Catholic countrymen had been relieved from all civil disabilities; there was no desire amongst Protestants to see a preference given to Protestants as respects patronage, on account of their religious opinions, but certainly they felt they had a right also to expect that the express terms and covenants of the Emancipation Act should be carried out fairly as regards the Established Church. Such was the state of things when the present Ministry came into office, and it continued so long as there appeared no signs of weakness on their part, and no hope that their tenure of office could be rendered insecure by political agitation in Ireland; but circumstances soon occurred which opened new prospects to those whom the change of Ministry had excluded from power and influence. He was quite sure her Majesty's Government meant to be perfectly fair and impartial, and to promote conciliation and concord among all parties. But he must say, they made a mistake, which, as he believed, encouraged the hopes of their political opponents. They had mistaken the feelings of the Conservative party—instead of inviting them frankly to join with them in the great work of just conciliation, they had mistrusted their generosity or their moderation. While the attitude of the Government towards their political opponents was conciliatory, as it should be, their attitude towards their friends was that of repulsion. The inference which the Conservatives came to was this, either that their honest support was embarrassing, or else that some new and objectionable concessions were in contemplation. The motive of Government, no doubt, was a good one; but this policy was a mistake. The Government by it had estranged their friends— they had strengthened their opponents, and encouraged them to hope that something might be extorted from

1037
their weakness by clamour and agitation or, at least, that it might become expedient again to make Ireland the scene of a political struggle. Then came the tariff and the Income-tax, great measures no doubt, and worthy of the comprehensive mind of the Premier and the President of the Board Trade; but still, measures necessarily calculated to weaken any Ministry; and, in proportion as the Government became weaker, or appeared to do so, in the same proportion did the temptation become stronger to try whether Ireland might not be made again—what it had proved previously— a means of embarrassing and breaking up the Administration. This he believed to be the primary cause of the present excitement—he believed it to have been fomented for the purpose and with the design of embarrassing her Majesty's Government and placing them in a false position. It required, he thought, no great sagacity to discover this. The noble Lord the Member for Tiverton on a former occasion bad, perhaps, somewhat incautiously, admitted it; but the noble Lord could not conceal the gratification he felt at a prospect being once more opened—it is true a remote one, but still there was a prospect —of a return to office. Certainly, the noble Lord said, it was not to be this year. The engine was in too precarious a state, the steam was too much up; it might be difficult to regulate it; there might be danger in the attempt. But by-and-by the steam might be taken off, the safety-valve might be opened, and then, perhaps, Ireland might again have the blessing of a Whig Administration, which certainly, whatever the noble Lord might think, does not seem likely now to satisfy the aspirations of Mr. O'Connell. Additional proof might be found in the language and conduct of certain hon. Members opposite—not, indeed, of Irish Members, but of English Members, whose knowledge of Ireland was mere hearsay. Instead of allaying the excitement which they profess to deplore, they aggravate it in every possible way. They rake up all kinds of imaginary grievances—they assail the Church—they attack the landlords—they inveigh against the Government in one breath, for being actuated by political considerations, in raising to the judicial bench men whom you are pleased to designate as political partisans, but whose character, whose integrity, and whose competency you cannot
1038
question; and in the same breath you assail the Government with equal vehemence, for not being actuated by political considerations in the selections that have been made for the episcopal bench. He firmly believed that the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, acting upon the instructions which the House had heard from the right hon. Baronet last night, had been influenced by no improper considerations whatever, political or otherwise—in the clerical appointments he had made; and had no object but an anxious desire to select the individuals, whoever they might be, and whatever their opinions, whose piety, experience, and learning would be likely to render them the best fitted for the duties they were appointed to discharge. He trusted and believed that the noble Lord at the head of the Irish Government would continue to act so, uninfluenced by the denunciations of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that he would never suffer Church patronage to be made subservient to any political purposes whatever. Many lion. Members, and some, he was sorry to say, on his own side of the House, had attributed the excitement to the Established Church. After what had been said by the right hon. Baronet and other Members last night, especially by his noble Friend the Member for Lon, on the preceding night, it was scarcely necessary for him to add anything on the present occasion; but he could riot help remarking that, laying aside all considerations connected with the national faith and national honour—laying aside all considerations connected with the inviolability of national compacts, solemnly made at the time of the Union, and renewed at the time of Roman Catholic Emancipation—laying aside all considerations connected with the homage which is due to religious truth—to that which is acknowledged to be religious truth by this Protestant kingdom—and the obligation which devolves upon it of bringing that truth within the reach of all, whether they will accept it or not—he would say, it was his firm belief that the Roman Catholics of Ireland generally did not feel the Established Church to be the grievance which hon. Members represented it to be. There was another subject upon which he was anxious to say a few words. The clergy of Ireland had been found fault with on account of their opposition to the system of national education. Now, whatever hon. Members

1039
might think of that system, it could not be denied that a great principle was involved in it—no less than that of Scriptural instruction. The clergy of the Established Church in 1832, when that system was introduced, had expressed their conscientious opposition to it on principle. Now, he would like to know what hon. Members would have said and thought of the clergy if, when a Ministry, to which they were friendly, had come into power, they had abandoned their principles, and had joined the national system, because the Ministry wished them to do so. Was it not, then, too bad that they should be placed under ban by those hon. Members who professed to be liberals, and to estimate freedom of conscience and liberty of thought, because the clergy of Ireland now adhered to principles which they had asserted in 1832. The hon. Baronet, who had preceded him in the debate, had used some observations in reference to the Bishop of Waterford, which he (Mr. Hamilton) greatly regretted to hear. Now, it was quite true, that that respected Prelate was sincere and earnest in promoting what he believed to be truth, and in refuting what he believed to be error in religion. Surely, to do that could not be made an objection to him. But that he was an agitator in any other sense of the word he must most emphatically deny. There was another class of persons of whom he would confess he could scarcely bring himself to speak in terms of moderation: he meant those who were now inciting and goading on the people of Ireland to a state of frenzy, which might terminate in the most calamitous results. It was not for him to enter into the motives of those persons, they were answerable for their motives to a higher tribunal than Parliament or public opinion—he hoped they were enthusiasts; but whatever might be their motives, he thought it impossible for any one to read many of the speeches that were made, and many of the ballads that were sedulously circulated in Ireland among an excitable people, and not come to the conclusion that whatever they might be in law, they were treasonable and rebellious in their tendency. He could not help reminding the House, and that on the unexceptionable evidence of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Waterford, that there was a party in Ireland, even at the period of Roman Catholic Emancipation, whose objects he would
1040
describe in the eloquent language of that hon. Gentleman himself. Mr. Wyse states in his History of the Catholic Association—
"There were many who began to consider even Catholic Emancipation but a very partial remedy for the political and moral evils of Ireland. They looked to a regeneration far more sweeping and decisive. They believed that Ireland had out-grown the connexion, and could now set up for herself. They looked only to such a crisis as might, by its appalling force, loose the iron grasp altogether, and liberate the country from its dependence. They laughed at anything less than self-government in its amplest sense. Separation and republicanism were the two bead articles of their political creed. Such a party (he adds) had been rapidly increasing in Ireland. They calculated that there was no other emancipation for Ireland than the absolute assertion of independence: and that the attempt, if conducted with ordinary prudence and perseverance, quietly husbanding their resources, and awaiting with patience the propitious hour for the experiment, could not ultimately fail of the most entire success. Instead of confining themselves to mere relief from the penal laws, they attacked the Church, they attacked the corruptions of Parliament, they attacked the unfeeling pride of the aristocracy, they attacked the sub-letting and other bills; and, as often as occasion permitted, under the question of the Repeal of the Union, they attacked the connection with England itself. They flattered, in an especial manner, that natural pride of all countries, the love of self-legislation and self-rule. They appealed to passions and prejudices, which had slept, it is true, but had never been thoroughly extinguished in the public mind."
And then, in stating what would be the issue of such a state of things as then prevailed being continued, he adds—
"They would have had in Ireland a highly-inflamed population at their back (for a mart who wielded the association in a popular crisis, would assuredly be enabled to wield the country), and they would have been, above all, under the absolute necessity of surpassing their professions in conduct, and going on from violence to violence to the very verge of national revolution. Once on the edge of the precipice, whether they should plunge in or not, would no longer be a matter of choice; it would entirely depend upon the force by which they were propelled forward; it would depend upon the men behind them. A rebellion would be inevitable—it would not be in human power to prevent it."
He must leave it to the House to judge how far that description and these objects corresponded with the proceedings and conduct of those to whom he was now alluding. He could easily understand that

1041
some hon. Members might say, with his hon. Friend the Member for Limerick, that it was impossible such excitement could arise in the absence of substantial grievances. He could not agree with his hon. Friend in that, when he considered the character and circumstances of the Irish people, and the instrumentality through which that excitement was produced. In the first place, he believed that the numbers at those meetings were greatly exaggerated; and, at all events, there is nothing more easy than to collect large numbers of people together in Ire- land, under the influence of any popular excitement. But in this case he felt it right to say, that the peculiar instrumentality. used was sufficient to account both for the numbers and organisation of the people. The hon. Member for Waterford had culogised the Roman Catholic clergy. Although one hon. Gentleman, the Member for Sheffield, had spoken of the Reverends Mr. Mac Neill and Mr. M'Ghee—gentlemen whom he was proud to call his friends —in terms of the most unjust opprobrium, he had no intention of speaking disrespectively of the Roman Catholic clergy. He regretted deeply the part they had taken, and the language some of them had used in the present repeal movement; and he could not help adding, that it was calculated to raise questions with respect to their ulterior objects. They were now avowedly the leaders of that movement, and the influence they possess, and the means they have at command for directing and influencing it, are quite enough in themselves to account both for the organisation and numbers at those meetings. The topics also that were selected were calculated to bring together large masses —the stirring appeals to ancient prejudices and recollections, and to the national pride, were not without their effect upon an excitable and imaginative people. The process is so precisely similar to that adopted by the Catholic Association, that he could not forbear pointing out its similarity to the House. He should do so in the best way, by reading another short extract from the same history. Mr. Wyse, in speaking of the state of things prior to emancipation, writes thus;.—
"Agitation existed everywhere, and became the mode and manner of exciting the whole community. It was now only necessary to give it a more precise and effective direction. This was done by organisation. The first
1042
attempts were but a series of experiments. Many omissions and blunders taught the Catholics at last the road to success."
The principal point to be attained was,
"To habituate the people to obey, at a moment's warning, the resolutions and commands of the association. The association would have been unwise, in limine, in attempting anything which could tend to render doubtful this disposition. It gave orders easy to be complied with, and the facility of the execution, of itself produced and confirmed the habit, The people did not examine very narrowly into the nature of the machinery employed; they attributed it exclusively to the will and power of the association—and to the association they began to look more and more every day, for the direction of every particular of their conduct. The progress, though gradual, was most perceptible; there was no difficulty in assembling the people upon a Sunday. This repeated, would have soon rendered it equally easy to have assembled them on a week day. Once such assemblies had become practicable, at the decree of the association, the entire population of Ireland would be in its hands. What could have prevented it from making use of this power? It would have been a matter only of a piece of paper, and four-and-twenty hours."
And he adds in a note—
"The people met without arms, and for the peaceable purpose of petitioning; but they met at once—they met on the same day—above all, they met by the order of the association. What if the association, at some later period, had ordered them to meet with arms, not for the purpose of petitioning against, but resisting tithes, &c. &c."
Would they have disobeyed? The fulcrum and the power were found—the lever could be applied to anything. And speaking of the Clare election—
"It was designed to tell ministers, in a language which should no longer be misunderstood, that wherever the association chose to call, that there were the people ready to follow—that obedience to the association was the paramount principle in the heart of every peasant in the country—that the power of the association was, therefore, absolute and universal—that it could not be got rid of by the law, for it never infringed the law—that it could not be got rid of by brute force, for it never rendered brute force necessary—that it was, therefore, unattackable and enduring—that, unattackable itself, it could attack others —that, without injuring established institutions, it might make use of these very institutions for every purpose of injury—that it could wield the constitution against the constitution —introduce a sullen perpetual war into the bosom of peace—disturb every relation of society, without violating a single enactment on which such relations repose—and, finally,

1043
produce such an order of things as to compel the minister to choose between coercion or conciliation—between justice or tyranny—between war or peace—between equalisation or revolution. It was intended to tell him that the crisis had come, and there was no longer any time left him for pause or deliberation."
Such appeared to him to be exactly the state into which the Repeal party in Ireland were endeavouring to force the Ministry now. With respect to the means of remedying the present state of things in Ireland, it involved so many considerations, that he felt it to be a matter for the mature deliberation of Government, rather than for any Member of that House. He would, however, say, that he was' firmly convinced that just in proportion as Government evinces firmness and strength —he meant that kind of strength which indicates stability—in the same degree would the excitement subside. He had already stated, that he owed nothing to Government—on that account perhaps he might the better say, that he felt it to be a strong duty at such an emergency for those who were anxious for the tranquillity of Ireland, to place Government in such a position that it might be seen and felt that they were quite able and determined to meet any crisis, no matter what, with a moral courage and political strength fitting, such an occasion; and that any forbearance they might show could no longer be attributed to timidity or weakness. He was glad to collect that there was no faltering---no hesitation on the part of Government on account of the present movement—that they were quite determined to uphold the Established Church, and to act steadily up to the principles upon which they came into office. If there was any discontent among sections of the Conservative party, he would earnestly call upon them to co-operate cordially with her Majesty's Ministers on this occasion. The tranquillity of Ireland was more important they might depend upon it to their interests, than the Canada Corn Bill. Let the Irish Conservatives feel themselves no longer estranged, let moderate men of all parties have the courage to come forward and support the Crown, not for the purpose of any undue coercion, but for the purpose of baffling the designs of the Irish demagogue—not for the purpose of any unnecessary force, but for the purpose of enabling Government to bear down those physical demon-
1044
strations by an exhibition of moral and political strength. He certainly agreed in the opinion that had been expressed by the right hon. Baronet, the Head of the Government, that it was too much the habit in Ireland for people to look for extraordinary laws, to suppress disturbance. He certainly thought it was much better to teach the people of Ireland to rely upon the Constitution under which they lived, and which he believed to be amply sufficient to protect the well-conducted, and restrain the turbulent; but then, in order that the people might acquire that assurance, it was certainly necessary that the laws should be administered with firmness as well as temperance, —at the same time he would say to Ministers, in the strong language of his hon. Friend, though not in the same sense that they ought to strengthen themselves in the estimation of the people of Ireland generally, by taking every opportunity of showing that they sympathise with their feelings—that they have a knowledge of their wants, and as disposition to provide for them—not, however, by the abandonment of great principles, but by attention to practical objects. Let the English people and English members manifest their determination to defeat this attempt to coerce Parliament, and force upon them a change of Ministry, by rendering the government morally as well as numericelly strong—let the well-disposed in Ireland rally from the confusion into which this sudden movement appears to have thrown them; let them no longer be intimidated by threats of force—let them show that they too have courage to meet the emergency; and, above all, let them appeal to the good sense and good feeling of those around them, and he was sanguine enough to hope that the excitement might subside not less rapidly than it had been created. He had stated, at the commencement of his address, that there were circumstances connected with the social condition of the people of Ireland which may have contributed to the present excitement. Although he had adverted more particularly to those which he believed to be the primary causes of that excitement, he was by no means disposed to overlook those other considerations. His hon. Friend had adverted to them with great ability, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kildare, not only on a former occasion but in the pre-

1045
sent debate, had invited men of all parties to lay aside party feelings, and proceed to consider those important subjects—and almost every hon. Member had done the same; certainly there was much in the social condition of the people of Ireland requiring anxious and deliberate attention. He believed that the general improvidence which unhappily had been the characteristic of all classes, from the highest to the lowest, during the last generation, was the main cause of the derangement of the social system. The correction of this evil was hardly within the reach of Legislation, and was necessarily the work of time. He thought there had been a considerable improvement of late years, but there was much within the reach of cautious and well-considered Legislation. He was not an advocate for buying off agitation by improvident grants of public money. Such a course would be nearly as futile as attempts always were to buy off agitation by abandonment of great principles; but still he thought much good had been done and much good might be done, without loss to the revenue, by the extension of public works. Ireland certainly had a right to expect this, for, when the Poor-law was passed, it was certainly understood that the pressure of that law was to be alleviated by other measures for the employment of the people. He was sorry to hear the remarks of the right hon. Baronet, the Home Secretary, in reference to railways in Ireland. He was not favourable to construction of railways by Government, but he was favourable to railways on the principle of private enterprise, aided by Government loans. Notwithstanding what had been said by the right hon. Baronet, he could assure the House that there were great capabilities for railways in Ireland, and a great disposition to invest money in Irish undertakings, but not certainly if it was to go abroad on the authority of the right hon. Gentleman, that the average cost per mile was to be 34,000 1. He was connected with one railway in Ireland which had been aided by a government loan. It was now nearly completed. It was not a line of very easy construction, and rather expensive than otherwise in its character; and he could state to the House, that the cost of its construction would be under 13,000 1. a mile. He thought there was much in the suggestion of the hon. Gen-
1046
tleman (Mr. More O'Ferrall) with respect to the extension of the Scotch law to Ireland for the permanent improvement of estates, or the reclamation of waste lands, by enabling tenants for life, under proper restrictions, and after inquiry by the Lord Chancellor, to raise and expend money on such improvements. In reference to the social condition of the people of Ireland, a vast mass of information had been collected from time to time by the House, but its very quantity had rendered it so cumbersome, as to be nearly useless. He did think it would be desirable, as the hon. Member for Kildare had suggested, that a commission of discreet men of moderate politics and of different par-tics should be appointed, not so much for the purpose of collecting facts, as of considering and digesting facts already collected, and who, proceeding during the recess with great caution and deliberation, might consider how far it would be possible for Parliament to aid in the improvement of that joint system. This was a work well worthy the philanthropist and patriot. It was a duty incumbent on the Government and the country; no consideration should be spared, no efforts wanting, to place the peasantry of Ireland in a better position. Whatever might be said by others, he would always stand up for the peasantry of Ireland. It is true, they are excitable, and liable to be misled by the demagogue and the agitator, but he should like to see an effort made to take them out of the hands of such parties. He should like to see a British House of Commons laying aside these party contentions for which the Irish peasant cares but little, and applying themselves in good earnest to the consideration of practical measures for the amelioration of the condition of the people. He should like to see the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, the noble Lord at the head of the Colonies, and the many other statesmen who had served their political apprenticeship in Ireland, applying the energies of their maturer years to this important subject. There were difficulties, no doubt, in the way—few difficulties are insurmountable; the attempt might be unsuccessful; but the people of Ireland would at least acknowledge it with those feelings which their warm hearts and affectionate dispositions never failed to exhibit towards those from whom they received consideration and kindness.
Mr. E. B. Roche:As the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, stated his motives for opposing the present movement in Ireland, he hoped he should be allowed to avow those which actuated him in taking an active part in it. The hon. Gentleman said, that this great movement (for such it was admitted to be on all hands) was not of a national but a party character. We were not, the hon. Gentleman said, backed by the national will; and our only object was to bring back the Whig party to power. The hon. Gentleman then, however, proceeded to say, as if to prove that he came from the same country as he did, that the people of Ireland never placed any confidence in the Whigs. So that we were represented as agitating the country—as placing ourselves in a prominent and responsible situation, to bring back to power men about whom he did not care a fig. The motives of the leaders of the movement had been impugned; but whether they were corrupt or praiseworthy, the question arose—what gave them the power they possessed? The power must be derived from some source or other; and they say that they are admitted to the confidence of the people, because, knowing their grievances, and deeply sympathising with them, they have not hesitated boldly to proclaim them. It was true he came into that House a decided and pledged repealer; and he must say that, having listened with attention to all the speeches which had been delivered, if it were possible to make him a more thorough and uncompromising repealer, those speeches would have had that effect. To the speech of the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, he had paid that attention which was due to his position and character. That right hon. Gentleman admitted the importance of this question —he admitted the intensity of feeling which prevailed on the subject in Ireland; yet neither he nor the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department, who charged the Irish people with manifesting a "rebellious spirit," proposed a single remedy that could allay the excitement or give satisfaction to the people. The right hon. Baronet said our cause was "rebellious." 'Twas a hard word. In Ireland it called up the phantoms of '98, martial-law, pitch-caps, the lash, the gibbet, rapine, murder, the flogging of the priesthood before the faces of the people, and
1048
he must say, that if the right hon. Gentleman knew as touch of Ireland as lie did, it was the last word he would select to throw oil on the troubled waters. If there were a rebellion in Ireland, why did not Ministers come to the House for power to put it down? He owned, as he had already said, that he took a prominent part in the movement, and he had no fear of being stigmatised by the right lion. Gentleman as a rebel. They were not here, however, for the purpose of recriminating charges? The people of England, he hoped, were watching this discussion, he knew the people of Ireland awaited the result of it with the greatest anxiety. He confessed the Irish people despaired of obtaining any relief from the English Parliament, except on compulsion. They had made agitators of the Irish by never granting their reasonable demands, and always succumbing to force. If at the meetings of the cabinet, which from all he had heard were not quite as peaceable as those of the repeaters, any definite measures had been decided upon, he was sure the right hon. Baronet would have been but too happy to state them in his address of last night. Were we to hear the announcement made by another Member of the Cabinet to-night, whose name would not be a very favourable passport in the eyes of the people of Ireland? Come from whom they might, the people of Ireland were ready to forget the men, but deeply to weigh their measures. He must acknowledge that he had received much gratification from the tone of many of the speeches which had been delivered in the debate. The speech of the noble Member for Sunderland was of a comprehensive character; it was the speech of a man who had not only the will, but the mental power requisite for the government of a country. The speech of the noble Member for London was not quite so broad in its character, but both speeches would be read with the greatest interest in Ireland. This fact was, however, reluctantly forced on his mind, that however willing to conciliate the Irish people, the government to which the noble Lord belonged had not the power. The hon. and gallant Member for Westminster told them, that bigotry was so strong in Scotland and England, that no English Government could do justice to Ireland. In this acknowledgment was the justification of the Repeal movement, for history told

1049
us however possible it was to conciliate a people, the ferocity of a faction was never allayed. He was reminded by the speeches of several hon. Gentlemen opposite, who boldly spoke out their opinions on the misrule of Ireland, of a saying in Ireland —" Soft words butter no parsnips." He told them, if he were not to have their votes, he despised their speeches; and echoing the language of the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, he must say, that if these hon. Gentlemen had the clearness of intellect to think rightly on the subject of Irish grievances, they ought to have the honesty to vote rightly. Speeches without votes could only have the effect of reminding his countrymen of English justice—it was holding out the shell, not the kernel of conciliation. But even if the Irish people had the benefit of their votes, he was afraid they could afford but a sorry comfort; because if they were so honest as to join that people, they were not so numerous as to help them. The only claim on the attention of the House he could have, was his testimony as a repealer; and he could tell the House, that the people of Ireland would never be quiet until their grievances were redressed. The repealers were charged with using exciting language. They were not, however, conspiring in secret; and no man, addressing the people of Ireland on their admitted grievances, could be cold in his language, They were, it was said, looking for foreign aid. Heaven knew, they had been looking long enough to England for justice. The repealers could not prevent Christian men in America from sympathising with the wrongs of Ireland; and if they could they would not. They could not prevent the French press from turning its attention to the state of Ireland, and if they could they would not. There was nothing like speaking above board. Let somebody who might follow him prove, that they ought to prevent the people of those countries from sympathising with the Irish. Did not England sympathise with Poland? Was there such a thing as the siege of Acre? Did they ever hear of the Syrian question, or of the intervention in favour of Greece, or that for the establishment of a free government in Belgium? He should like next to know whether it was the policy of the Government, and not a feeling of justice in the people of England, that authorised the steps he had alluded
1050
to? He could only regret, that the people of England could not see there was room for the indulgence of these feelings at home; and perhaps, instead of their peregrinations to the east, they would next think of turning for awhile to the west. All he implored was, that they should set out on the journey at once, for the golden opportunity of conciliating was fast passing away. There was no use in touching upon the topics of Irish grievances, for they were told that nothing was to be done with the Church or the franchise. Threats were held out of coercion. But as he was interested in that threat, he should only say with regard to it, that he warned the Government and the English people how they interfered with the people of Ireland in discussing their grievances; that people which were actuated by no rancorous feelings of religion, but by the strong sense of injustice, and the sacred and honourable feeling of patriotism.
Mr. A. Stafford O'Brien felthe had a right to congratulate the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. It was the advantage of extreme opinions such as his, that thus enabled the holder of them to act a straightforward part as the hon. Member himself expressed it. It had been a difficult matter to find out what was the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite, not as to the Government, but as to what was the proper remedy for the evils existing in Ireland; not so with the hon. Gentleman. Allusion had been made to several speeches delivered by hon. Gentlemen on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, and he, too, would also say a word or two respecting them. He would do so with sorrow and regret, in consequence of the friendship which existed between some of the hon. Gentlemen and himself, but when they remembered with what welcome those speeches were received by the hon. and learned Member for Bath, he would ask them to pause before they adopted a tone which did no credit to themselves or the party with which they were connected. Considering the quarter from which it came, he confessed he was never more surprised than last night to hear the attack made upon the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland.
Mr. Smythewas anxious to state that the hon. Gentleman had entirely mistaken what fell from him. He had been totally misunderstood, if it were supposed that

1051
he had thrown any reflections upon the character of the noble Lord. All he had reflected upon was the inaction of the Government, not upon the character of the noble Lord.
Mr. S. O'Brienwas glad that he had afforded his lion. Friend that opportunity of explaining what his meaning had been, because he could assure him, that many hon. Members had looked upon his speech in the same light as he had. The speech of the hon. Member for Cork was important, inasmuch as it was the first with which the House had been favoured by a thorough Repealer. The hon. Gentleman told them that the party with which he was acting was the movement party in Ireland—the party who, lie said, were despairing of obtaining justice from England; yet directly after he added, that he had hope as regarded Ireland. Had he misstated the hon. Gentleman? He had given the hon. Member for Canterbury an opportunity of explaining, and would be happy to allow the same to the hon. Member, if he had spoken incautiously.
Mr. E. B. Rochein accordance with the wish of the hon. Gentleman, was perfectly ready to repeat what he had said. He said nothing about foreign interference—he had talked of foreign sentiment and sympathy. What he said was, that the Repealers did not look for foreign interference; they could not prevent foreign sympathy, and if they could they would not.
Mr. S. O'Brienaccepted the explanation of the hon. Gentleman—the House and the country. would accept it for what it was worth. However, he had considered it a duty incumbent upon him, as a subject of her Majesty and a citizen of Eng- land, to call the hon. Member's attention to the mention he had made of foreign interference; he put the question, the hon. Gentleman had given his explanation; if he thought that was sufficient, he (Mr. O'Brien) would say no more, but pass on to remark upon the speech of the other Repealer. [Mr. Roche had given no explanation. Being called upon, he had repeated what he had formerly said.] Well; the other Repealer, the hon. Member for Waterford (Sir W. Barron) stated, that for twenty years, he had been a steady antagonist of the Repeal movement; that he had denounced it over and over again. He who said, "The greatest misfortune that can befal Ireland would
1052
be a separation from England"—he stated that he had joined a body he had always denounced—why? because the Lord Chancellor had thought proper to appoint five Conservative gentlemen as magistrates in the city of Waterford, and the bishop of the diocese was not so hospitable as he ought to be. These were the only reasons given by the hon. Baronet for becoming a member of a body which he had formerly denounced. He also had a suggestion to make towards remedying the present evils of Ireland, and as it was neither a Whig nor a Tory proposition, he trusted it would be received with cordiality by both. It was to curtail these discussions as much as possible—finish the business of the Session—and go home to their duties as landlords and magistrates, at least such of them as were still in the commission of the peace. The hon. Member for Drogheda (Mr. Redington) had said the people had no confidence in the magistracy of Ireland, What a censure that was upon his own friends after they had the Government of Ireland for eleven years ! But it was not the fact, The evils of Ireland would best be corrected by her landlords endeavouring to redress all the grievances open to complaint. If all the miseries Ireland had suffered from her landlords and absentees were placed in one scale, and all those which she had endured from the English Government in the other, the balance would be found fearfully on the side of the former. Not that the rich in England had done their duty towards the poor. The frightful contrast between excessive penury on the one hand, and excessive wealth upon the other, was not more prominent, perhaps, in Ireland than it was in England; and if the Legislature rejected the hands now held up in prayer they would soon have to meet clinched fists. The question of the Church of Ireland was a contest between the Romish and the Anglican church, in which the whole of Christendom would be interested. He hoped the Irish Church would not be weakened but strengthened, as a great blessing to the Irish people. He believed, sincerely, that the Church was a benefit to the people of Ireland, and that it really was a question between the peasantry and the State. Hon. Members who professed to regard the Church as the monster grievance of Ireland, had not commenced their assault upon it until the present Ministry had

1053
come into office. Had he believed what they professed to believe, he would never have rested till it had been destroyed. He believed sincerely that the Church was a great blessing to the people, and therefore he hoped it would be preserved not in appearance merely but in efficacy and in vigour. With respect to Repeal hon. Members opposite who pretended to disapproval of it should manfully discountenance it, instead of encouraging it by their exciting speeches. This debate would probably be closed on the anniversary of the battle of the Boyne; and as that day had long ceased to be the occasion of exciting exhibitions on the one side, he trusted it would now mark the commencement of a new course of moderation on the other side. The chief fault of the Orangemen (who had been the object of so much animosity on the part of Gentlemen opposite, who had perhaps been too carelessly thrown off by the party which had availed themselves of their aid) was, their not remembering sufficiently that they were Irishmen, and he hoped that error was not to be imitated for ever by their opponents, and that peace would no longer be sacrificed to party contests.
Mr. Humesaid, the lion. Gentleman accused those on his side of the House with entertaining an opinion that the Church of Ireland was a curse, instead of a blessing; and accused them of allowing this wrong to exist, and taking no measures to redress it. If the hon. Gentleman had been longer in the House, he would have known that twenty years ago, lie had given this opinion roundly, as he did now, that the Established Church of Ireland constituted the grand grievance of which the Irish had to complain, and if he were an Irishman, he never would be content till the Church was removed. Everything that had taken place from that moment to this had convinced him of what ought to be done. What were we about to wage war against Ireland for? Why, the lion. Baronet said, it was to maintain the Irish Church. They were going to war, they were about to disturb the peace of the empire, for a sinecure church. There was a majority of 7-8ths against this, or it might be 11-12ths of the population. It might be, that the maintenance of the Church was important to the happiness of the 1-12th, but let them see what evils it inflicted on the other
1054
11–12ths, and he would council her Majesty's Government not to proceed in this course. They ought to do justice to Ireland. Why was there an Established Church in this country? Because it was — though he doubted whether it were so now—the Church of the majority: in Scotland, the Presbyterian Church was established, because that was the Church of the majority; and if this justice were done to England and Scotland, why did they not give a church to the majority in Ireland? He was satisfied that the people of Ireland ought not to cease demanding a proper application of this public property, for public property it was, and Parliament had given it to certain parties to perform certain duties, which had ceased to be performed for many a day: he therefore considered the support of the Church of Ireland a misapplication of the public money; and the people of Ireland looked upon it, as it was a mark of degradation. He would not then revert to other grievances, for he only rose in consequence of the observations of the last speaker, and he should support the motion.
Mr. C. Bullersaid, I shall not, Sir, occupy the attention of the House for any long time; but having taken an active part in a previous debate, when the state of Ireland was before the House, I cannot allow the present debate to close without saying a few words. I must say, that this discussion has been the most remarkable, as well as the most gratifying, which I have ever been present at in this House. I never heard, however, a debate in which a great question has been more calmly or more fitly discussed; and the remark may be extended to both sides of the House, and in all the different stages of the debate. Every one, Sir, has admitted that the hon. Gentleman who introduced this motion stated the grievances of Ireland with temper and with fulness. There have also been speeches, containing the exposition of sound principles, by my hon. Friends, the Members for Bath and for Sheffield; and, Sir, I must express my pride at belonging to a party, two of the leaders of which, the noble Lord, the Member for the City of London, and the noble Lord, the Member for Sunderland, have come forward, and, declining to avail themselves of the usual tricks and concealments of opposition, have stated large, comprehensive, and sound views, relative

1055
to the state of Ireland, which show that' they, and not the Gentlemen opposite, are the proper persons to govern that country. I hail, Sir, also the adoption of the phrase by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Edinburgh, which was stated in the Canada report of Lord Durham, of "the responsibilities of opposition." Those responsibilities are shared in by us, and I appeal to the conduct of this debate, to prove that they have not been forgotten. We have heard, Sir, to-night, the speech of the hon. Gentleman, the Member for the county of Cork, who, with a generous feeling, has given us in an upright manner good reason for his support of repeal; and if the hon. Member be a fair sample of the Gentleman attached to repeal, I can only say that he gives the best evidence that they can be reasoned with, but not coerced. As to the phrases on the value felt for the sympathy of foreign nations, it shows that the repeal agitation was not a question which interested only the Irish themselves; and that when sordid and sectarian interests lead to the perpetration of wrong, there is a sympathy excited not only in free America, not alone in France, bound by ancient recollections of oppression; nay, not in free states alone, but in every nation on the continent of Europe and throughout the Americans, who all wonder at our marvellous folly, and at the waste of our resources. In paying this tribute to the creditable way in which this debate has been conducted, I cannot fail to accord the credit due to the speech of the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government. Knowing the eminent position which he occupies in this House, —knowing how much the susceptibility which makes him so great an ornament of our debates, render him sensible to the cheers of his supporters, I must say I felt peculiarly grateful to him for the manner in which he delivered last night a speech, the tone of which could not have called forth warmer feelings on his own side of the House. I cannot but thank him, even although he proposed no plan of Government at all, for not having, at least, fallen into that worst and most fatal error into which he might have fallen,—I thank him for those feelings of warm and generous humanity and patriotism which prevented him from having recourse to the vulgar plan of coercion. Though I blame him for not coming forward and adopting those
1056
large and beneficent measures which would at once put down the cry for Repeal, at any rate he is not ready to plunge his country into civil war by trying coercion before he has exhausted all his powers of reasoning. Great part of his speech I heard with the greatest delight, because if he, with his enlightened feelings, with his large views, with the patriotic intentions for which I give him credit, if he can only acknowledge abuses; if he can only defend the Irish Church by some little arguments ab inconvenienti about what you are to do with the Catholic bishops; if he can do nothing with respect to the momentous question of the relations of the Catholic Clergy with the state, but hint—and I thank him even for that hint—that it is a subject on which he will not rashly pronounce an opinion, thereby giving me hopes that he will pronounce an opinion by and by, and that he means to take up this question with a view to some settlement—even if this be all we can now get, still I do not despair of sufficient measures being taken to put down the agitation now going on in Ireland, by granting the just demands of that country. I confess, when I head his statement of the evils which afflict Ireland, and admit his total inability to grapple with them, if I had come into the House without knowing what was the object and tenor of his speech, I should have said he was making a speech declaratory of his own want of confidence in his own government. I must say that what has most astonished me in this debate—which is the most surprising and interesting discussion, I say it without any exaggeration, I ever heard in Parliament—is the development of opinions among a large number of gentlemen who have long been supposed to entertain opinions exactly the contrary. Their own party has found fault with the tone they have taken towards their own leaders, hut I was delighted to find them vindicating themselves from the charge of extreme and miserable bigotry, and coming forward and stating, Member after Member, that the Irish Church is a grievance to the people of Ireland, and avowing that the state ought to make a provision for the Catholic clergy. I allude particularly to the hon. Member for Westminster, who said that there was not a single argument for the Irish Church. My first impression was, to lift up my hands in wonder and say, what have we been differing about so

1057
long—for what have we been abusing one another on the hustings, and in the House? Why have we been calling you bigots, and you styling us enemies of the Church? What an agreeable disappointment to find that your opinions on the great fundamental question of the Church agree with our's more than with those of the Government ! It may, perhaps, be owing to some of them being young Members of little experience, some of whom have not yet learned how to make their votes coincide with their speeches. But these things come gradually. If they will give us their speeches in the mean time, we will give them an opportunity of letting us have their votes some other day. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire made the most unfair charge against this side of the House I ever heard made against it by any Ministerial Member. He stated that we had complained of petty grievances, but had brought forward no distinct remedies. I must say, that I never heard larger and more distinct views brought forward in any discussion, stated with greater calmness, and, I may say generally, with more perfect unanimity of opinion. And now how stands the question as to these points? The great evil of Ireland—the great source of all the mischief— has been originally the conquest of the country by the English invasion; and secondly, the perpetuating the bad feelings engendered by the conquest, and attempting to force the Church of the conqueror on the conquered people. This is an evil that runs through the whole frame of Irish society. To this you may trace the evils—to this the misery, of that country; and I must remark that it is not fair, when you are speaking of a grievance of 300 years' standing, to expect that the instant you remove the grievance, you will remove the feelings of discontent it has engendered. Think of this always, when dealing with the people of Ireland, that you have to deal with a people who suspect, and must suspect you—a people who have to complain of great injustice—who well recollect their ancient wrongs, and who are not, therefore, prepared to think everything a benefit that comes from the hands which inflicted those wrongs. Be patient, therefore, and forbearing towards the Irish people, and when they cry out against small grievances, recollect it is but the echo of that deep voice which they have raised for ages against greater oppres-
1058
sions. It is to this attempt to force an alien church on an unwilling people that we are to ascribe the great and capital grievances of Ireland; the first of these is the relation of Church and State in that country. I have no general wish to destroy Church establishments. Even the Irish Church—the Church of a Protestant people, certainly my wish would not be in any way to destroy; but I tell you, that to maintain the Irish Church in a position of undue superiority with the mass of the people of a different religion, has been an insult and a wrong to the Irish people. When you talk to me of the clergyman being a good resident landlord, visiting the people, and spending money amongst them, I tell you, if he had all the virtues which the best landed proprietor or priest ever had, while he is paid by the tithes, and exercises the office of rector of a parish filled by Catholics, he has one character that predominates over every other—that poisons every benefit that comes from his hand—that makes him unfit to be the object of reverence or attachment—that makes him one of suspicion to all he sees, as the priest of an intrusive church, drawing off their revenues, which were meant to be employed for their spiritual instruction, and not in keeping a church to which they are adverse, in a state of predominance. I say, that you must remove that evil before you can do any good—not by recklessly destroying the Protestant establishment—not by depriving Protestants of the example and instruction of their clergy, but by putting the Catholics and Protestants in every respect on an equality. I say it is a great and real wrong to the Irish people, to this excitable, and mercurial people, who are just in that position in which, above all others, a people stand in want of a respectable and efficient clergy. I say you committed the greatest wrong on that people in withdrawing the State from all relation with their clergy, and refused to govern the people through the influence of those who are their real guides. I say, then, the great thing you have to do, is to bring the Catholic clergy into relation with the State, to meet them in the bonds of amity; and let this be your principle, not to destroy the establishment without any real need, but to take care that there shall be just as great provision made for the spiritual instruction of the Catholics throughout Ireland, as for the spiritual

1059
instruction of the members of the Episcopal Church. That is the principle on which I say you ought to proceed with respect to the Church of Ireland. There has been another great evil—I mean the relations of the people of Ireland to their landlords. I know I can hardly mention the subject of fixity of tenure, without exciting the susceptible minds of many of the Members of this House. This is a question on which I must do what I think it is generally very unadvisable and improper to do. On a question of this great importance, hitherto so little brought into discussion, I cannot venture to come forward and pledge myself immediately to any practical course which may have been proposed, but I say it is a matter on which something must be done. You must not leave the whole of the occupiers of the soil without any rights in the soil. I want to point out to the Government, if they will give me their attention for one moment, one remarkable anomaly in the state of property in Ireland. You say the laws of property in Ireland are the same as in England; that the landlord has no more in Ireland than he has in England; and that any interference with the present powers of the landlord would be dangerous to the rights of property in England. I ask you, what do you think would have become of the rights of property in England, if the rights of the landlord had not been modified by the existence of a poor-law and a law of settlement, which, I belive, have been the great protection for the people of England from the owners of the soil, and secured them frequently against the treatment which is the every day lot of the poor in Ireland. You give the landlords there full power to turn out their tenantry—to eject, in fact, the whole population of Ireland, without making them liable to a poor-rate and to provide for their support. Do not attempt to support a system which the just feelings of the people of England will never allow you to keep up. I entirely agree with those friends of mine who spoke on this subject, that something must be done to remedy this evil in Ireland, by instituting full inquiries into the relations between landlord and tenant, and making some provision for improving the condition of the great body of the people of Ireland. You cannot accuse us of complaining of the grievances of the Irish people without suggesting any remedy. I grieve from
1060
my heart, that the right hon. Baronet should have missed the golden opportunity now afforded him of entering on a course which would have handed down his name to posterity as a benefactor of Ireland. If he has missed this opportunity, do not let this House miss it. Let us take advantage of the improved feeling generally shown on both sides of the House, and let us hope that this question, instead of being suffered to drop into oblivion, will be again brought forward until we derive some benefits from the bettered disposition of the country, and really do some practical good to Ireland.
Lord J. Mannershoped, after the allusions which the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard had made to those by whom he was immediately surrounded, he should have the indulgence of the House while he offered a very few remarks. Whatever popularity or unpopularity might attach to the course which he had determined to follow on the present occasion, he assured the House he was influenced by no such feelings. He could not look upon this as a question of confidence or no confidence in the Government. He appealed to the terms of the motion itself, to the spirit and tone and avowed objects of the hon. Gentleman who had introduced the motion, whether it had not been brought forward frankly upon its own merits and without any unfair party objects? The motion then having been brought forward fairly, be must be permitted to treat it in the same spirit. If it were a mere miserable effete party manoeuvre, he should treat it as utterly indefensible, and defeat would be its due reward; but in a crisis so momentous as this, he could have no sympathy with those who would dare to palter with the convulsion of a kingdom as if it were the plaything of political intrigue. With these views, he should vote for the motion of the hon. Gentleman. At the same time, he must own that he did not think the House going into committee was the fairest and best way of producing all the good he wished for Ireland, instead of the House going into committee, he wished the Government had gone into committee on this subject. There were measures which might be adopted, which Tory lords-lieutenant such as Strafford would not have hesitated to adopt. Who was it that introduced in Ireland the cultivation of flax, and established the linen trade? The Tory Lord. lieutenant Strafford. It

1061
should be theirs to revive and extend what Strafford had introduced and fostered. If the waste lands of Ireland were to remain uncultivated, if public works were to be neglected until individual enterprise should undertake them, then all he said was, he did not see how that House was justified in refusing to accede to the proposition of the hon. Member for Limerick.
Mr. Muntz,without going minutelv into the subject of the Irish Church—a very dangerous subject, must say, that he did not believe that the Church question was the question now at issue. He could well understand, that the people did not like to pay tithe for a church that did not belong to them, and with the great pressure upon them he could well understand that the payment of tithe was felt as an additional pressure. But what he would refer to was this—It was said, "Why not treat Ireland as you treat England?" They did treat both countries too much alike. What were the Government going to do? Nothing. Were they going to inquire into the state of Ireland? Most distinctly not. They had the declaration of the right hon. Baronet last night that there would be no inquiry into the state of Ireland. Was there to be any inquiry into the state of England? No. Were not all the miseries and the unparalleled distress of England to pass without inquiry? Had the right hon. Baronet since he came into office, done anything for England? Every class of persons, whatever might be their politics, was asking what had been done for England, Ireland, and Scotland. The Government dared not look into the state of their own concerns. They shrank from that inquiry, but before it was too late they ought to make it. He stated to the House before, and he now stated it again, that he had not the least party feeling; but, without taking serious steps to alter the present condition of the country, the results must be much more formidable and extraordinary than were now contemplated. A wise man looked into his affairs before they were so desperate that he could not extricate himself. This remark applied not to Ireland, but to the whole of the kingdom, and never since it had been a United Kingdom, was it in such a state of difficulty and distress as now. The Government were mistaken when they thought the Protestant Church was popular. Let them remember the educa-
1062
tion clauses in the Factories Bill. What was the reason they gave up those clauses? Because the people of this country, taken as a whole, would not intrust the education of their children to the Established Church. They ought to inquire into the state of England, Ireland, and the colonies—in fact, into the state of the whole empire, before it was too late.
Mr. Ferrandwanted to have a distinct explanation from the Government whether they intended that the vote the House should give, was one of general confidence in their measures, or one merely relating to Ireland; because, if it were a vote of confidence, he should betray himself, his constituents, and his country, if he voted with them. If, however, it were a vote upon an Irish question alone, he should vote with them. When the hon. Gentlemen opposite brought forward charges against the Government for doing nothing for Ireland, they did not come into the House with clean hands. What did they do for the last ten years that they held office? Nothing. They were the slaves of Mr. O'Connell. As to the Government, he would ask to what quarter of the empire could they point and say, — "Behold the prosperous legislation of a Conservative Government?" Let them look to Wales. There was a rebellion there more frightful and more dangerous staring them in the face. Was property safe in Wales? Could a person travel upon the high road in Wales during the night? Hon. Gentlemen who sat on the Treasury Benches, and who fed upon the crumbs that fell from the Treasury Table, must not control the independent opinion of an independent Member. He had never given a party vote since he sat in that House, and he never would, Ere they came to the close of this Session. he said that legislating, so far as England was concerned, was at an end; but was there no danger staring them in the face? Ho looked with fear and trembling to the results of this ensuing winter. Ill enough was it for his native country to be bandying party war-cries, but would to God they could exhibit one evening devoted to its service during the whole Session. With shame he said it, and they ought to feel that that shame belonged to them—for neither side of the House had done its duty during the Session. There would soon come the question before them, whether the people, united in dissatisfaction,

1063
were any longer to be treated with neglect in this country? Well might the hon. Member for Birmingham say that this was not an Irish question. It was an English, Scotch, Welch, and Irish question; and lie agreed with his noble Friend who sat beside him, that it was high time for the Government to do something for the country. They had done nothing—they were impotent to do good —they were powerless to protect, and unless the Government manfully stood up and honestly told him what they meant to do for England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, his vote would he against them. The right hon. Baronet had deceived every party in the country. He knew the truth was unpalatable in that House, but he knew it was the country that demanded now that every man who wished for a character of honesty and consistency should speak the truth when he stood up. The Government had deceived every party. He repeated it. If any hon. Member denied what lie asserted let him go and ask his constituents whether it were not true. He came there to protect the Protestant Church, and it was the duty of the Government to stand up manfully and tell the Protestants of this country that they would protect the institutions of the country in Church and State. If some member of the Government would not stand up and state fairly and honestly what they intended to do for the welfare of the country, he hoped to God the people would give them to understand that they had lost the confidence of the nation, and that they ought to give place to better and more honest men.
Mr. Blewettsaid, the noble Lord the Member for Bandon (Lord Bernard), in describing a particular grievance under which Ireland laboured, said that it was remedying itself. He thought that was a true description of the policy of the present Government, which appeared to be to let all the grievances of Ireland remedy themselves. He conceived that the speech delivered last night by the right hon. Baronet must convince the people of this country, that so long as the present Government remained in power, there was no hope of restoring peace and tranquillity in Ireland, nor was there any guarantee for the safety of the united empire. The right hon. Baronet had contended that his Government in Ireland had been conducted on a system of moderation, justice, and
1064
impartiality. [Loud cries of "Divide."] He would only declare his determination to support the Irish Members in their endeavours to obtain from the present or from any other Government complete justice for Ireland, and remedies for all the grievances under which that country was suffering, in order that it might become—as he hoped he should live to see it—one of the brightest jewels in the British Crown.
Viscount Palmerstonspoke as follows: Sir, this is one of the most remarkable debates I remember to have heard, not only on account of what has been said, but on account of what has been left unsaid. It is a debate remarkable for the ability, for the judgment, for the moderation, and for the knowledge of the matter in hand, which has been exhibited by my lion. Friend who has brought forward the motion, and by those who, on this side of the House, have supported him. The debate has been remarkable also for the speeches delivered on the other side of the House by Members usually supporting the Government, but on the present occasion materially differing from them; and I think the sentiments expressed by those hon. Gentlemen are pretty strong indications that those views upon great questions which have been hitherto entertained by a minority in this House, are likely at no distant period to be entertained by a majority. But, Sir, this debate has been peculiarly remarkable for the course pursued by the Members of her Majesty's Government, not less remarkable on the present night than those which have preceded, because although it is now past midnight, not one Member, I think, of the Government has risen in his place, but hitherto the debate has been principally maintained by Gentlemen on this side who support this motion, and by Gentlemen on the other side who do not well agree with the opinions of the Government. The question regards the state of Ireland, which has been admitted by all to be a subject of the greatest anxiety. The state of Ireland is acknowledged and felt by her Majesty's Government to be not merely a subject of deep anxiety, but of immediate alarm, for we have seen military movements and demonstrations, which it is impossible the Government could have been induced to make if they had not thought there was danger of some description, which required these prepara-

1065
tions. We are now nearly at the end of the Session; the subject is brought forward by my hon. Friend and the other Irish Members who support him, in a tone and temper and with a knowledge of the subject which must impress upon the mind of every man not only the importance of the matter, but the urgent necessity of applying some remedy; and yet I defy any man who heard the speeches of the Members of the Government—I will not say, to tell me what course they mean to pursue—but I defy any man to infer from their speeches what are really the views which the Government entertain as to Ireland. The Government are swayed by opposing and conflicting powers. On the one hand there are those who would urge them to adopt measures of coercion, extending to I know not what degree of violence; but Heaven forbid that the Government should listen to advice of that kind, I am glad to observe that they do not appear so disposed. On the other hand, the Government have been told by some hon. Members on this side of the House what are the remedies which are to be applied to the present state of affairs. Hitherto, however, the Government have exhibted no disposition to adopt them. The utmost they have said is, that they may be ready at some future period to consider some measure or other affecting some one or other of the grievances which have been so fully and amply set forth. Sir, this announcement by the Government reminds me of a saying attributed to a minister in the court of Ferdinand 7th. It being urged upon this minister that it would be advantageous to Spain to adopt a more liberal policy, he replied that the Government had liberal notions, and perhaps, some day or other they might acknowledge the South American republics. So it is now. The Government tells us that some day or other, they do not say when, they may think of advising the adoption of some measures to meet the difficulties of this case. Nothing, Sir, can be more unsatisfactory—nothing can be more calculated to excite uneasiness and apprehension in the mind of every sincere lover of his country than the state of Ireland on the one hand, and the inactivity of the Government on the other. I have said, that the Government are impelled by conflicting and opposing elements; but those conflicting powers are wit confined to without, but appear to be
1066
felt even within the bosom of the Cabinet itself; and if that division which we hear of in public does exist, and if in consequence there should be a possibility of the dissolution of the Government, I feel bound to give them an explanation and modification of the opinion I expressed on a former occasion, because I think it but fair I should do so. The hon. Gentlemen opposite are pleased at times to attach some importance to things that fall front me—much more, f think, than they deserve. We were told not long ago that the low price of corn after the last harvest was owing to a prediction of mine in the early part of the year that the harvest would not be an abundant one, and that the farmers, having regard to that prediction, hoarded tip their corn, thus causing afterwards that inundation which produced the low prices. I lately stated to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that if they were to resign their power, the people of the country would invite them to resume it again. There have, however, lately been strong symptoms within these walls, which lead me to think that my anticipation may not have been altogether well-founded. I am, therefore, anxious that hon. Gentlemen opposite should not be led by any prediction of mine to act upon it, and, if there be that difference in the Cabinet which we had been told of, that they should not now trust to that prediction, and resign their offices in the confidence that they would be called back again by the voice of public opinion. This warning I feel bound in honour to give them. Sir, I have already upon the matters DOW under discussion, stated my opinion, and I shall not at this time of night enter into any detailed explanation of them. I have already stated with respect to the Repeal of the Union, that I consider it tantamount to a separation of the two countries, and tantamount to a dismemberment of the empire. I have stated my opinion that it would be not only disastrous to England, but most calamitous to Ireland, that it would be a most lamentable event for the interests of the civilized world; and I have now no hesitation in saying, that if the dreadful alternative were to be offered me, deeply as I should deplore the calamity of civil war, I should esteem the dismemberment of this great empire as a calamity greater still. But I am convinced that the Irish have grievances which are real, and which

1067
admit of practical remedy. I am convinced, too, that many of them join n the agitation for the Repeal of the Union, and adopt that cry, as a conventional expression for their grievances; and if the Government and Parliament would fairly look to the state of Ireland, and adopt those remedies required to redress undeniable grievances, that no more would be heard of the demand for Repeal. By thus acting, you would render the whole empire united in sentiment and feeling, as well as by the bond of a legislative union. The only point on which the Government, as it seems to me, have held out the least intimation of an intention to look to some practical measure is the question most difficult of settlement—I mean the relation between landlord and tenant. The right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government did say, indeed, that that would be one of the questions he should take into consideration, to see whether any measure could be proposed to palliate the evils of the present system. I can only say, that if any such measure is proposed I shall he most happy to give it my most deliberate attention; and if any measure can be proposed on that subject which shall apply any remedy to the existing evils without trenching on the rights of property in Ireland, a great source of discontent and dissatisfaction will be removed. In the meantime, I should beg that public opinion may be directed with the utmost intensity against those landlords in Ireland whose conduct brings this question under discussion, and I hope that, after the unanimous expression of censure by all parties in this country, those persons who have the power of inflicting such extreme miseries on the peasantry born and bred on their estates, will abstain for the future from giving any cause of dissatisfaction on this head. Nothing, however, has been said by the Government which holds out the most distant prospect that any measure will be proposed on that which is the greater, and perhaps the greatest grievance of Ireland, and with a view to the relief of the condition of the Catholic and Protestant churches. I said the other night that I would not consent to the subversion of the Protestant Church in Ireland. The right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government concurs with me in that opinion; but he went further, and though, if 1 understand him rightly, he claimed
1068
my assent to his subsequent proposition, I beg leave to say, that in that which I stated on a former occasion, I distinctly stated the contrary of that which the Government themselves proposed; that is, not only that they will maintain the Protestant establishment in Ireland, but that they will maintain that establishment in its present position. I must take leave to say, that I think that the present amount of the Protestant Establishment in Ireland is susceptible of considerable diminution. I am astonished that the present Government should take grounds on the maintenance of the Protestant Church in its present extent, seeing that it was the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) who is going to reply to me, and who, I think, might have favoured the House at an earlier period of the evening, for the noble Lord is the only gun left undischarged on the Treasury Bench, who brought in the Church Temporalities Bill, by which the principle of reducing the Protestant Church was not only affirmed but carried to great extent, by which eight or ten bishoprics were abolished; and by which the suspended revenues of the Church were applied to the maintenance of the fabric of the Protestant Church, in order to relieve the Catholics from the payment of Church cess. I say, that in regard to that principle, no Government of which the noble Lord and the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Administration are Members can stand on the principle that you cannot touch tha Church as it now stands. I am not prepared, nor is it necessary that I should be prepared, to state any precise extent to which any such reduction should be carried, but I would ask the Government, are there not parishes in Ireland in which there are not twenty Protestant parishioners—are there not parishes in Ireland in which there are not fifteen Protestant parishioners—in which there are not ten—in which there are not five—nay, in which there is not one Protestant parishioner? If there are such, then I say that nothing would be more just, nothing more fair, than that after the expiration of existing interests, the revenues of those parishes should be suspended and applied to other purposes connected with the general interests of the mass of the people in Ireland. I said on a former night that which I now repeat—that I do not think that the existence of the Protestant Chinch is

1069
itself a grievance of which the Irish people should complain; but although in strict justice they cannot go so far as to raise such a ground of complaint, I say that when you look to the state of their own Church, you cannot be surprised that the state of the Protestant Establishment should excite in their minds feelings of the deepest dissatisfaction. Can it be possible that the Irish peasant, who lives in a cottage, cultivating his two or three acres of land, and supporting his family by the greatest efforts of industry, unable to obtain employment for his labour, and who is with difficulty able to pay his rent, should feel otherwise than dissatisfied when he finds that he is compelled to sacrifice some of the small earnings of his daily industry in order to pay his own religious instructor, when he sees the clergyman of another church comparatively well off, and yet having no spiritual duties to perform. I say that taking these men as they are—considering their case as if it were our own—it is impossible that we should not feel that this is a state of things which ought not to be allowed to continue. Well, then, how do I propose that you should alter it? I say, in the first place, suspend those livings in which really there is no duty to perform. In the act which was brought in by the noble Lord, that principle was, I think, established; because I think that it was provided that where it could be shown that no service had been performed during the last three years, there the revenues of the livings were suspended, on the principle that where there was no duty to perform in return for those revenues, the revenues ought to be given to the commissioners for those purposes which I have mentioned. But I say that if you will not, if you cannot, if it is not right that you should subvert and destroy the Protestant Establishment, raise the Catholic Establishment, endow the Catholic priesthood, do as my noble Friend (Lord Howick) has recommended, place the episcopacy of the Church on a fit footing, and endow the parish clergy. I have suggested a measure, to which I have heard as yet no objection raised, by which even if the country did not choose to incur any great expense to endow the Catholic clergy, something might be done to provide for them in other ways. Why not pass a measure, with regard to the Roman Catholic Church, authorising an endowment
1070
by glebe; why should not the public grant some 300 1. or 400 1. for the building of glebe houses? Though that would fall very short of an entire remedy for the existing grievance, it would still have the best effect in satisfying the public feelings of the Catholics in Ireland, by improving the condition of their religious instructors. It may be true that the Government will not and cannot in this Session propose any great and comprehensive measure relating to the Catholic priesthood in general; but why not bring in such a measure as I have described? or if they are unwilling to introduce such a law, will they allow me or any other Member of this House to bring in such a bill, and engage that they will not make use of that majority which they possess in order to obstruct its progress? Then, again, as to Maynooth, I maintain that the amount granted to that establishment is far below that at which it ought to be placed. Not only should that establishment itself be increased, but an improvement should be effected in the allowance of exhibitions to persons after they leave that college—a measure which, I believe, would tend to place the Catholic clergy on a better footing, and would be satisfactory to the minds of the Catholics in Ireland. I will venture to say, that you will not find in any country in the world a state of things, with regard to religious sects, such as you find in Ireland. Take the case of Austria —a Catholic country. If I am riot misinformed, there are parts of Austria in which the entire population of a parish are Protestants, and there, I believe, the Protestant clergy are provided at the expense of the State. In Bavaria the same rule exists; and in Belgium also, where the wants of the Anglican church, and even of members of the Jewish persuasion, are provided for by the State. In Prussia, a Protestant country, the same rule obtains. There the State provides not only for the Protestant the Greek, and the Catholic churches, but for members also of the Jewish persuasion. I say, that in no country in the world will you find a population like that of Ireland, consisting of 8,000,000, of whom 6,000.000 and upwards are Catholics, where all the religious instruction of the majority of the people is left to be rewarded by contributions coming from the poorest and most destitute portion of the people. That is a grievance of an enormous character; but

1071
it is a grievance which it is in the power of the Government to remedy, and for which, therefore, I hold that the Government are bound to provide a remedy. Then, again, look at the state of the electors and the elective franchise. By returns lately laid on the Table of this House, it appears that the whole number of electors of Ireland, both in counties and boroughs, does not amount to 110,000 persons-110,000 electors for a population of 8,000,000; and perhaps, the number who could properly be brought to the poll would be far less. But it is said by hon. Gentlemen opposite, "You brought in the franchise, and it was the duty of those who prepared the Reform Bill to have taken care that the franchise should not be so diminished and restricted." I do not admit that assertion. I cannot admit that it was our intention to limit the franchise in the way in which the judges of Ireland have limited it by their decisions. If I want to give a tenant of mine in Ireland a lease to qualify him to vote, I must give him for 10 1. rent that which is worth 20 1. Is that justice?—is it common sense?—is that the way in which the elective franchise is managed in this country? This necessarily tends to render it almost impossible that landlords should grant leases, unless leases of farms of a much larger amount; and from the great subdivision of holdings in Ireland, the number of those who might qualify as 10 1. voters is far greater than the number of those who might qualify as a higher class of voters. This ought to be remedied, and it is in the power of Parliament to remedy it. I do not question the judgment of the judges in giving the interpretation they have given to the law; but if it be the interpretation of the law as it stands, then alter the law, and give to Ireland a practical franchise, and place the Irish electors truly on a level with the electors of this country. With regard to the municipal franchise, the inconvenience of that has been sufficiently described; and as it was the party opposite that so mutilated our bill as to raise unduly the amount of the municipal franchise in Ireland, nothing could be easier than for them to restore the franchise to the amount at which it originally stood. This being the state of Ireland, and these being the principal grievances of that country, which have been most amply and fully exposed by various speeches during the present debate,
1072
we, nevertheless, have a Government either unable to form any opinion on these subjects, or else unwilling to hold out the slightest prospect to the people of Ireland that they are ready and prepared to take any step whatever to apply a remedy. Under these circumstances I do say that you (the Government) are not properly performing the duty which you undertook on coming into office. When out of office you said that your functions were functions of obstruction. It seems to me that you have forgotten the change of your position; for in the present debate, instead of proposing anything yourselves, you think you have sufficiently performed your duty by stating the grounds on which you mean to obstruct any proposition coming from this side of the House. When out of office you said it was not your duty to propose measures for the Government of the country; but you have been called in, and are now occupying places of responsibility. It is your duty to declare to this House what measures you intend to adopt, what course to pursue in a situation which your own conduct intimates to be one not only of anxiety, but of danger. Other topics have been adverted to in the course of the present debate (which I would rather pass by), as calculated to impress still further on the Government the urgent necessity of departing from this stand-still policy. It is a maxim in political affairs that you ought to distinguish between that which is merely difficult and that which is invincible. It may be difficult for the Government to devise measures calculated to meet the exigencies of the moment, but it is absolutely impossible to continue much longer in a state of inactivity. It is another great maxim in politics to know what is the proper time to do things. I say it is yet time to do that which the circumstances of the moment require; but this time may not last for ever. It is said in the physical world that wind and tide wait for no man. In like manner the tide of human affairs and of political events will not consent to wait for the inactivity of indecision of Cabinets; and if you do not by timely activity adopt such measures as the state of the country requires, you may find when too late that you have brought on the country dangers of so formidable a nature that you may be utterly unable to cope with them. I can fancy that a Government may be embarrassed by the feelings of those who sup-

1073
port them. No doubt there is a party behind the right hon. Gentleman opposite who would not consent to those measures which I hold to be the duty of the Government to propose. There is a party among the supporters of the Government of whom that may be justly said which was applied by an eminent philosopher to another subject—viz., that they resemble a great cask moored on the stream of time, showing the progress and rapidity of the current which is daily leaving them behind. From such a party the Government might meet with opposition in respect to the measures which they might think it their duty to propose; but if the Government is fitted to the responsibility of the situation they voluntarily undertook to fill they ought to disregard any danger arising from such defections among their supporters; for they would meet with more than a corresponding support from this side of the House. But if the Government were to fail in their endeavours to pacify Ireland by acting on principles of equity and justice, I say, they would fail with honour, and their retirement from office, under such circumstances, would be far more creditable and more glorious than their continuance in office in the condition in which they at present stand. I am sure that high minded men would not allow measures calculated for the good of the country to depend on considerations connected with party support such as I have adverted to. I have no doubt that there are difficulties such as I have described which may paralyze for the moment that portion of the cabinet inclined to pursue a proper course. But it is impossible now to extract from the Government anything that can be construed by the people of Ireland into a ground of hope, still, I trust that those who may yet have to speak on this subject from the opposite bench may say nothing to drive that people to despair. If they would not hold out any hope let them at least preserve that which on another occasion I heard described as a merciful silence. Let them at least leave to the people of Ireland the expectation, that further consideration would lead to wiser decisions, and as the Government has properly abstained from proposing any measures of violence I trust that reflection will bring round that portion of the Government which is yet disinclined to the adoption of a wiser and juster course, and that if at the end of this
1074
discussion we shall not hear anything more satisfactory with reference to this state of affairs, at least we may hope that when we meet again the Government will have matured measures taking the range of the various propositions raised in the course of the present debate, and thus be prepared to satisfy the just demands of the Irish people. Even in pursuing that course, and in waiting so long a time before they make an attempt to meet the existing evils, the Government would incur a heavy responsibility. I, for one, should be sorry indeed to incur such a responsibility—it is for them to consider it. They know the dangers which they run—dangers which are perhaps more extensive than have been pointed out and explained in the course of the debate. The Government of the country knows, and have the means well to consider the situation of the country, both at home and abroad; they have the means of knowing the full value and importance of tranquillizing Ireland, and of securing the affections and loyalty of the people of that country; and if any mischief should arise from the delay, on them the whole responsibility will rest, for no man will pretend to say that in the course of this debate they have not had full and adequate warning.
Lord StanleyAt this hour of the night, and after so protracted a debate, in which I had hoped I might have been spared the necessity of obtruding myself upon the attention of the House, I will confine my observations as shortly as possible to the subject immediately under discussion. I confess that I do not join in the regret and disappointment expressed by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz), that this debate has not been more general in its character. The proposition before the House is for a committee to inquire into the state of Ireland—it is not for a committee to inquire into the state of the nation—nor is it for a committee of the whole House to inquire, as the hon. Member seemed to desire, into the state of the whole world, which, according to the statement of the hon. Gentleman, was going fast to rack and ruin. I shall not, therefore, attempt to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, nor the hon. Member for Knaresborough, who had expressed a I hope that the Government would state what they meant to do for England, for Ireland, for Scotland, and for Wales. The

1075
questions and subjects raised by this debate are too numerous and too important to be treated summarily. I am bound, however, to confess, that the great portion of these subjects have been treated with singular temper, moderation, ability, and fairness; and particularly, I beg to pay this tribute to those hon. Members who come from a country in such a state of excitement as Ireland without doubt now is, and who have certainly brought none of that excitement in this debate; but, on the contrary, have fairly and temperately stated the evils and abuses under which, as they conceive, that portion of her Majesty's dominions now labours. The hon. Member for Knaresborough asks what is the object of the present motion; is it, says he, a motion of want of confidence in her Majesty's Government? As far as the hon. Member is concerned, he has given us distinctly grounds to infer that we are not to draw any conclusion as to his confidence in the Government by his supporting it. With respect to the object and intention of the motion I am utterly at a loss: to judge from the speech by which the motion was introduced, I should say that it was not a charge of want of confidence, but that it was a declaration on the part of the hon. Member for the county of Limerick, that for a long series of years the Government of England, under this and the previous Administration, had been insensible to the wants, forgetful of the claims, indifferent to the welfare, and careless of the country over which they had been called upon to govern. Such a motion conveys the opinion that the administration of the government of Ireland is not just nor impartial; and if the hon. Gentleman had brought forward his motion without his speech, I should have concluded that his motion was in truth a vote of want of confidence in the existing administration of Irish affairs; but the speech of the hon. Gentleman was not directed to the acts of the present Government, but to the acts and omissions of preceding Governments—it was a general denunciation of British authority—not confined to the Tories, the Whigs, the Conservatives, or the Radicals, but it conveyed that all parties had exhibited indifference, injustice, and partiality in Irish affairs. In this respect the motion was entremely convenient to the noble Lord who had just sat down,—to the noble Lord the Member for the city of
1076
London, and to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, because the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman might well say to each other, "Oh, this is a charge against the existing Government; the motion will do very well for you and me to join in an attack upon the present Government as being unworthy to hold the reins of power." If I am asked what will be the practical result which will arise from carrying the present motion, which it is admitted frankly and fairly was for an inquiry at the Bar of the House, or in committee of the whole House,—if I ant asked what will be the result of such a proceeding late in the month of July,—when I am told we are approaching (and I am delighted to hear it from hon. Members opposite) the close of the session, I reply, that it would be a solemn mockery. Suppose we went into committee of the whole House, what are the resolutions which the hon. Member for Limerick proposed to move. [Mr. W. S. O'Brien: " Go into committee and I will tell you."] That reply may be very well; but, admitting the state of Ireland to be critical—admitting it to require deep, anxious, and unremitting attention on the part of those responsible for the administration of the Irish Government, it is complained that we did not come forward with some sweeping measure—with some great panacea—in short, that we do not distinguish ourselves by exhibiting, as the noble Lord, the Member for Newark recommended the energy, of Strafford. The hon. Member for Bridport, in like manner, called upon the Government to manifest the same energy as Sextus Tarquinius, who walking in his garden cut off the heads of all his poppies. The hon. Member for Bridport says, that these meetings in Ireland are illegal, or very nearly so; and he recommends the adoption of the example of Sextus Tarquinius. Now, before I consent to cut off heads in Ireland, I must be satisfied that something more is going on in that country than is proved by the supposition that certain proceedings are very nearly if not quite illegal. The noble Lord and hon. Gentlemen opposite charged the Government with not having taken more energetic measures. We complain also of the want of energy, but we do so on other grounds. Why should we have taken stronger or more active measures than our predecessors? You say that nothing could have been more easy-

1077
the question, you add, would be settled, in ten minutes. [Lord J. Russell: " No ten days."] Very well; ten days. But it has been truly said, in the progress of the present discussion, by hon. Members on the opposite side of the House, that Ireland's complaints are of three characters —political, religious, and social. I admit the distinction, and I admit the evils arising from each; but I believe, that out of all those out of which it was convenient for the Members of the late Administration to make the most, the political evils of Ireland were the most prominent. The noble Lord says, with regard to the political evils which lie charges against the Government, with regard to the deficiency and falling-off of the number of electors in Ireland, that her Majesty's Government have held out no expectations of any amelioration of this evil. I thought, if words could speak plainly, that the words of my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, which he distinctly stated at the commencement of the Session,—
"That we observed, and with regret, that not from the operation of any new law, though that might tend to such a result, but from other causes, not arising from the law—partly from the disinclination of landlords to grant leases—there was a great and growing diminution in the county electors of Ireland."
We stated farther, that we regretted to see it, and that the diminution of the numbers of these electors was far from being wished by her Majesty's Government, and if we had brought forward no bill on this subject it was mainly on this ground, that any introduction of a bill on a principle analagous to that of England, and extending the construction of the English law to Ireland, would have a tendency to reduce the amount of the constituency yet farther; which evil we were anxious to meet by an alteration in the franchise— that franchise depending on a valuation which we had found so inaccurate, that it was impossible to rest upon it. But in the bill which my noble Friend introduced at an early period of the Session there were provisions for amending the Poor-law of Ireland, which would bear on the system of valuation, and would afford the Government a safe basis on which to found and grant an alteration in the franchise. That bill was brought forward at an early period of the Session. Then says the noble Lord,—
"Why don't you postpone your other measures, and pass your Poor-law Amendment Bill? pass that through committee; as to your Arms Bill, put that off, of course."
The noble Lord did not advert to the fact, that the Arms Bill expires at the end of the Session; and by the noble Lord's own confession it was necessary to renew it, even after the Poor-law Amendment Bill should have passed. And after the House shall have assented to the Poor-law Amendment Bill, I cannot concur in the noble Lord's opinion, that so soon as that bill shall have passed so soon shall we be capable of judging what effect that bill will have on the valuation, and of the effect of this valuation on the constituency of Ireland; and I say, that to proceed with a measure so extensive and important as a bill to alter the elective franchise of that country in a period of ten days, after having settled the basis of the future valuation, would be an exertion of energy which would be, in my mind, a measure of great imprudence and recklessness. Then the noble Lord says, why not bring forward a measure on the subject of the Protestant Church of Ireland? Is that a measure which the noble Lord has felt the necessity of? Nay, but the Government are charged with a want of energy—with doing nothing, because they have not brought forward measures to meet those which are alleged to be the great and moving grievances of Ireland—those measures being the state of the elective franchise, the state of the Protestant Church, and the relations of landlord and tenant. These are the subjects on which the Government are charged with a want of energy, because they do not come forward with measures to meet your objections. But what are your objections with respect to the subject of the Irish Church? Are any five among you agreed? What is it you desire? What is it that those who are the leaders of the agitation in Ireland desire, without which they tell you no measure which you can propose shall satisfy the people of Ireland and put down the agitation which now prevails? It is the extinction of the intrusive Church; and the hon. Member for Bath, and the hon. Member for Sheffield, and some other hon. Members who have had the manliness and fearlessness to state it, have said, "Put down the Protestant Church in Ireland entirely—consider if you please existing interests,

1079
but abolish the intrusive Church. Until it is abolished Ireland will not be contented." Well, what do the two noble Lords propose? Why, they don't propose to abolish the intrusive Church. What says the noble Lord who has just sat down? He says,—
"The Protestant Church is still capable of considerable reduction; and he says he does not understand how I, who introduced the Church Temporalities Bill, can object to the alienation of Church property, and to taking a slice from the Irish Church."
I should have thought, considering I was once a colleague of the noble Lord, and considering, that on this very principle I sacrificed what to me was of very little value—office and power, and sacrificed to some extent—I hope not altogether—what to me was of much greater value, the intimate friendship of many of those Gentle men whom I have the honour to see on the other side of the House; considering I made these sacrifices without hesitation, because on the ground of principle, I do not understand the noble Lord's thinking that I can have no difficulty in assenting now to the alienation of church property in Ireland. Sir, the noble Lord tells me, that if her Majesty's Government, setting aside their own views and opinions, looking to the state of Ireland, and bowing to the supposed necessity of the case, will throw over their own view—" true," says the noble Lord, "you may forfeit the support of those beside you, but we are quite ready to promise you the fair and candid support of those on this side of the House." The experience of the late Government does not encourage me to think that the Government which rests on the forbearance and support of its opponents is placed in a very enviable position. The noble Lord says that high minded men would consider this circumstance as trifling, and at once throw over the Government for the purpose of carrying these objects. I say that no high-minded man would hesitate for an instant to sacrifice his situation in the Government for the purpose of securing the peace and the good of the country; but, the high-minded man in this case would sacrifice at once his Government and his principles for the purpose of supporting that which he believed to be mischievous. What says the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton? "I propose to establish the principle of equality between the two countries; I don't desire to de-
1080
stroy the Church of Ireland, far from it; I mean to curtail it of some of its present dimensions. "I mean," says the hon. Member for Liskeard, "I mean to remove the evil of an intrusive priesthood by placing the two churches on an equality." What do you mean by an equality? Now first, how far do you expect to satisfy your opponents by this miserable concession—miserable in point of amount—important in point of principle? Says the noble Lord, "You have by your former bill suspended the appointment of priests where no duty had been performed for three years previously." Yes, but you made the provision that if there should be but one Protestant in these parishes, although the incomes of the benefices were to be sacrificed, they were to be appropriated in the first instance to the endowment of the poorer churches belonging to that parish, and if but one Protestant were there, that the neighbouring clergyman should receive a portion of the living for the purpose of attending to the spiritual welfare of that Protestant. But suppose the noble Lord's principle adopted, and that in parishes where there were not ten or twenty, or thirty Protestants, you confiscated the living to Roman Catholic purposes; in the course of some twenty years you would have some 30,0001. a-year applicable to the Roman Catholic church. Do you think that that would give any satisfaction at all to the Roman Catholics of Ireland? It might in this way, that it had broken in on your establishment, and made the way to be seen for other steps in that direction. But do you think it would stop agitation and meet the cry of an "intrusive priesthood?" But the noble Lord gave us a very elaborate picture of the injustice and hardship of the labourer being compelled to contribute a portion of his earnings to support this priesthood. In doing this the noble Lord drew considerably on his imagination. He must know as well as I do, that at this moment not a single shilling of the charge falls on any labourer, or even on any farmer throughout the length and breadth of the land, but that this charge falls on the landlord alone; and if anything is drawn from the scanty pittance of the labourer—it is not drawn for the purpose of paying the Protestant clergy; it may be drawn for the exorbitant and hard landlord. But the noble Lord proceeds, and says, he contends for the principle of equality. I

1081
do not know whether the revenue of 'the present Irish church should be divided equally between the Protestant and Roman Catholic clergy, or whether a revenue of equal amount was to be raised for the latter. But the principle of equality go s further. My right hon. Friend the other night went in great detail through the natural consequences of equality. The noble Lord said he meant to apply it not to the clergy, but to the bishops also. My right hon. Friend pointed out that the natural conclusion must be the placing of the Roman Catholic bishops in the House of Lords. My right hon. Friend said—I am prepared to carry out the principle of equality to its natural and legitimate end. ' Supposing this country to consent so far to alter the constitution as to take the first step, and set aside the act of settlement, supposing there were perfect equality and perfect indifference with regard to what religion any man within the country holds, does the noble Lord mean to say that the principle of equality would be practically introduced? Let him ask the hon. Member for Kildare, who said the other day distinctly and plainly, with regard to the Roman Catholic 'church, "Do not talk to me of your concordat with the Pope; any concordat which gives to the Protestant Sovereign or Government any right of interference with the civil rights of the Roman Catholic church will not only be received then as no concession, but no authority, spiritual or temporal, will confirm such a concordat. Is this the principle of equality, then? The Roman Catholic priesthood is to be endowed by the State, and paid by the State, and the hierarchy is to be admitted into the Legislature as members. [" No, no."] But that is the principle of equality. They must sit in the House of Lords. Hon. Gentlemen may say "God forbid." But the noble Lord is prepared for the principle of equality. Do not let us stop short. Before we take the first step, let us see what it will lead to. If you take the step with a view to satisfaction, see that it will satisfy. As it is the first step mark the consequences. I say, according to the noble Lord's admission, the legitimate conclusion of the doctrine of equality is the right to sit in the House of Lords for the Roman Catholic bishops, who are not appointed or selected by the Crown, but by a foreign power, refusing for them or for their clergy the interference of the
1082
Protestant Government with any of their temporal rights. Now, with every wish, which I hope in my own neighbourhood in Ireland I have shown not tob e a mere expression of words, that the Roman Catholic clergy should be placed on a comfortable and satisfactory footing, I am willing to recognise them with advantage upon my own property as a landlord, and desirous that they should remain as long as they exercise their spiritual functions. I do say, that I am not prepared upon the principle of equality to admit that which I contend is, and which I think the country will consider it, not a nominal equality, but a practical difference beginning with the overthrow of the Protestant clergy, and ending in the real supremacy of the Roman Catholic priesthood. I hope, that although 1 have spoken strongly and plainly upon this question, I have not said anything which can be deemed offensive to any members of that community, against whose admission to all the privileges the noble Lords contended for, I feel it my duty humbly to protest. But an hon. Gentleman has adverted to language which has appeared in the public papers, and talked of me as one who had encouraged it, as being a promoter of certain societies, and as having stigmatized the Roman Catholic priesthood and describing the late Administration as the "minions of Popery." I trust that even at this late hour I may be permitted to refer to that portion of a speech of mine, to which the hon. Gentleman evidently refers. In the course of a debate in the year 1840, the hon. Member for Sheffield had stated that I had used some expressions upon the hustings in which the late Government were designated as the "minions of Popery." The hon. Gentlemen the other night added, that I had taken upon myself to be the sponsor of Mr. M'Ghee and Mr. M'Neile, and called them most wise and discreet members of the clergy of this country. In that speech, this was the notice I took of the Hon. Gentleman's charge:—
When the hon. Gentleman seeks to connect the great body of the party on this side of the House with those extreme opinions which he says he has heard, when he talks of speeches we have never even heard, I say I never heard one of those speeches. I, indeed, on one occasion, and on one only, met one of those gentlemen who, I believe, have been particularly alluded to—I mean the rev. Mr. M'Neile; and I am bound to say that a more

1083
eloquent, sincere, and moderate speech, and one more free from bigotry, and one in which I could more readily concur, than that which he then delivered I never heard."
The House will see, then, how far I can by a fair interpretation of this language, be made responsible for all that was said by him or other hon. Gentlemen. And with regard to public associations, so far from encouraging them, I never was a member of any one political association of any sort or kind; I never, to the best of my belief, attended any political or polemical public meeting; 1 have abstained from principle, disapproving of such meetings; and I think it is rather hard that I should be connected with any such charge. But the hon. Gentleman asked me, if I did not mean to repeal the Catholic Emancipation Act? He said,
"If you do not mean to repeal that act, what do you mean by a Protestant Government?"
I answered that question in this way:—
"I will tell the hon. Gentleman what we mean. I, as a Protestant, tell the hon. Gentleman that this country is by constitution a Protestant country—that the Sovereign is, by the constitution, a Protestant Sovereign—that the Church Establishment of the country is a Protestant Establishment. What we mean by Protestant Government is—that the Members of the Government are not to be, to quote the words of an hon. Member opposite, the minions of Popery.' The words are not mine, but the hon. Member's opposite. To him they belong, for he made use of them [Mr. Ward: They were Mr. Thesiger's.] Be it so: they do quite as well. Sir, there is a great difference between being the minions of Popery, in the sense in which I have used the term, and the determination to give to all her Majesty's Catholic subjects their rights and privileges. These I will maintain, but I will not forget that I am a Protestant subject of a Protestant Sovereign, and that I belong to a Protestant country; and I will not by any word or deed, private or public, endanger the security of the Protestant Establishment."
After that declaration, which I hope is not offensive, and which was very sincere, and to which I am bound to say I still adhere, it is rather hard that I should be charged by the hon. Gentleman with a desire to use violent or irritating language with regard to the Roman Catholics. I owe an apology to the House for having enlarged upon this subject. I will not now enter upon other questions; that, for instance, upon which the hon. Member for Liskeard says, he cannot state an positive
1084
opinion as to what should be done, and yet says we must do something— the relation between landlord and tenant. I consider that of the three classes of evils that form the complaints of Ireland—the causes of political excitement, next the causes of religious excitement, and next the more substantial evils which affect their social condition,—the latter are the most serious and therefore the most difficult for the Legislature to deal with, because they are subjects of the greatest delicacy. It is necessary for any Legislature to act with great care and deliberation in dealing with that which they are bound to hold sacred—the rights of property. I admit with you, that if property has its rights, it has its responsibilities also. If you can prove to me that, as a body, the landlords of Ireland, where they have the power, do not apply it as fairly, and honestly, and liberally as the landlords of England—if you can substantiate this charge against a class, you have laid the ground for the interference of the Legislature for the protection of the tenant, and for examining into the state of the law of property as between England and Ireland. But many considerations are involved; the faults are not all on one side; the vice of the system causes a re-action. An hon. Gentleman has stated fairly and truly, that under the present state of things neither landlord nor tenant, with leases or without leases, has the control he ought to have over the property with which lie is connected. I know that, practically, there is more difficulty in Ireland in enforcing the rights of the landlord than there is in this country. There is undoubtedly great force in the observation of the hon. Member for Liskeard, that the absence of efficient laws relating to the poor, makes a material difference with respect to the landlord's enforcement of his rights; but, on the other band, I must say that, not only is there extreme difficulty in enforcing rights on the part of the landlord in Ireland, but that the relative positions of landlords and tenants are such as to impede those improvements which, without depopulating the country, a wise and judicious landlord might wish to introduce, but which, from the attachment of the Irish to the land of their forefathers, a landlord in that country finds it very difficult to introduce. In England you inquire as to the circumstances of a tenant entering into possession, and if,

1085
after an occupancy of a term of twenty- I one or any other number of years, you find upon inquiry that he is unable to manage the land you have leased to him, you do not hesitate to say to that tenant, "I will give you a smaller farm, better suited to your means;" and the offer thus made is almost in every case thankfully accepted. But Sir, this is not the case in Ireland. Seek to remove a tenant of small means from a farm of sixty acres to another of thirty acres—seek to put a man of capital into possession of a large farm which has been held by a tenant who, perhaps, is nearly bankrupt, and it happens in Ireland, I do not say that it is natural, but I say it happens, that what is here an every day proceeding, in Ireland is to be atoned for by bloodshed, or at least will excite the of the people, and keep a whole district in a state of ferment for several successive years. I state these things, be it remembered, not in any way as against the tenantry of Ireland generally. Personally, I have great reason to know, because I have tested their attachment. Differing in religion as I do—differing in politics as I do from the great body of my Irish tenantry, I have nevertheless received marks of attachment from them individually and collectively which I should be most ungrateful if I did not acknowledge. But, Sir, I do think that this subject of the state of the landlord and tenant in Ireland is a subject worthy of a calm and temperate consideration, and I do not hesitate to say, that if the hon. Member had in the early part of the session moved for a committee to take this subject in all its bearings into consideration, I for one should most cordially have supported his proposition. With respect, however, to any other course, I certainly am not prepared to say, on the part of the Government, that we intend to introduce any measure to meet the difficulties of the case, and with regard to the proposal of the noble Lord opposite, that we should devote the recess to the consideration of these subjects, and should be prepared next session to introduce some remedial measures to the notice of Parliament, I must say, that I think it would be most unwise of any Government to give a pledge calculated to raise expectations, the disappointment of which would only aggravate the evil. Sir, I know that I have already occupied too much of the time of
1086
the House, but there are some other point on which I should really be sorry if an erroneous impression went abroad. It has been said, that for many years past Parliament has been inattentive to the interests of Ireland. Why, in the year 1830, there were no less than nineteen important measures before us relating to that country. Since that time no less than eighteen of those measures have been carried. During even the last session did the present Administration show any inattention to the wants of Ireland? The hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochdale said the other night, that one great object which it was desirable to effect in Ireland was the reclaiming of land. Why, one of the measures proposed and carried last year was a most important Act proposed by my noble Friend the Secretary for Ireland, on the subject of drainage and the reclaiming of lands generally. Another measure respecting Ireland which was also carried in the last session, was an act to assimilate the criminal law of that country with that of England. A third related to the important question of Irish fisheries, and a fourth to the subject of lunacy. Here, then, are four Irish measures which were introduced and carried only in the last session. We do not profess now to have any panacea for all the grievances of Ireland; but this we do say, that if this House and the country continue to afford us the confidence with which we have hitherto been honoured, despite the "raised expectations" of the noble Lord, of which I remember to have seen something in the Morning Chronicle very similar to what we have now heard from his own lips—if we have not our path impeded by persons who profess to be our own supporters—by parties who complain of want of energy, but tell us in the same breath, that the only part of their business is to complain —despite, I say, the noble Lord's "raised expectations," if we have not to encounter these impediments, 1, for one, do not despair, even in the present state of Ireland, which, I own, is a subject of regret —I say, I do not despair that, not by "a system of doing nothing," but keeping within the limits of the law, acting honestly, fearlessly, and justly, not seeking to offend, but at the same time not timidly giving way to those who wish to have unreasonable expectations gratified, neither yielding to the one party nor the other, but maintaining a steady course—I say I

1087
do not despair that so acting we may, despite the noble Lord's expectations, conduct this great empire through the present crisis, critical as it may be, critical as it is—but, on the other hand, if we so far lose the confidence of the House that some of those by whose support we were raised to power think it right to increase our difficulties and embarrassments by insinuating a dislike, or more openly stating a want of confidence,—then I say, if the difficulties of the Government are to be made still more embarrassing by such speeches, and if that, indeed, be the view taken by a large party within and without these walls, then I think the sooner that view is stated openly the better; then I think it is high time that we should resign our posts to those who are most deserving to succeed us; and I for one will bow to such a fiat, and in the state in which the country now is should consider it my bounden duty to give my support to such a ministry as should be formed upon the fall of this. For my part, I own that I do not anticipate any such result. I anticipate that, honoured by the support and confidence of those who raised us to power, and in no way shrinking from the responsibilities of our position, we shall be enabled calmly to take that course which the necessities of the case may appear to require, and which, in the opinion of a united Cabinet, to one Member of which the noble Lord paid a high tribute the other night, forgetting, perhaps, that the noble Duke is now advising in that Cabinet of which the noble Lord has told us to - night of strange rumours; but certainly 1 have heard of no tale so strange as is now insinuated—that the name, the authority, the character, and the experience of the Duke of Wellington have not their influence in any Cabinet which has the honour to number him among its members. Sir, speaking in behalf of that Cabinet, I venture to say that if we are honoured by the confidence of the country, we will fearlessly, conscientiously, and honestly proceed in the discharge of our duty, taking such steps as may to us seem necessary for the welfare of the empire at large, but not consenting to be driven by any clamour from any quarter into the precipitate adoption of measures of which, in our consciences, we cannot approve.
Mr. W. S. O'Brienhaving replied amidst, great noise, and calls for a division, which
1088
rendered his observations inaudible, the House divided — Ayes 164; Noes 243: Majority 79.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Gibson, T. M.

Ainsworth, P.

Gisborne, T.

Aldam, W.

Gore, hon. R.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Greenaway, C.

Arundel and Surrey,

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Earl of

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Bannerman, A.

Hall, Sir B.

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Hallyburton, Ld.J. F.

Barnard, E. G.

Hastie, A.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Hatton, Capt. V.

Bell, J.

Hawes, B.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Heneage' E.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Hill, Lord M.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Hindley, C.

Bernal, R.

Hollond, R.

Bernal, Capt.

Horsman, E.

Blake, M. J.

Howard, hn. C. W. G.

Blewitt, R. J.

Howard, hon. J. K.

Bowring, Dr.

Howard, Lord

Brotherton, J.

Howard, P. H.

Browne, hon. W.

Howard, hon. h.

Buller, C.

Howick, Visct.

Busfeild, W.

Hume, J.

Byng, G.

Hutt, W.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

Jervis, J.

Carew, hon. R. S.

Johnson, Gen.

Clay, Sir W.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Clements, Visct.

Langston, J. H.

Clive, E. B.

Langton, W. G.

Cobden, R,

Leveson, Lord

Cochrane, A.

Listowell, Earl of

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Lord Mayor of London

Collett, J.

Collins, W.

Macaulay, rt. hon. T. B.

Corbally, M. E.

Mc"Taggart, Sir J.

Craig, W. G.

Mangles, R. D.

Crawford, W. S.

Manners, Lord J.

Currie, R.

Martin, J.

Curteis H. B.

Martin, T. B.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Matheson, J.

Dennistoun, J.

Mitcalfe, H.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hn, C. T

Mitchell, T. A.

Duff, J.

Morris, D.

Duke, Sir J.

Morison, Gen.

Duncan, Visct.

Muntz, G. F.

Duncan, G.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Duncombe, T.

O'Connell, M. J.

Dundas, Adm.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Easthope, Sir J.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Ebrington, Visct.

Ord, W.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Oswald, J.

Ellice, E.

Paget, Col.

Elphinstone, H.

Palmerston, Visct.

Esmonde, Sir T.

Parker, J.

Ewart, W.

Pechell, Capt.

Fielden, J.

Philips, G. R.

Ferguson, Col.

Philipps, Sir R. B. P.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Plumridge, Capt.

Ferrand, W. B.

Ponsonby,C. F. A.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Power, J.

Forster, M.

Protheroe, E.

Fox, C. R.

Pryse, P.

1089

Pulsford, R.

Vane, Lord H.

Ricardo, J. L.

Villiers, hon. C.

Rice, E. R.

Vivian, hon. Capt.

Roche, Sir D.

Wakley,

Roche, E. B.

Walker, It.

Ross, D. R.

Wall, C. B.

Russell, Lord J.

Wallace, R.

Russell, Lord E.

Ward, H. G.

Scholefield, J.

Wawn, J. T.

Scrope, G. P.

Wemyss, Capt.

Seymour, Lord

Wilde, Sir T.

Smith, B.

Williams, W.

Smith, J. A.

Wilshere, W.

Smith, rt. hn. R. V.

Wood, B.

Smythe, hon. G.

Wood C.

Standish, C.

Wood, G. W.

Stanton, W. H.

Worsley, L.

Stewart, P. M

Wrightson, W. B.

Stuart, W. V.

Yorke, H. R

Thornely, T.

Towneley, J.

TELLERS,

Trelawny, J. S.

O'Brien, W. S.

Turner, E.

Wyse, T.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Buck, L. W.

A'Court, Capt.

Buckley, E.

Adare, Visct.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Adderley, C. B.

Bunbury, T.

Alford, Visct.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Allix, J. P.

Burroughes, H. N.

Antrobus, E.

Campbell, Sir H.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Cartwright, W. R.

Arkwright, G.

Chapman, A.

Ashley, Lord

Chapman, B.

Astell, W.

Chelsea, Visct.

Attwood, M.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Bagge, W.

Cholmondeley, hn. H.

Bagot, hon. W.

Christopher, R. A.

Bailey, J.

Chute, W. L. W.

Bailey, J. jun.

Clayton, R. R.

Baillie, Col.

Clerk, Sir G.

Baillie, H J.

Clive, Visct.

Baldwin, B.

Codrington, Sir W.

Balfour, J. M.

Collett, W. R.

Bankes, G.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Compton, H. C.

Barrington, Visct.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Bateson, R.

Courtenay, Lord

Beckett, W.

Cresswell, B.

Beresford, Maj.

Cripps, W.

Bernard, Visct.

Damer, hon. Col.

Blackburne, J. I.

Darby, O.

Blackstone, W. S.

Dawnay, hon. W. H.

Blakemore, R.

Denison, E. B.

Bodkin, W. H.

Dick, Q.

Boldero H. G.

Dodd, G.

Borthwick, P.

Douglas, Sir H.

Botfield, B.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Boyd, J.

Douro, Marq. of

Bramston, T. W.

Dowdeswell, W.

Broadley, H.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Broadwood, H.

East, J. B.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Eaton, R. J.

Brownrigg, J. S.

Egerton, W. T,

Bruce, Lord E.

Eliot, Lord

1090

Escott, B.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Fielden, W.

Mackenzie, T.

Filmer, Sir E.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Fitzmaurice, hon. W.

Maclean, D.

Flower, Sir J.

McGeachy, E. A.

Follett, Sir W. W.

Mahon, Visct.

Forester, hn. G. C. W.

Marsham, Visct.

Fox, S. L.

Martin, C. W.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Masterman, J.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Gladstone, Capt.

Meynell, Capt.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Mildmay, H. St. J.

Gore, M.

Miles, P. W. S.

Gore, W. O.

Milnes, R. M.

Gore, W. R. O.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Goring, C.

Morgan, O.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Murray, C. r. S.

Graham, rt. n. Sir J.

Neeld, J.

Granby, Marq. of

Neeld, J.

Greenall, P.

Neville, R.

Greene, T.

Newdigate, C. N.

Grimston, Visct.

Newry, Visct.

Grogan, E.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Hale, R. B.

Norreys, Lord

Halford, H.

O'Brien, A. S.

Hamilton, G. H.

Owen, Sir J.

Hamilton, G. A.

Packe, C. W.

Hampden, R.

Paget, Lord W.

Harcourt, G. G.

Packington, J. S.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Palmer, R.

Hayes, Sir E.

Patten, J. W.

Heaneage, G. H. W.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Henley, J. W.

Peel, J.

Henniker, Lord

Pennent, hon. Col.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Polhill, F.

Herbert, hon. S.

Pollington, Visct.

Hervey, Lord A.

Pollock, Sir F.

Hinde, J. H.

Powell, Col.

Hodgson, F.

Praed, W. T.

Hodgson, R.

Pringle, A.

Holmes, hon. W. A'C.

Rashleigh, W.

Hope, hon. C.

Reid, Sir. J. R.

Hope, A.

Repton, G. W. J.

Hope, G. W.

Richards, R.

Hornby, J.

Rolleston, Col.

Hughes, W. B.

Rose, rt. hn. Sir G.

Hussey, T.

Round, J.

Ingestric, Visct.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Russell, C.

Irving, J.

Russell, J. D. W.

Jermyn, Earl

Sanderson, R.

Jocelyn, Visct.

Sandon, Vist.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Scarlett, hon. R. C.

Jones, Capt.

Scott, hon. F.

Kelly, F. R.

Seymour, Sir H. B.

Kemble H.

Sheppard, T.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E

Shirley, E. J.

Knight, H. G.

Sibthorp, Col.

Law, hon. C. E.

Smith, A.

Lawson, A.

Smith, rt. hn. T. B.

Lefroy, A.

Somerset, Lord G. C.

Lennox, Lord A.

Spry, Sir S. T.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Stanley, Lord

Lincoln, Earl of

Stewart, J.

Lockhart, W.

Stuart, H

Lowther, J, H

Sturt, H. C,

1091

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Welby, G. E.

Taylor, E.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Thompson, Ald.

Whitmore, T. C.

Tennent, J. E.

Wilbraham, hn. R. B.

Thornhill, G.

Wodehouse, E.

Tollemache, J.

Wood, Col.

Tomline, G.

Wood, Col. T.

Trench, Sir F. W

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Trollope, Sir J.

Wynn, Sir W. W.

Trotter, J.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Young, J.

Vernon, G. H.

TELLERS.

Vesey, hn. T.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Vivian, J. E.

Baring, H.

Paired off.

AYES,

NOES.

Grainger, T. C.

Archdale M.

Westenra, hon. J.

Ashley, hon. H.

Vivian, J. H.

Baird, W.

Berkeley, hon. G.

Barneby, J.

Maule, hon. F.

Bell, M.

Etwall, R.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Bruce, C.

Maher, V.

Bruen, Col.

Cave, hon. R. O.

Burdett, Sir F.

Murphy, J. S.

Cardwell, E.

Shelburne, Lord

Charteris, S.

Pendarves, E. W.

Clive, hon. R.

Rawdon, Col.

Cole, hon. A.

Tancred, H. W.

Colville, C.

Fleetwood, Sir H.

Coote, Sir C.

Hayter, W. T.

Copeland, Mr. Ald.

Hobhouse, Sir J.

Davies, D. S.

Somerville, Sir W.

Dickenson, F. H.

Phillpots, J.

Douglas, J. S.

Traill, G.

Drummond, H.

Leader, J. T.

Duffield, T.

Cavendish, hon. G.

Do Pre, C. G.

Acheson, Lord

Eastnor, Lord

Childers, J. W.

Egerton, Sir F.

Tuite, H. M.

Emlyn, Lord,

Ellis, W.

Farnham, E. B.

French, F.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Layard, Capt.

Forbes, W.

Cavendish, hon. C.

Fuller, A E.

O'Conor, Don

Glynne, Sir S.

Heron, Sir R.

Hamilton, W. J.

Dawson, hon. 'F. V.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Morrison, J.

Hogg, J. W.

James, W.

Irton, S.

Dundas, hon. J.

Ker, D.

Heathcoat, J.

Kerrison, Sir E.

Marshall, W.

Knightley, Sir C.

Johnstone, A.

Lindsay, H. H.

Cayley, E. S.

Long, W.

Pigot, D. R.

Lopes, Sir W.

Bowes, J.

Lyall,G.

O'Brien, J.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Stanley, hon. W. 0.

Mainwaring, T.

Cavendish, hon. C.

Manners, Lord C.

Dundas, F.

Master, T. W.

Drax, J. S.

Maunsell, T. P.

Denison, J. E.

Miles, W.

Evans, W.

Mundy, E. M.

Dalmeny, Lord

Palmer, G.

1092

AYES.

NOES.

Troubridge, Sir T.

Pigot, Sir R.

Philipps, M.

Planta, J.

Christie, W. D.

Plumptre, J. P.

Hoskins, R.

Price, R.

Barclay, D.

Pusey, P.

Rutherford, A.

Ramsay, W. R.

Majoribanks, S.

Rendlesham, Lord

Anson, H G.

Shirley, E. P.

Blake, Sir V.

Smyth, Sir G. H.

Marsland, T.

Smollett, A.

Strickland, Sir G.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Redington, T. N.

Stanley, E.

Wood, Sir M.

Taylor, J. A.

Tufnell, H.

Thesiger, F.

Ponsonby, hon. J.

Tollemache, hon. F.

White,—

Verner, Col.

Bulkely, Sir R.

Waddington, H. S.

Watson, W. H.

Wortley, hon. J.

Dashwood, G. H.

Wyndham, Col. C.

The House adjourned at half past two o'clock.