HC Deb 19 June 1843 vol 70 cc101-42

The Order of the Day for the resumption of the debate on going into committee on the Arms (Ireland) Bill having been read,

Mr. Gisborne

said, when this bill was last before the House it attracted little attention or opposition from hon. Members; for himself he was not aware till the present Session of its particular provisions, and, if he had voted for it on a former occasion, it would still be his duty to consider it now as a subject of much more importance, being submitted in the present state of Ireland. He had listened attentively to the debate, and the first argument he had heard used in its favour was, that it had been the existing law in Ireland for fifty years: and the second argument, that crimes of violence prevailed to such an extent, and so much more than in other parts of the empire, that it was necessary to have a peculiar law for Ireland. To the first argument it had been well answered that, although the law had existed for fifty years, yet it was only passed from time to time— that the Legislature on each re-enactment, when the law had expired, considered it in reference to the peculiar state of Ireland. It was therefore necessary that every one who proposed a renewal of the law should state what was the necessity; and the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, who had introduced the bill, had admitted that necessity. Now, the only circumstance which the noble Lord had adduced in favour of the bill was an appeal to the state of crime and of violence in Ireland. It had been contended on the one side that this sort of crime was increasing, and on the other side that it was decreasing. He denied that there had been any evidence adduced to show that crimes of violence had prevailed the less in consequence of the parties not having access to arms. Now, either these crimes of violence had increased, or they had decreased. If they had increased, then this bill, which had been it operation for fifty years, had been futile; if they had decreased, there was no necessity to extend the powers of the executive beyond the constitution. For himself, however, he thought that no case had been made out for this bill. It was brought forward entirely on social, and not on political grounds. Now he could conceive a case in which, on political grounds, a bill might be brought forward by the government of Ireland in such a manner as to render it difficult for any Member of die House, although differing from the Government, to oppose the bill. The Government might be in possession of information which it could not produce to the House, and which might render such a bill necessary. If the Government had shown anything like a necessity, he should have felt it his duty not to offer any opposition. He had fully anticipated that such a state of affairs would be declared likely to arise as would show the necessity for the renewal, and he was surprised that no evidence had been adduced and no statement made. If such a state of things had arisen as required such a bill, he would not have come down to weaken the powers of the Government by opposing it; as it was, believing that the debates on such an exciting subject as the Arms Bill were likely to do mischief, he thought it would been better if the Government had allowed the bill to expire, than to have produced these discussions. The noble Lord frankly admitted their mischief. The speech of the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government was extremely wise and discreet, and he wished he could say the same of the speeches of other ministers. He certainly thought that the debate had taken a fresh character from the time the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) had taken part in it. He (Mr. Gisborne) was bound to say at once that the remarks made by the right hon. Baronet as to the Catholic gentry and prelates made an impression on his mind which was perfectly consistent with the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman afterwards made. The right hon. Gentleman undoubtedly implied that they had deceived themselves, and not that they practised deception on those who had assisted them; but the whole speech impressed him with an unfavourable character, and the right hon. Gentleman seemed to regret that he had ever been misled into granting Catholic emancipation. The tendency of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks was, that he had been deceived when he promoted that measure, that he had believed it would have produced peace, and that he had been disappointed. His speech appeared to convey regret that he had ever supported Catholic emancipation; he seemed to hold out this doctrine, "we have done everything we can by way of conciliation and concession, these parties are not to be dealt with on such terms, we cannot meet them on equal terms, and there is nothing left to us but to introduce an Arms Bill;" and he must say that coming from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, he could not conceive a more unfortunate class of remarks. He had heard hon. Gentlemen who had sat on the other side of the House for a longer time than the right hon. Baronet claim some credit for independence, and for an effort of mind in coming to the support of the Catholic claims; but the right hon. Baronet seemed to forget that he was a Whig when he supported the Catholic claims; that by so doing he was supporting his party, and he could not think that it required much effort on the right hon. Baronet's part to give that support. The right hon. Gentleman took great exception to the observations of the hon. Member for Sheffield, and the hon. and learned Member for Bath, with reference to the Irish Church, and said that it was unworthy of a statesman or of a Member of Parliament to introduce such exciting topics in an incidental manner to the House. He would like to know how far that objection was to be carried? A few years ago Parliamentary reform was an exciting topic; the Government of that day had such an objection to it that they let loose an undisciplined yeomanry on an unarmed meeting met to petition for it. Lord Sidmouth gave a relative of his a valuable piece of preferment for having let loose the sabres and guns of the yeomanry, but the Government did not attempt to interdict the discussion in that House. If rotten boroughs were to be discussed, why not a rotten Church? The Irish Church was as great an anomaly as rotten boroughs. The right hon. Gentleman appealed to the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) whether he would bring in any measure to do away with the Irish Church, and the noble Lord's answer was, that he was not prepared for the total destruction of the Irish Church, and the noble Lord gave reasons which, no doubt, appeared very satisfactory to his own mind, but which appeared to him to be rather feeble. The noble Lord admitted that the Irish Church could not be defended on the ground of reason, of justice, or of precedent, and that it was totally anomalous. Still he would not consent to destroy it, because he thought its destruction might endanger the existence of establishments in general. Now, the only ground on which he supported the Church of England, was not because he believed in the benefit of this establishment for the promotion of religion, but because it was intimately entwined with the domestic, the religious, and the social relations of the great bulk of the people, and could not be destroyed without producing convulsions which all men must deplore; but if he were told that to maintain the English Church they must maintain another church which its advocates admitted could not be defended by reason or justice, and which was totally anomalous, then he thought that support of the English Church was very extraordinary. The right hon. Baronet, however, almost stopped the mouths of those opposed to him by declaring that the subjects of the Irish Church, and of the fixity of tenure, ought not to be brought before that House. The spirit introduced into the debate by the right hon. Gentleman had not been allayed by the speech of the noble Lord his Colleague. The noble Lord put it to the Opposition to say whes ther they objected to the executive act-of the Government, or to their appointments with regard to Ireland. The noble Lord said, If you object to our executive acts, tell us which they are; if you object to our official appointments, let us know who you dislike. It was not very pleasant in personal matters to he called upon in this way, but he would not shrink from pointing out what he blamed, either with respect to the executive acts or the appointments. The principal executive act to which he objected was the dismissal of the magistrates, and he admitted that the late Government was much too free in using the same power; but he was sure that they never put forward such indefensible grounds as the present Lord Chancellor, who said that he dismissed the magistrates because the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had come down to the House, and said that he had advised her Majesty to say that she would maintain the union at all hazards. Therefore one of the Irish Members, who had a right in that House to introduce a motion for the Repeal, if he attended a meeting out of doors for the object of petitioning the House for it, would do so under the penalty of being dismissed from the commission of the peace. He (Mr. Gisborne) would like to know whether this would stop here. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department thought that the Irish Church should be maintained at all hazards, and his Colleagues near him might advise her Majesty to declare that she would maintain it at all hazards. If that were the case, were they who thought that the Irish Church should be put down to take no steps to promote their views, except under the hazard of being dismissed from the magistracy? He conceived this to be the most unconstitutional doctrine he had ever heard, and he rather thought that the Irish Chancellor thought so too: because, in a recent letter, he had laid down more plausible reasons for what he had done. He would now offer a few observations upon the subject of the appointments which had been made by the present Government; the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) had said, that if any objection was entertained, its particulars should be announced. The two individuals to whom he should refer were persons whose character was of the highest order, and with both of whom he had sat in that House—he meant Mr. Justice Jackson and Mr. Baron Lefroy. But, at the same time, he must say, with respect to both of them that during the time they had sat in that House, they had appeared to him to possess a degree of bigotry— an apparent impossibility of looking at more than one side of a subject where the condition of Ireland was concerned— which made him think that their appointment to the judicial bench was impolitic in the extreme. There was another Gentleman who now sat in that House, he meant the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Shaw), to whose appointment he would also refer- Giving that right hon. Gentleman the fullest credit for the highest degree of honour and probity, he must say that if he were an Irish priest, or bishop, and had had a legal difference with some dignitary of the Protestant Church, the right hon. Gentleman was not exactly the judge to which he should like to submit his case for decision. The noble lord would understand his meaning when he said, that he thought the appointments of these three gentlemen, in the state of feeling which prevailed in Ireland, were highly impolitic. Ireland must now see that she had nothing to expect from this country but coercion. Her coast was in a condition of blockade▀×she was, in every respect treated as a hostile country; and these circumstances, coupled with the declaration of one of her Majesty's Cabinet Ministers, that the civil rights which she enjoyed were equal to those possessed by the British people, were sufficient to teach the people of that land that they had nothing to hope for from the present Government.

Mr. Colquhoun

said, the simple question was, whether it were not necessary to adopt this bill for the defence of persons, who would not be safe without such a measure? He was sure that any one who calmly contemplated the state of Ireland must see that no Government would be justified in withholding from the magistracy of Ireland the powers which were given to them by this bill. If they referred to the reports of committees on the question of tithes and other subjects during the last twenty years, they would find that the Irish people had evinced a strong antipathy to the law; that it was almost impossible to procure evidence or to induce persons to become prosecutors. He might be allowed to mention a case which occurred only last year, and which illustrated in a remarkable manner the condition of the country. A gentleman named Hall, of liberal politics, was shot in broad daylight, in the county of Tipperary. Several persons were placed on their trial for the murder; and out of twelve jurors, eleven agreed to acquit the prisoners, the twelfth, a Protestant, being opposed to such a verdict. A new trial was the result; and the jury on that occasion brought in a verdict of "guilty" against one of the prisoners, who buffered die extreme penalty of the law. But what were the consequences to the parties who had endeavoured to forward the ends of justice? The stipendiary magistrate of the district, who had displayed great activity in procuring evidence, was compelled—from the personal peril which he incurred—to exchange his appointment for one in a different part of the country. The Protestant juror, who on the first trial, refused to join his brother jurymen in pronouncing a verdict of acquittal, had since been appointed a chief constable in a distant part of Ireland, it being considered that his life was not safe if he remained in the neighbourhood where the offence was perpetrated. The witnesses who had given evidence were put in such peril that it had been found necessary, according to a suggestion thrown out in debate by the right hon. Member for Dungarvon (Mr. Shell), to remove them by emigration. Her Majesty's Government had given 400l., and the family of the murderer 500l., to promote this purpose. Such being the condition of the country the assertion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath that the social state of Ireland was the same as in England was untenable. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had stated the proportion of convictions to committals in Ireland to be 50 per cent., but after a minute calculation, he (Mr. Colquhoun) considered them to be only 47 percent. In England they were 73 per cent. What were the sources of the present state of things? The bigotry of the gentlemen who had received judicial appointments, had been remarked upon by the hon. Member who had last spoken. He would not apply the same term to the class on which he was about to observe, but it could not be doubted, that the Catholic priesthood were the most violent in their denunciation from the alter of all those who ventured to exert themselves in favour of their own religious principles in opposition to those of the Roman Catholic church, or who opposed the views and wishes of the Catholic hierarchy. The hon. and learned Member for Bath had suggested, that the priests should receive a stipend from the Government. Such a measure, however, would be totally useless, for whatever payment they received, they would still seek to retain their influence over the people—an influence which they did not hesitate to exert for political as well as other purposes. It was not, in his opinion, to Mr. O'Connell, able as he was, that the existing condition of Ireland was attributable, but rather that vast power which the hierarchy excercised over the peasantry of Ireland. It was a state of excitement which could be attributed to no two new acts — which had existed since 1832, although occasionally lulled to repose at the will of Mr. O'Connell and the priests. It might be assumed from die able speech of the noble Lord (the Member for the City of London) the other night, that he supposed that it was only for the Whigs to come back to power, and Ireland would be restored immediately to a state of tranquillity. It appeared, however, from the speeches of Mr. O'Connell, that popular hatred in Ireland was now directed as much against the Whigs as the Tories, and that they were now denounced as well as the Members of the present Government by the reproachful name of Saxon. The present Government had acted fairly towards Ireland, and with much forbearance as regarded the agitation which was going on in that country; but there were limits beyond which forbearance was dangerous, and when it was seen that there was an agitation in Ireland, disturbing the peace on all sides, preventing the employment of the people and the investment of capital—when the country was convulsed throughout its entire extent—not, as had been argued, for the purpose of petitioning Parliament, but by the exhibition of an organised force to compel compliance with a demand—not for the abolition of the Established Church, but for a measure which, on both sides of the House, was looked upon as a dismemberment of the empire, and which all admitted should be resisted at the hazard of a civil war—when such was the aspect which Ireland presented it was high time that something should be done. It was a mistake to suppose that Ireland was divided into two classes, with Protestants on one side, and Roman Catholics on the other. A vast proportion of the Irish Roman Catholics, in the same manner as the English, were desirous that their priests should confine themselves to their spiritual functions, instead of marking men out as objects to the notice of their fellows. Numbers of Roman Catholics in Ireland, not having firmness of mind sufficient to resist, were obliged reluctantly to join in the system of organization, though they would prefer the peaceable pursuit of their daily labours and avocations. It was the duty of the House and the executive to provide for the peace of Ireland, but that could not be provided by the measure for dismembering the empire, against which the House had set its face. Let care, however, be taken, that the due punishment of the law should await upon crime, and let the organised agitation, which struck terror to the peaceable, be put down by the influence of opinion in that House, or by means more stringent, if such means should be necessary. The Government would neglect its duty, if, at the risk of any opposition, it refused to do put down that agitation.

Mr. W. Williams

wished to know how the present bill would put down the agitation in Ireland. There was no proof given during the whole of the debate that it would even put down the class of crime against which it was ostensibly levelled. The existence of such crimes proved that the system upon which Ireland had been governed was bad, and that no steps had been taken to remove the grievances under which the people laboured, and which caused those crimes. There was not in any other country in Europe so much misery and destitution as in Ireland, and the existing discontent was the natural consequence. The two principal causes of discontent were the Established Church, and the relations between landlord and tenant, and until these matters were adjusted, there could be no peace in the country. The landlords did not fulfil their duties towards their tenants, and this was one great source of discontent. It was true, that there were some noble examples the other way, and these were principally to be found amongst the Members of the English aristocracy who pos- sessed estates in Ireland. The management of Lady Dover's estate in Ireland, was excellent, and if all landlords managed their estates in the same benevolent manner, they would never hear of agitation in that country. The present Government had a great responsibility, in his opinion. It was in the power of the right hon. Baronet opposite to allay the present ferment in Ireland, by the adoption of measures which would give the people satisfaction without injury to any one; and if he neglected to adopt those measures, the evils in Ireland would go on increasing step by step, and in the end he saw no hope of maintaining the unity of the empire, either with advantage to England or Ireland. The object of the present bill was not the suppression of crime; it had other objects, and he doubted whether the Government would succeed in them. They had tried coercion long enough, and had found it a perfect failure —let them now try confidence.

Lord John Manners

—The grandson of a Tory Lord Lieutenant, who was not unpopular in Ireland-I trust the Irish Members will pardon me, if I venture to express my opinions on the subject under debate, attended, as it undoubtedly is, with most grave difficulties, difficulties so great that they would induce me to support almost any measure of executive detail which the Government in a crisis like the present might propose, even were it not supported by so many precedents, as this Arms Bill is. I, Sir, like the hon. Member for Nottingham, and others who have spoken during the debate, am glad at the tone of most of the speeches which have been delivered, but beyond that my satisfaction cannot extend, for, except in the speeches of my hon. Friends, the Members for the counties of Londonderry and Northampton, I have heard no proposals likely in ameliorate the unhappy condition of Ireland, and the addresses of the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, and the right hon. the Home Secretary especially disappointed me in that respect; nothing could be more convincing than the noble Lord's exposure of the futility and emptiness of the scheme enunciated by the noble Lord the Member for London; some miserable petty plan of raising the social condition of the Roman Catholic Priesthood by granting them titles of honour; but the noble Lord stopped short at this; not so however the hon. and learned Member for Bath, who with a most undue faith in the power of Mammon, and mistaking, as it seems to me, the character of that priesthood, proposed to buy them by the plunder of the Irish Church, which he denounced with all the malignant rhetoric of his eloquence, and described as the cause of all the miseries of Ireland. I believe, Sir, that the Roman Catholic priesthood arc not to be turned from their settled purpose by any such unworthy means, and that there is great truth in an objection to this scheme which I remember seeing urged against a somewhat similar one proposed by Lord Alvanley in his able pamphlet; the objection was; first, that they would refuse on principle to be bought, secondly, that we on principle would refuse to buy them; did I require any confirmation of the truth of the first part of the objection, I should find it in the very last number of an influential Roman Catholic organ The Tablet. I find in that paper the following passage. The abolition of the Irish Church, as a single measure, would not we are firmly persuaded buy off ten votes from Repeal. If this Church were to live till Doomsday the people might feed, and they might worhip God in peace and tranquillity, and fulfil the duties of their faith. No Sir—I believe that the priesthood would refuse the offer, and I am sure that were it made in the tone and manner of the hon. and learned Member, no power on earth would induce them to accept it. The hon. Member who spoke last said with truth, that physical destitution was the great cause of disaffection in Ireland, and l hoped, therefore, that he was prepared to deny the proposition of the hon. and learned Member; but even he seemed to give in to it. I have stated, that I believe the Roman Catholic priests are actuated by higher and better motives than the hon. and learned Member would give them credit for, and I am not ashamed farther to own, that in my humble judgment, the hon. and learned Member for the County of Cork is doing what he believes to be right; and no destruction of the Irish Church will satisfy them or him. "Oh but," says the hon. and learned Member for Bath, "that Church is a badge of conquest, it's the Church of a conquering minority, and should therefore be destroyed." Now, whatever validity there may be in that argument, I think I can show the House that a reference to history must carry it's application farther than the hon. Member supposes; if there is one fact in Irish history more clear than another, it is that the Roman Catholic Church was not the Church of the Irish people originally, that Church was for hundreds of years independent of Rome, and it was not till an English king conquered Ireland, that the supremacy of the Pope was acknowledged by it. This, Sir, is no curious opinion, tortured out of obscure records, but is a received fact stated in strong terms, among other historians, by Mr. O'Driscoll, a Roman Catholic himself—I believe Mr. O'Driscoll says, There is something very singular in the ecclesiastical history of Ireland. The Christian Church of that country, as founded by St. Patrick and his predecessors, existed for many ages free and unshackled. It had no connection with England, and differed upon points of importance with Rome. The first work of Henry 2nd, was to reduce the Church of Ireland into obedience to the Roman Pontiff. Accordingly he procured a council of the Irish clergy to be held at Cashel in 1172, and the combined influence and intrigues of Henry and the Pope prevailed. This council put an end to the ancient Church of Ireland, and submitted it to the yoke of Rome. From the days of St. Patrick to the Council of Cashel, was a bright and glorious career for Ireland. Front the sitting of this council to our time, the lot of Ireland has been universal evil, and all her history a tale of woe. I say, then, that if the argument of foreign conquest be good against the Irish, it is also good against the Roman Catholic Church; but it will be said that the decision of the Council of Cashel was the decision of the Irish Church, and that, therefore, from that time the supremacy of Rome has been rightfully established in Ireland; I am however prepared to contend that the Reformation was equally the work of the Irish Church, mid ought therefore to be regarded as equally binding. All the Irish Bishops but two in Elizabeth's reign, nearly all the great Irish chiefs, the O'Connor, the O'Dunne, O'Donnel, O'Rourke, the O'Neil, all gave in their adhesion to the Reformation, and for thirty years there was but one Church in Ireland; so that beyond the futility of the hon. and learned Member's proposal I oppose it as unjust, and therefore not to be acted upon. At the same time, Sir, I fully acknowledge, and deeply deplore, that the Catholic spirit of the Irish was too soon and fatally overlaid by, what Carte calls, "a shoal of factious and irregular Puritans" brought out of Scotland, and the impress they stamped upon the Church was graven still more deeply by Oliver Cromwell and William 3rd, so that one can hardly be surprised that the Irish peasant should view with mistrust and aversion a Church which has been so Anti-Catholic, in spite of such men, as Archbishop Marsh, and Bishops Bedell and Berkeley, in its general character. But, now when a change for the better is coming over the spirit of that Church, when, to use the words of one of her most attached sons, she is— Less Calvinistic, less fierce, more ready to own the Romish Church as a sister though a fallen one, more apt to pray for than to curse the Jerusalem of Christendom; when many of her clergy are ready to adopt towards their Roman Catholic brethren the language which Bishop Berkeley addressed to the Roman Catholic priesthood of his diocese, 'I consider you as my countrymen, as fellow subjects, as professing belief in the same Christ. And I do most sincerely wish there were no other contest between us— but who shall most completely practise the precepts of Him, by whose name we are called, and whose disciples we all profess to be.' Now when the dreams, as they then appeared, of that virtuous Prelate, bid fair to be happily realized, and we may hope e'er long that the peasant of Munster and Connaught will be addressed' by priests of that Church in his own beloved language; I say it is too much to hear tire Irish Church denounced by the hon. and learner. Member for Bath as "a rotten and corrupting sore." No, Sir, I believe it is to that Church we must look for a return to peace and union in Ireland. Before I quit this subject, I cannot refrain fro expressing" my sincere and hearty hope, that e'er long,: the Government will be prepared to re-enter into diplomatic relations with the Court of Rome. I should urge the propriety o taking such a step were there no such country as Ireland in existence, or were quiet as it, unfortunately, is disturbed; but in the present condition of that country, look upon it as madness to continue such an absurd restriction. On what principle I should like to know do we refuse to ac knowledge the sovereign of Rome? Is it on religious principle? [" Hear," from an hon. Member on the Ministerial side.] What! We, who send an ambassador t Constantinople, who spend our wealth, and shed our blood to keep the Holy Sepulcher in the hands of infidels, are we on a religious principle to refuse to acknowledge Prince whom millions of our fellow subjects look up to as the spiritual head c Christendom. Or will it be said that reasons of state policy render it necessary to retain these restrictions? I can easily understand why, during Elizabeth's reign, when the cry at Rome was Delenda est Anglia, the constant answer from England was, no peace with Rome, and perhaps as long as a Stuart found an asylum in Italy, there might be some political cause assigned for still acting on that policy; but now, when those causes are removed, after we at the close of the late war by the valour of our troops, and the indomitable perseverance of our people restored tire aged Pontiff to the Vatican, I am totally at a loss to imagine why these restrictions are persevered in. I agree, Sir, with the hon. Member for Coventry in thinking that physical distress is tire real effective cause of the disquiet of Ireland, and I must express my disappointment that no hopes have been held out by her Majesty's Ministers for alleviating it, more especially as that country offers so many means of profitable employment for the people. Mr. Boyton in his remarkable evidence stated, if you want to find tire real origin of Ireland's evils you are not to look to Popery, nor to democracy; you must go deeper and seek it in tire destitution and agony of the people, and though I fear the House must be tired of Bishop Berkeley, I cannot refrain from quoting his striking language on this point. If the same gentle spirit of sloth did not soothe our squires as well as peasants, one would imagine there should be no idle hands among us. Alas! how many incentives to industry offer themselves in this island, crying aloud to the inhabitants for work. Roads to be repaired, rivers made navigable, fisheries on the coast, mines to be wrought, plantations to be raised, manufactures improved, and above all lands to be tilled, and sown with all sorts of grain. Of course, Sir, it is not for me to say bow these most desirable objects should be carried into effect, but I think there cars be little difference of opinion as to the facilities afforded for the cultivation of waste lands, and I have heard it suggested, and by high Irish authority, that a tax should be levied on absentees, and it's proceeds applied to this purpose; but, as I have already said, I will not enter into these questions of detail. Then, Sir, it is impossible for any one who has paid the slightest attention to Ireland, not to feel persuaded that the Poor-law system as it is attempted to be carried out, is a most effective cause of discontent, and I earnestly hope the Government will cease from endeavouring to alter by such a change as that Poor-law necessitates, the old manners and ancient feelings of a generous-hearted people; I implore them to desist from striving to effect such a revolution. I implore them on the contrary to do all that in them lies, by accepting their traditional habits and ideas, by appealing to and governing by their unhesitating faith, and hereditary feudalism, to render that which is now at best but a Legislative Union, a real and cordial Union of a loyal, prosperous, and contented people.

Sir W. Barron

cordially thanked the noble Lord for the spirit in which the observations he had just made were conceived. Such speeches on the part of Members of both Houses generally, would do far more to allay the agitation which now prevailed, than a hundred such measures as that now before them. Unfortunately, however, the tone prevalent on the other side of the House was far more calculated to increase than to allay that agitation. The speeches, for instance, of the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department, and of the noble Secretary for the Colonies, who spoke after him on Friday night, would do more to spread anger and dissatisfaction, to alienate the people of Ireland from this country, than any speeches that had ever been delivered in or out of the House—than any acts which had been committed in or out of the House. The imperial Government—the imperial Parliament—said the right hon. Baronet, hail gone to the extreme verge of conciliation and concession. They had given to the people of Ireland emancipation, reform in Parliament, reform in municipal matters, reform in the Church, reform as to tithes— what more could the people of Ireland— what more could the Roman Catholic population of that country require? True, something had been done towards these various concessions; but in what manner had the concessions been made? Emancipation was granted; but those who granted it said they yielded it to their fears, and not to their sense of justice. They yielded it to the long-existing organization of the Irish people, thus affording to that people a lesson, that to obtain their rights, they must again resort to organization. Again, the Parliamentary reform accorded to the Irish people, was stinted and bare, in no respect equal to that which the people of England obtained: nay, the valuable franchise of forty-shilling freeholders, which the Irish before possessed, was taken from them, and at this moment there was not one man registered in Ireland for ten men that were registered in England. The bill would not prevent the vicious from having arms; it would only prevent the well-disposed from having the means of defending themselves. He thought the statements of the number of crimes committed in Ireland made by the right hon. Gentleman, were garbled and incorrect, when the returns which he meant hereafter to move for were laid before the House, he would demonstrate completely that the right hon. Baronet had misinformed the House. According to those already on the Table, the number of crimes recorded in Ireland was, in the year 1840, 4,626; and he would compare these with the number of commitments in England, which was not exactly the same; but he had no other criterion, for the returns for the two countries were not made up on the same principle. The number of commitments then in England, in 1840, was 27,187, or more than five times as many as the crimes committed in Ireland. In 1841, the number of crimes committed in Ireland was 5.361— that was according to the returns on the Table of the House; and the number of commitments in England was, in the same year, 27,760, or nearly five times as many as the crimes in Ireland. In 1842— and there were no later returns—the number of crimes committed in Ireland was 6,541, and the number of persons committed in England, in that same year, was 31,309, showing that the number of crimes was five times as great in England as in Ireland, while the population was only double that of Ireland. These were not inventions of his: they were taken from returns on the Table of the House. At the same time it was true that the return of the persons committed in Ireland was the most fallacious that could be conceived. That had been proved before a committee of the House of Lords, and he would quote a portion of the evidence of Mr. Caher to show what was the nature of the returns made from Ireland. The hon. Member quoted the evidence to show that many indictments and commitments were recorded for one offence. There were as many as eighteen different indictments found for one offence. In consequence of that mode of making the returns, offences were apparently multiplied in Ireland far beyond their real number. By means of such returns the public were led astray, and when the re- turns were correctly laid before the House he had no doubt that he should be able to prove that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman on Friday night was most exaggerated. There was one curious fact as to the Arms Bill, which had not been noticed. It had not been acted on in the majority of cases. In most parts of Ireland it was unknown. In his own county no person who kept arms was registered. In Tipperary, on the contrary, the most distracted county in Ireland, there were more arms registered than in the four counties adjoining. There were 1,677 persons with arms registered in Tipperary; in Sligo there were only fourteen, which was one of the most quiet districts in Ireland; in Leitrim, too, there were only four persons who had arms registered, and Leitrim was a quiet district. This showed that in the most disturbed counties the law was most stringently carried into effect. As to forges there was not one forge registered in Dublin, in Fermanagh, Leitrim, and several other counties. The Arms Bill, therefore, as regarded the register of forges, was a complete dead letter. It had not been generally carried into effect, and where it had, it had not prevented evil. Where it was least acted on, there the country was least disturbed. The right hon. Gentleman said, conciliation was exhausted. He said, that conciliation had not been attempted by the present Government. Lord Normal by, Lord Morpeth, and Lord Fortes-cue made attempts to conciliate, and the result was, he pledged his veracity for it, that crimes diminished and the confidence of the people in the Government increased. The people were aware that the late Government could not pass measures for the benefit of Ireland through parliament, and they also knew that that Government did not introduce several measures of conciliation, because it could not carry them, and the people knew that to introduce them would only have been injurious. The Arms Bill introduced by the late Government, as was reproachfully said, was not this Arms Bill, but one less stringent—one in which there were none of the provisions which were most objected to in this bill, and one which had been on the statute-book for forty-seven years. The government knew, too, that if they withdrew the bill, it would give a handle to their opponents, and therefore their supporters another people of Ireland acquiesced in the continuance of the bill. The representatives of Ireland having confidence in the Government, did not oppose the bill, which made a great difference in the circumstances of the case, then and now. At present there was a Government in Ireland in which no person of any party had the least confidence. It was supported by no party. All the Catholics were opposed to it, because the Government had had the misfortune, he would use no harsher term, to appoint men to high offices who were most objectionable to the Irish population. The instant the present Government came into office it removed twelve stipendiary magistrates, alleging, which was strong evidence against themselves, that the peace of the country did not require them; then and ever since, the Government had been appointing new magistrates. The judges appointed were most objectionable, and were the more dangerous because they were estimable private characters, while they had always taken a most active part in opposing the claims and rights of the Catholics. The Government had selected all the dignitaries of the Church from the opponents of the system of education. Magistrates and assistant-barristers to the number of one hundred, had been also appointed who were hostile to the people. There was not one Cabinet Minister a representative of the Catholic population, or in any way connected with the Catholics. The Cabinet then was entirely hostile to the 8,000,000 of Catholics in Ireland. At least two or three Irishmen ought to be members of the Cabinet. The Lord-lieutenant, the heads of excise, the heads of the police, the Archbishop of Dublin, all the heads of departments, were Englishmen and Scotchmen, and supplied causes of discontent besides the question of the Church. At the same time the grant for public works had been diminished. All reforms for Ireland had been stinted, and there was a total neglect of all attempts to ameliorate the condition of the people or give them employment. The great evil was not the Protestant Church. He maintained that; but the great grievance was, as the noble Lord said (Lord J. Manners), the destitution of the people— that must be remedied. It would not do to frighten the people of England with stories of the Irish wishing to destroy the property of the Church. Something else besides that must be done to reconcile the Irish to the Government of England. The Ministers deceived themselves in supposing that this bill was either desired by any party in Ireland, or that it would allay the excitement or prevent disturbance. The noble Lord, the Member for Lancashire, one of her Majesty's Secretaries of State, had said, that the wealth, the intelligence, and property of the country were with the Government; and the noble Lord asked, were they to be governed by the masses, instead of by the wealth, intelligence, and property of the country? He denied that the majority of the wealth, intelligence, and property of the country were in favour of the present Government, and he was sure the masses were against it. How, he asked, was the fact to be ascertained? Where were they to look for the wealth, intelligence, and property of the country? He thought, that the metropolis possessed a large share of the wealth, intelligence, and property of the country, and out of the sixteen Members it sent to Parliament how many were for the Government? There were thirteen against it, and three in its favour; that was then a majority against the Government of four to one. That was the case with London, and London was a fair criterion of the wealth, intelligence, and property of the whole empire. He would go next to the large towns of England, and put Ireland out of the question. Manchester was a large place, it had a rich population, and he believed it had a most intelligent population. How many of the representatives of Manchester supported the Government? Not one. Of Birmingham he could say the same. Neither of the Members for Birmingham, the population of which was most intelligent, supported the Ministers. The Gentlemen opposite might appeal to Liverpool. His answer was, that the Members were returned by the old freemen. At Bristol there was much of the same leaven left; but Bristol returned one for one. So he might refer to Edinburgh and to Glasgow, both of which were places of great intelligence and wealth. The Gentlemen opposite, it was true, had had the landed interest with them. He admitted that, at the last election, the counties were almost unanimous in their favour; but were they so now? Let Penenden heath, Bedford, and several other places, answer. 'Would the Gentlemen opposite try the counties now? He contended, that the opposition had the wealth and intelligence with them, and now they would fight for the property. Yes, fight constitutionally, by a dissolution of Parliament, to ascertain on which side was the property of the country. He challenged the Gentlemen on the Ministerial side to that constitutional battle; but he was assured, that the Gentlemen opposite would not like to try. Away, then, with the vaunt—the empty boast—that the intelligence, the property, the wealth of the empire were unanimously in favour of the Ministers, and against the people of Ireland. In Ireland the Ministers had the people unanimously against them. There were a few Orangemen indeed; but even they were doubtful, and the scale of their attachment was not duly balanced. But supposing that the numbers were supported by the intelligence, wealth, and property of the country, would they risk their reputation, would they engage in a civil contest on the principle, that the Government was established riot for the benefit of the many, but the few? Would they now dare to state in a British House of Commons, that this was the principle of the British Government? But he could tell the noble Lord (Lord Stanley), and he could tell some of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that they must take some account of the masses. He could tell the noble Lord, and he would tell the right hon. Gentleman (Sir James Graham), that the time was not distant when they did make some account of the masses, when they were carried into power, and were retained in power by the masses; and that to please the masses they were not backward in crying aloud to swamp the Lords. There had been periods of excitement other times, and other Gentlemen besides those who now encouraged agitation had taken part in it. He knew, that at a meeting which had been held during the time of the reform of Parliament the noble Lord had denounced the Duke of Wellington as a madman and a fool. He knew that, and he defied contradiction. When he found the noble Lord now making such boasts, he had a right to tell the truth— the whole truth. He had a right to make this statement, and he should shrink from his duty if he did not make it. What did the statement, that he had made prove? That those who had once encouraged agitation, and now thought proper to come before Parlia- ment with their Arms Bill, and with measures to coerce Ireland, had not succeeded in their Government. They had failed in their plan of governing Ireland, and now they meant to try coercion. That was the meaning of the language of the right hon. Gentleman, if it meant anything. There was to be no conciliation, they were to unsheath the sword. Yes, coercion was now the order of the day. The Ministers had failed, as they said, by concession, he said they had not failed by concession, for they had not tried concession. They had not even made an attempt to conciliate the people— they had never thought of showing the people that they were not treated as aliens in whom the Government could place no confidence, and for whom they had no sympathy. That treatment would no longer do, for the Roman Catholics had now a perfect equality of civil rights. Yes, a perfect equality of civil rights with the Protestants of the empire: but they must now be shown, that they had this equality in reality as well as nominally. They must no longer be treated as aliens; they must be confided in, and it must be shown, that confidence was placed in them. They must be treated as loyal subjects; and more loyal subjects, men more attached to their Sovereign than the people of Ireland were attached to the Queen, did not exist in the world.

Mr. Hardy

said, the hon. Baronet had talked much of the unpopularity of her Majesty's Government in Ireland, but he had failed to give any reason for it; because, although he had spoken of their judicial, magisterial, and clerical appointments, he had not proved that any of them were improper, or that the parties were incompetent or had been guilty of any impropriety in the discharge of their duties. The strain of the hon. Baronet reminded him of a similar attack upon a former Ministry, in reply to which Mr. Sheridan observed, that nothing definite could be obtained from the assailant, that he seemed to be influenced only by the feeling described in the hackneyed lines beginning "I do not like thee Dr. Fell," &c. If the hon. Baronet wanted a justification of this measure, could he not find it in the excitement and the assassinations, murders, and frequent offences against life and property, which were more prevalent there than in any other country professing to be civilized? When the Ludd- ites committed their enormities in Yorkshire, did the hon. Baronet suppose that any right-minded Yorkshireman would have objected to a similar measure? The hon. Gentleman complained of inequality of rights. Why, in Yorkshire and Lancashire there was a law in force, and which was about in due course to be reenacted, under which, in consequence of the difficulty of identifying embezzled cotton and wool, any person's house might be entered and searched, and the materials seized; and not only that, but the person would be compelled to go before a magistrate and prove that he became honestly possessed of the property. Now that was a complete subversion of' the law of England; but the honest Yorkshireman would not find this to be a hardship. He begged to remind the House of the pastoral address of the archbishops and bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland of the 9th of February, 1830, which contained the following passage:— The great boon became the more acceptable to this country because, among the counsellors of his Majesty there appeared conspicuous the most distinguished of Ireland's own sons—a hero and a legislator—a man selected by the Almighty to break the rod which had scourged Europe—a man raised up by Providence to confirm thrones, to re-establish altars, to direct the councils of England at a crisis most difficult, and to staunch the blood and heal the wounds of the country which gave him birth. An enlightened and wise Parliament perfected what the Sovereign and his councillors commenced, and already the effects of their wisdom and justice are visible, and duly appreciated by all the wise and good. The storm which almost wrecked the country has subsided, whilst social order, with peace and justice in her train, prepares to establish her sway in this long distracted country. And is not the King, beloved brethren, whom by the law of God we are bound to honour, entitled now to all the honour, and all the obedience, and all the gratitude you can bestow? And do not his Ministers merit from you a confidence commensurate with the labours and the zeal expended by them on your behalf? And that Legislature which raised you up from your prostrate condition, and gave to you, without reserve, all the privileges you desired, is not that Legislature entitled to your reverence and love? We trust that your feelings on this subject are in unison with our own, and that a steady attachment to the constitution and laws of your country, as well as to the person and Government of your gracious Sovereign, will be manifest in your entire conduct. Labour, therefore, in all things to promote the end which the Legislature contemplated in passing this bill for your relief; to wit, the pacification and improvement of Ireland. Let religious discord cease, let party feuds and civil dissension be no more heard of, let rash and unjust and illegal oaths be not even named amongst you; and if sowers of discord or sedition should attempt to trouble your repose, seek for a safeguard against them in the protection afforded by the law. To this address he found appended the names of some of the very prelates who had lately been forwarding the repeal agitation. Had not, then, those who had supported emancipation, as he had, a right to complain of the return they had met with? And this, let it be recollected, although the Pope had expressed his concurrence in the sentiments of moderation thus professed; and now, forsooth, nothing would content Ireland but a domestic legislature. As to the outcry against the Conservative party on account of old grievances, it was absurd, seeing that the penal laws were the offspring of Whig, not of Tory policy. He had formerly been encouraged in his adherence to the cause of emancipation by hearing eloquent invectives on the part of Mr. O'Connell against the atrocious doctrines published in the "Douay Version of the Bible," which contained sentiments disgraceful to any religion. That version of the scriptures contained such passages as the following:— ' Lest, while ye gather up the tares ye root up also the wheat with them.'—Mathew, c. xiiii., v. 29. Note.—The good must tolerate the evil when it is so strong that it cannot be redressed without danger, and commit the matter to God's judgment in the latter day. Otherwise, where ill men (be they heretics or other malefactors) may be punished or suppressed without disturbance or hazard of the good, they may and ought, by public authority, either spiritual or temporal, to be chastised and executed. I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints."—Revelations, c. xvii., v. G. Note.—The Protestants expound this of Rome, for that they put heretics to death, and allow of their punishment in other countries, but their blood is not called the blood of the saints no more than the blood of thieves, man-killers, and other malefactors, for the shedding of which, by order of justice, no commonwealth shall answer. Could such opinion he asked be endured in any civilized country? Should it not be expected that they would be denounced bonâ fide by the really respectable of any religion? And could the Roman Catholics be trusted while they continued to give credence and circulation to such sentiments.

Mr. Ellice

said, that he had been at the commencement of this debate disposed to support this bill, but he now begged to state the grounds upon which he felt himself obliged, with great reluctance, to vote against it as part of a system of coercion towards Ireland. God knew that this bill was not an experiment. They had been legislating on this unwise system for half a century, and they were now called upon to renew this law under the declaration of a Member of the Government of the day, that concession towards Ireland had gone to its utmost limit— that if there were grievances in Ireland, the Government neither knew the means, nor would propose any to redress them. The hon. Member who had last spoke had almost brought the question to this issue:—Was it safe to trust the Irish people? Was it feasible to legislate for them as they would for his own constituency in Yorkshire? His answer was, that it was because they had never legislated for the Irish people as they would have legislated for the people of Yorkshire—it was because we had not done our utmost to place them upon an equality as regarded civil liberty, with the rest of their fellow subjects, that this odious bill of coercion against the Irish people became necessary. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Bath that the two great questions, as regarded Ireland, with which it became necessary for any government which wielded the destinies of this empire to cope, were the tenure of land, and the state of the Church in Ireland. He knew that these were very difficult questions to deal with; but it was not because they were difficult that the Government should content itself with proposing a bill to repress by arms the opinions of the people in that country. He recollected some years ago that he seconded a motion made by the hon. Member for Montrose for certain returns respecting tithes in Ireland. In the course of the debate upon this question, it appeared that there were 1,500 or 1,600 actions pending in that country for the recovery of tithes; and he then declared that in this country such a state of things would not be tolerated for a single day. He admitted that it was no easy affair to administer the affairs of this country; but he denied that that was any reason that the attempt should not be made —that the difficulty should not be coped with. It was not enough for Ministers to cry out that the vast public meetings which were taking place in Ireland were a great nuisance, and to inveigh against the complaints which were so loudly raised at those meetings; they should look to the causes of those meetings, and the grounds of those complaints. With respect to the tenure of lands, he thought it full time that Parliament should do something on this subject. He believed that in the Parliament of Ireland, various laws had been passed from time to timer, giving additional powers to landlords to act against their tenantry. It was difficult to deal with matters of this kind; but he did say, that after all, the time which had now elapsed since those acts were passed, it became the duty of Parliament to divine some means to remedy evils which were justly complained of; or, if they could not remedy them, at least to inquire into them, and tell the people of Ireland that they had done their best in their behalf, but that, the difficulty of the subject was so great, that they found no adequate remedy could be devised by them for it. At any rate some attempt should be made; and they had as yet heard no proposition of such a kind from her Majesty's Government. Then, with respect to that greatest of all grievances which was to be found in the whole history of the world, the Church of Ireland. Mahomet was a merciful conqueror, compared with this country towards the people of Ireland— Mahomet destroyed the people whom be could not convert; but we devised a system by which we retained religious animosities, to rankle in the bosoms of succeeding generations. We deprived the people of Ireland of the means of supporting their own religion, and gave over those very means to support the religion of those to whom they were opposed; and when attempts bad been from time to time made to remedy, or at least alleviate, the weight of this oppression, how had they been met by gentlemen opposite? He was one who thought the principle of applying part of the revenues of the Church to the education of the people, a wise system; and he thought that when this principle had been tried mid found successful, it should be gradually extended so as to satisfy the wants of the people of Ireland, and that if any deficiency arose in consequence, this country should provide the means of supporting the church establishment in Ireland. He quite admitted that great caution should be used in applying any principle of this kind. Any rash experiment might interfere with the safety of the establishment in the other country; and he was the last man to wish to hazard any such result. With respect to the vote which he was about to give on this question, he begged to state, that what had mainly induced him to alter the vote which he had intended giving on this subject, was the speech of the right hon. Member for Dorchester on Friday evening; and he believed that this was not the first occasion on which he had differed from the right, hon. Gentleman on this subject. He would ask the House, to look back at the past, and think how far the policy which had so long been pursued towards Ireland, and of which this bill was a part, bad been conducive to the public interests of this empire? There was a time when the right hon. Gentleman was a Member of the Government of Lord Grey. The public out of doors at the time, placed entire confidence in the policy of that Government, and, so supported, they had the power to deal with both extremes in the State, and hold a 'middle course equally advantageous to both; and who was it that arrested the progress of this principle of government? He for one was satisfied with the course he then took; but could the right hon. Baronet and his noble Friend the Member for North Lancashire, say, that they were prepared to stand upon their present ground? Did they think that they could rest on a coercion bill of this description, without offering any measures of redress for the evils of which Ireland had so long and so justly complained? The right hon. Baronet and his colleagues might complain of the exciting addresses delivered to vast assemblies by the hon. and learned Member for Cork: but what was it which gave that gentleman the extraordinary power he exercised over the minds and feelings of the people of Ireland? Let them consider the conduct of the majority of this House, assisted by a large portion of the people of this country, in resisting the Catholic claims, till it was almost too late to grant them at all! and was it to be wondered at that the poor peasants of Ireland should feel a deep debt of gratitude towards a man, who had in the face of this opposition so long and on consistently fought the battle of their liberties, and had at last succeeded in placing them on a footing of equality with their fellow citizens; and when these men heard opinions from men high in office in this country, such as these which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, it brought the blame home to that House. That exciting addresses of the kind alluded to had such a powerful effect on the people of Ireland, was the fault of the Legislature in not having attended to their wants. He should be sorry to believe that what was going on in Ireland was likely to be followed by a conflict between religious parties in that country. It might, however, become necessary to take some measure of strong precaution to avert the danger of such an occurrence: but if a Government should ask for such a measure, it behaved them at the same time to hold out to the people of Ireland some hope of redress for their grievances; and he for one would not lend his assistance to the passing of such a measure, unless he heard some expectation held out of an intention to inquire into and redress the wrongs of which the people of Ireland so justly complained. Was it alleged that Parliament had been met by the people of Ireland with ingratitude, in return for concessions they had already made? He denied the justice of such an allegation; and he would say, let Parliament once make the people of Ireland sensible that the British Legislature was their friend and not their foe, that they had their interest and happiness at heart, equally with that of the rest of the empire; and he firmly believed that they would no longer hear the vast clamour which was now raised in that country for the Repeal of the Legislative Union between the two countries. He for one, was convinced, that the downfall of the empire would date from the separation of the two countries; and he would always lend his assistance to resist any attempt to consummate such a project; but, at the same time, he would not lend his assistance to pass a measure of a one-sided character, which only went to prove to the people of Ireland that they had no justice to expect from this House.

Mr. M. Milnes

was sorry to hear the right hon. Member for Coventry say, that he would vote against her Majesty's Government on the present occasion, because he had believed, that the right hon. Gentleman must have recollected, that there once existed a Government, not unmindful of the claims of Ireland, who had brought forward a coercion bill of a much more stringent character than any that had been brought forward by the present Ministry, and he would have expected that, recollecting this circumstance, the right hon. Gentleman might have been disposed to consider the difficulties under which a Ministry might labour in the Government of Ireland, and not to content himself with merely protesting against their acts. The Arms Bill, however, had often been enacted, and the additional clauses which had been introduced in the present bill he considered essential to its utility. It was with the greatest diffidence that he advanced an opinion on so difficult a subject; it was from no love of paradox that he stated his views, but from sincere conviction. He was persuaded then that there was one great and leading error in our Government of Ireland—an error which was now culminating, and the fatal consequences of which we experience every day—he meant the total disregard of the feelings and interests of the Roman Catholic clergy. No man could read the history of Ireland without feeling, that if there was one characteristic for which the people of that country was remarkable—if there was one fact which stood out more prominently than another in modern history—if there was one circumstance sufficient to confront the sceptical tendencies and infidel spirit of the age, it was the essentially religious feeling of the people of Ireland. If it had been the good fortune of England to unite the Irish with her own people under one great national system of Christianity, the greatest blessings would have resulted to both countries; but as it had not pleased Providence to vouchsafe to us such a blessing, it was our next business to see what was best to be done with the Roman Catholic Church as we now found it. He did say, that there was not a man who read the history of Ireland but must feel this—that the Roman Catholic people of Ireland could not be governed in any way successfully and advantageously without the consent and good will of the Roman Catholic pastors of that country. He did not think it at all followed that because they were bound to conciliate pastors of the Roman Catholic people, that the Anglican Episcopal Church should be destroyed in Ireland. He could not find, by looking into the best sources of information at his command, that that Church, as it stood at present, was in any way a practical grievance to the Irish people. He found the Irish Church supported through means of a rent-charge; he found, that by the admirable arrangements introduced by the noble Secretary of the Colonies, such things as 1600 actions concerning tithes were no longer heard of, and he really thought that the abolition of the establish- ment would be productive of no monetary benefit to any class except the landlords. How it could be proved to the people of Ireland, that it would be a benefit, that the tithe which was now given to the religion of the mass of the landlords should be transferred to the pockets of the landlords themselves, was beyond his comprehension. As far as he could see, the landlords already got out of Ireland a little more than was their due; and he certainly; did not think, that it would be any advantage to the country, that they should, in addition, lay hands on the revenues of the Church. Let it not be supposed, however, that he maintained the Irish people had no grievances, because they were not of a monetary character. We could not read the history of the world without seeing that most great changes originated in imaginary grievances, imaginary benefits, and imaginary rights. He, therefore, was persuaded that everything ought to be done by this country to prevent the Church of England from coming into hostile contact with the people of Ireland; to make the revenues of the Anglican Church nothing more than a portion of rent, taken by recipients, with whom the Roman Catholic clergy and people were even now well disposed to harmonies. Entertaining those views, he was most anxious that the Government should propound a measure that would be satisfactory to the clergy of Ireland. He knew the enormous difficulties they had to face, not only in Ireland, but in England. He knew the "no Popery" cry in England, however absurd it might be considered in that House, was in the minds of the people of England connected with the dearest liberties they had won, and the strongest feelings they had at heart. They might, if they pleased, call this superstition and folly; but it was the business of a Government to consult every feeling that pervaded the community. Every one then, must see that this was a question of great delicacy and forbearance, and he had a right to demand from hon. Gentlemen, on both sides, that if any measure, such as he hinted at was proposed, it should be received with the consideration that must arise from a feeling of the difficulties which surrounded it, and the danger of failure in touching it at all. But it might be said, that her Majesty's late Government, without any organic changes, established peace and good government in Ireland. That Government, as he had already said, was attended with the occa- sional disease of a coercion bill, and the chronic disease of an Arms Bill. The difference between the last and former Governments seemed to him to be this, one governed the north of Ireland through the south, and the others the south through the north. The latter gave power and patronage to the Protestant, the late Government transferred them to the Roman Catholics. It was very natural that the Roman Catholics should be grateful to any Government, that broke through the old system of Protestant ascendancy; but still to govern by their or by any ascendancy was not a sound and legitimate system of legislation. He did not think that a good Government which had arrayed against it almost all the wealth and a large part of the intelligence of the country. He believed that that only would be a good and efficient government for Ireland, which should assume and preserve the attitude of the Divine Messenger foretold in Holy Writ, which should stand with one foot on Protestant ascendancy, and with the other on Roman Catholic agitation, and proclaim, that faction should now be no more.

Sir C. Napier

rejoiced at having moved the adjournment, for it was the occasion of the delivery of many excellent speeches; and amongst others, he must refer to the straight-forward and manly speech of the right hon. Member for 'Coventry, which he was sure enlightened every man in the House. He rejoiced, too, at having made the motion of adjournment, for it gave the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department an opportunity of explaining away the very offensive expressions he had made use of. That right hon. Gentleman ought to feel greatly obliged to him. In making that motion, it was true he encountered the sneer of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley), in answer to his question about the Bishops. The noble Lord having defended the judicial appointments. After the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman the Recorder for Dublin that there was not a clergyman capable of becoming a bishop who was not averse to the scheme of education, he certainly did expect something like a defence of the ecclesiastical appointments. It appeared, however, that gentlemen of the law and of the navy had no business to interfere with such matters, and, as for himself, the noble Lord seemed to think that he was not entitled to give an opinion on any but naval affairs. He was glad to have such an attestation to his competency as to his own profession, because the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, and some others, seemed to doubt whether he were capable of giving a just opinion even on naval affairs. He owned he could not make so long and flowery a speech as the noble Lord; but he was just as capable of giving an opinion, and acting up to it. He had always believed that the first qualities of a statesman were moderation, good temper, and political consistency, with a due mixture of modesty. And, certainly, the speeches of the noble Lord gave no very striking indication of his possessing these high qualities of a superior man. Having said so much in his own defence, he came to the question before the House. If he believed that Arms Bills would do any good to Ireland, or put an end to the agitation in that unfortunate country, he should give this bill his support; but he thought it would have no other effect than to increase ten-fold an agitation which had spread from one end of the country to the other. He thought the strong declaration of the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, and of the Duke of Wellington, did more to advance the cause of repeal than the speeches of the hon. and learned Member for Cork. Another strong 'cause of excitement was the foolish expedient of sending steamboats and ships of war to Dublin, Waterford, and Cork. They should have been left at Falmouth, or some other English port, until a necessity arose for their services in Ireland. He also thought that superseding the magistrates showed no knowledge of human nature, and particularly of Irish nature. He could not comprehend how any one holding the high official situation of the Lord Chancellor could suppose he would be enabled to put down the cry of repeal by so timid and false a step. Having declared his opinion in condemnation of Government, he might say he was no admirer of the violent speeches pronounced in Ireland. He condemned them most strongly. When he heard the Irish people told they were as powerful as any army, and that they did not require an uniform to be as good as soldiers, he could not approve of such language. When he heard, too, the praise of officers, sergeants, and men of the army, he must say he could not approve of such language in a Member of Par- liament, particularly in the present highly exciteable state of Ireland. The Members for Bath, Sheffield, and Montrose gave it as their decided opinion that the Church ought to be put down. He could not at all agree with that; but he thought the Church ought to be reduced to the wants of the people. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last seemed to think that such a curtailment would merely tend to enrich the proprietors of land. No one ever proposed to reduce the revenues of the Church to increase the property of the landlords; but if the wants of the Protestants only were attended to, there must be a surplus, which could be applied to relieve the educational wants of the Catholics. He thought the Government ought to come forward with measures of conciliation. If they did, he would support them in any steps they deemed necessary to put down the present fearful agitation. He did not think the British empire safe for a moment while it continued. If they looked over Europe, they must see the danger of any outbreak. Depend upon it, if a rebellion broke out in Ireland, France would assist the insurgents, as England countenanced Belgium in throwing off the allegiance of the United Provinces.

Mr. L. Fox

said, that considering there was a notice of his on the books with regard to the Emancipation Act, and that it would be impossible for him to bring it under the notice of the House to-morrow night, in consequence of the other business which stood before it, and looking to the turn which this debate had taken, he thought he should be perfectly justified in introducing now the observations which he should have made on that motion. It was now distinctly stated—as he had always believed—that the Protestant Church in Ireland was to fall in case the Repeal of the Union was carried. The liberator too had clearly and distinctly announced that the year 1843 was to be the year of repeal, and there did appear to him every prospect of Mr. O'Connell's being able to fulfil that declaration, from the organisation which they had lately seen. His reason for wishing to state his opinions in this House on the present position of Ireland was, that he was firmly convinced that our glorious Protestant constitution, in which so great a breach was made by the act of 1829 was as much the law of God as the law delivered to the Israelites on Mount Sinai. This being his opinion, he must refer to Scripture in support of his arguments. Persons had said to him, that if he adopted such a mode of argument in the House of Commons he would be only laughed at, but he had a better opinion of this House than to suppose that they would not treat such a subject with reverence. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department had been taunted for saying, that he did not see how conciliation could be carried further. He was of the same opinion as the right hon. Baronet. He thought they had come to the time when they could yield no further. Christ himself had said, that the sword must be drawn in defence of his church, and he believed, that the state of things was now come to that pass, when nothing but war would settle the dispute between England and Ireland and save the Church from its enemies. Christ himself said to his disciples, When I sent you without purse and scrip and shoe, lacked ye anything? And they said, Nothing, Then said he unto them, But now he that hath a purse let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me; he was numbered with the transgressors, for the things concerning me have an end. And they said, Lord, behold here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough." He should also refer to the history of the world. If ever there were a period when it was necessary to draw the sword for the defence of the Church, he believed that the period had now arrived, and that it had been brought forward by the Catholic Emancipation Act. As he entertained a high respect for many gentlemen professing the Roman Catholic religion, he was sorry to differ from them on the subject, but he had a duty to perform, and before that all other considerations should yield. Unless he was firmly convinced of the truth of his church, he would not stand up in this manner in support of it. He would again refer to scripture to show its truth and the importance of defending it as he had done before. The prophet Isaiah said, Behold my servant, whom I uphold—mine elect in whom my soul delighteth. have put my spirit upon him; he shall bring forth judgment unto the Gentiles. He shall not cry nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax he shall not quench; he shall bring forth judgment unto the truth, and the Isles shall wait for his law Could there be any man in these British Isles so ignorant as not to perceive that this referred to the British nation and the British church—that the prophet spoke of the day when England shook off the domination of Rome and established her Protestant faith by the Revolution of 1688? He was sure that it could have no reference to any ether event. Having entered into this subject, he must impress on the House his view of the Romish power being the power with which the Church of England was at war, and he should consequently refer to the French Revolution, when France shook off Christianity altogether, and her soldiers chose their general as the Emperor of the French—that man being one of those mentioned in Scripture as of the Roman empire, and an emanation of Roman Catholic power. They must remember that Rome was the power under which the lsraelitish nation was in subjection at the time of the appearance of the Saviour. We were told that there were eight kings to arise. One lived in the time of the first preaching of the Gospel. We knew no power in the world which had so many different forms of government as the Romans. They bad kings, consuls, decemvirs, dictators, triumvirs, and emperors. These were the powers by which Rome was governed. Mark his words. His intention was to prove that the late emperor of the French was the seventh head from the Roman power. He adopted the consular form of government, and the Roman eagle as the emblem of his power, and the other powers having been pagan he declared himself a pagan, and acknowledged no god, but Mars the god of war, and a mighty God he found when he left him in the lurch on the plaits of Waterloo. Whilst he was exhibiting himself in that position as the head of the Roman power, the Pope was deposed and carried into captivity. If the Reformation were not the work of God, the Church of England stood on very slender foundations; but if it was of God, then he would contend that the admission of Roman Catholics to that House could not be justified on any jesuitical grounds whatever. The hon. Member for Cork said, it was the Catholic rent that carried emancipation, and it was by the repeal rent he would carry repeal. So that it was clear the hon. and learned Member trusted to lucre for success, not to the justice of this cause. It was said, that Rome was not now to be feared, but if the house would permit him to proceed, he would say Rome was more terrible in these days than she ever had been since she was first fondled by that she-wolf, the old wet-nurse of Romulus and Remus. He said yesterday to an acquaintance of his, that people said he was mad, when he told him an anecdote of George 3rd, who talking to his Ministers about Lord Nelson, when they said he was mad; his Majesty replied, "I wish he would bite some of my admirals." He must acknowledge that there were great difficulties in the way of this nation with reference to the Church of Rome. He must state his opinion of the future prospects of the Church of England. After the transfiguration▀×when Moses and Elias had been seen talking with our Saviour, they should mark his words His disciples said-" How say the Scribes that Elias must first come." To which he replied, "Elias shall truly first come and restore all things." This he said after John the Baptist, whom he called Elias, had been beheaded. It might be seen that Elias was not far off. He would show them from whence Elias would come. It is to the Israelites that the oracles of God are committed, and it is a common opinion amongst mankind, that at the destruction of the Jewish nation the whole race of Israel fell from grace. But that was not the case, for it is written, "I will set a sign amongst them and will send them that escape to the nations that draw the bow, to the isles afar off, and they shall declare my glory amongst the Gentiles." You see, therefore, that here in these British isles, where God has planted his true Church, has he also planted a branch of Israel to stand by it in the last days; they have stood by it, they do stand by it, and they will stand by it for ever. When that abomination of modern legislation, the Roman Catholic question, was under discussion, the Lord Chancellor Eldon, the keeper of the King's conscience, as he was called, said, "if that measure passed, that England's sun would set," but he knew not the mighty vigour of Eng land's heart, England's sun has doubtless, been by that act eclipsed, but he will soon burst the bonds of darkness and shine again more glorious than ever. The powers of darkness have been in these latter days, like the ocean's tide which comes with rush on the river which runs beside us and forces it back towards its source, but cannot pass the allotted bounds; thus has it been with the rulers of the darkness this world; they have made an inroad into the heart of this British nation as far as they can go, but shall now fall back, and like the host of Pharaoh be for ever buried n the bosom of the ocean; but the waters if Judith will still flow over, therefore the iniquities of the outcasts of Israel, will be cast into the depths of the sea and will lever be found; now will I say to the long dispersed and afflicted people of Israel, stand up on Jerusalem that has drunk at he hand of the Lord the cup of his fury, thou hast drunken the dregs of the cup of trembling and wrung them out, they shall drink it again no more for ever.

Mr. M. J. O'Connell

thought he could trace the whole of the speeches made by hon. Members opposite, from the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyne (Mr. Colquhoun), down to the hon. Member who had just sat down, to the observations to the right hon. Baronet the Secretary hon the Home Department, who had told the House that in Ireland conciliation had gone to its utmost, and had opened the whole of that religious discussion which had usurped the place of the discussion on the Arms Bill, not only that night, but at the close of the previous night. The hon. Member for Newcastle had reminded him of the time when that hon. Member represented a Scottish constituency, and introduced his bill about Maynooth College, and procured the appointment of the everlasting Intimidation Committee. What the hon. Member's speech had to do with the question of the Arms Bill, he could not discover. He would show the House what was the value of the hon. Member's testimony with reference to Ireland. In 1839 the hon. Gentleman stated before a committee on the state of Ireland, in answer to a question with respect to an estate in the Queen's county, that a person named Price, an agent on board of the packet, in going over, had informed him that a man of the name of White, a schoolmaster, was a Ribbonman. Price was examined, and stated, that he had never told the hon. Member that this individual was a Ribbonman: next, that Ribbonism was unknown in the Queen's county; and lastly, that he had never said that White was a conspirator, or Whitefoot of any kind. He thought it right to quote this, after the hon. Member's invectives against the Roman Catholic clergy, in order that the House might not place confidence in the statements he had made. He would not go further into the religious question; but he knew that what had been the cause of the irregularity in the debate, had been the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He thought that in the passage which had been commented upon, the right hon. Gentleman had guarded himself from conveying any intended insult to the Roman Catholics; he did not think the right hon. Gentleman had guarded those who cheered him. He thought it was one of those passages in which the speaker touched on a forbidden ground, did not say all he meant himself, but left the meaning to be cheered out by his auditors. But what was the purport of the right hon. Baronet's speech? The meaning of it was, that the Roman Catholics had obtained emancipation under false pretences; it was the practical purpose entertained by the hon. Member for Ipswich, of repealing the Emancipation Act. Did the right hon. Gentleman think that the feelings of irritation and contempt entertained in Ireland would be diminished when his speech was read there? If placards had been published with the name of the noble Lord near him (Lord Russell), he thought there might be placards published with more exciting language quoted from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department. He trusted his countrymen would not use exciting language; there was sufficient to excite hem already without it. But still more improvident was the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, who charged the noble Lord the Member for London with having furnished the agitators with a weapon for repeal, by saying that the Union might be repealed, like any other Act of Parliament. The noble Lord complained very much of this, but in the very next sentence of his speech he said, "I quite concur with the noble Lord, that the Union may be repealed like another statute." He hoped that in the next placard published the sentence would be the same, but that, instead of the name of Russell, that of Stanley would be used. The right hon. Baronet had given the House an additional night's debate on this bill, and in two nights debate they had got rid of two of the most obnoxious provisions of the bill. Mr. Fox, in 1783 —Mr. C. Fox in bringing forward a measure to secure the legislative independence of Ireland, said, that the Ministers who preceded him had not conceded the claims of Ireland on the subject of commerce, until Ireland had armed herself, and the troops had been withdrawn from the country to fight the rebellious colonists. He declared that his predecessors had set the example to the Irish that if they were to gain their rights it would not be by humble petition or quiet remonstrance, but by taking the opportunity of arming themselves, and making themselves troublesome to England. A new era had now come. Armed meetings had passed away, but unfortunately the same spirit still prevailed. They had learned from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that if they had grievances, and wished for redress, it must not be by calm reason, or the force of argument, but by menaces and agitation—by having recourse to measures which were only to be used in an extreme case, and only to be justified by necessity. When this was the only means by which the Irish could obtain their rights, the blame cast upon the employment of those means came with a bad grace from those who denied them every other. It was said this bill was not intended to put down agitation. If so, what was meant by those allusions continually made, by the Hotspurs of the party opposite, to the danger of meetings called for the purpose of petitioning Parliament. It was convenient to raise a cry against Ireland of the local circumstances of which so many Members in that House were ignorant, and therefore taunts were not spared which were calculated to excite bitter feelings in the breasts of many hon. Members, who revolted against the provisions of this bill as compared with former acts—against the branding clause, and the clauses respecting registry. But what did the hon. Member for Waterford ask the House to do? He asked them to go into committee to see what alterations might be made in the bill. If Ministers had any confidence in their own measure they might safely assent to that proposition. They had already given up two clauses of the bill. Did not that show that they had acted with precipitancy and without judgment in bringing it forward? And did it not furnish an argument in favour of the motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Wyse)? If the Government had been so badly informed as to devise those two clauses and then to feel it their duty to withdraw them, why not go into committee and see whether other of the clauses, or even all the clauses might not be with equal justness dispensed with? The hon. Gentleman thanked the House for the patient hearing they had given him, and sat down amidst general cheers.

Mr. Muntz

had not the slightest intention to take any part in the present debate merely respecting the Arms Bill, of which he knew nothing, such a measure never having been connected with the Government of England. But the discussion had very much altered during the debate, and many things had been introduced respecting Ireland, which gave to their deliberations a very different character from what the mere measure of an Arms Bill might have borne. He heard from all quarters, that great excitement and great agitation existed in Ireland; and that large meetings of the people of Ireland were held for effecting a repeal of the Union. Now, he could not understand why these meetings should be any cause of complaint. He could not understand why the Irish people should not meet to discuss their grievances as well as the English. He himself had been in his time an agitator to a very considerable extent. In the agitation for Reform during the years 1531, 1532 and 1533, he took as large a share as any man in England, and he never had any other intention but that of doing right to all. He sought at that time to remove what were then called the rotten boroughs, and to give to Englishmen the right of representation. Why then should they find fault with the people of Ireland for agitating in the same peaceable and constitutional manner? remembered perfectly well, that after the celebrated three days in 1532, when the people of Birmingham had met two and three hundred thousand a day, that a deputation came to London to wait on the Government. His predecessor, and his present colleague, and himself, waited on the venerable Lord Grey, and the then Lord Althorn, and the right hon. Baronet the present Secretary for the Home Department. The deputation were received by the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman in a very gracious manner. He mentioned this to recall to the right hon. Baronet's mind, the fact that no mischief resulted from the encouragement which the Government of that day gave to the agitation which then existed. And yet he also remembered that he himself was told at that time by a very respectable gentleman, that the Birmingham Political Union had determined to rob everybody—and that it had resolved to divide the land of the country upon the principle of the agrarian law. The gentleman who made this announcement to him did not know him, nor it the time did he know the alarmist; but he afterwards ascertained that the gentleman was a clergyman of the Established Church. He (Mr. Muntz) was Vice-president of the political union at that very time, and he solemnly declared that he knew nothing at all about it. If he hail, in 1532, stated it before such an assembly as he was now addressing, it was possible he might not have been believed. But eleven years had since passed away, and he could safely state to the House that there never was the slightest intention on the part of any person connected with the political union to do harm to any man or thing whatsoever. They ought not, therefore, to suppose, that the people of Ireland intended to do wrong. They ought to be allowed the same privilege of agitation as the people of England, and he felt that so long as they carried on their agitation in a peaceable manner, no interference of the Government was prudent or wise; and certainly, so long as they so conducted themselves, he should not give his consent to any Arms Bill. He really thought that the Government made much more of this Arms Bill measure than it merited. It would not cure the evil it was intended to meet; and, on considering the whole matter, he was of opinion that the Government ought to pause and reflect whether they would not do more mischief by passing it than by suffering it to lapse. Although such a law had existed for fifty years, would it not be well for Ministers to endeavour to govern Irishmen like human beings? It came to that. Why not try it? Had they tried the Irish people by giving them those concessions which ought to be granted to them. He believed that if Irishmen were treated as Englishmen they would be a very different people from what they were now. It had been said, that this was a church questions. He doubted it very much; but if it were, then he should say that the necessity of caution was still greater. He knew what it was to be charged with wishing to do injury towards the Church. An information was once filed against him on a charge of which he was as innocent as the right hon. Gentleman who now filled the chair of the House of Commons; and what was the fact? If he had not had money at his command, he should have been imprisoned, and that without there being any truth whatever in the assertions made against him. He doubted whether this was a church bill, and he would tell them why. The Liberator had been doing all he could in favour of repeal; but how long since had he succeeded, and why? Only since he had advocated the cause irrespective of all religious distinctions. The success of his advocacy was, because all the people were equally interested; for it was in truth nothing less than a question of the stomach. He believed that if the people of Ireland were as comfortable and as well off as they ought to be, Mr. O'Connell might agitate as much as he pleased, but it would be in vain. It was, as Napoleon said to Las Cases at St. Helena, but a question of the stomach. "C'est le petil ventre qui gouverne le monde." But the Government were wrong. They were labouring under a great mistake. It was very true, they had a large majority in the House, but it was a total mistake to suppose that they had gained any weight in the country. A great change had taken place within the last two years. He had himself heard scores and hundreds of men who bad hailed the advent of the present Government to power, and had used the most anxious language for their accession to it, now wish them dispossessed of it. He did not say this to offend her Majesty's Ministers. But he could not use the language of flattery. The worst of friends were those who flattered. He told the Government facts without any great embellishment. He was confident that if a dissolution of Parliament were now to take place, a very small proportion of those who now constituted the majority of the right hon. Gentleman would be returned again to that House. For it was not one interest only that was opposed to the right hon. Gentleman. Every interest was dissatisfied; the commercial interest in particular. There was only one interest, and that in his estimation the least, that could be considered favourable to the right hon. Gentleman's policy—that of the Church. But to satisfy the Church, would not satisfy him (Mr. Muntz); nor would it satisfy the stomachs of the people, and if they did satisfy the stomachs of the nation, they could not satisfy the country. He hoped the Government would consider these things, and reflect whether it would not be better to conciliate the people of Ireland than enforce a measure which must animate their feelings against the Government of this country.

House divided on the question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question. Ayes 276; Noes 122;—Majority 154.

List of the Ayes.
Ackers, J. Compton, H. C.
Acland, Sir T.D. Connolly, Col.
A'Court, Capt. Corry, rt. hon. H.
Acton, Col. Courtenay, Lord
Adare, Visct. Cripps, W.
Adderley, C. B. Damner, hon. Col.
Ainsworth, P. Darby, G.
Alford, Visct. Dawnay, hon. W. H.
Antrobus, E. Denison, E. B.
Arbuthnot, hon. H. Dickinson, F. H.
Archdall, Capt. M. Douglas, Sir H.
Arkwright, G. Douglas, J. D. S.
Ashley, Lord Douro, Marq. of
Bailey, J. Dowdeswell, W.
Bailey, J. jun. Drummond, H. H.
Baillie, Col. Duncombe, hon. A.
Baillie, H. J. Dungannon, Visct.
Baird, W. Du Pre, C. G.
Baring, hon. W. B. Eaton, R. J.
Barneby, J. Egerton, W. T.
Barrington, Visct. Egerton, Sir P.
Baskerville, T. B. M. Eliot, Lord
Bateson, Emlyn, Visct.
Beckett, W. Escott, B.
Bentinck, Lord G. Estcourt, T. G. B.
Beresford, Major Farnham, E. B.
Bernard, Visct. Feilden, W.
Blackburne, J. I. Fellowes, E.
Blackstone, W. S. Ferguson, Sir R. A.
Blakemore, R. Ferrand, W. B.
Bodkin, W. H. Flower, Sir J.
Boldero, H G. Follett, Sir W. W.
Borthwick, P. Forbes, W.
Botfield, B. Forester, hn. G. C.W.
Boyd, J. Fox, S. L.
Bradshaw, J. Fuller, A. E.
Bramston, T. W. Gaskell, J. Milnes
Broadley, H. Gladstone, rt. hn. W.E.
Broadwood, H. Gladstone, Capt.
Bruce, Lord E. Glynne, Sir S. R.
Buck, L. W. Godson, R.
Buller, Sir J.Y. Gordon, hon. Capt.
Bunbury, T. Gore, W. O.
Burrell, Sir C. M. Gore, W. R. O.
Campbell, Sir H. Goring, C.
Cardwell, E. Goulburn, rt. hon. H.
Cavendish, hon. G. H. Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.
Chapman, A. Granby, Marq. of
Charteris, hon. F. Greenall, P.
Chelsea, Visct. Greene, T.
Chetwode, Sir J. Gregory, W. H.
Cholmondeley, hn. H Grimsditch, T.
Christopher, R. A. Grogan, E.
Chute, W. L. W. Hale, R. B.
Clayton, R. R. Halford, H.
Clerk, Sir G. Hamilton, J. H.
Clive, Visct. Hamilton, G. A.
Clive, hon. R. H. Hamilton, W. J.
Codrington, Sir W. Hamilton, Lord C.
Collett, W. R. Hampden, R.
Colquhoun J. C. Hanmer, Sir J.
Colvile, C.R. Harcourt, G. G,
Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H. Newport, Visct.
Hardy, J. Nicholl, rt. hn. J.
Hayes, Sir E. Norreys, Lord
Heathcote, G. J. Northland, Visct.
Henley, J. W. O'Brien A. S.
Henniker, Lord Owen, Sir J.
Hepburn, Sir T. B. Packe, C. W.
Herbert, hon. S. Palmer, R.
Hervey, Lord A. Palmer, G.
Hodgson, R. Palmerston, Visct.
Hogg, J. W. Patten, J. W.
Hope, hon. C. Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Hope, G. W. Peel, J.
Hornby, J. Pennant, hon. Col.
Howard, Lord Pigot, Sir R.
Hughes, W. B. Plumptre, J. P.
Hussey, A. Polhill, F.
Hussey, T. Pollock, Sir F.
Ingestrie, Visct. Praed, W. T.
Inglis, Sir It. H. Price, R.
Irton, S. Pringle, A.
Jermyn, Earl Pusey, P.
Jocelyn, Visct. Reid, Sir J. R.
Johnstone, Sir J. Rendlesham, Lord
Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H. Repton, G. W. J.
Jones, Capt. Rice, E. R.
Kelly, F. Richards, R.
Kemble, H. Rolleston, Col.
Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.
Knight, H. G. Round, C. G.
Lambton, H. Round, J.
Law, hon. C. E. Rous, hon. Capt.:
Lefroy, A. Rushbrooke, Col.
Legh, G. C. Russell, Lord, J.
Leslie, C. P. Russell, C.
Liddell, hon. H. T. Russell, J. D. W.
Lincoln, Earl of Sanderson, R.
Lockhart, W. Sandon, Visct.
Lopes, Sir R. Scarlett, hon. R. C.
Lowther, J. H. Seymour, Sir H. B.
Lowther, hon. Col. Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Lyall, G. Shirley, E. J.
Lygon, hon. Gen. Sibthorp, Col.
Mackenzie, T. Smith, A.
Mackenzie, W. F. Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.
Mackinnon, W. A. Smyth, Sir H.
Maclean, D. Smythe, hon. G.
McGeachy, F. A. Smollett, A.
Mahon, Visct. Somerset, Lord G.
Mainwaring, T. Sotheron, T. H. S.
Manners, Lord C. S. Spry, Sir S. T.
Manners, Lord J. Stanley, Lord
Marsham, Visct. Stanley, E.
Martin, C. W. Stewart, J.
Maxwell, hon. J. P. Stuart, W. V.
Meynell, Capt. Stuart, H.
Mildmay, H. St. J. Sturt, H. C.
Miles, P. W. S. Sutton, hon. H. M.
Miles, W. Talbot, C. R. M.
Milnes, R. M. Taylor, T. E.
Mordaunt, Sir J. Tennent, J. E.
Morgan, O. Thesiger, F.
Mundy, E. M. Thornhill, G.
Murray, C. R. S. Tollemache, hn. F. J.
Neeld, J. Tollemache, J.
Neville, R. Tomline, G.
Newdigate, C. N. Trench, Sir F. W.
Trollope, Sir J. Wilbraham, hn. R. B.
Turnor, C. Wood, C.
Tyrell, Sir J. T. Wood, Col.
Verner, Col. Wood, Col. T.
Vernon, G. H. Wortley, hn. J. S.
Vesey, hon. T. Wynn, Sir W. W.
Vivian, J. E. Young, J.
Waddington, H. S.
Welby, G. E. TELLERS.
Wellesley, Lord C. Fremantle, Sir T.
Wemyss, Capt. Baring, H.
List of the NOES.
Aglionby, H. A. Gore, hon. R.
Aldam, W. Granger, T. C.
Archbold, R. Hall, Sir B.
Bannerman, A. Hastie, A.
Barnard, E. G. Hatton, Capt. V.
Barron, Sir H. W. Hawes, B.
Berkeley, hon. H. F. Hayter, W. G.
Blake, Sir V. Hill, Lord M.
Bodkin, J. J. Hindley, C.
Bowes, J. Horsman, E.
Bowring, Dr. Howard, hn. C.W.G.
Brotherton, J. Howard, P. H.
Browne, hon. W. Howard, hon. H.
Busfeild, W. Howard, hon. J.
Byng, rt. hn. G. S. Hutt, W.
Carew, hon. R. S. Jervis, J.
Cavendish, hon. C. C. Johnson, Gen.
Chapman, B. Langston, J. H.
Childers, J. W. Leader, J. T.
Christie, W. D. Listowell, Earl of
Clements, Visct. Marjoribanks, S.
Clive, E.B. Mitcalfe, H.
Cobden, R. Mitchell, T. A.
Colborne, hn. W.N.R Muntz, G. F.
Collett, J. Murphy, F. S.
Collins, W. Napier, Sir C.
Corbally, M. E. Norreys, Sir D. J.
Craig, W. G. O'Brien, J.
Crawford, W. S. O'Brien, W. S.
Dalrymple, Capt. O'Connell, M. J.
Dashwood, G. H. O'Conor Don
Dawson, hon. T. V. O'Ferrall, R.M
D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C.T. Ord, W.
Divett, E. Oswald, J.
Duff, J. Paget, Col.
Duke, Sir J. Parker, J.
Duncan, Visct. Pechell, Capt.
Duncan, G. Philips, G. R.
Duncombe, T. Pigot, rt. hon. D.
Dundas, Adm. Plumridge, Capt.
Dundas, D. Ponsonby, hon. C.F.C.
Ellice, rt. hon. E. Ponsonby, hon. J. G.
Ellice, E. Pulsford, R.
Elphinstone, H. Redington, T. N.
Esmonde, Sir T. Ricardo, J. L.
Evans, W. Roebuck, J. A.
Ewart, W. Ross, D. R.
Fielden, J. Russell, Lord E.
Ferguson, Col. Seale, Sir J. H.
Fitzroy, Lord C. Smith, B.
Forster, M. Stansfield, W. R. C.
Gibson, T. M. Strutt, E.
Gill, T. Tancred, H. W.
Gisborne, T. Thornely, T.
Towneley, J. Wawn, J. T.
Trelawny, J. S. Williams, W.
Tuite, H. M. Wood, B.
Villiers, hon. C. Wortley, Lord
Vivian, hon. Capt. Yorke, H.R
Wakley, T.
Wall, C. B. TELLERS.
Ward, H. G. Blewitt, R. J.
Watson, W. H. Wyse, T.
Pairs (Nonofficial.)
AYES NOES.
Burdett, Sir F. Cave, O.
Wodehouse, E. Currie, R.

Main question, that the Speaker do now leave the Chair again proposed.

Viscount Clements

moved, that the debate be adjourned.

Sir V. Blake

rose to speak amid much confusion. He wished to record his vote against this inroad upon the liberties of Irishmen, and warned all English Members, that the next attack would be made on the liberties of their country. The hon. Baronet referred to what had been said by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Lane Fox), that this was to be the year of Repeal, and assured Ministers that they could not resist it if the Protestants of Ireland joined in demanding it. Upon this point the hon. Baronet read an extract from the Dublin Evening Mail, the organ of the Orange party. He maintained, that the grievances under which the people of Ireland suffered ought to be redressed; they only asked what had been promised by the Union—equality of rights, laws, and institutions: this promise had been five times broken, and Irishmen were no longer to be deluded. The first Arms Bill was passed at a time when it was sufficient to be a Catholic to deprive a party of the power of carrying arms.

Mr. More O'Ferrall

suggested, that the alterations intended in the bill should be made pro forma, and the bill reprinted.

Motion for the adjournment withdrawn.

The House went into committee upon the bill, and resumed. Committee to sit again.

House adjourned at a quarter before two o'clock.