Commons Sitting of 2 February 1844

MINUTES.
The Standing Orders Moved and Ordered.
BILLS.Public.—1° Metropolis Improvements.
Privalc.—Resolved, that no petition for Private Bill be received after Friday, 23rd February; that no Private Bill be read the first time after Friday, 22nd March; and no Report be received after Friday, 24th May.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Pattison, from Thomas Clark; for Legal Reforms.—By Mr. Thornely, from Liverpool, complaining of Jury Panel (Dublin).—By Mr. S. Wortley, from Society for Preventing Cruelty to Animals, for Amendment of Slaughtering Horses Act.—From Thomas Horton, with Plan for Paying the National Debt.

STATE OR CANADA.
Mr. S. Wortleywished to ask his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies a question, on which it was of great importance that the country should obtain an intimation of the views of the Government; it was, whether the course which Sir Charles Metcalf had pursued as Governor-General of Canada had received the sanction and approbation of her Majesty's Government.
Lord Stanleywas not sorry that his hon. Friend had put this question, because he believed it to be matter of considerable importance that there should be no mistake as to the views of her Majesty's Government. He did not hesitate to say, that the course which had been taken by Sir Charles Metcalf had the entire concurrence and approbation of her Majesty's Government. The resolution of sending out Sir Charles 'Metcalf as Governor to Canada, a man of tried ability and of known liberality in his views of government, was a sufficient indication of the wishes of her Majesty's Ministers. Sir C. Metcalf went out to Canada to carry out fairly the new colonial system, but equally determined to resist those extravagant demands which were inconsistent with the authority of the Crown and of the true rights of a colonial legislature. He be-

145
lieved that the course taken by the Governor-general was the right one, and he had no hesitation in stating that it met with the entire concurrence of the Government at home.
Lord J. Russell, after that expression of opinion, would ask the noble Lord whether he would communicate to the House the instructions given to Sir Charles Metcalf, and the correspondence with him.
Lord Stanleydid not think that it would be of advantage to the public interest to communicate the instructions given, or the communications received. Whenever the noble Lord should bring forward the question for discussion he would be quite ready to explain the conduct of the Government, and he hoped to be able to explain to the satisfaction of the House and of the country.
Lord J. Russelldid not put his question as blaming Sir C. Metcalf, he neither blamed him, nor did he under present circumstances say that he approved of his conduct.

BRAZILIAN TREATY.
Mr. Hawesenquired whether the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would lay on the Table the papers explaining the object of Sir Henry Ellis's mission, and its results?
Sir R. Peelbegged to reply that, considering that the existing treaty with Brazil would expire in November next, and the present relations between this country and the Brazils, he did not think it consistent with his duty or with the public interests to lay the papers on the Table.

CHARITABLE TRUSTS.
Sir G. Greyinquired whether it was the intention of the right hon. Baronet, the Home Secretary, to bring in a bill to regulate the administration of public trusts? He had withdrawn his own bill, understanding that the Government would introduce such a measure.
Sir James Grahamreplied, that the right hon. Gentleman was aware that this was a subject not only most important, but one of the most complicated and difficult which could be taken up by any Member or any Government. His recollection of what took place last year did not quite agree with that of the right hon. Gentleman; he had told the right hon. Gentleman that a measure was under the consi-
146
deration of the Government; and that he had hoped last Session to have introduced a bill; but he left it to the right hon-Gentleman's own discretion whether he would take the sense of the House on the second reading of his own bill. During the recess, however, the subject had been anxiously considered by her Majesty's Government; and at a very early period a measure would be introduced into that or the other House of Parliament.

MR. BONHAM.
Sir R. Peel, seeing the hon. Member for Exeter in his place, and having observed on the books a notice of motion by the hon. Gentleman, of such a peculiar nature that unless it were explained, it would affect the character of an hon. Friend of his for whom he entertained the greatest respect, wished to ask for some explanation. The notice was,
"That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to dismiss Francis Robert Bonham, Esq., from the office of Storekeeper of her Majesty's Ordnance, &c."
He would, therefore, put it to the justice of the hon. Gentleman to have the goodness to state whether it were his intention to make any imputation upon Mr. Bonham in his business or conduct as a public officer, and if he would state concisely the particular ground on which he proposed to visit his hon. friend with the highest reprobation and dismissal from office?
Mr. Divetthad not the least objection to make a statement with reference to his motion, if the right hon. Baronet called for it, or if the House would receive it, either then or at any other time. He had made no statement, because he did not wish to put forward any thing which would convey imputation, which Mr. Bonham or his friends could not have the fullest opportunity of contradicting. Therefore it was, that he had not stated the ground on which he had proposed to move for the dismissal. He had only to say in reference to the conduct of Mr. Bonham, that he sincerely hoped that gentleman would be able to make a statement which would be satisfactory to him and the House, in reference to the conduct of which he complained. Although he was influenced by public considerations only, yet his principal reason for bringing forward his motion, had not a reference to the official position which Mr. Bonham held, but to the real

147
functions which he discharged at the Carlton Club, and in the Conservative party. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh; they possibly knew the functions which Mr. Bonham performed better than he did, but they were functions of a peculiar character, and it was necessary the country should know them. The charge which he had to adduce against Mr. Bonham had reference to his conduct in connexion with the late election for the city of London. Mr. Bonham, either through himself or guided by others, had made representations which, if not intentionally fraudulent, were certainly highly reprehensible. He regretted to be compelled to make any complaint of that kind. At one time, he thought of communicating with the right hon. Baronet opposite on the subject, with the view of ascertaining from him whether he sanctioned such an interference with the business of elections. On consideration, however, he did not feel it right to persevere in that course, thinking under all the circumstances that it would be better to bring the case forward in his place in Parliament. But if the right hon. Baronet would prefer to have the motion brought forward that evening rather than on Thursday, he would go into it then, though there were two or three letters to which he should wish to refer, and which he had not then with him.
Sir R. Peeldid not wish to call for any general statement with respect to the transaction. He only wished to know—as a motion had been put on the books for the dismissal of a public officer, whether it related to any act of official misconduct, or to some private transactions. He wished to know whether it related to Mr. Bonham, as a public officer.
Mr. Divettsaid, it did not relate to his conduct as a public officer in his official position. It regarded not his ostensible, but his real, connection with the Government.

THE PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS.
Mr. Wallacesaid, that before bringing forward the motion of which he had given notice (for rescinding the Standing Order which prevented any discussion on the Presentation of Petitions), he wished to have that Standing Order read. [The Standing Order of 1840 was then read. It enacted, that no Member on presenting a petition should do more than state its general substance—that no discussion should be al-
148
lowed on such presentation; but that if the petition related to a matter on which a Member intended to found a motion, he might move to have it printed with the votes, he giving at the time notice of such motion. From this rule were excepted, petitions complaining of a grievance, any delay in the notice of which might be injurious to the public or to individuals. There were also excepted from the rule, petitions against measures imposing direct taxation.] The hon. Member went on to say, that the motion with which he should conclude, would be, that the Standing Order just read, should be rescinded. As the question had occupied the attention of the House on two former occasions, it was not his intention to enter at any length into it, for the importance of having the petitions of the people received and discussed in that House was so obvious, that he could not see on what reasonable ground the practice could be set aside. During the period he had served in Parliament—since the year 1833—for two years of that period—1833 and 1834—the petitions of the people were discussed at the time of their presentation, and that diffused great satisfaction generally throughout the country. The discontinuance of the practice had produced the reverse result, having led to general disappointment among the people. Petitions were now laid upon the Table, and afterwards jammed into bags and sacks, as if they were of no importance whatsoever. Those who knew the consideration which the people attached to getting up their petitions, the respectful and careful manner in which they were worded, and the great interest which they took in them, should take counsel themselves before they gave a vote for the continuance of this obnoxious practice. He had no hesitation in admitting that a considerable degree of inconvenience was felt by the House at the time he alluded to, when discussions upon petitions were general on all questions; at the same time he was prepared to say, that there ought to be, and might be, a distinction, which could be easily laid down, in order to do away with the present system. He found, that in the year 1839, a division took place on this subject, when the numbers were 105 against the renewal of the practice, and 50 for it. In the year 1842, this question was again brought before the House twice, on one occasion by himself, and then the division was 43 for the motion and 183 against it. A similar motion was also made

149
by the hon. Member for Finsbury. He was then, as now, of opinion, that the people had an inherent right to have their petitions discussed on presentation, and it was an invidious proceeding of that House for hon. Members, by a majority, to wrest this right from the people. The opinion of the House had been given against him before, but the hon. Member for Finsbury brought the question before the House, whether in the case of taxation, when the people came there to complain of any new tax, about to be levied upon them, their petitions according to the old and healthy fashion, should be discussed at the time of presentation, by the Members who might present them, and those who chose to express their opinions upon the subject of the petition. The division on his hon. Friend's motion was 136 in favour of it, and 167 against it, showing that in this Parliament, composed, as it was, of a majority of Conservative Members, only a majority of 31 could be found to resist the motion of his hon. Friend. The people out of doors had no opportunity of seeing their petitions after they were laid before that House. The House had a system of sending them to a private committee, which dealt with them as it thought fit. Sometimes they were printed at length, sometimes in extracts, and often not printed at all, so that if the Members representing those who sent their petitions to that House, desired to let them see how they fulfilled their duty, so far as the presentation of their petitions went, they had not the means except by sending a note, to say that on such a day such a petition was presented. Out of doors, the people could not understand that, and he could assure the House that a vast number of the people generally, who entertained opinions still somewhat more favourable to the character of that House than others, found great fault with this system. The rule that individual petitions might be printed with the votes, was overborne by other rules. On two occasions, in the last Parliament, and on one in the preceding Parliament, he had been forced to leave petitions undiscussed altogether, because he could not find a day on which to bring them forward; notwithstanding he was in the House from the time it met, until it broke up at night, he never could find an opportunity to discuss these petitions, which were of an individual character; and he would not have them printed because he saw that they could not be discussed, and he would not be guilty of
150
the injustice of printing that which involved a charge which the party accused had no opportunity of defending himself against. It was, therefore, the duty of the House to adopt some stringent rule by which the petitions of the people should be better treated. They did not know whether their petitions had been attended to or not, and by an economical rule of an hon. Friend who sat near him, the lists of those petitions and other Parliamentary papers could not now be sent to them. He considered the present practice injurious to the best interests of the country, and obnoxious to the feelings of the people; and he believed the rescinding of the rule, as it now stood, would be an exceedingly gratifying thing to the people. Having stated the nature of the case which he had to bring before the House, and which had been twice before fully discussed in the present Parliament, he would merely observe, that if an unqualified veto were put on his proposal, the people would have a right to accuse the majority of that House of having done what in them lay to prevent their constituents from knowing what took place within its walls. The hon. Gentleman concluded by saying, that he should certainly divide the House upon his motion.
Dr. Bowringfully agreed with the observations made by his hon. Friend, and he should, therefore, feel great pleasure in seconding the motion. That House had not a more important function to exercise than to open its doors wide to the petitions of the people, which he thought should be treated with greater respect than they were. There was out of doors a growing indisposition to petition that House, and he believed it might be traced greatly to that inattention to the representations which from time to time were addressed to the Representatives of the country. With reference to the sale of Parliamentary papers, he thought it was attended with public benefit, and added greatly to their circulation; it was not only eminently useful, but highly economical. He would cheerfully co-operate with his hon. Friend in expressing a hope that the rule which existed, and which created a great deal of dissatisfaction out of doors, would be rescinded.
Sir R. Peelwas a little surprised at the observation of the hon. Gentleman who had last addressed the House, that there was an increasing disposition amongst the people of this country to withhold pe-

151
titions from that House. He rather thought, though he was speaking from memory, that the number of petitions presented last year amounted to about 25,000, and if the hon. Gentleman would compare the number presented last year with those of previous years, he did not think he would find a confirmation of his statement, that there was any disposition to withhold petitions from the House of Commons. But if the hon. Gentleman recollected the petitions that were presented on the subject of Education, when the Education Bill was under consideration last year, he thought he would find conclusive proof that there was no disposition on the part of those who had objections to a public measure, or felt themselves aggrieved by it, to present their petitions to the House of Commons; and he (Sir R. Peel) thought he had heard from the hon. Gentleman, or those sitting near him, that the result of those petitions proved the efficacy of the right to petition. The question was not the convenience of Members, but what practice would most conduce to the satisfactory conduct of Parliamentary business. Some years since it was the habit to enter into debates on the presentation of petitions, and then it was held to be useful that there should be such an opportunity, because many Members of Parliament distrusted their own powers, and were unwilling to enter into a general discussion; but he thought the confidence of the House, and of the Members in general had much increased, and there was no such diffidence on the part of individual Members in addressing the House. In point of fact, the practice had grown up of having debates on subjects of great public importance, which lasted six or seven nights, and thus the opportunity of addressing the House was afforded to every Member; and he thought a speech made a much greater impression when delivered in the course of a consecutive discussion, when the subject was fairly under review, than at an unexpected time on the occasion of presenting a petion. This subject had been brought under the consideration of the House so lately as 1842; and he begged to call the attention of the House to what had been the practice when the late Government was in power, when Lord Dunfermline, then Mr. Abercrombie filled the chair now so worthily occupied by the present Speaker. The House was then so sensible
152
of the inconvenience of occupying so much of the day upon petitions, when an important discussion was about to take place, that the practice was altered. Of course, it was perfectly competent for any Member, at any time within the limits fixed by the House for presenting petitions, to state the place from whence it came, its object, and the number of signatures, and if he pleased, have it read in full by the clerk at the Table. If he intended to found a motion on the subject, he might have it printed with the votes, and fix a day for the discussion of the matter to which it referred; but if the grievance complained of was urgent and could not be delayed without injustice then he apprehended it was competent to the hon. Member presenting it to bring it on for discussion at once. Looking at these regulations, he thought it much better that they should be preserved, as he considered that it would be better to adhere to the rule and have a subject fully discussed at once, than that it should be brought forward at uncertain intervals on the presentation of petitions. He had himself a strong opinion that it would be for the public advantage to adhere to the Standing Orders which were confirmed by a large majority, with the concurrence of men of all sides of the House, who had most experience in public business—and he hoped the House would not depart from the rules, which had been affirmed in 1842, after very mature consideration.
Mr. Brothertonhad often had conversations with his constituents respecting the present mode of presenting petitions, and he never found a man yet whom he did not convince of the impracticability of raising a discussion on the presentation of each petition. The present mode of presenting petitions, so far from being objectionable, he did not hesitate to say was the best he had ever seen. He could recollect the time when there were discussions on the presentation of petitions, and they could never get through with more than three or four in one day; all the rest were thrown on the Table, and it was impossible to present them in an orderly manner. He hoped his hon. Friends would not divide the House on this subject, after he had given them a statement of facts. It appeared from the reports made to that House, that in the five years ending 1789, the number of petitions presented had been 880; in the five years ending 1805, it had

153
been 1,026; in the five years ending 1815, it had been 4,498. In the five years ending 1831, it had been 24,492; and in the five years ending 1843, the number of petitions presented had been 94,292. Now, if a discussion were allowed on all petitions, the number so presented would be small, and confined to a few Members. He had seen one hundred Members with petitions in their hands waiting whilst Members made long speeches, and he had brought petitions down to that House eight or nine days consecutively, before he had been able to present them. He felt persuaded that the people would not be dissatisfied with the present mode if there had not been misrepresentations made to them on the subject; therefore, although he was generally on the popular side, and was not insensible of the good opinion of his constituents, yet from a sense of duty—being convinced that it would be impracticable to present petitions in any other way than that which was now pursued—he should feel bound to vote against the motion, if his hon. Friends persisted in it.
Mr. Wardhaving once brought forward a similar motion, could not help stating that he agreed with the view now taken by the hon. Member for Salford, and much as he might regret voting against a motion which he had originally made himself, he felt that the adjourned debates to which allusion had been made by the right hon. Baronet afforded, on all great questions, the Members representing large constituencies a better and more convenient opportunity of placing on record their sentiments than they could have in an incidental discussion on the presentation of a petition. But at the same time he must be allowed to remind the right hon. Baronet, that this consideration had been frequently overlooked by hon. Gentlemen who did not wish to take part in a debate themselves, and became very impatient to bring those debates to a close. If the right of debating on the presentation of petitions were given up on some of those questions affecting large commercial communities of this country, they must expect every Member representing a great town to speak. It was not above once or twice in a Session that those questions occurred; but when they did occur, he called upon the right hon. Baronet to consider that subject, upon which the House had made so great a change. The attempt to apply the old rule of debating on the presentation of petitions would be utterly impracticable. They
154
would come down to the House without knowing any hour when the public business was about to begin, and there would exist nothing but tedium and disgust from the multifarious subjects which would be introduced to the House. He, therefore, should vote against the motion of his hon. Friend, but with great regret; and although he had on a former occasion brought forward a similar motion himself, which he then thought it was wrong of the noble Lord to reject; but his opinion had changed, and be now believed the noble Lord was right, and himself wrong.
Mr. Fieldenhoped the hon. Gentleman would not withdraw the motion, but press it to a division. The people would be obliged to him for bringing it under discussion, and would be gratified to see a division, if ever so few Members voted for it. They never had an opportunity of knowing what many of the petitions which were presented contained, and he should like to know if it was not part of the business of that House to hear what petitioners had to say. With respect to the committee up stairs, though they had all the petitions handed over to them, they did not know what they contained. He could not see why a portion of the day, say from twelve to three, should not be devoted for the purpose of debates on the presentation of petitions. The people complained of their burthens, and the House told them they would not listen to their petitions; the right of petition was, then, quite a farce; the people were told to petition, and in the same breath it was said that their petitions would not be attended to. If they meant to govern the people by proper means, they must tell them to complain of their grievances and they would endeavour to redress them.
Mr. Wallacein reply, observed, that all that he had heard from both sides of the House did not convince him that he was not right. He was quite satisfied that the people out of doors would be exceedingly glad to see the rule of the House upon which his motion was founded rescinded. The hon. Member for Salford was one of the committee which did as it pleased with the petitions of the people, and he had never seen any one yet in power who liked to relinquish it; but as he had no power to induce the House to go beyond what they were determined to do, and as he never had a desire to waste the time of the House, he was quite wil-

155
ling to withdraw his motion. He was moreover, reminded by the First Lord of the Treasury, that if the rule were done away with, it would interfere with another regulation which he thought was essentially good. He, however, believed his proposition was perfectly practicable, which he might endeavour to show at some future time.
Motion withdrawn.

SESSIONAL ORDERS.
Sir G. Clerkmoved that the Sessional Orders be now read,
Mr. W. Williamssaid, that there were some of these Orders so much at variance with the proceedings of the House, that he was of opinion a select committee ought to be appointed for the purpose of revising them. When the House laid down rules for its mode of proceeding, the proceedings ought to be in accordance with the rules laid down, but the contrary was the practice, and, in fact, the rules were set at nought, although passed annually by a solemn vote of the House at the commencement of each Session. To prove this to be the case, he would mention one or two instances. He would first take one of the resolutions, which commenced by stating,
"That no Peer of this realm hath any right to give his vote in the election of any Member to serve in Parliament."
He would not now discuss the right of a Peer to vote at the election of any Member of that House—he would not enter into that question; but as the House established this Standing Order solemnly by a vote, it ought to have both the means and the disposition of enforcing the rules thereby established. But how, really, did the matter stand? He believed that there was no statute or common law in this country which forbade a Peer to vote in the election of a Member to serve in the House of Commons. He believed, if any Peer were to claim his right, in virtue of a proper qualification, to be placed upon the registry of voters, no revising barrister would refuse to admit his right and to allow the claim. Now, suppose a Peer was thus placed on the registry, he then had the right by law to vote; no individual at the poll was permitted to question his right. He had seen in one of the newspapers, that a Peer publicly stated he would act in direct opposition to the Standing Order, and would assert his right to vote at an election; he did not
156
know whether that Peer had carried his threatened intention into effect or not, but, supposing he had, he begged to ask how the House was to enforce its own Standing Order? Under what statute or what branch of the common law could it be enforced? The law gave the House no power to enforce it, and therefore it must resort to its own powers. But what would be the position of any hon. Member who should rise in his place and make a motion that the Peer had been guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House, that he therefore be called to the bar, and be committed to Newgate or the Queen's Prison, for violating the orders of the House? The noble Lord the Member for the city of London, and the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury, would be the first to stand up and condemn such a motion, and vet both the noble Lord and the right hon. Baronet were great sticklers for the privileges of the House, and had sustained them in a very manly manner; but in a case like that he had mentioned, they would abandon the attempt to enforce this Standing Order. That being so, then he (Mr. W. Williams) contended such an Order ought not to be voted, as it was only calculated to bring the authority of the House into ridicule and contempt, because it was an Order the House had neither the power nor the disposition to enforce. He would now take another Standing Order, which ran thus:—
"That it is a high infringement of the liberties and privileges of the Commons of the United Kingdom for any Lord of Parliament or other Peer or Prelate to concern himself in the election of Members to serve for the Commons in Parliament."
How, he begged to inquire, could this rule be enforced? It had not been enforced, though in 1836 it was notorious—nay, it had been proved before a committee, that the Members of the House of Peers, with scarcely a single exception, had exercised all the powers they possessed in virtue of their property or office to influence the election of Members of the House of Commons. It was perfectly well known that Peers had driven their tenants and dependents to the poll to vote, not according to the opinions of those tenants and dependents, but according to the political interest of each Peer, and if the tenants refused to obey Ids dictates they incurred his severe displeasure, and were visited by removal from their situations, or dismissal from their farms. What was the Chandos

157
clause in the Reform Bill for but to carry out powers which this Standing Order denied to Peers? He repeated, therefore, that as the House could not enforce these rules they ought not to be annually voted, and a committee ought to be appointed to take the whole of them into consideration; if so, a great many would be expunged as being wholly inapplicable to the objects for which they were passed. Before leaving this latter point, he must remark that it was very well known that Peers of the realm openly, and without disguise, subscribed vast sums of money—not thousands, but tens of thousands, for the purpose of buying and corrupting the electors to vote for their own political partizans. He ventured to say, there was not a Gentleman on the Treasury bench who could not point out Peers who had subscribed to the funds of the Carlton Club, and be was equally certain that Gentlemen on his own side of the House could point out Peers of their party who had done the same. Before he sat down, he would tithe another Standing Order, of which an hon. Gentleman near him (Mr. Christie) had given notice of his intention to move the rescinding. He understood the hon. Member did not mean to bring forward that motion to-night, and therefore he (Mr. W. Williams) would just advert to it. The Standing Order was in these terms,—
"That the Sergeant-at-Arms attending this House do, from time to time, take into his custody any stranger or strangers that he shall see, or be informed of to be, in the House or gallery while the House or any committee of the whole House is sitting; and that no person so taken into custody be discharged out of custody without the special order of the House."
Such was the Order, but what the practice? Why, one of the privileges of every Member of the House was to violate that rule every day; it was an acknowledged privilege of each Member to give an order for the introduction of a stranger into the gallery. Then, again, it was the Speaker's privilege to give as many orders for Mr. Speaker's gallery as it would contain; that privilege the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair had resigned for the use of Members, who could introduce their friends, by placing their names upon the list in the secretary's room. Again, the Sergeant-at-Arms, the very officer who was called upon by this Order to take all strangers into custody, granted permission, with the utmost courtesy and civility, to Members to
158
introduce their friends as vacancies in the gallery took place. How, then, could the House allow this rule, so openly violated, to remain among its Standing Orders? He thought he had, in the few observations he had made, shown to the House that its Orders could not be enforced in some instances, and that in others there was neither the power nor the inclination to enforce them. On these grounds he urged their removal from the rules and regulations of the House, which would make their proceedings more respected out of doors, and at the same time do away with the anomaly of making Orders which it was intended to break.
Colonel Wyndhamsaid, his observation had relation to a statement made by the hon. Member for Coventry. He could not sit still and hear such statements thrown out against the landed aristocracy as that they brought their tenants and dependants to the poll, and enforced from them a particular line of conduct, contrary to their feelings and ideas. He denied most emphatically such to be now the case, whatever it might have been fifty years ago.
Mr. Christieobserved with regard to the notice he had given, and which had been alluded to by the hon. Member for Coventry, that he begged to state, that after giving, the notice he found, on consulting with friends better able to judge of such a matter than himself, that it would be inconvenient to make the motion to which the notice related on bringing up the report. Of late years, on two occasions similar objections had been made to those parts of the Orders which were now objected to. On both occasions the Sessional Orders had been postponed, and the debate taken upon a day fixed for that purpose. After the notice which he had given he did not know exactly what course to pursue. He should be disposed to fix an early day for going into the subject, if the hon. Baronet opposite would consent to such an arrangement.
Several of the Orders were then agreed to.
Mr. W. Williams, in reference to the Order against bribery, said, that if the hon. Baronet would refer to the act very recently passed on the same subject, he would find that there was not the least necessity for continuing any such Order.
Sir G. Clerksaid, the act did not cover all the cases of bribery, which might be

159
brought within the operation of the Order.
Mr. Christiemust repeat the expression of his hope that the order would be postponed.
Sir G. Clerksaid, that the subject had frequently been under the consideration of the House. It had been brought forward in the year 1839, again in 1840, and again in 1842 by the hon. Member for Birmingham; but that was done, though the House had agreed to the present Order on the second day of the Session. The hon. Member, as he understood, intended to propose that a select committee be appointed; and surely the passing of the Order at present before the House would not interfere with the adoption of such a course.
Mr. Christieobserved, that the only advantage which could accrue from postponing the consideration of the Order would be, that by such a course he would secure an opportunity of bringing the subject under the consideration of the House—an opportunity which he might not otherwise have it in his power to secure; however, he would give notice and take his chance for getting the matter debated.
On the Order being read that Orders of the Day should take precedence of Notices of Motions on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays,
Mr. W. Williamssaid, that he wished this Order to be postponed, as he understood that it would be attended with inconvenience to go into a discussion of the subject now. Under the present system a number of Orders were placed on the list for each order-day, and it was hardly possible to tell which would be brought forward. He was anxious that the Orders on Government days should be taken in rotation, as they were on Wednesday, instead of being selected without any apparent reason. He was anxious to make some observations on the bills which were repeatedly on the order-book last Session, and he was brought down five different days, and was kept waiting all the evenings in expectation of their coming on; but other business was disposed of. If a register were made of the Orders, and they were taken on Government nights in rotation, a Member could form a tolerably accurate notion of the business likely to be brought forward. He trusted, that her Majesty's Ministers would not object to this plan.
Sir R. Peelthought, that there was always a general disposition on the part of the Government, as well as of private Members, to take the business of the House in a manner the best adapted for general convenience. He thought, that a general understanding of this nature was much better than any rule that they could adopt. If the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman was adopted it would often be attended with considerable inconvenience, and more especially on supply nights. The best course he conceived was, that the Government should always give notice for Government days of the business they intended to bring forward. The hon. Member complained that he had been brought down to the House on five several occasions, in expectation of certain business coming on, whereas other matter was discussed on each occasion. Now he did not think the hon. Member had any great ground of complaint, for at least, he had the satisfaction of being edified by hearing the discussions on other subjects.
The remaining Orders were agreed to.

THE REPORT ON THE ADDRESS.
Lord Clivebrought up the Report on the Address, which was read paragraph by paragraph, by the Clerk at the Table. Upon arriving at that paragraph of the Address which pledges the House to maintain inviolate the Legislative Union between Great Britain and Ireland.
Mr. Sharman Crawfordrose to object to the retention of this portion of the Address. If it were not right, as was elsewhere most justly stated, to take into consideration or to pronounce an opinion upon events in Ireland, in respect to which proceedings were pending before the proper legal tribunal, it was certainly not right to call upon the House to pledge themselves upon the subject of Repeal, a matter which assuredly had a great deal to do with the events now pending in Ireland, and a declaration upon which, on the part of the House, must have a very considerable influence, directly or indirectly, upon those proceedings, He objected, under these circumstances, to the House giving such a pledge as this at present. He had taken no part in the Repeal agitation, he did not belong to the Repeal Association, he had hitherto abstained from joining it; but, on the other hand, he must protest against giving any pledge, that under no circumstances should he think it proper to advocate a Repeal of the Union. For he felt

161
this, that unless the Union was to be carried out in an effective manner, so as that Ireland should receive full justice in every respect as well as England, the Union ought to be repealed. If such laws as the Irish Arms Bill were to characterise imperial legislation for Ireland, if Ireland were uniformly to be denied equal rights, mid equal justice, her people were fully warranted in demanding the Repeal of the Union, and the Repeal of the Union ought to be granted them, The House had often before entered into pledges expressive of its attachment to the Union, and had combined those pledges with declarations of their anxious desire to improve the condition of Ireland, and to raise the Irish people to an equality with the English people, but these pledges had uniformly been broken, and faith had not been kept with Ireland. The pledge was here again proposed, accompanied by a similar declaration, but he, for one, would be no party to the pledge, until he saw some practical steps taken towards realising the promise to do justice to his country. He conceived that those who were desirous of asserting the rights of Ireland should be very cautious how they adopted any such pledge as this. The Union had hitherto been maintained in a manner which inflicted the greatest wrongs on the people of Ireland. It had been said that there was a conspiracy in Ireland against the Government, he considered that there had been a conspiracy elsewhere against the people of Ireland. He would, however, abstain from entering on any part of the subject at present, and with the view of keeping clear in that House of any declaration of opinion, which might have any influence upon the pending trials—which most assuredly such a pledge as that proposed would have—he should move the amendment he had mentioned. He would merely warn the Government that the steps which had lately been taken in Ireland, had been adding to the numbers of the Repealers and the power of the Repeal agitation more than anything that had ever taken place here. Men the best affected to the British connection were placed in such a position that they really did not know what course to adopt. He himself was well inclined to maintain the connection, and had always been desirous of maintaining it, but if he were called upon to maintain it any longer at the sacrifice of the rights and liberties which he, as an Irishman, held most dear, he would throw the connection to the winds. The
162
hon. Member concluded by moving the omission from the Address of the following words:—
"We humbly thank your Majesty, that your Majesty, at the close of the last Session of Parliament, was graciously pleased to declare to us your firm determination to maintain inviolate the Legislative Union between Great Britain and Ireland; and also that your Majesty expressed at the same time your Majesty's earnest desire to co-operate with Parliament in the adoption of all such measures as might tend to improve the social condition of Ireland, and to develope the natural resources of that part of the United Kingdom."
Mr. F. Frenchwould suggest that the whole paragraph should be expunged, or not inserted until the Government had made some explicit statement as to what remedies they really proposed for the grievances of Ireland.
The O'Connor Donconcurred in thinking that at the present moment it would be extremely injudicious to insist upon the House coming to such a pledge as this, upon a subject which was the direct matter of important judicial proceedings now pending. It appeared to him that the opinions of Her Majesty on the subject of the Union had already been so explicitly declared in former sessions, that it was unnecessary to renew the declaration, or for the House to come to such a pledge as this at the present moment. It could hardly be doubted that an explicit declaration like this, under the existing circumstances, would practically amount to a declaration that the proceedings of those whose conduct was now the subject of inquiry, were at variance with the feelings and wishes of Her Majesty, and this could not but have an effect in influencing the jury; on this account he thought the House ought to be very chary how they adopted any such expressions. This was not an occasion for discussing the policy of repeal, and therefore, he would merely observe that, when a more fitting time should arrive, he conceived the subject itself was perfectly open for discussion. As had been observed by the noble Member for London last year, the question of repealing an act of Parliament, and the Union was only an act of Parliament, was one the discussion of which was no infringement of the constitution; but, on the contrary, it was part of the constitution that Parliament and people should have full liberty to discuss such questions. The

163
question agitated in Ireland was not the separation of the two countries, but the restoration of the domestic legislature, as it existed before the Union.
Sir Robert Peelthought he might safely appeal to the House, whether the general tenour of this Address was not that which carried with it a convincing proof that it was not the wish of the Government, in advising the Speech from the Throne, to influence, in the slightest degree, the decision of the jury on the trials now pending. He had been greatly surprised, therefore, at hearing the objections that had been taken that night, and the more so, because when the subject was discussed on the previous evening, many hon. Gentlemen opposed to the Government had admitted that there was not the slightest difficulty in concurring in the Address which had been proposed. On the preceding evening some Gentlemen had certainly proposed amendments, but they were on altogether different points. The hon. Member for Rochdale himself proposed one, but that was with reference to the supplies, the hon. Member then finding no fault at all with that portion of the Address which he now arraigned. The hon. Member for Montrose also moved an amendment, but that, too, was upon quite a different subject. The noble Member for the city of London, and the noble Member for Tiverton both expressed their entire acquiescence in the Address. He must really look upon it as somewhat fastidious criticism to suggest that this reference to the Union could in any way or degree prejudice the jury. As well might it be argued that the other portion of the paragraph which expressed Her Majesty's earnest desire to co-operate with Parliament in the adoption of measures tending to improve the condition of Ireland, was an untimely declaration under existing circumstances, and calculated to prejudice the jury in favour of the defence. The very next paragraph expressly recognised
"The just consideration of Her Majesty, in forbearing from observations on events in Ireland, in respect to which proceedings are pending before the proper legal tribunal."
Nothing could be less equivocal than this distinct declaration on the part of Her Majesty; nothing could more clearly show how great was the desire to avoid any interference with the due course of the law, on the part of those who framed
164
the Speech. He could not for a moment entertain the proposal of the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Blewittsaid, that if he had had time on the preceding evening to take the various paragraphs of the Address into his consideration, he should most assuredly have made the same objection that had now been advanced. He regarded the introduction of the words in question as most unconstitutional, indecorous, and improper, under existing circumstances. He had, last Session, complained of the right hon. Gentleman, as having made use of Her Majesty's name in an unconstitutional manner. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had now committed a similar impropriety in advising Her Majesty to declare to the people of Ireland, who were dissatisfied with the existing law, that she will not have that law changed. Now, the Crown, though it had the power of rejection, had by no means exclusively the power of initiation; the Crown had by no means the power to tell the people that they shall not agitate the question, whether a law of which they disapprove, ought not to be erased from the statute book. It was a great feature in the constitutional privileges of the people of this country, that they might agitate against a law with which they are dissatisfied. The introduction of such a declaration as this would not only unconstitutionally prejudice the pending trials, but it would have the effect of unduly influencing the question when it should be brought forward at a future period. Suppose the right hon. Gentleman were, in a similar way, to declare it to be Her Majesty's determination that the Corn-laws should be maintained for ever, which was just the same thing in point of principle? But the right hon. Gentleman would not venture upon such a step as that; he knew perfectly well that it would create such an agitation throughout the country, as had never existed here since we were a nation. Why then, should the right hon. Baronet take a course with reference to Ireland which he dared not take with reference to England? He (Mr. Blewitt) felt deeply on this subject; when he read the history of this country, and the history of Ireland as connected with this country, he almost blushed at the name of Englishman. He verily believed there had been more atrocities committed by England upon Ireland than had

165
been experienced by any other civilized nation from its neighbour. And still, Session after Session passed away, and no effectual attempt was made to do justice to that most unhappy country. What a spectacle was that presented by Ireland! Seven millions of men labouring under the most oppressive and galling grievances—grievances which he, as an Englishman, could see, could enter thoroughly into; were he an Irishman, he really could not say how far his feelings might carry hint, witnessing and experiencing such monstrous tyranny and injustice. It was his misfortune, most certainly, not to have met with much favour in the House; he knew not why. He could only say that since he had had the honour of a seat in that House he had always in private conducted himself towards Members with the greatest courtesy, and he was quite sure he did not deserve the want of courtesy which was exhibited towards him. He did not profess to be gifted with any eloquence, or to have that power of speech with which other hon. Members were endowed; but this he could say,—he studied the questions which were brought before the House, and endeavoured to understand every question brought before it; and if he were not allowed to express his sentiments, it was full time that the House should tell him that he was unworthy of a seat there, and send him back to his constituents, that some more worthy person might be elected in his stead. He hoped, in future, he should not again have occasion to make any such complaint. He should conclude with stating that the motion before the House had his most cordial approbation.
Mr. Roebucksaid,—As the question of the present situation of Ireland has been brought forward, and allusion has been made to the trials now taking place, I will take this opportunity of putting a question to the right hon. Baronet respecting those trials. I shall proceed from that to make some other remarks. I am about to ask the right hon. Baronet, if Her Majesty's Government have directed their attention to the conduct of a person—a gentleman who by his official station is at the head of the law in that country, and who is now conducting those prosecutions? I shall endeavour as much as possible to avoid allusion to the result of this prosecution, not that I at all agree in that species of delicacy that has been thought
166
to be right, but I bow to the general feeling, however I may differ from the House on that point. Still I have a feeling of duty respecting the due administration of justice, which forbids me to be silent on the present occasion—which commands me to exercise the right I now possess, and which I now exercise, of bringing this question before the House. Sir, if there be one thing more than another which ought to distinguish a state prosecution, which is a painful duty at best, undertaken for a great public good—if there is one thing more than another which ought to distinguish such a prosecution, it is a calm, decorous, sedate and considerate behaviour on the part of those who conduct it; and I appeal to this House—I appeal, not to Ireland, but to England, to tell us if that calm, sedate, considerate, and decorous demeanour had been evidenced by the Attorney-general for Ireland? In the presence of the assembled judges of the land, the ministers of the law, and the maintainers of peace, there has been one of the most gross—(I can use no harsher words, for the English language does not supply rue with a stronger)—a more gross breach of the common decencies of his station could not be committed than has been committed by the Attorney-general for Ireland. It is a breach of the law in the first place, and a breach of the law, too, at the time that the Attorney-general was indicting, as the representative of the Crown, "a great criminal," as he says, "for bringing into danger the peace of the country;" and one of the first things he does, as an example to those that he is thus bringing before the tribunals of the country, is to commit so gross a breach of the law which he was vindicating that he ought at the moment to have been committed by the judges of the land. The Attorney-general for Ireland is at this moment, Sir, liable to an indictment. I hope he will be subjected to it; and I should like to hear what his answer will be. I see before me an hon. and learned Friend of mine, to whom I appeal on the present occasion—I speak of him as my learned friend, with pride, and I hope no gentleman from Ireland will take offence—I speak of him with pride when I say the Attorney-general for England—I appeal to him who is a man of long experience, who has set a bright example to the profession and to the country, not simply of a sedate and de-

167
corous, but of a kindliness of manner, which did more to conciliate the very criminal he has prosecuted than even his attempts to vindicate the law—I appeal to him, to confirm my statement. What a contrast there is between my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-general ant the Attorney-general for Ireland! The Attorney-general for England has gone down to vindicate the law as the harbinger of peace, while the petulant lawyer, tin Attorney-general for Ireland has adder fuel to the flame, and has done all In could to instigate confusion and discord in that unhappy land. He has been a torch, instead of a calm and sedate vindicator of the laws of his country. I will not speak of the judges, who were exceedingly remiss in doing their duty. They were filled with a consideration for that officer, which ought to have been over borne by their consideration of the law, and order, and propriety. They ought not to have allowed the interference of any man on that occasion to give advice. Their own breast ought to have suggested to them to do that which the law required them to do—to commit him, and thus to have shown an example to those who should thus break the law. I ask, what will be the influence of this example upon the social condition of Ireland? There is not a man now, Sir, that can speak upon this subject in any other than terms of the greatest disgust. What nice sensibility has been shown by that gentleman in setting an example to call out any man who chooses to make an effective speech on behalf of his client! I am not sure that the practice may not extend further. Why not call out the jury? and I don't know either that the judges are exempt. [A Laugh.] It may well create a laugh; but what I want to introduce into Ireland is what I should consider one of the best things that could result from the Union of England and Ireland,—I mean that conduct which distinguishes the great tribunals of this land, that absence of all emotion, where the judges are as impassible as if they were without emotion, acting with such calmness and decorum that they command the veneration even of the criminal. Can any man for an instant believe, now after justice has been disregarded by this man—who, as I said last year, was unfit to be in the position which he occupies, and who has now proved himself to be totally unworthy of his office—that he will be
168
retained in his position as the chief law officer of the Crown in Ireland? I say, Sir, as soon as the messenger can carry it to that country, that the law should be vindicated, that justice and decency should be satisfied, by the instant and ignominious dismissal of that most unworthy officer. Now, Sir, I have spoken out on this occasion; I have applied epithets to him which I think are fully deserved, and I have no sort of fear that I shall be called upon to apologise or name a friend. If there be one thing which adds to this matter a disgrace beyond the committal of the offence, it is the manner in which it is sought to be defended. The Attorney-general for Ireland, having so far forgotten his position as to challenge a barrister in court, being called upon to explain what he meant, answered his opponent, who had spoken to him in the language of a gentleman, in the language of the law, and told him to make an affidavit. That was mixing up the court of honour and the Court of Queen's Bench in a queer way. But, for a moment, Sir, let us forget all the ludicrous points of this affair—unfortunately there is but a step from that which is the most fearfully mischievous to the ludicrous—let us, however, for an instant forget the ludicrous part of the exhibition, and I most earnestly appeal to the right hon. Baronet at the head of Her Majesty's Government, as he respects the peace of Ireland, as he bath regard for the great principles of the Union, as he respects the peace, the honour, and everything that is dear to that country and to this—let us ask the right hon. Baronet, is he ready to vindicate the law upon this occasion?
Sir R. Peel.—Sir, I regret that the hon. and learned Gentleman has felt himself called upon by his sense of public duty to make the observations winch he has made upon the conduct of the Attorney-general for Ireland. I am resolved to adhere to the rule which I laid down last night, and I will not, by any observations, or any comment which may be made upon matters immediately connected with the trials now pending in Ireland, be led into discussion upon that point. I consider it my duty to defer implicitly to the rule which has been laid down in the Speech from the Throne, and to avoid, even upon collateral topics, any observation which can have a bearing upon that matter. I must say, that I think the comments of

169
the hon. and learned Gentleman upon the conduct of the Attorney-general are much more severe and censorious than the occasion requires. The act to which he refers it is impossible for me to justify; the principles for which the hon. Gentleman contends as to the rule of conduct which should influence those who are conducting a great public trial—the justice of those principles I cannot deny. I think it of the greatest public importance, that there should be an absence of all irritation and all exhibitions of temper; but I can state with truth, that a very few hours before the Attorney-general was betrayed by irritation into the act to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, he did express his entire concurrence in the principles which have just been laid down, and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department did give his most positive assurance that no provocation that could be offered should induce him to make such an exhibition. We, who are very imperfectly acquainted with the full particulars of the case, are called upon to express an opinion as to the conduct of the Attorney-general for Ireland. That he was betrayed unfortunately by momentary irritation into the act to which the hon. Gentleman has referred I cannot doubt, and, as I said before, it is impossible entirely to vindicate such an act; but at the same time let us make allowance for the position in which he is placed, let us in justice to him remember the infirmities of our own tempers, and not be led in the absence of the full facts to pronounce a decisive and peremptory judgment. That at any rate the act of the Attorney-general was not a deliberate act, I think must be admitted; there was no retiring from the court, and writing the challenge after some consideration, but by a strong provocation he appears to have been suddenly betrayed into this act. This it was, I presume, that led the Attorney-general to make what was tantamount to a challenge. The court took it up; the Attorney-general expressed his regret for the act; his conduct was noticed by the judges in a manner that must have been very painful to him; and he must have been grieved by the highest authorities in that court, and by the court itself being witnesses of the transaction and expressing their condemnation of the act. The Attorney-general asked permission to
170
withdraw the offensive letter which he had hastily written, and expressed great regret for having been betrayed by sudden emotion into the step which he had adopted. These, I believe, are the facts of the case. As to the question whether Her Majesty's Ministers have taken such notice of the act as shall cause the dismissal of the Attorney-general for Ireland, I say at once, and most distinctly, that Her Majesty's Government have not taken such a step, and do not contemplate it.
Mr. Wysesaid, he had heard with much surprise the observations of the right hon. Baronet. He had commenced, by expressing his determination in conformity with the reserve maintained in the Speech from the Throne, and his own pledges of silence on the same questions, not to enter into any discussion, which could bear upon the trials now pending in Ireland, and yet in the very next sentence, when it was expected he would have deferred all farther consideration of the question to some future opportunity, he was betrayed into an ample defence of the recent conduct of the Attorney-general. How far this was consistent, he would not say, but if the debate were now to be continued he must blame himself for its continuance. The observations which had hitherto been made referred to one point principally of the transaction, the utter impropriety of the Attorney-general's conveying a challenge to an opposite counsel in a court of justice, but there was another light in which it was to be regarded, the effect which it had, or might have had, on the case of his client. It appeared from the best authorities, that Mr. Fitzgibbon's observations were in unison with the general instructions he had received, and did not exceed what he deemed necessary for the line of defence which was required for the cause with which he had been entrusted. To establish by admitting for a moment such conduct anything like a precedent for interfering with the right of free speech in defence of a client, would necessarily produce the most dangerous consequences. It would limit the means of protection against charges, which might be the most unfounded, to a narrow circle, and expose the accused to the most cruel disadvantage. But there was a still more important result, not affecting the fortunes of the individual only, but those of the whole country, which must naturally fol-

171
low from this proceeding. The object of all tribunals, of every court and minister of justice, was, it was to be presumed, to vindicate the laws, to impress the public with the conviction of the impartiality, the calmness with which they were administered. It was especially set forth as the great end of these very trials. He fully concurred, it, the importance of this impression; nothing could be more desirable than that the people should be assured, that everything was conducted with a view only to the great ends of justice. But how was this evinced? Here was the prosecutor not only giving himself an instance of a directly opposite conduct, but what he believed to be hardly less injurious to the cause of justice, judges are found to pass over and a Minister of the Crown is found to extenuate such conduct. He was willing to make every allowance for natural infirmity of temper, he could easily conceive how a disposition at all irritable like that of the Attorney-general, with the anxiety which he must of course have experienced at every step of these proceedings, deeply impressed with their magnitude and consequences, affecting not only himself personally, but what he would not refuse him the credit of his believing, that he felt equally affecting the greatest interests of the country, he could easily conceive how such a disposition, especially after the severe test to which it had been previously put by the biting sarcasm and searching eloquence of Mr. Shed, might be easily betrayed in such a moment, and under such circumstances, into language and demeanour to which men of cooler temperaments could never be provoked; but this, though au apology for the man, was none whatever for the Attorney-general; he must add that the slightest consideration of the solemn nature of the duties he had in hand, should have at least led him to notify to Mr. Fitzgibbon, before he resorted to his ultima ratio of arms, the meaning which he attached to his expressions, and have requested an explanation in the presence of the court; or should this have appeared objectionable, another course was open to him, he might have placed himself in the hands of the court, and relied upon its judgment for decision in the matter. This would have been the obvious course pointed out by his position
172
and functions, and the very serious responsibilities with which he was intrusted. Neither of these two courses the Attorney-general thought proper to adopt; but in the very sanctuary of justice itself, almost in the presence of the judges, and in the midst of the exercise of his high duties—when the absence of all passion was most to be wished for and most to be demanded, he sends a challenge to whom? to the counsel of one of the traversers whom he was prosecuting, to Mr. Fitzgibbon!—he could not but say, with such facts before him, with every admission he had already made, that so extreme a step at such a moment, and in such a capacity, was an act of the grossest possible official misconduct, and such as not even Her Majesty's Government could seriously think of vindicating. But he would not at this moment pursue the question further. He wished, that nothing should interfere with the dispassionate judgment of the jury: it should not be said, of this side of the House at least, that they did any thing which could prevent their decision, whatever it might be, from coming as calmly and coolly as possible before the public. Whenever he (Mr. Wyse) had deviated from this rule, he did so on the strongest provocation. The proceedings which marked the selection of the jury, and to which he would not for the present more particularly advert, were such as called for in his mind, the sharpest and most immediate reprehension. He thought it his duty, to resent in terms the strongest and most indignant he could use, the insult and injury offered to the whole religious persuasion of which he had the honour to be a member. He would have despised himself, and others would have a right to despise hint as base, pusillanimous, unworthy of the liberties which he maintained he had a right to enjoy, had he acted otherwise. But this was a circumstance of peculiar moment, calculated to have the deepest and most sinister influence on the feelings and conduct of the whole Catholic community of Ireland. Discussion on the Repeal of the Union in this House, at this period of the Session, or rather in the present position of the trials, was a totally different question. It could not but tend in one way or other to affect the opinions of the jury, and give a bias from which they ought to be kept, as much as possible, exempt. He was not,

173
as the House was aware, a repealer himself: he had given evidence to the contrary both in and out of Parliament, to which he should not then recur; he had lately been called on to declare whether he would join the Association or not, and had found himself compelled by conscientious convictions, respectfully but explicitly, to decline the proposition; he candidly, and openly made this declaration to his constituents. but he felt it not less his duty to declare as candidly and openly to that House, that the reason why he had not complied with the requisition, was the belief which he still, amidst so many disappointments, continued, he hoped not erroneously, to nourish, that intermediate measures for the redress of the many grievances under which his country laboured, might still be found sufficient to render such an extreme course unnecessary: he still had hopes, that the Imperial Parliament would awaken for its own interest as well as that of Ireland, and apply before it were too late, remedies to existing evils, and until these hopes were exhausted, until no prospects of justice, could be farther entertained from their fears, or good sense, he was not disposed to recur to ulterior measures. This however, mainly depended upon this country and this legislature: they were to say, by their deeds, (for words had little value) whether these hopes which he in common with an influential portion of the people of Ireland, still persisted in retaining, were to be justified or frustrated: they were to say, whether the Repeal agitation was to be suppressed, in the only effectual manner in which it could be suppressed, by perfect equality and thorough identification in all rights, privileges, and benefits, of the two countries, or by infatuated perseverance in the opposite course, whether new partizans, from ranks now hostile or neutral, should not be compelled every day to flock to its standards. In a word, on this country, and its Government it depended, whether it should be the question of a part or the whole of the nation. He had thus far noticed the subject, but he should not be betrayed farther: indeed he could have wished it had not appeared in the Speech at all.—It was true its mention was attempted to be rendered palatable by some accompanying phrases on "the social improvement of Ireland."—He presumed that under such terms, not only
174
social in its usual limited sense, but political amelioration was intended to be included, for it would be preposterous to expect in Ireland, or indeed in any country, much social improvement, where a good and stable state of political relations had not previously been established. Could he believe that the words were intended merely to apply to the drainage of bogs, the extension of canals, the opening or bettering of lines of road, the reduction of burthens on industry and commerce, or even to a wiser and jester legislation for the peasantry, in a word, to those measures only which conduce to the more material interests of the people, he (Mr. Wyse) for one should not rest satisfied with such ameliorations, and if the declaration of maintaining inviolate the Union, were not intended to be followed up by any other—by no measures of redress for religious and political grievance—he most assuredly would never give his assent to any recognition of such a declaration. He looked for a pledge, that the House would, without further loss of time, set seriously to work, not merely to consider the whole state of Ireland, but to consider it with a firm determination to carry into action every measure of improvement be it for her political or social condition, with a frank and honest promptitude: if such were given, and redeemed, not in a jealous, but in a wise and liberal spirit, there might be some grounds for proposing with it such a declaration in the Address. But if this were to be omitted or disguised, if the clause were to come nakedly before them, with no such intention declared or implied, if ail improvement contemplated were to be reduced to projects, good perhaps in themselves, but miserably short of the wants or demands, the rightful demands of the country—he for one, did not see how any liberal Irishman, be he Repealer or not, could possibly vote for such a proposition. He should not pursue the subject farther, at the present moment, but reserve to himself the right of expressing more amply his opinions on a future and more appropriate occasion.
Lord Eliotsaid he should feel that he was wanting in his duty to an absent friend and colleague, if he did not address a few words to the House on this occasion. He had been associated with his right hon. and learned Friend for upwards of twelve months, and he could truly say that a more honourable, a more upright, or a more

175
kind hearted man did not exist. Let it be recollected that the first act of his right hon. and learned Friend, after he had assumed his official functions, was to accept the apology of the editors of some newspapers who had been convicted of an atrocious libel—he would not use so strong a word as atrocious—but had been convicted of a libel upon the administration of justice in Ireland. It was the wish of his right hon. and learned Friend to administer his functions in the mildest and most forbearing manner, and after the testimony which had been so fairly and candidly given in his favour by the hon. Member for Waterford, he was sure the House would feel that there was a wide distinction between a momentary act of indiscretion and a series of harsh or overbearing conduct. He thought the hon. Gentleman had put rather a false colour upon the manner in which the prosecution had been conducted. He had not been present, but he had been in the habit of seeing every day persons who attended in the court, and they unanimously concurred in the opinion that the Attorney-general had shown exemplary patience and forbearance under circumstances of great excitement and provocation. He did not believe that his right hon. Friend had been betrayed into the exhibition of any ill temper on any one occasion, except the particular one in question; and he was sure that if any instances of the kind had occurred, there would not be wanting people who would take advantage of them to denounce him as undeserving of the situation he occupied. He had thought it his duty to say these few words. He did not presume to do more than to say that his right hon. Friend, whose conduct was now so unsparingly condemned, was incapable, in his cooler moments of reflection, of doing any act that could interfere with the administration of justice by the court, but he believed the right, hon. and learned Gentleman thought that base and selfish motives had been attributed to him, and that it was under that impression he had yielded to that infirmity of temper upon which the hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite had bestowed so many strictures.
Mr. Wysesaid the noble Lord must have misunderstood a considerable portion of his remarks. He did not mean to say that he could acquit the Attorney-general of gross impropriety and misconduct in the course he had adopted. Far from it. He (the Attorney-general might, no doubt,
176
have been affected by irritability of temper, and he (Mr. Wyse) was willing to make allowance for that infirmity, but still he said that the conduct of the Attorney-general was such as no officer of the Crown should have been betrayed into under any circumstances, especially of that particular trial, where it was of the utmost importance that the greatest calmness of temper, unswerving impartiality, and propriety of demeanour should accompany everything he said and did.
Lord Eliotsaid the hon. Gentleman had spoken with so much candour and fairness, that he should be very sorry to misrepresent his argument. He understood him to have said that he had himself been present at the speech of the right hon. Member for Dungarvan—that he considered the observations made by that right hon. and learned Gentleman to be such as exacted the observance of the greatest forbearance and good temper on the part of the Attorney-general, and that it was only on this one occasion that his right hon. and learned Friend had deviated from his proper course.
Captain Bernaldid not think, that the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland had so much as maintained the case which had been made out by the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury, who had pursued the same course that he pursued upon other occasions—viz., that whilst he agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Bath (Mr. Roebuck) abstractedly, he attempted to throw a mantle over the feelings of the lost Attorney-general for Ireland. He (Captain Bernal) altogether denied, that in the conduct of the Attorney-general for Ireland, in the beginning, the middle, or the end,—he had manifested a regard for decorum, common sense, or propriety. The noble Lord had alluded to the opinion of the bar of Ireland. He (Captain Bernal) had an opportunity of being acquainted with the opinions of many members of that bar, and, as far as he had been able to ascertain, there was but one sentiment felt by all parties with respect to the conduct of the Attorney-general, and he was, by friends, as well as foes, pronounced to be totally unfit for the situation he occupied. He (Captain Bernal) fully adopted the language of the hon. and learned Member for Bath. If he were disposed to go back to former times for proofs of the unfitness of the Attorney-general for such an office, it was only necessary to

177
refer to 1837, when he declared that the Roman Catholics had no veneration for the sanctity of an oath, and yet in the teeth of that declaration, the right hon. Baronet appointed him to occupy his present office, being at the same time so little satisfied of his fitness, that he felt it necessary to give him a caution to be temperate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had promised, like a good boy, never to do so again. He had given an assurance to the Home Secretary, not more than twelve hours before, that he would not lose his temper, and yet, within twelve hours afterwards, he outraged the majesty of justice, and insulted the law. He would ask the House, and from the House he would appeal to the country, whether the miserable defence, the lame and impotent conclusion set up by the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland was satisfactory. If the law was not to be vindicated before the tribunals of the law, what vanity it was to come down to that House, and talk of the social advancement of Ireland! He called for an assertion of this principle without regard to what was past, and without regard to the forced attempt of the First Lord of the Treasury, to throw his mantle around the lost fame of the Attorney-general for Ireland. This question was totally independent of the great events that were taking place in Ireland. The conduct of the Attorney-general was wholly independent of the merits of the trials; and he called upon the House to urge upon the Government the propriety of at once dismissing that officer from his situation; or, if not, let him conclude the prosecution, and then receive his dismissal.
Lord Stanley: The hon. Gentleman has complained of my right hon. Friend for having, what he calls, set up a case and thrown a mantle of protection over the conduct of the Attorney-general for Ireland. If my right hon. Friend has interposed, in any degree, to shelter an absent officer from an attack couched in no very measured terms, founded upon facts which, undoubtedly, are notorious, but upon newspaper reports only, I do not think my right hon. Friend is fairly subject to the censure which is sought to be cast upon him by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down; and I do think that it is a more worthy course, on behalf of those who do not press forward exaggerating accusations against an absent man, while they do not
178
vindicate the specific acts which are the subjects of discussion, to consider the infirmities to which it is not the fate of the Attorney-general of Ireland alone to be liable. I have listened with great pain to the able but, I must say, needlessly bitter speech of the hon. and learned Member for Bath; and I have listened with pleasure, if pleasure can be derived from the discussion of such a subject, to the more tender, more candid language, of the hon. Member for Waterford. And I will venture to say, that my right hon. Friend did not, as the hon. Gentleman has stated, concur in the abstract with the language or the sentiments of the hon. and learned Member for Bath; but I do think that abstractedly and practically there is little or no difference between the feelings with which my right hon. Friend viewed the case and the feelings expressed by the hon. Member for Waterford. None of us pretend to vindicate the unfortunate conduct of' the Attorney-general for Ireland. [Cheers.] But the hon. Gentleman who cheers that sentiment (Captain Bernal) may be free from all these infirmities of temper. He may be quite serene amidst, I do not say one, but a succession of purposed, continual, prepared, bitter personal taunts. The hon. Gentleman may be able to remain unmoved under such circumstances; but I cannot refrain from saying, from my long experience in this House, I have learned—I speak it honestly, and perhaps with pain—day by day, how difficult it is to sit by and hear attacks of a much more mitigated character than those made on the Attorney-general of Ireland, and not feel an infirmity which I am not ashamed to confess, and through which one may be provoked, perhaps, into a hasty and irritating reply, afterwards to be reflected on with much regret. Feeling that infirmity myself, I, at least, can make allowances for the infirmity of others. What was the position of the Attorney-general? It was not that which has been incorrectly described by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down; it was not that the Government, conscious of the infirmities and incompetency of this officer, had thought it necessary to caution him against being led into any irritation or imprudence in consequence of any provoking language that might be used towards him; on the contrary, only a day before this unfortunate occurrence, the Government had expressed to the hon. and learned Gentleman in terms sufficiently strong and well merited that we felt greatly satisfied

179
at the coolness of temper, moderation, and judgment, which he had displayed in conducting the proceedings. There was no caution given to the Attorney-general for Ireland; but the Attorney-general wrote a few hours before he was betrayed into this act of indiscretion, and said,
"I see that day by day a systematic attempt is made to drive me into some act of indiscretion, which may be injurious to myself and the cause I have in hand; and I see speaker after speaker attempting to fix upon me some personal misconduct."
I am stating that which is the substance of a letter received from the right hon. and learned Gentleman but a few hours before we got notice of this event, and in which he says, that
"Although there is carried on against me, as I believe this systematic attempt to provoke me to some act of indiscretion, I am determined to keep the strictest watch over my own feelings, and not to compromise my character or prejudice the proceedings I am conducting."

Cheers.
Well, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck) cheers that statement. But with all these strong resolutions, the provocation was too much for the Attorney-general. I do not conceal my regret at the fact, but I put it forward as a real and decided proof that there was no premeditated intention and no design to outrage the ordinary course of legal proceedings, or to commit any act of violence or indiscretion. But the hon. Gentleman cheered just now, as if it were impossible that the Attorney-general's idea of the course pursued could have any foundation. There is a very remarkable corroboration of that view in the speech of the hon. Member for Waterford. That hon. Gentleman has told you, in vindication of Mr. Fitzgibbon,—of whom I say nothing, and of whose speech I know nothing, except by newspaper reports,—that those expressions which appear to have given so much offence to the Attorney-general were not the expressions of the counsel himself, but language which had been put into his mouth by his client to be used in the course of the argument. That was the statement of the hon. Gentleman who heard the powerful speech of Mr. Sheil, and who most candidly and fairly stated how difficult it would have been for him to keep his temper if made the subject of attack in eloquence at once brilliant and forcible, bitter and severe, from Mr. Shed against the Attorney-
180
general. Mr. Wyse spoke of a preceding day.] Precisely so. There was a series of attacks continued from day to day for several days upon the Attorney-general. [Mr. Wyse dissented.] I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. He has spoken so fairly and candidly that I should be extremely sorry to mistake or misrepresent him. It was the first day upon which the hon. Gentleman heard the speech of Mr. Sheil, and he said how difficult he should have felt it to keep his temper if made the subject of it. The counsel who followed Mr. Sheil was Mr. Fitzgibbon, and at the close of the day, before Mr. Fitzgibbon concluded his attack, the Attorney-general fell into the trap which was set to catch him. I do not say that as any vindication of his error; but I state all these things in order to follow it up with an expression of earnest hope, that upon such information as we now possess, derived from the intelligence contained in newspapers only, not being judges of the tone, and manner, and gesture which might have accompanied words which may read as if harmless, the House will not condemn in so sweeping a manner, and in the unmitigated terms proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Bath, an absent officer of the Crown, who has been engaged, and is engaged, in what is confessedly a most arduous and laborious duty, and who is confessedly subjected to the greatest provocation, but who, in a moment of weakness, has at last been led to commit a momentary offence, for which he has already expressed his deep regret, and for which I am bound to say the Government cannot consider him wholly blameless. But I know what allowance ought to be made in such a case, and I trust it will be made, even although it was an indecent and unfit ebullition of temper. I know allowance can be made for it by the country; such allowance as, in my own heart, I candidly feel due to it from myself, who am subject to similar infirmity, and I believe that the House of Commons will show the same indulgence, and not hastily and severely condemn a public officer who has not had the opportunity of answering for himself.
Mr. Serjeant Murphy:—I do not think the protection cast over the Attorney-general for Ireland, by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government has been much improved by what has fallen from the noble Lord. Although the right hon. Baronet did not affect for a moment to vindicate the conduct of the Attorney-general, as being con-

181
formable to that propriety of demeanour which ought to have been maintained on so solemn an occasion, he did not allow himself to do what the noble Lord has done,—to condemn that conduct by an epithet which most, forcibly and fully confirms the charge. The noble Lord has treated it as an indecent act, and he has conceded the entire question to which this side of the House, through the instrumentality of my hon. and learned Friend has called attention. The noble Lord has talked of infirmity of temper being provoked in this House, during the heat of debate, and he has thought proper to compare that, and to attempt to make that parallel to the solemn proceedings of a court of justice. Will the noble Lord permit me to say, before I come to the particular circumstances of this case, and to that particular crisis of it which is under discussion, that I do not agree with the noble Lord, that the country at large will look upon this conduct with indulgence, or even in the spirit of sufferance and toleration? But I venture to say, that there is no man in this country, be he Whig, or be he Tory, where the solemn and impartial administration of the law is regarded as the best safeguard of public liberty, who, whatever his complexion of politics, will not denounce this act as a splenetic and indecent outrage, desecrating the temple of justice; an act which would be wrong even if the humblest and meanest individual were upon his trial, but which is eminently so, if I may use the term, when an entire people is upon a multitudinous indictment dragged before the bar. How has the Attorney-general conducted himself throughout? Where are the grounds for attributing to him that calmness of demeanour and kindness of conduct for which credit has been given him? Has he acted in that spirit which has distinguished all the state prosecutions of this country? I will appeal to my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-general for England. I will appeal to my recollection of him, when he conducted the prosecutions against the Chartists in Lancashire. I appeal to what sixty-nine men declared at the termination of the trials, when they said:—
"Whether we consider the judges, the Attorney-general, the little captiousness opposed to our eager expressions of want of knowledge of forms,—whether we look upon the whole of this trial, or the judges, or the counsel, or the
182
jury, or the Attorney-general, the temper and demeanour of the whole has been that which teaches us, though we have failed, that the law has been vindicated with temper, forbearance, and dignity.'
I am happy to confirm this testimony, for I was one of the counsel for the defence on that occasion. Would to God the same demeanour had been exemplified in the state prosecutions in Ireland! What was the first act of the Attorney-general there? He refused, by certain captious objections, every little matter that would have smoothed the way to make the defence with fairness and legality. What next does he do? He turns round upon one of the counsel for the defence, when he attempted to argue the question, and asks him—what no man in Westminster Hall would ask,—if he were licensed? Then he stands up in court, and prejudges the case against the accused, and prejudices them in the minds of the jury before the finding of the bill, by stating that he is prepared to prove the existence of a monstrous conspiracy. Throughout the whole of the case the attention of the bar in Westminster Hall has been rivetted—that hall, in which no such example of such trials and such state prosecutions, has arisen in our times,—and there is but one opinion upon the proceedings there. I was born an Irishman, though I am au English barrister, and I retain all the feelings of an Irishman, and I felt in my secret soul:—
"—Pudet hæc opprobria nobis
"Et dici potuisse et non potuisse refelli."
The accuracy of the English system has been brought in opposition to the inaccuracy of the Irish, not in the person of a humble individual, but in that of Her Majesty's Attorney-general for Ireland, in a state prosecution. But matters have gone even still further. The Attorney-general seems to have had a warning given to him—a caution lest he should make a slip. He goes on for a while; the proceedings for the prosecution drag their slow length along; then conies the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Dungarvan. I read that speech with attention, and anything more calculated to redeem Irishmen from the imputations cast upon them by the Attorney-general I do not know. It withered the imputation of the Attorney-general that the Irish bar was destitute of talent. It was felt in

183
Westminster-hall that there was but one individual at the Irish bar who could make such an imputation. But the right hon. Gentleman says that he was called upon to listen to attacks made upon him by counsel for the defence. Those counsel acted upon the instructions of their clients, and even if they had used the words, why did he not know how to reserve himself, as gentlemen do where offence is given, for a private intimation after the proceedings were terminated and the trial at an end? He chose to send a cartel of defiance upon the instant, as if he would say, "Mark, I come against you as a prosecutor, but I come against you also to demand satisfaction for anything that may be said in the heat of argument for the defence." For that act alone he ought to be ignominiously dismissed. You institute these proceedings to vindicate the dignity of the law against a man who, as you say, has himself sinned against the law as never man sinned before. You have the whole of the people looking on; you have, as has been said, an indictment against an entire people; and upon such an occasion when you have concentrated upon the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland not only the feelings of this country, but have drawn towards it the attention of Europe and America as witnesses, is it not a reproach to the law, to the impartiality of our legal tribunals, and to the judges of the land, that they should recall Mr. O'Connell, when he had retired upon one occasion into the library, into the court, to please a splenetic Attorney-general, and that they should extract from all the traversers the degrading necessity of standing at the bar as felons, instead of being treated as misdemeanants. I appeal to the Attorney-general for England, would he have insisted upon such a proceeding? I say that the Attorney-general for Ireland ought to have left the administration of the law fully in the hands of the judges, who on their part ought to have committed the Attorney-general, to prove to the assembled people, that the law is no respecter of persons, and that rigid and stern impartiality mark its administration. I am bound to declare it as my opinion, and the opinion of Westminster-hall, that if impartiality had ruled on that occasion, justice would have been vindicated and the majesty of the law upheld. That has not been done. Impartiality being the characteristic of the Government, it is now its
184
bounden duty to vindicate the law, by at once dismissing this public officer.
Sir J. Graham: I feel, Sir, after what has fallen from my right hon. Friend and my noble Friend, that it is unnecessary to prolong this discussion; yet, I think I shall not act unworthily nor inconsistently with my duty, if I very shortly express my opinion upon this subject. I must take the liberty to observe, that the hon. and learned Gentleman who introduced this subject and the hon. and learned Serjeant who has just sat down are, as Members of the Bar, naturally most anxious to watch over the administration of justice; and it is in the sacred name of justice they have addressed the House on this occasion. Now, I call upon the House to remember what is the position of the case thus brought before it, A great trial is pending; Her Majesty from the Throne, has announced that her love of justice impartially administered according to law has induced her to forbear to comment upon that trial. Notwithstanding the heat of party differences—various topics having been commented upon in the course of discussion last night, and not without some asperity, it was agreed, I thought, upon all hands, for the sake of justice, that this particular topic should, at all events, be postponsed until a verdict should have been pronounced by the jury which has been empanelled to try this indictment. Disregarding the example of last night, in the name of justice the House is called to discuss this evening a matter bearing directly upon the trials now going on. The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down passed a glowing eulogium upon the speeches of the counsel for one of the defendants. Not satisfied with that, he commented in terms of praise upon the character of at least one of the accused and, with severity upon the trial itself; and I think I heard him say, in the absence of the party he assails, without giving my right hon. Friend an opportunity to defend himself, that that public officer ought to be visited with the condemnation of the House, and that this officer of the Crown ought to be ignominiously dismissed. Now, I call upon the generosity and justice of the House to deal with this last proposition. In a short time these proceedings will have terminated and this public officer will have a fair opportunity to speak in his own defence; at present he is absent from his place and cannot be heard. Is it not just to wait for this? As regards public opinion, my right hon. Friend

185
and my noble Friend have both declared that they are not prepared to vindicate the conduct of the Attorney-general on that particular occasion; and, as far as my opinion is concerned, I hope it will be deemed satisfactory when I say I cannot defend the act now brought under our notice. But then we must consider the circumstances under which this unfortunate occurrence took place. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman deny that strict integrity, great abilities, and accurate knowledge of the law are quite compatible with infirmity of temper and a promptitude to vindicate wounded honour in this mode, however objectionable? I am not prepared to vindicate what has occurred. I agree with my noble Friend, that the provocation which the Attorney-general for Ireland received was most irritating. I am unwilling to repeat the argument of my noble Friend; but the House will remember the testimony borne on this point by the right hon. Member for Waterford who, I must say, stated his opinion on this occasion with remarkable candour—I had almost said, with kind sympathy for the Irish Attorney-general, whose conduct is now impugned. That right hon. Gentleman admitted, that the speech he himself had heard delivered by the right hon. and learned Member for Dungarvan, as counsel for one of the traversers, was most remarkable for the point of satire and the weight of argument and eloquence with which it assailed the Attorney-general, and yet, although he was exposed for many hours to a trial of that description in his presence, I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say his demeanour was unexceptionable. My noble Friend also pointed the attention of the House to other circumstances admitted by the right hon. Member for Waterford, to which I must again refer. I did understand the right hon. Member for Waterford to admit that the line of argument pursued by Mr. Fitzgibbon and the nature of his comments on the conduct of the Attorney-general had not been suggested by the mind of that counsel, but had been dictated to him by his client, one of the traversers, smarting under the prosecution—and all this marks premeditation. The hon. and learned Sergeant the Member for Cork, has entirely misapprehended what passed with respect to the letter of the Attorney-general. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think that the Irish Attorney-general had been particularly cautioned to pursue a course which should be marked
186
by temperance and forbearance. That was not the statement of my noble Friend. The statement made by my noble Friend was this—that the Attorney-general, after the speech which the right hon. Member for Waterford had heard from the right hon. and learned Member for Dungarvan, and after the two speeches made subsequently by the other counsel, bearing with very great severity personally on the conduct of the Attorney-general—that officer did address to my noble friend the Secretary for Ireland a letter, received on the very same day on which the account of the unhappy occurrence which is now the subject of debate, reached London, in which he stated, that he was quite aware that a design was entertained of addressing a series of observations personally to him of a most exasperating character: and that aware of that intention, he was on his guard, because he felt, that whatever might be his private feelings, he had a great public duty to perform—that he would put a restraint on himself, and would not be guilty of any act of indiscretion, whatever his private feelings might be. But most unfortunately, yielding to a sudden ebullition of temper, under great exasperation and provocation, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-general for Ireland departed from that highly-prudent and judicious resolution to which he had come, and committed a most unfortunate mistake, which I do not justify, but into which, under similar circumstances, others might have been betrayed. I say some allowances must in justice be made for him, and, at all events, I say it is not in a popular assembly, when attacks come from political opponents in the midst of great excitement, that there should be an appeal from a judicial tribunal that heard and saw all that passed, and was cognizant of all the circumstances that took place. It would ill become us in the heat of debate, under political excitement and at the instance of political enemies, to condemn a public officer in the very midst of a great political prosecution, when, if we will but suspend our judgment, in a very short time that officer will be present and have to answer for himself; but, above all, I repeat, it is ungenerous, when the court which heard all that passed pronounced even a limited censure on the conduct of the Attorney-general, and expressed distinctly a hope that the Attorney-general having made an apology and withdrawn the objectionable note, and the coun-

187
sel with whom this unfortunate dispute took place having declared himself satisfied—when the court, acting judicially, because the whole matter had been brought before them and left in their hands, had declared themselves satisfied, and hoped and desired that no further notice should be taken of the matter, and after the counsel with whom the unfortunate quarrel originated, when he had time to reflect in a manner most honourable to himself and creditable to his feelings as a gentleman (not forgetting that he and the Attorney-general were members of the same profession, and entitled to the indulgence of that profession), came forward next morning and most fully and clearly stated that he was sorry that anything should have fallen from him to irritate or wound the feelings of the Attorney-general—that he felt, if any provocation given by him should have led to a step which might be, in the least injurious to the Attorney-general, he should to the latest moment of his life most deeply regret the occurrence—after matters have come to that point, the court having declared itself satisfied, the party with whom the quarrel took place having declared his entire satisfaction with the apology made by the Attorney-general, my right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel) not having vindicated the conduct of the Attorney-general, and I deeply regretting that in the administration of justice such an occurrence should have taken place, which, I must say, is inconsistent with the dignity, decorum, and patient temper which should be held sacred as the great security both of order and peace in courts of law—I sincerely hope, after all this has occurred, that this matter will for the present be allowed to rest. Certainly, for one, I am quite prepared to share in the responsibility of my Colleagues, and entertaining the opinion I do of the honesty, the integrity, the public virtue, and the private amiable qualities of the Irish Attorney-general. I will never consent to be a party to that ignominious dismissal of him which two hon. and learned Gentlemen, members of the same profession, have this night recommended.
Mr. Wardcould not see that the present discussion was open to the objections which had been made to it by the right hon. Baronet. It had been introduced not upon a motion, but incidentally upon a question put by the hon. and learned Member for Bath—a question referring to an individual act of indiscretion on the part of a Law-officer of the Crown—a
188
most unfortunate act of indiscretion, as had been admitted by both the Members of the Cabinet who had spoken, committed in the course of an important judicial proceeding, and, therefore, an act eminently qualified to impair the respect in which all relating to the administration of public justice was held. The question of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, in his opinion, stood as distinct from the general rule laid down last night against discussing the merits of the proceedings now pending in Dublin, as the conduct of the Attorney-general regarding those trials had been from the ordinary course of such an officer in such proceedings. As to the amiable private qualities of the learned Gentleman, of his good intentions, and his good heart, those were questions with which the House had nothing whatever to do. He asked, whether if a public officer in the course of fulfilling a public duty, failed of doing so to the satisfaction of this House and of the country, it was not the right and duty of this House to take proper notice of the circumstance. It was alleged in defence of the Attorney-general on this occasion, that a systematic plan had been laid to irritate him, with a view of betraying him into the commission of such an unfortunate mistake as they were now discussing. But this was what was not at all admitted on the other side. Indeed the very last words of the Secretary for the Home Department disavowed such a view of the case—he alluded to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that on the day following the occurrence, Mr. Fitzgibbon had come down in order to heal the unfortunate breach that had occurred, and to disclaim on his own part any intention of wounding the feelings of the Attorney-general. He must say also that he did not see anything in the gentlemanly and temperate speech of the hon. and learned Member for Dungarvan, in defence of his client, which the most sensitive mind could possibly object to. But he would not admit the analogy which the right hon. Baronet adopted between ebullition of temper which sometimes took place in that House, and the occurrence of such manifestations in a court of justice. In that House they were all in eager and heated discussion, and sometimes, in moments of forgetfulness, let drop expressions which they were sorry for. But they were then immediately called to order by the Speaker, to whose

189
decisions they all cheerfully deferred. But in a court of justice, everything depended upon coolness of temper and decorum of proceeding; and if a Law-officer of the Crown was not able to listen to anything which might be urged by counsel in defence of a client under prosecution at the instance of the Crown, he was in his opinion the most unfit person who could be fixed upon to discharge the duties of such an office. And if there was ever an occasion when anything like personal feeling should be laid aside by a law officer, it was this very proceeding which was now going on in Ireland. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Cork that from the first of these proceedings there had been a great want of temper and self-control displayed by the Crown-officers; he did not allude merely to details of pleadings, but to other points also, and which all bore out the impression that unfair advantage was sought to be taken by the Government in these prosecutions, an impression which the Government should be the first to disclaim. If the Attorney-general should appear and express his regret at what had occurred, he was sure that no gentleman would wish to carry the matter any further, but still it would not relieve them all from the painful impression, that a high public officer had committed an act of great indiscretion in the execution of an important of doing likewise, and which, if they did public duty; an indiscretion which no it, neither themselves nor their friends Member of her Majesty's Government had felt himself justified in standing up to defend.
Mr. Wyse: I wish to say a few words by way of explanation. I did not mean to imply that the client of Mr. Fitzgibbon had given him instructions to use vituperative language, or language applying in a personal manner to the Attorney-general; what I meant to say was, that the course he pursued with reference to the observations he thought it necessary to make on the conduct of the Attorney-general was in unison with the instructions he had received from his client, and appeared to be necessary to his defence; and I said so for the purpose of showing the inconvenience that would arise if on any occasion the counsel for the Crown, considering observations directed to him personally, should take upon himself to resort to measures of violence, and thus interfere with that freedom of defence to which the client had the most unquestionable right.
190
I have only to add, that in any remarks I thought it necessary to submit to the House with regard to the position in which the Attorney-general for Ireland is now placed, and the excitement produced in his mind, I was far from implying, or wishing to imply, that there was anything like a systematic attempt by the counsel for the traversers to create such a state of feeling, or any thing which under other circumstances, and on other minds, ought to have produced such a result.
Mr. Shawfelt extremely sorry to be obliged to say a few words on this painful occasion, which indeed he should not have been led to do, except that the Members of Her Majesty's Government, who had spoken on the present occasion, had defended the Attorney-general for Ireland merely as an official colleague; whilst he (Mr. Shaw) had known him from the earliest period of life, as a private and valued friend. With respect to the act itself, with which his right hon. and learned Friend was charged, it must be admitted at once that no one could defend or vindicate it. The only vindication or excuse that could be offered for it was, that in a moment of strong irritation the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been betrayed to do that which all who heard him might themselves, under similar circumstances, fall into the error of doing likewise, and which, if they did it, neither themselves nor their friends could possibly defend. But admitting this, he did not think that so ungenerous and unjustifiable an attack had ever been made by any gentleman or any lawyer upon another, as that which had been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite upon the right hon. Gentleman in his absence. The hon. and learned Gentleman had not only stated the charge against the absent Attorney-general, but had gone at length into remarks upon the impropriety of the act with which he charged him. Now, he thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman was not the very man in that House who should be the first to throw a stone in a matter of this kind. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say that he of all men was the one to stand up and lecture the House against the impropriety of a practice which they all were strictly bound to condemn? But what he most complained of in this attack upon his right hon. and learned Friend was, because it went not only to the ex

191
tent of this particular part of his conduct, but that the hon. Gentleman opposite had talked of his right hon. Friend as a man altogether unworthy and unfit for the office which he held. Now, he considered this to be the most ungenerous and unjust attack which could possibly be made against any absent individual, and he would appeal to all sides of the House whether it was an attack which they could sanction. With respect to the general character of his right hon. and learned Friend, he would take upon him to say that there was no man in Ireland more eminent in his profession than that right hon. and learned Gentleman; or who was more high-minded in the conduct of all business entrusted in his hands. The right hon. Gentleman, he declared fearlessly, was on all hands esteemed an honour to his country, and a credit to his profession. He saw opposite the hon. and learned Member for Cashel, who was himself one of the Queen's sergeants, and he hoped that he would get up and say whether, in his opinion, the right hon. Gentleman was not an honour to his profession, and what was his opinion of his conduct throughout these proceedings. The hon. and learned Member for Cork had alluded to other circumstances in the course of these proceedings, particularly to the fact that, when Mr. O'Connell left the court to go into the library, as was alleged, the Attorney-general caused him to be called back into court, more like a felon than a misdemeanant. But was the fact as stated, or was it not rather that the traverser had made an appointment to meet the Repeal Association, and that the Attorney-general, feeling the impropriety of such a proceeding during the pending of the investigation before the court, caused him to be called back, and that not as a culprit, but as a member of the bar, with his gown on, to sit as a counsel in the court? The hon. and learned Member for Cork, and the hon. and learned Member for Bath, said that the Attorney-general for Ireland was a disgrace to his profession, and the former hon. and learned Member said that he ought to be expelled from his office with ignominy. Now he asserted that he had heard men of the highest professional rank in this country, and men of all parties in Ireland, agree in saying that upon the whole they considered that under the trying circumstances in which he had been placed, his right
192
hon. and learned Friend had acquitted himself with the greatest ability, and temper, and in every respect in a way to do him great credit. He believed that his right hon. and learned Friend felt, and he believed that he was justified in the impression, that the object of those who were opposed to him in the case was to irritate him and run him down personally. This he believed also was the impression of the public in general; and for his own part, he sincerely believed that it being known that his right hon. and learned Friend was subject to some infirmities of temper, it was part of the system, from the beginning to the end, which was acted upon by the friends of the party, and by newspapers, and in every possible way to attack and irritate the Attorney-general, in order to unfit him for the discharge of his public duties. Now, for his part, he (Mr. Shaw) had never expressed an opinion upon the subject of these prosecutions; but he must declare that on the whole the Attorney-general had conducted himself most creditably throughout the whole of the arduous duty devolving upon him. With respect to the particular point, in which his right hon. Friend had certainly acted in a manner for which he would not attempt to defend him, it should be, at the same time, borne in mind that at the time the hostile message was sent to Mr. Fitzgibbon, the court was actually not present. If they had been present when such an occurrence took place, there could be no doubt but that the court would have at once interposed with its authority, and it would be recollected also that when the court reassembled, on the matter being brought before it, the Chief Justice expressed himself in the strongest terms of displeasure at the occurrence and the note was withdrawn. So far from the court being called upon to do more than it did, he would undertake to say that no court in Christendom would have committed the Attorney-general under such circumstances. The matter complained of was not done in the sitting of the court, there were no proceedings going on at the time. He must say that the case, having been disposed of by the proper tribunal, he thought any allusions to it had better be avoided elsewhere. Above all things he considered an attack of this nature upon an absent individual was most unjust and ungenerous, and he hoped the House would not sanction it.
Dr. Stocksaid, he should have desired to decline taking any part in the present discussion, but in consequence of the appeal so directly made to him by his right hon. and learned Friend, he found such a course was no longer possible. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had called upon him to bear testimony to the private and professional character of the Attorney-general for Ireland. To those topics, therefore, he should strictly confine himself. With respect to the mode of conducting the state trials that were at present engrossing the attention of the empire, he could not say that he was prepared to lend his testimony to what had fallen from the right hon. Member. The right hon. Attorney, general had shown on this occasion, as in every other part of his professional life, a profound knowledge of the law and very great ability. And he would also say, although he had not himself been personally a witness to the proceedings in Dublin, that the right hon. Gentleman had exhibited, under very trying circumstances—until the last unfortunate exhibition—a control of temper which neither his friends had hoped for, or his enemies anticipated. No public officer who had ever discharged duties of such importance on so critical an occasion had ever been placed under circumstances which called more decidedly for the exercise of judgment and temper; and he was prepared also to state this from his belief that there were not wanting inducements on the other side to bring to the test those infirmities of temper which had been attributed to the Attorney-general. He made no individual accusation, but in common fairness he repeated, that taking every circumstance into consideration, the Attorney-general had acted, up to the last unfortunate incident, with more than the temper that was usually expected from him. In the course of his life he had known the right hon. Gentleman intimately and well; and be would say that a better man—a more honourable man, or one who more virtuously filled all the relations of private life, did not exist in the community. He was also an honour to his profession—he was a man of the greatest legal learning and acuteness—and up to the moment when he was selected as the Attorney-general of the present Government he had entitled himself to and enjoyed the universal deference and respect of the profession; while, at the same time, in private life, he was a man of the most unexceptionable character. Notwithstanding, he
194
thought the choice of the right hon. Gentleman as Attorney-general was a most unfortunate one. Considering the nature of the plans entertained by the present Government for the administration of affairs in Ireland, they had not perhaps made choice of the fittest instrument for carrying those plans into execution. There were other members of the Conservative bar of that country who would have been more peculiarly qualified for the duty than Mr. Smith. At the same time, as he had already said, a more excellent man or a better lawyer did not exist.
Lord Ingestre, having been present during part of the proceedings in Dublin, could bear testimony to the propriety of the Attorney-general's conduct under circumstances of great difficulty and provocation; among others, he need only remind the House of the expression of Mr. O'Connell with respect to him, used elsewhere, when he said, "No verdict; no chief justice." He only mentioned this as an instance of the attacks the Attorney-general met with from all quarters. He repeated, that the Attorney-general conducted himself with the greatest politeness and kindness of demeanour during the trials.
Mr. Wallacesaid, from all he had heard there was no man who had more occasion to exclaim, "Defend me from my friends," than the Attorney-general for Ireland. From all he had heard from the opposite side of the House, beginning with the noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire, and ending with the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, it seemed to be agreed that the right hon. Gentleman was the most unfit person to fill the situation of Attorney-general who could possibly be supposed to occupy it. Indeed, they had had an instance of his incompetency in this House last Session, in the conduct of the Arms' Bill; and in which the Attorney-general for England was obliged to do all his work. What had been the conduct of Government in reference to other parties connected with the administration of justice? He alluded to those gentlemen in the commission of the peace, and who possessed the confidence of the people. When certain of those gentlemen were found by the Government to be favourable to the Repeal of the Union, they were at once removed from the commission without any trial or investigation whatever. There were no three-

195
cornered notes in their cases. No such course, however, was to be pursued to wards the Attorney-general for Ireland. The temper of that right hon. and learned Gentleman was well known. The House had been a witness of his irritability during the debates on the Arms' Bill of last year, and he would say that he was the last man who should have been trusted to conduct the prosecution now going on in Ireland, and that he was totally unworthy of the situation he filled. It could not be charged to that (the Opposition) side of the House that the question had been brought forward that evening. The fault was in the introduction of the three paragraphs in the Speech, and in the Address, referring to the affairs of Ireland, and to the proceedings now going on there. He could not see for what purpose those paragraphs had been introduced, unless to muzzle the House, and that purpose being seen and understood, the Government had themselves only to blame that the subject had been discussed on the present occasion. He should support the amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale for the omission of the words.
Mr. Brothertondid not rise to make reflections or cast imputations on the Attorney-General—but rather seized upon this as a fitting opportunity for eliciting from the House the expression of their strong disapprobation of a practice, which all must acknowledge to be contrary to the law of God, and opposed to every principle of that religion which the House testified so anxious a desire to uphold. Much had been said in palliation of the Attorney-general's conduct on that side of the House, where it seemed to be thought, that, had he waited till the termination of the proceedings before sending his challenge, his course would not have been open to animadversion. Was not the crime that of murder? Why should not criminals brought to the bar for other heinous offences, be equally entitled to plead the infirmity of human nature in extenuation of their crimes? Let men fear to do wrong; but let them not fear to brave public opinion, when engaged in the defence of that which is just and right. The man who sent, and the man who accepted a challenge ought to be disgraced in the eyes of the country; and then, when it was no longer fashionable to light duels, other modes would be discovered for the adjustment of differences. The hon. Member concluded by calling on
196
the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government to lend his powerful influence, for the purpose of putting a stop to this iniquitous practice.
Mr. Curteiswould vote for the amendment, and thought the Government had only themselves to blame for it being brought forward, for if they had not wished the subject to be discussed, why was any allusion made to it in the Speech? It was argued that to discuss the question now might have the effect of influencing the verdict in Dublin, and he agreeing with those who wished a fair verdict to be given, unbiassed by anything that might take place in that House or elsewhere, was anxious to expunge altogether from the Address all those passages that related to Ireland and the proceedings now going on in that country. He regretted that the noble Lord, the leader of the Opposition, had not yesterday moved an amendment expressing the disapprobation of the House at the conduct of the Government towards Ireland, which might have united the whole strength of the party on that side of the House, instead of leaving the party to be divided as they were on the previous day, and their strength frittered away by amendments which few could support, and in which he had been compelled to vote in two divisions with the party on the other side. He gave credit to the right hon. and learned Member (Mr. Shaw) for the warm and manly manner in which he had defended his absent friend the Attorney-general for Ireland. He (Mr. Curteis), while he joined in condemning such an ebullition of temper as that law officer of the Crown had exhibited in a court of justice, could not go so far as to say that he thought his conduct called for his dismissal.
Sir H. W. Barronhad understood the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland to say, that the Attorney-general for Ireland had conducted himself with remarkable temper and forbearance during the state prosecutions in Dublin. Now, with great respect for the noble Lord, he must beg leave to tell him that he had been grossly misinformed, for he knew the noble Lord was incapable of misrepresenting facts that came within his own knowledge. He (Sir H. Barron) had been an attentive observer of these proceedings, and he must assert that never in the whole course of his reading and experience, had he become acquainted with an instance in which

197
such gross want of temper had been exhibited, and such insulting language had been used under similar circumstances. During the whole of those transactions, from the beginning to the end, the conduct of the Attorney-general for Ireland had been characterized by want of temper, want of judgment and want of discretion. What had happened at the very commencement of the prosecution? Three of the solicitors employed by the traversers had made an affidavit that it was necessary for the purposes of the defence to have certain papers, and that leave should be given to collect evidence; and they stated that unless this was conceded it would be impossible that the defence could be conducted with justice to their respective clients. And notwithstanding that statement made upon oath by those gentlemen, the Attorney-general had gone down, and upon his ipse dixit, unsupported by any affidavit, told the Court that the application of the three solicitors was made for the mere purpose of delay. A more unusual and improper proceeding—a more gross attempt to pervert justice, had never been witnessed; and so strongly was that opinion entertained by the Court itself, that the Chief Justice reproved the Attorney-general for making use of language so improper. And in the presence of the Court the Attorney-general was obliged to retract the words' he had used, and apologise to the three attorneys who had made the affidavit. [Mr. Shaw: You are surely speaking of some one else]. [A Voice: Mr. Brewster]. Although the facts he had been narrating applied personally to another of the Crown counsel, the Attorney-general was present and took part in the whole proceedings. Again, in opening the case, the Attorney general had not taken the usual course of stating the charge, and saying he should bring forward witnesses to prove it, but he told the Court that he knew of his own knowledge, and could prove, that the traversers were implicated in a most formidable conspiracy. Aggravating the case in every position, and using the most violent language to every one of the traversers in rotation. Such language would not be tolerated in the Courts of this country, and had never been employed by an Attorney-general for England, in conducting a Government prosecution. Then, again, the Attorney-general for Ireland had struck out the name of every Roman
198
Catholic that was on the jury panel. The Catholic portion of the people of Ireland felt this to be an insult offered to them, whilst its injustice to the accused was apparent, by the fact that not one name had been left upon the panel from which the jury was to be chosen, but those of persons who were notoriously opposed to the traversers in politics, and more especially so upon the point upon which the trial turned. Why if a foreigner—if a Turk were accused of a crime in this country, he would be tried by a jury composed partly of foreigners; but in Ireland a man was to be tried for a political offence entirely by his political enemies. And let him ask, if a verdict were obtained, what moral effect would it have in this country? He believed the conduct of the Irish Attorney-general, in reference to these trials, had produced more animosity and ill-feeling in Ireland, and more danger to the British connection, than anything that had occurred for fifty years before. The Roman Catholics of Ireland felt they were insulted by the present Attorney-general being continued in office. On this point there was but one opinion amongst them; an opinion shared by those who were opposed to repeal as well as by those who were in favour of it; and be could assure the Government that they need never expect to rule Ireland in peace or quiet while the present Attorney-general held office. With regard to the question before the House, he thought it would have been far better had all mention of the subject of the repeal of the Union been omitted from the Speech from the Throne. Under the direction of Ministers Her Majesty had already expressed the determination to maintain the Union inviolate. It was, therefore, quite unnecessary to repeat that declaration, and he found that the only effect it could have, would be to bias the jury now sitting in Dublin. The prosecution would, he was convinced, do much mischief in Ireland, but the mention of them in the Speech and in the Address in answer to it, would, he feared, do much more.
Mr. Humeconcurred with his hon. Friend who had proposed the amendment, that it would be most improper for that House to do anything which might prejudice the trials now going on, or injure the traversers. The only question whether the words to which reference had been made, as contained in the Speech

199
and in the Address would have that effect. And upon this point, the authorities of the House were divided, They were to consider, whether the words in question did convey the meaning imputed to them by his hon. Friend, and whether or not any harm would be done to the Address by omitting them from the Address. It was disclaimed on the other side, by the right hon. Gentleman, that there was any intention of injuring the cause of the traversers by the insertion of the words, while on his side it was as strongly contended, by the hon. and learned Member for Bath, and others, that that result would follow. He would, therefore say, that the better course would he to admit the amendment.
Dr. Bowringwould vote for the omission of the words. If it was intended to maintain the Union between Great Britain and Ireland by measures like those which had recently been brought to bear in that country, he was convinced, that Union could not be of long continuance. And he would ask those who attached importance to the word union, whether they considered the Union, was represented by what was now taking place in Ireland! Were the courts of justice in that country to be so constituted as to exclude the professors of the religion of seven eighths of the whole population from the humblest judicial functions? If that was the law in Ireland it was unjust, and it was not surprising that it was found to be intolerable; and if it was not the law, he would ask by what extraordinary means was it that the protection of the law was denied to those who were the subjects of the state prosecutions in that country? He concurred with his hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Brotherton) in abhorring the practice of duelling, and when he saw in the highest and most exalted places—in the sanctuary of justice—in the faces of those who represented the law, or ought to represent it, in all its dignity and majesty—that there the law was violated, and so gross an offence was committed by a Gentleman who was charged by the Government with the maintenance of the peace, he thought some expression of their condemnation of such conduct was called for. He regretted to perceive a great disposition to slur over the conduct of that officer, and to regard it in a light and trifling manner. There was a great demand in Ireland for local legislation, and
200
when he saw what had been done by the House of Commons for the well-being of England, Scotland, and Wales, he feared much of the outbreak they witnessed in Ireland, was the result of a national feeling, that the House of Commons was not competent to the task of discharging its duties to the whole community for which it undertook to legislate. Thirty years ago Mr. Ricardo had expressed a strong opinion, that the Union could not be maintained with Ireland. He did not think it wrong for an Irishman to say, that the Union was pernicious to the interests of his country if he thought so, nor that an Englishman would be wrong, in listening to the argument in support of that opinion. Why was he to say, that under no circumstances should Ireland have a local legislature? Why was he to say that this particular act comprises the concentration of human wisdom, and under no circumstances must it be changed? If he consented to this Address it would imply that his opinion was forestalled, and therefore, he should support the amendment.
The House divided, on the question, that the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the question:—Ayes 142; Noes 35: Majority 107.

List of the AYES.

Acland, T. D.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

A'Court, Capt.

Cripps, W.

Adderley, C. B.

Darby, G.

Allix, J. P.

Dickinson, F. H.

Antrobus, E.

D'Israeli, B.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Douglas, J. D. S.

Arkwright, G.

Drummond, H. H.

Bailey, J.

Dugdale, W. S.

Bailey, J. jun.

Duncan, Visct.

Baillie, H. J.

Eliot, Lord

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Escott, B.

Beckett, W.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Bell, M.

Farnham, E. B.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Flower, Sir J.

Boldero, H. G.

Follett, Sir W. W.

Borthwick, P.

Ffolliott, J.

Botfield, B.

Forster, M.

Brocklehurst, J.

Fuller, A. E.

Bruce, Lord E.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Buckley, E.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Campbell, J. H.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Cardwell, E.

Gore, M.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Gore, W. O.

Clayton, R R.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Clerk, Sir G.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Clive, Visct.

Granger, T. C.

Cochrane, A.

Greenall, P.

Compton, H. C.

Greene, T.

Conolly, Col.

Grimsditch, T.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Halford, H.

201

Hall, Sir B.

Newdegate, C. N.

Hamilton, J. H.

Newport, Visct.

Hamilton, G. A.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Hamilton, W. J.

Northland, Visct.

Hamilton, Lord C.

O'Brien, A. S.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Paget, Lord W.

Hardy, J.

Pakington, J. S.

Hastie, A.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Peel, J.

Henley, J. W.

Plumptre, J. P.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Pollington, Visct.

Herbert, hon. S.

Pollock, Sir F.

Hervey, Lord A.

Pringle, A.

Hodgson, R.

Rashleigh, W.

Holmes, hn. W. A'Ct.

Round, J.

Hope, hon. C.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Hope, G. W.

Russell, J. D. W.

Hornby, J.

Scott, hon. F.

Hussey, A.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Ingestrie, Viset.

Sibthorp, Col.

Jermyn, Earl

Somerset, Lord G.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Stanley, Lord

Jones, Capt.

Stewart, J.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Lawson, A.

Tennent, J. E.

Lefroy, A.

Thesiger, F.

Lincoln, Earl of

Tollemache, J.

Lockhart, W.

Trench, Sir F. W.

M'Geachy, F. A.

Turnor, C.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Vane, Lord H.

Maclean, D.

Vesey, hon. T.

M'Neill, D.

Williams, W.

Manners, Lord J.

Wodehouse, E.

Martin, C. W.

Wood, Col. T.

Master, T. W. C.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Masterman, J.

Wyndham, Col. C.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Meynell, Capt.

Yorke, H. R.

Miles, P. W. S.

Young, J.

Mitchell, T. A.

Morgan, O.

TELLERS.

Morgan, C.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Napier, Sir C.

Baring, H.

List of the AYES.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Muntz, G. F.

Bernal, Capt.

Murphy, F. S.

Blewitt, R. J.

Murray, A.

Bodkin, J. J.

Pattison, J.

Bowring, Dr.

Plumridge, Capt.

Brotherton, J.

Rawdon, Col.

Busfeild, W.

Roebuck, J. A.

Curteis, H. B.

Scholefield, J.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Scott, R.

Duncombe, T.

Stock, Serj.

Dundas, Adm.

Strickland, Sir G.

Elphinstone, H.

Tancred, H. W.

Esmonde, Sir T.

Villiers, hon. C.

Fielden, J.

Wakley, T.

French, F.

Wallace, R.

Gibson, T. M.

Wood, B.

Gore, hon. R.

TELLERS.

Hume, J.

Crawford, S.

Langston, J. H.

O'Conor, Don

Main question again proprsed.
Mr. F. Ffrenchcomplained, of the Go-
202
vernment appointments in Ireland, under the present Ministry. Patronage had been almost exclusively bestowed upon Englishmen and Scotchmen, to the exclusion of natives of Ireland. The Lord-lieutenant was an Englishman—the Chief Secretary for Ireland, was an Englishman—the Archbishop of Dublin, was an Englishman—the Chief Commissioner of the Board of Works, was an Englishman—the Paymaster of the Civil Service, was a Scotchman—the head of the Constabulary force, was also a Scotchman—the head of the Revenue police, was an Englishman—the Poor-law Commissioners, were Englishmen—the head of the Coast guard was an Englishman, and as to Lord Devon's landlord and tenant commission, its constitution, he considered, to be an insult to Ireland. He certainly thought it very hard, that such a system should be adopted and so strenuously persevered in.
Sir Robert Peel; I will not characterise the attack, which the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has made upon the Government. It is true, Sir, that we appointed five commissioners to inquire into that most important subject, the relation of landlord and tenant in Ireland—to enquire into the state of the law relative to the occupation of land. Sir, the whole of these five gentlemen are proprietors of land in Ireland. It certainly was desirable that one of them should have a knowledge of English law as bearing upon questions relative to the occupancy of land. There was a nobleman, the proprietor of great estates in the south-west of Ireland, and who has also been a Master in Chancery, and who had thus many opportunities of becoming acquainted with the bearings of English law as to land; this nobleman being willing to undertake the duties, and able to bring his legal knowledge to bear upon the question, and being also peculiarly fitted for the task from the circumstance of his having undertaken personally the management of his Irish estates—having managed these estates well, and showed great sympathy with the occupying tenantry—this nobleman, I repeat, was placed at the head of the com-mission, and because he was so placed—assisted, mind, by four gentlemen, differing, indeed, in opinions, but all alike in the possession of the highest reputation for honour, intelligence, and integrity—and the hon. Gentleman calls this com-

203
mission a specimen of the insults offered by the Government to the people of Ireland. I ask the House whether the imputation be a just one? With respect to the secretaryship of the commission, I must remark that in such cases it is usual for the Crown to name a chief secretary. Now, Sir, we expressly declined either to nominate or suggest a gentleman to fill the office. We told the commission that they should have ample pecuniary means for the support of an establishment necessary for the extensive enquiries in which they were about to engage; but with respect to patronage, that the Government would never issue a single appointment—they would not even name a secretary, but having the fullest confidence in the gentlemen forming the commission, they would devolve that duty upon them. Thus, Sir, the whole of the five commissioners are Irish proprietors, I may say, that four of them, at least, are Irish residents, while the other visits Ireland every year. The reason, I repeat, why the Earl of Devon was appointed to the head of the commission was, not that he was an Englishman, but that he had a knowledge of English law and practice relative to the land which it was desirable to introduce for the benefit of the Irish tenantry.
Mr. Sharman Crawfordwished to say a few words, for he felt that he should not be doing justice to the commission did he not state his firm conviction, founded upon a personal examination of two days to which he had been subjected, that the commission was most intent upon the best mode of fulfilling its duty, and was most anxious to procure the best information. In the last Session of Parliament, upon the occasion of the discussion of the bill relating to landlord and tenant, which he had introduced, the Government had pledged itself to institute inquiries into the subject of that bill, and he had to express his thanks for the appointment of the commission, and to acknowledge that, by its constitution, the Government had faithfully performed the promise made last Session.
Sir R. Peel: I ask the House to suspend its judgment on an occasion of this kind until Government has an opportunity of refuting the charges brought against it. And I ask, upon future occasions of the sort, should they arise, to bring their experience of this evening to bear, and to remember, first, the charges made by the
204
hon. Gentleman, the Member for Roscommon, with respect to an insult to Ireland, and afterwards the reply made by the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Rochdale. I ask for no other refutation than the words of the latter hon. Gentleman to the charges of the former.
Mr. F. Frenchdenied having made any attack upon the Earl of Devon sufficient to justify the tone assumed by the right hon. Baronet opposite. However, he feared not the right hon. Gentleman's reply. Both attack and reply would go forth to the country, and the House would see what the people of Ireland would think of both.
Sir Robert Peelhad not charged the hon. Gentleman with having made an attack upon the Earl of Devon. The hon. Gentleman had made no such attack, and he had not imputed it to him. But he had complained that the hon. Gentleman had said, that it was an insult to Ireland, that the Earl of Devon had been selected for the head of the commission.

Irish Registration.
Mr. T. S. Duncomberose, in pursuance of the notice which he had given the night before, to call the attention of the House to the paragraph in the Address, in which allusion was made to the law of Registration of Voters in Ireland. The point to which he wished to call especial attention, was the latter part of the paragraph in question. It began—
"To thank Her Majesty for recommending that we should take into our early consideration, the enactments at present in force in Ireland, concerning the registration of voters for Members of Parliament."
So far there was no objection; but he had an objection to the next sentence, which was as follows;—
"And for your Majesty's gracious intimation that we may probably find that a revision of the law of registration, taken in conjunction with other causes at present in operation would produce a material diminution of the number of county voters, and that it may be advisable on that account to consider the state of the law with a view to an extension of the county franchise in Ireland."
Now, he proposed to leave out the latter part of the sentence, and to substitute an assurance—
"That Her Majesty's gracious recommendation shall receive our immediate attention, with a view to the amendment of the representation in Ireland."

205
The object of this amendment, the House would perceive, was to make the consideration which they promised to give to the state of the franchise general, and to extend it alike to boroughs, cities, and counties. He knew not why the recommendation confined their attention to the county franchise exclusively. When the noble Lord opposite introduced his bill in the year 1841, for the improvement, as he called it, of Irish registration—when he expressed so much virtuous indignation at the corrupt state of the exercise of the franchise—the noble Lord's Registration Bill was not confined to counties, it extended to the franchise generally in Ireland, and he (Mr. Duncombe) wished to know why they should now limit their consideration to counties. He found it stated in the paragraph in question, that a revision of the law of registration would "probably" produce a great diminution in the number of county voters. "Probably"! Why, it was notorious—the fact had been ascertained already. It was known to all in the House and out of it, that from some cause or other, a gradual diminution of the voters had been going on for many years; and he found that it had been stated to the House last Session by the hon. Gentleman, the Member for the county of Limerick, that between 1837 and 1843, the constituency of Ireland had been reduced from 109,000 to 84,000. It was almost a mockery to talk of "probably" finding a diminution in the franchise of Ireland. It was notorious to the House; and in the address issued by the Repeal Association, next to the national Church, the state of the franchise was represented as one of the monster grievances of the country. The hon. Gentleman proceeded to read the passage alluded to, which stated that from the technical and complicated condition of the law relating to the acquisition and tenure of the franchise, it had been daily becoming more limited, until it was almost useless for any practical purpose. The hon. Gentleman continued—Government was certainly deserving of praise for bringing forward the subject of Irish registration: but he did not see, he repeated, why they were to be limited to the condition of county voters. He was glad to see that the Ministry appeared to have thrown overboard the finality principle; he congratulated them, he congratulated the House and the country,
206
upon the advance which they had made in so doing. They had proposed to bring in a new Reform Bill for Ireland. It was very necessary that this should be done, but do not confine it to county voters. The hon. Gentleman concluded by proposing his amendment.
Sir R. Peeltrusted that the House would not go into any discussion upon the question of the reform of the Irish representation. The proposed bill was not at present before the House, and nothing could be more inconvenient than to approach its discussion, the House being necessarily ignorant of the provisions of the measure in question. He thought he could give a complete and satisfactory answer to the observations of the hon. Gentleman opposite. There was nothing in the Address, acquiescence in which would pledge hon. Gentlemen to any opinion upon the subject of Irish representation. There was nothing in the Address to prevent any Gentleman who might think that the Irish franchise ought to be extended from afterwards submitting any proposition upon the subject unprejudiced by his concurrence in the paragraph in question. They proposed to amend the registration in Ireland. It was impossible to accomplish tins without considering the state of the registration in the counties. There were other causes in action independent of the registration, tending to reduce the number of county voters. The provisions of the bill, which they proposed to introduce, would affect the county, not the borough and city voters. As there were causes which affected county, but not borough voters, and as they were about to propose a system affecting these causes, they accompanied the announcement with a pledge that Government would call the attention of the House to the county franchise. Such was the pledge on the part of Government, and a concurrence in the assurance to that effect contained in the Address would not have the effect of binding the opinions of any hon. Gentleman as to the general question of the Irish franchise. He hoped that the hon. Gentleman opposite would see that there was no necessity for pressing his amendment, and that the pledge followed logically from the opinion which the Government had expressed upon the subject. All that they undertook to do was, that as the registration affected county voters, they would introduce ample provision to pre

207
vent the diminution in the number of voters caused by the system of revision in the bill which they would submit to the House.
Sir H. W. Barrondid not think it was necessary to press the amendment to a division. The paragraph pledged the Government to an increase of the franchise as regarded counties. He did not wish to go into the full question of Irish registration, but he would say, that if the right hon. Baronet opposite would look into the matter, he would find that in Ireland, in the cities, and towns, and boroughs, there was quite as much reason for increasing the franchise as in the counties. The right hon. Baronet would also find, that in a poorer country the same qualifications for the franchise were demanded as those exacted in a much richer country.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, that upon the understanding that they were to be in no way pledged in respect to the general question of the franchise in Ireland, by acquiescing in the paragraph in question, he would have no objection to withdraw his amendment.
Amendment withdrawn.

Bank of England.
Mr. Blewittinquired what course the Government intended to pursue with respect to the paragraph in the Address relating to the Bank of England and other banking establishments?
Sir R. Peelsaid, that the course which he had every reason to think would be pursued, would be, that whilst the Ministers of the Crown would not propose to institute any new committee of inquiry, they would take the responsibility of calling the attention of the House to the charter of the Bank of England, and to other banking establishments. He was not prepared to fix any time for the motion, but it would be brought forward at such a period as would insure its fullest consideration, and ample notice would be given.
Report agreed to.
To be presented to Her Majesty by the whole House.
House adjourned at ten o'clock.