HC Deb 23 February 1844 vol 73 cc135-266
The Attorney General,

in resuming the debate, said, Sir, I rise in the discharge of a duty which I believe this House and the country expects from me, in consequence of what has occurred in the course of this debate. I have, since the commencement of this debate, been so frequently called on, so frequently challenged, and so often alluded to by hon. Members, that if I had any reluctance, which I have not, I could not avoid joining in the discussion of the question now before us, and expressing my opinions on many portions of the subject. I was prepared to enter upon the discharge of this duty at an earlier period of the debate—I intended to follow my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Worcester, and to have commented on many of the observations which he made in his speech; but I am sure the House will excuse me for saying that the moment I heard the word dishonour drop from the lips of my hon. and learned Friend, referring to my right hon. Friend, the Attorney General for Ireland, I at once thought that it would not become me to step in between any Gentleman and the vindication of his personal honour—and feeling this, I at once gave way to my right hon. and learned Friend. In what manner that right hon. and learned Gentleman discharged the duty which was imposed on him in vindication of his honour, I leave the House to judge—of the able and admirable manner in which he discharged that duty it may scarcely become me to speak, more particularly as the House has already decided upon it. But I must be permitted to say, that a more able and powerful speech, delivered in a more gentlemanly tone, and with a more manly bearing, I never heard in this House. Having expressed my opinion of the manner in which that duty was discharged, I now wish to observe that I have great pleasure in at once expressing my entire satisfaction to the right hon. Member for Dungarvon, at the explanation which he last night gave with respect to a trial, in which he was engaged as counsel for the prosecution, and which took place about fourteen or fifteen years ago in the county of Tipperary. I am not surprised that when it was suggested, that the right hon. Attorney General for Ireland might have called for a common Jury to try the traversers at the late Trials, that he was afraid of the effect of public opinion, if he were to exercise in that case the undoubted right of the crown to set aside Jurors—I am not sur- prised, I say, that when such a suggestion was made in reference to my right hon. Friend, that he should, in consequence of that suggestion, have adverted to a trial which took place in Clonmel about fourteen or fifteen years ago, in which the right hon. and learned Member for Dungarvon was engaged, and on which occasion thirty-six common Jurors were set aside on the part of the Crown, and I am not astonished at the remarks made by my right hon. and learned Friend with reference to that proceeding. When the suggestion was made as to the course my right hon. and learned Friend might have adopted, it was natural that he should have referred to such an unusual exercise of the Prerogative of the Crown as setting aside those jurors; but after what fell from the right hon. and learned Member for Dungarvon last night with respect to that trial, I beg to say that I am perfectly satisfied that on the occasion of that trial, the right hon. Gentleman's conduct was actuated solely by a desire correctly to discharge his duty, and to promote the proper administration of justice. To the right hon. and learned Gentleman, therefore, if anything that falls from so humble an individual as myself can be of value to him, I say that I am perfectly satisfied with his explanation—personally knowing him as I do, and having heard him frequently in this House as well as out of it, I could not, from my experience of him, believe that he could be actuated by any other feelings than those which I have described. Sir, having discharged what I consider a debt of justice to my right hon. Friend I trust the House will extend to me its indulgence while I set myself right as to a point referred to by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Worcester, namely the course which I felt it my duty to take on the part of the Crown in a recent case in the Court of Exchequer, where I, as Attorney General, consented that a trial should be suspended, the Jury discharged without giving a verdict, and the defendant allowed an opportunity of stating his case on a future occasion. Sir, that no mistake may be made in the House or the country on that head, I think it right briefly to state the particulars, and the ground on which I acted. Up to the period of that trial, it had been the invariable practice of the Departments, bath of the Excise and the Customs, to state, as nearly as possible, the precise day on which the transaction took place which was to be the subject of inquiry. Now, every lawyer is aware that it is not a matter of such necessity to name the precise day, and that usually the precise day is not so material, if the defendant is afforded a knowledge of the character of the offence charged, and about the time as nearly as possible, when the occurrence took place. For a plausible reason, which satisfied him for a time, the able and learned person whose assistance I had in that case, did not name the 24th of August, which was about the day but instead of that day, named the 24th of December, a period of four months later. That was an entire departure from the ordinary course of the Department, which I did not approve of, and when I heard that such a course had been adopted I discountenanced it, and begged that it should not be repeated, and I said this the rather because the hon. and learned Member for Worcester, about a fortnight before, when acting as Counsel for a defendant in the Court of Exchequer, expressed his regret that the defendant did not know the day, and on that occasion I told my hon. and learned Friend, who had been Solicitor General, and who well knew the practice of the office that the defendant could have no doubt as to about the time when the transaction which was to be the subject of the enquiry took place. When the trial came on in the Court of Exchequer, I had not the slightest idea that the objection would be made, and if I knew the party would have been in any difficulty as to the real day, I should have had no hesitation in at once agreeing to give him any reasonable delay which he might require. It was not until the defence commenced that the objection was brought forward. The Solicitor to the Excise was then put into the witness box, and he stated, in answer to a question, that it was the invariable practice to name the real day as nearly as possible, and that the day was named in this case four mouths later. The counsel for the defence addressed the Jury, and said the defendant had been kept in ignorance of the precise day on which the alleged offence was committed. I then interrupted him in the middle of a sentence, and, in order that there might be no ground for complaint on the part of the defendant, I said I would agree to have the trial suspended, the Jury discharged, and that the defendant should have the notice according to the usual practice in such cases. What I proposed was done with the sanction of the Court, and the consent of the other side; and I feel that it was advantageous to the subject, and honourable to the Crown. Sir, I may add, that I am happy to find that in conducting the prosecutions the course I pursued was approved of at Lancaster, Cardiff, and Carmarthen, and I shall have occasion presently to call the attention of the House more particularly to these transactions. The favourable manner in which the House has been pleased to receive a notice of my conduct will undoubtedly animate me in the faithful discharge of my duty. And here, Sir, I may observe, that I should be wanting in fairness to my right hon. Friend at the Head of the Government, if I omitted to state, that one of the principal encouragements which I received in the course of my public life, was from him, and I trust that it will not be considered out of season, if I mention what took place when I was first appointed Attorney General in 1834. If there was any advantage in coining into office with very slight knowledge of its duties, and with an hon. and learned Colleague no better off in that respect than myself, I had that advantage. My Parliamentary experience was not great—that of my hon. Colleague was still less. A case of difficulty arising under such circumstances, it was very natural I should endeavour to avail myself of the great experience of my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government. He gave me the advice I sought, and having done so he said:—"You never need come to me again for advice. The responsibility is yours—and let me give you this general direction. When you have any matter of difficulty before you, consider well before you act; make yourself master of the subject; don't decide in a hurry; ascertain what is your duty with reference to the public interest, and when you have ascertained it, look neither to the right nor to the left. See what is due to the interest of the Crown, and also to the advantage of the public, and when you have ascertained your duty, discharge it. Should I differ from you I will do justice to your motives; that is the only advice I wish to give you, and having given you that advice I leave you to the discharge of your duty under those directions." This was the only advice I ever received from my right hon. Friend, to this moment. It was advice worthy of the first Minister of the Crown, as given to its first Law Officer. It gave me courage and confidence in the course which I have since pursued, for it enabled me to look not merely to the letter of the law, not merely to read the statutes or a digest of the Common Law, but to take the law to be administered at all times, as far as possible, in accordance with sound public opinion, and in unison with the sympathies and feelings of the great body of the community. I have now to advert to that which forms a large portion of the discussion in which the House has been engaged, and it is a portion of that discussion which exhibits very forcibly the danger which may arise from having legal subjects of this nature brought under discussion in this House, whilst proceedings are still pending. I do not mean in the slightest degree, I beg the House to understand, to impugn the authority of the House to discuss such matters, on occasions that might possibly arise. If the House was sitting, it might be right to take notice of a proceeding at that time actually going on. I concede fully the right of the House, or of any hon. Member of the House, with adequate cause, to make a proceeding of that nature the subject of inquiry; but having admitted that, I must say, that there may be great inconvenience produced by the frequent discussion of such subjects, and that the interference of the House in matters actually pending has a tendency to interfere with the administration of justice, and to dostroy the confidence of the public in the purity of that administration; and if any part ought more than another to be kept free from an interference calculated to produce that effect, it is the administration of justice as regards the Criminal Law of the country. That interference may be to-day to protect a person supposed to be unjustly accused or unfairly tried, but to-morrow it may be to immolate a victim of popular prejudice, and to sacrifice a person to feelings entertained contrary to the principles of law and justice. Admitting the, power of the House, I should, for my part, have desired that matters, which are still pending, and a large portion of which will be, perhaps, the subject of inquiry and discussion elsewhere, should not have been brought under the notice of the House. I should, therefore, have wished, if possible, to have avoided touching on those matters; but at the same time, as the subject has been entered on, I am not sure that I shall not agree with the hon. and learned member for Bath, in thinking that it would be better to go into the whole of it, for it is scarcely possible to discuss such a subject piecemeal. I shall, however, in alluding to this subject, bring forward for discussion, that part only which I am imperatively called on to enter upon, and in doing so, I shall avoid any observation of an acrimonious or bitter character with reference to any one connected with it, or who has spoken on it, on either side of the House. The notice which I feel disposed to take of speeches in this debate, principally applies to the speeches or Members of my own profession. I had not the advantage of hearing the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Cork, (Mr. Sergeant. Murphy), but I had the advantage of hearing the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, who stated that he was no lawyer, though why he so studiously repudiated the profession to which we both belong I am unable to tell; but I must say this much, that I went with him on the Northern Circuit, I held briefs with him, and I know he is a man of too powerful a mind not to be able easily to master the details of our profession, and too honest a man to practise it if he had not mastered them. I shall, therefore, still continue to look upon him as a member of that profession, and to call him my right hon. and learned Friend. He was selected for the office which he held in the East Indies, because he was a lawyer, it was connected with the formation of a code of laws, and he was succeeded by Mr. Amos, a Gentleman amongst those of the highest legal attainments in Westminster-hall. Unless my right hon. and learned Friend were desirous of mixing bad law with worse politics, and for that reason repudiated his profession, I know not why he should have separated himself from us. But I cannot afford to lose the "decus et tutamen" of the profession; and if he is anxious to stray away from the flock he must permit me to go after him to reclaim him, and try to bring him back again to the fold! I must treat the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend as the speech of a lawyer. I am not disposed to do him any injustice, and I must say that, I heard with the greatest delight the delivery of the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I must say it more deserved the name of a splendid oration than a speech in debate. I listened with delight to the outpourings of that mind so richly stored with varied information. I marked with pleasure the pouring forth of that profusion of intellectual wealth, which he possesses in such abundance, intermingled with similes drawn from ancient and modern literature, and illustrations from every part of the world, and from the history of all times. I heard all this, Sir, till envy, if I could have felt it, would have been lost in admiration. It was impossible to hear his glowing language—his glittering antitheses—his magnificent periods—his powerful and strong points—so well worthy of attention here or in any other assembly, without the highest pleasure and gratification. But it was rather the oration of a poet, an author, or an orator, than the speech of a great statesman, and I looked and looked in vain, from the beginning to the end of that speech, for anything practical. I heard the right hon. Gentleman complain of everything and everybody; but with all the leisure which he could devote to the subject, he allowed his sympathy for Ire. land to expend itself in barren generalities. Perhaps I cannot do more from the position which I occupy; but the right hon. Member for Edinburgh has ample leisure and ample talent to devote to the subject, and yet I looked in vain through his speech for anything practicable—for anything to grapple with. I found in it nothing but meagre details relative to a profession which he professes to have abandoned. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the constitution of the Jury at the late trials, and said that the Crown ought to have been contented with a common Jury. That was repeated by the hon. and learned Member for Worcester, and also by the right hon. and learned Member for Dungarvon. Now, that was never suggested until it was suggested in this House. The counsel for the traversers, fifteen in number, never suggested it; and when the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite now suggests it, I must say that I am not bound to entertain a proposition which was not made at all at the trials, or before them. I do not think it my duty to speculate what would, or what ought, to have been done with a proposition which was not made till the trial was completely over, and, as I before said, never, I believe, suggested until last night. My hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Chester, if I mistake not, did suggest that it might have been done; but if anything in this Debate is to turn upon this point, I have a right to say that it ought to have been mentioned at a time when it could have been acted on, and not at this time. Now, with respect to the question of a special or a common Jury, I am not, Sir, versed in the details of the proceedings in Ireland, and I am unable to say which has been the practice there; but I beg to say, that in this country I should just as soon have thought of trying such a case by a Common Jury as I should have thought of trying a case of High Treason at the Quarter Sessions. I say boldly, that I am not aware of a single instance where a trial of this sort has taken place by a Common Jury. As far as I know, in the history of English jurisprudence, a trial of this description has never taken place except by a Special Jury; and I must say, that if I, as the representative of the Crown, on any occasion consented to depart from that established practice, I should think that I betrayed the duty that I owed to the Crown, without being at all certain that I advanced the security of the subject in the administration of the law. I do not know what may be the practice in Ireland, but I say boldly, in the face of the House and the country, without pledging myself to what should be done in the particular case to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred last light, I should unquestionably have advised a Special Jury, and dissuaded from resorting to a Common Jury; and I should consider myself wanting in my duty in respect of my office, if I departed from the usual course. Sir, that course was the course taken, after deliberate consultation. The law officers of the Crown here were consulted as to the practice, and they gave an unhesitating opinion that the case ought to be tried by a Special Jury. They had not the slightest doubt about it. They advised a Special Jury, and they advised it for this reason, that in the case of a Special Jury you have, to begin with, forty-eight names taken indifferently by ballot from the whole panel, or rather from the entire list of the Jurors' books. In the heat of argument the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke last night of the Jurors being "selected." Why, Sir, none of them are "selected." There are forty-eight names drawn by ballot. If I mistake not, the Jury-book for Dublin would furnish more than fifteen times forty-eight. The List is so large, that you could, out of the book, get no less than fifteen complete panels. My right hon. and learned Friend, therefore, ought not to have spoken of the Jurors as "selected." They are all taken by ballot from the List, and they are so taken with a power of objecting to the name of any one when drawn; so that you begin by taking the entire list, and you get forty-eight names which are supposed to be free from prejudice. The noble Lord, the Member for the City of London, appears to deny this: if he will look into the Act of Parliament—nay more, if he will attend to the practice, he will be aware that forty-eight names are taken from the book, but not the first forty-eight that you may happen to stumble on, but forty-eight taken by ballot, and therefore free from any suspicion. There is a power of objection as to the parties as the names are drawn forth; and if any person is incapacitated from serving, as the names are drawn, there is a power of objecting to him. Nay, more, I apprehend there is a full power of applying to the Court to quash the return, and to direct a new panel if any mischance has occurred by which the Court is persuaded that there could not be a fair trial. Well, then, the forty-eight names being selected purely by chance, they are reduced to twenty-four by each party striking off twelve, and then the actual twelve who are to sit upon the trial are to be the result of a further ballot—taking twelve of the twenty-four. In this country we find that this method of selecting juries is free from reproach, free from difficulty, is satisfactory to the public, and is an additional instrument in insuring impartiality in the administration of justice, whereas I must say, that to leave to the Crown the power to set aside Common Jurors—to cast that odium upon the Crown, would be very unwise. Why, my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Worcester, thought the odium so great in practice, that he said the officer of the Crown would not dare to incur it, and that when it became necessary for the Attorney General to say, "Thompson, you stand aside; Jones, stand aside," such an outcry would be raised, that he would not dare to go on. It was for the purpose of avoiding that; and, as the defendants in misdemeanor have no right to challenge except for cause shewn, it was the deliberate opinion of the Law Officers at this side of the Channel as well as the other, that there should be a Special Jury: because here it is the usual practice, because it secures—so far as the Panel is impartial—an impartial Jury, and because it places the Crown and the traversers precisely on the same footing. It may be, that when you come afterwards to examine the matter as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dungarvon has done, perhaps correctly—I am sure with perfect correctness as regards his own views and the information he has obtained—there may be particular cases in which the list may be unfavourable to the traversers, and the Jury may not be selected with good fortune to them. That might be a ground of application to the Court, but it is no ground of accusation against the Public Officer who has the conduct of the Trial. I am sure the House will allow me to state what occurred at Carmarthen; and one reason why I have entered so deeply into the character of my right hon. and learned Friend opposite, and into the explanation of the statement of facts made by him, is this, that I was placed at Carmarthen in precisely a similar situation. I went down to Carmarthen, a very small county, with a small population, and a very limited Jury List. I am sorry to be obliged to make these disclosures, but it is necessary in order that the House may understand the difficulty in which a Public Officer may be placed, and I can well understand how my right hon. and learned Friend must have felt the difficulties of his position. Numbers of persons had been out in different parts of that county to such an extent, that when the List of some seventy-two names was placed before me, I was credibly informed that a very considerable number of the persons on the List had been some of them actually out in the riots and outbreaks which they were coming to try, and others, supported by their relations, servants, neighbours and friends, and there were above thirty names on that Panel whom I could not call with safety, nay more, whom I could not permit to remain in the Jury Box without injustice to the Crown. Why, Sir, what was I to do in such a situation? [Mr. Roebuck: "Hear."] I will tell my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bath that I half shrunk from the performance of my duty, and well I might do so, having on one occasion to set aside thirty Jurors. And what enabled me to do so? It was the certainty that if I should be challenged in this House, I should be enabled to give a sufficient answer for my conduct. And why was this? I knew the purity of my own motives, and more than that, I knew that on former occasions there had been those favourable expressions of opinion with regard to my conduct, which enabled me to feel that character was strength, and that I could dare to perform that duty from which another might perhaps have flinched, from a fear of unmerited unpopularity attaching to his name, and destroying his right to the good opinion of his fellow subjects. I consulted the learned gentlemen with whom I was associated—who went that circuit; they were diametrically opposed to me in politics. I mention this for the purpose of saying that I placed the more confidence in their opinions. I felt that they were prepared to discharge their duty, as I was mine. They told me the state of the country, which to some extent they knew, and the habits of the people of that district, where no trial scarcely took place without many challenges on either side, and that I might rely upon the information I should receive on those points from the local Attorney. Well, Sir, having the support of my learned friends, and with the undoubted information that I received, I felt called upon to exercise to the fullest extent the Prerogative of the Crown, and to get a Jury from whom a firm but fair and impartial Administration of Justice might be expected. I will ask my right hon. and learned Friend opposite, could my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland have dared to do so much? I admit that it was almost impossible. I admit that what was done in Tipperary by the right hon. and learned Member for Dungarvon, in 1829, fifteen years ago, could not be done in Dublin in 1844. I think there would have been raised such a clamour, such an expression of public opinion—and there would have been such an appearance—whatever might be the reality—of partiality and unfair proceeding, that no Officer of the Crown ought to have risked placing himself in such a position; and I have no hesitation in saying that it was, therefore, the duty of my right hon. and learned Friend to try the case by a Special Jury. Well, but then it is said that this was all pretence, that there was unfairness in the proceeding. Why, let me beg the attention of the House to the matter for a single moment. There are forty-eight names drawn, each party striking off twelve. The Crown has a right to strike off twelve and no more, and the traversers have just the same right, and they may exercise this right in the most capricious manner, and as my learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland said the other night, if the defendants were to strike off names for their own benefit, and the Crown then to strike off names for their benefit also, this would be a double strike off in their favour. I do not think that could be expected. I am perfectly ready to yield this, that the right to strike twelve names out of the Panel, as it is to be performed either by plaintiffs or defendants, is one of the most absolute rights known to the law. I admit that on the part of the Crown that right is to be exercised with deference to public opinion, but that deference to public opinion is not to be allowed to operate to the prejudice of the performance of a substantial duty. And then I freely admit that, ceteris paribus—if they stand before me indifferent—Catholic and Protestant, and if the attention of the party striking off the names be drawn to the fact, that if he leaves no Catholic on the Jury it may create a false impression, and prejudice the case; under such circumstances having to strike off either a Catholic or a Protestant, I must cordially say, that ceteris paribus, I should be disposed to leave on the Catholic rather than prejudice the case. And here I must be allowed to correct a misconstruction put by the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh upon the use made by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary for the Home Department, of the word prejudice. My right hon. Friend used the word in the sense of false feeling, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman chose to take it up in the sense of injury. But how stand the facts of this case; was it a case ceteris paribus? Why, Sir, I will go further, and say, so much do I feel the importance of consulting public opinion, and observing a respectful deference even to prejudices, that may be abroad, that I would make a concession beyond that. But the question is, how does the matter stand? In the first place, a clamour was raised that every Catholic was struck off, because he was a Catholic. Now, however, that is given up. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, says, that as to eight of the Jury, on that ground he has no complaints to make. He admits that as to the eight it would have been a dereliction of duty if those gentlemen had been left on the Jury. And now, with respect to the others, I believe, there has been a mistake with respect to the actual number of Roman Catholics on the Jury List. I should be very sorry to trouble the House with minute details on this point. I have endeavoured to avoid it, and to compress my observations into as compact a form as is necessary, consistently with the performance of my duty. I believe there was one more than the number originally mentioned, I believe there were eleven, and that of the number nine were Repeaters. There was no question about nine of them, but a question arose as to Mr. Henry and Mr. Dunn. With respect to Dunn, I have a paper here in which his name appears as one of the requisitionists for a meeting in May 1842, on which occasion the parties signed one resolution, amongst others, in which they pledge themselves, individually and collectively, to use their utmost exertions, personal, pecuniary, and influential, to forward the sacred cause of Repeal by all constitutional means, and to continue the Repeal struggle as suggested by the Liberator. I will not titter taunts or reproaches on this subject, but I beg to say that a person who was so connected with the case to be tried was an individual, who, if the fact was disclosed, ought to be struck off! He could not stand indifferent as the others; and while it was the duty of the Crown to exercise their right, with deference as to public opinion, I say the law officer would have sacrificed to a perverse and spurious liberality his duty to the Crown if he had left that man on. Then, with respect to the other, Mr. Kemmis distinctly states that at the time when Mr. Henry was struck off, he believed him to be a Protestant and a Conservative. I have a right to ask from Gentlemen opposite, credit for Mr. Kemmis, as a gentleman, and a man of honour, when he declares in his affidavit, that being compelled to strike off one more Juror, he did not know that he was a Catholic, and that he struck him off as the least eligible of those to whom he had no objection. There were reasons for that opinion of Mr. Kemmis. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary for the Home Department, did not think it right to state them the other night, and he not having stated them, I do not think it right on my part. I do not know that they might not be stated without impropriety, but it will be sufficient to say, that there were reasons why Mr. Kemmis might prefer other Jurors to him, although those reasons did not involve Mr. Henry in any suspicion, and although Mr. Kemmis supposed him to be a Conservative and a Protestant. Well, the charge is cleared away, of having struck off all the Catholics for no other reason than that they were Catholics. There were removed eight members of the Repeal Association; a ninth was found to have attached his name to a requisition for a Repeal Meeting; and, with regard to the other, there was not the least idea that he was any other than a Protestant. Really, I must say, if this is true, it is deeply to be regretted, that any feeling should have been raised of any intention on our part, to insult our Catholic fellow-subjects. I beg to say, for my own part, that no Gen-man opposite, not even my right hon. and learned Friend himself, would more deeply regret such a fact, or the suspicion of such a fact, than I should; and I am sure that in this sentiment I have the entire concurrence of my hon. Friends near me. I shall now advert to the speech of my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Worcester. Some mistakes fell from him, to which I must beg to call the attention of the House. In the first place, I own I was perfectly astonished to hear my hon. and learned Friend put the question. "Where are the liberties of the people of England buried?" and meet it with this answer, "They are buried in the Courts of Common law." "Where, or how is it (asked my hon. and learned Friend) that the rights of liberty are swamped?" "By means of the Common Law." I do not know whether my hon. and learned Friend is in his place or not. I have no intention to utter a syllable which could give him the slightest offence, but I cannot help saying, that if he had drunk of the streams of Common Law, as the great lawyers of old—if he had tasted that spring in the spirit of our ancestors—he would never have made those observations. I hope my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Bath, is not prepared to go along with him in that statement. I will not call it a libel on the Common Law. The Common Law, the grave of our liberties! Why, it was their cradle—it was the source from which we derived some of the first principles of liberty which the bold and manly character of our country has since swelled out to the size at which we now find them: if it were not for the Common Law, I doubt that we should have a single spark of liberty in the country. It is impossible; you cannot exaggerate the importance of Trial by Jury, which is part of that Common Law. We owe to the Common Law the collection of twelve men to inquire into the guilt or innocence of those accused, and to pronounce their opinions upon the actions of every one of the subjects of this country. We owe to the assemblage of Juries, to meet and discuss matters submitted to them, more liberty than to any other cause. It is by meeting in this way that we have discovered our strength, and I will add, that Juries have continually worked out those liberties which we are now enjoying. That is one instance. And who was it that pronounced general search-warrants issued by the Secretary of State to be illegal, after they had continued from the Revolution downwards to about 1770, when the Court of Common Pleas, and subsequently all the Judges, pronounced that the Judges could not make law, and that general search-warrants had no foundation in the Common Law—that they were unknown, contrary to the genius of the Constitution, and could not stand; and this after they had existed for upwards of 100 years. No one had called them in question till then; and an opinion of the Judges before that time would have been extra-judicial; but the moment when the matter was brought before them, they gave an opinion in favour of the rights of the subject. But was there no other instance? What was the first effort on behalf of the human race for the extinction of Slavery? The liberation of the negro Somerset, in 1780 Somerset, the negro came to this country, and was reshipped, to be conveyed to Jamaica. A writ of habeas corpus rescued him from his dungeon in the ship; he was brought into Court, the question was argued, and it was pronounced, that the liberties of every man in this kingdom was commensurate with the shores of the country, that the noxious spirit of Slavery could not exist here, and that the moment a Slave touches the sacred soil of Liberty, the fetters drop from his feet, and he becomes a free man. Why, our own domestic slavery has been entirely removed by decisions of the Courts of Law, time after time. There was a desire to wrest and turn everything in favour of liberty, which the breath of the Common Law inspires from the first to the last maxim it inculcates. I will not dwell upon this point: but it is remarkable what instances are to be found of greater respect given to Courts of Law even than to the Legislature itself. I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Member for Worcester in the argument in which he was so ably supported by my right hon. Friend, on the subject of the privileges of this House. I differ from the practical application of it, but I know, and my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Bath, knows, that there are plenty of Gentlemen in this House, and many more out of the House, who are glad to have the Courts of Law as a refuge from the possible tyranny of this House; and I will remind the house that our Transatlantic brethren when they founded their Constitution on the basis of the purest Democracy, took care that the Legislature should not spoil it, because they gave the Supreme Court power to annul any Act which it held to be ultra vires, and contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. A complaint has been made that my hon. and learned Friend (the Solicitor General) said that there are certain Acts of Parliament which are not to be discussed in this House. I did not so understand my hon. and learned Friend, and I think it is impossible for any Lawyer to lay down such a proposition. The charge of Lord Loughborough, in the Court of Common Pleas, on the Trial of Lord George Gordon, which the House is aware arose out of riotous and tumultuous assemblages to obtain the repeal of certain Acts in favour of the Roman Catholics, laid it down that those and all other Acts were open to public discussion: but what my hon. and learned Friend meant was, that there are some Acts which so immediately affect the institutions of the country, and go so completely to the root of the Constitution, that although they have the same foundation in point of law, yet, according to the good sense and practice of mankind, are viewed in a dif- ferent light. My hon. and learned Friend alluded to the Act of Settlement and the Act of Union, and what he meant was, that those Acts ought to receive from Statesmen and subjects a different consideration from other Acts of Parliament. What would be the effect of repealing the Act of Settlement? There is no doubt that any law may be made the subject of discussion and petition; but I ask whether anybody would propose for petition and discussion the Law of Succession to the Throne? that that which is established in this country should be altered for that which prevails in France? There are discussions on certain topics which it is felt that it is wise should be avoided—there are parts of the Constitution which it is well should not be shaken. Now, as to the observation of the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, which has been objected to, that we ought not to discuss the proceedings in the Courts of Westminster, and I am sure the hon. Member for Bath will go along with me in saying this—that unless there be a case of urgent necessity, they ought not to be interfered with, unless there be strong reasons for taking that course, the proper and the Constitutional course is, after the matter has been discussed before the proper tribunal, after it is completed, not before, to complain to this House if wrong be done. And I must say, with regard to an inquiry by the House, even, it ought not to be proceeded with except upon proper notice. For instance, look to what has happened with respect to the Attorney General for Ireland. My hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Worcester, came down here, on the sixth night of the debate, with a variety of papers which he had never moved for, which were in the hands of no Member of this House, except his own, of which I did not know anything, and with respect to which, though I was to reply to him, I had not the slightest notion of the course he was going to take. A period of the evening, too, was selected for his speaking, which precluded an answer being given to him that night. And now, having said this much of him, let me do him this justice—a fairer man, or a juster man than my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Worcester, there does not exist. I would trust my life, and every thing that I had in the world, in his hands. Incorruptible, honest, faithful, zealous, he would do no wrong willingly to any man, least of all would he do an injury to any man, by any course that could be susceptible even of the charge of unfairness. This, Sir, is the sincere, the willing testimony I tender with respect to one, between whom and myself there has lasted a friendship now of thirty years. It began between us at school; it continued at college; it has been matured in manhood. He is, I say, utterly incapable of doing anything liable to the charge of unfairness. And yet, what comments might be made upon his coming here at a late hour of the night, not giving any notice, not letting any one know, even in the slightest degree, the charge he was about to make against the Irish Attorney General? But why do I point to this? For this reason; that we may all learn a lesson from it; not slightly, rashly, suddenly, to impute improper motives to honourable men, who may not at the moment perceive the construction to which their acts may be liable. I ask for myself; I ask for my learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, a candid and fair construction for our conduct from others, who may not be fully aware of the reasons that have influenced that conduct. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh has thrown out a suggestion, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liskeard has spoken also of the doctrine of conspiracy as a questionable doctrine. The doctrine of conspiracy is, I believe, as old as Common Law. I know that there is a definition of it in a statute, and in that definition has been found an expression of great import, and which really comprises almost the principle of every case. I have a portion of the statute here, and that statute professes to state what is a conspirator, and like many of our old statutes, as the hon. and learned Member for Bath perfectly well knows, it gives rather an example of a principle than a detailed Code of Law. It is stated in that Statute that a conspirator is one who confederates with others to charge a man with a false crime, and "such as retain men in the country to maintain a malicious enterprise." If then a man combines or confederates with others for the purpose of effecting a malicious enterprise, he is a conspirator. I believe that the Law of Conspiracy was correctly laid down by the Court. As to the Law of Conspiracy itself, I do not feel it necessary to vindi- cate it from whatever my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Worcester may have said against it. There never yet has been any attempt to get rid of that Statute; and if my hon. and learned Friend has any objection, any serious objection to the definition of the crime of conspiracy, it is high time for him to legislate upon it. Whether he may succeed or not, I shall not pretend to say, but I can hold out no hope of offering to him any assistance. As an instance of what a conspiracy may be, I refer to the case of a number of officers who all resigned their commissions on the same day for the purpose of compelling a noble Lord (Lord Clive) to resign his government. There a legal act was done by each; the crime there was the confederacy to do that which would place the Commander-in-Chief in such a position that he would be compelled to comply with their wishes, and to do this by a measure that was perfectly legal in itself. Every one of those officers was competent to take the course of resigning his commission; that he might freely do so; but the moment it was done in a confederacy with others, it was pronounced by the Judges to be an unlawful conspiracy. There are general rights, the exercise of the rights of property, and all other rights, free from all control except that which belongs to public opinion, and the satisfaction of a man's own conscience; but when several persons combine together, they have a power which not one of them alone can possess, and the public safety demands that criminal associations for unlawful ends, by acts that may, in themselves, be perfectly innocent, should be punishable by law. It so happens that no man is responsible by law for a departure from the truth. If an inquiry be made of a man as to the character of an individual, his state in trade, no man is responsible; he may answer truly or falsely; but if several persons join in one common falsehood, to raise, for instance, the price of the funds, or to injure the credit of any one; then, though each might state with perfect impunity that which was not true, yet the confederacy with others to propagate a falsehood, makes each become amenable to the law for that combination. There is, too, a passage in Hawkins, where it is said that parties combining together to maintain a matter, whether true or false, makes them conspirators. But I am not disposed to go further with this. Let us, then, see what is the accusation, and in speaking of the accusation itself, let me guard myself against being suffered to utter one word against the accused. I consider the situation of those charged with the offence entitles them to the greatest forbearance. There is the verdict of a jury; but it is open to them to move an Arrest of Judgment, or the Judgment itself may be reversed by a Writ of Error. I, for one, Sir, hope that from my lips upon the heads of the accused not a single expression shall fall of taunt or reprobation, even though I may speak of the acts with which they were charged. The substance of the charge is this—that they combined together to procure a Repeal of the Union, by producing sentiments of alienation in the minds of the subjects of the United Empire, and by the intimidation of the Legislature of the United Empire. They may be guilty or not; but that is the charge against them. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Worcester, has said that the charge in this case is like to the charge against Lord George Gordon. It is no such thing. That was for levying war; this is for a conspiracy. This is not a conspiracy to levy war; but it is a conspiracy to overawe and intimidate the Legislature, and by that means to produce a Repeal of the Union. [Mr. Roebuck. What was Hardy's case?] That reminds me of what is still said in Westminster Hall with respect to that case. After a long trial, and all the parties had been acquitted, it was said that Lord Thurlow, having heard of the proceeding and the result of it, remarked—"the mistake was in indicting them for high treason; if they had been indicted for a misdemeanor, they must have been certainly convicted." What was meant was this—if you had indicted them as conspirators you must have succeeded, but as you indicted them for a levying of war, and could prove no levying of war, you failed. But then it was said, why allow all this to go on? Why not indict them for their illegal acts? Why not indict one man for a libel—why not indict another for attending an unlawful assembly, and why not give some notice of your opinion of these proceedings? Why allow Mr. O'Connell to fall into a trap; why allow matters to go to such an extreme? Now, Sir, I recollect a discussion taking place in this House in May last, with respect to the dismissing the Magistrates who had attended those meetings. Could, I ask, the Executive to have given in a better, a stronger, and in a more marked manner, the opinion they entertained with regard to those meetings, than dismissing the Magistrates who attended at them? What more was wanted? But then you may say, why not have indicted persons for attending those meetings? Why, Sir, the very Jury, who were supposed to have been packed, for the purpose of convicting per fas aut nefas, actually found all those meetings to be legal. The very fact is, at the same time, a credit to the Jury, and a justification of the Government. It shows that the one was discriminating and the other prudent. No doubt those meetings, as they occurred from time to time, were the subject of anxiety and of consideration on the part of the Government. I do not mean that I was called in—that the Attorney General of England was called upon; but I know that it became a subject of considerable anxiety to me as a Member of Parliament, and as a private individual I had the greatest difficulty in forming an opinion as to those meetings. The hon. and learned Member for Worcester has observed, that mere numbers do not constitute the illegality of a meeting. He has said, quite truly, a large number of persons collected together to see a balloon, or a review, or Her Majesty's going to Court, is not an illegal assembly, and, therefore, the mere numbers do not constitute illegality. I admit, then, that this was justly a subject of the most anxious consideration; and it now turns out, that if these parties had been indicted for holding an illegal meeting, it would have been perfectly fatal, for a verdict of acquittal would have stamped them with the character of lawfulness. It is plain, then, that it would not have been right on the part of the Government to have meddled with these meetings. But then it has been said, "Why was not a proclamation issued?" Suppose a proclamation had been issued, how could it be enforced? Were you to send out troops, and disperse the meeting? I cannot entertain a doubt that, with that verdict to sustain it, the prudence of the conduct of the Government ought to be manifest to the whole world. If you could not get a Jury in Dublin to find those meetings illegal, what chance was there that a Jury in ether pacts of the country would have found them to be so? I ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Shell) what would have been the result with a Jury in Tipperary, if you indicted one of those meetings as illegal? The right hon. Gentleman has said that you cannot get a Jury there to do their duty. The right hon. Gentleman forgets what has occurred. I have not brought Hansard down here; but I looked at it this day. If, however, he says that he forgets he ever uttered such a sentiment, I shall forget I ever read it. I will not pursue the point further. But, then, it has been said, why not punish the libels as they were published? And here, Sir, I must refer to my own practice. I have a great objection to a prosecution for libels. It may be an odd thing for an Attorney General to say, but I do not hesitate to avow my objection to prosecutions for libels. The law itself is in such a state, the administration of it has been in such a state, and the licence that has grown up, when I had no control over it, has brought it to such a state, that I have repeatedly said, when called upon to give an opinion to a private complaint—"What have you been accused of?" The answer has been—"I have been called names and vilified." Then, my reply has always been—"Unless you can show that there has been a distinct allegation against you, charging you with a crime from which you can purge yourself by affidavit, in the name of common sense let the matter rest! Suffer yourself to be abused. Hard names break no bones. You are receiving the same dose in common with the greatest Statesmen on both sides, in both Houses of Parliament, are daily in the habit of receiving." I hope I have not been wrong in this. I speak of what I think a prudent Attorney General ought to practise, and what. I have done in that situation, and when consulted by a private prosecutor. Neither am I anxious to prosecute for sedition; for it is difficult to say where fair discussion ends, and where sedition begins. Then as to prosecution for libel, I know no question more difficult to determine than at what period a law officer would be justified in filing an ex-officio information for libel. I have never filed an ex-officio information. But I share that distinction with several of my predecessors. I believe my hon. and learned Friend (Sir T. Wilde) never filed an ex-officio information for libel. I believe Sir J. Campbell never filed an ex-officio infor- mation for a political libel—he did for blasphemy. There was also the exception, in the case of F. O'Connor, about whom I shall have a word to say presently. Sir W. Horne never filed an ex-officio information for libel, nor Sir T. Denman, and Sir J. Copley, as Attorney General, never filed an information for a political libel. Since the passing of the Reform Bill there has been no ex officio information filed for a political libel. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sheil) read a libel from the Nation newspaper. It was a libel, undoubtedly, but who was the author? Mention has also been made of an address to the army; I think, in that case the name was appended to it. [Mr. Sheil Yes, Mr. Power.] I recollect, too, the prosecution of a person of the name of Barrett, who was tried and convicted and went to prison, as a libeller, for the publication of a letter, and to that letter was appended the name of "Daniel O'Connell." There was not at the time any disposition not to prosecute Mr. O'Connell. The only reason why he was not prosecuted instead of Mr. Barrett was, that they could not prove the letter to have been written by him, although it purported to be signed with his name. In the same way I do not mean to say, that there is any reason for not prosecuting Mr. Power as the writer of the declaration referred to. Do not let hon. Gentlemen opposite suppose that I am taunting the Whig Government in saying this, I am averse at all times to these tu quoque arguments, which I think are mere waste of time. I only referred to the other case for the purpose of showing how difficult it is to sustain such prosecutions. What was the course pursued as regarded Mr. Feargus O'Connor? He was prosecuted by the Whigs for libel, tried at York, and sentenced to fifteen or eighteen months imprisonment. Nearly the last act of the Whigs by the way, before they went out of office, was to let Mr. O'Connor loose. I do not introduce that remark in any spirit of ill-humour; but such was the fact. It happened that some time afterwards the Chartist Association sprang up I found violent libels published in Mr. F. O'Connor's paper. I found meetings of Chartists of all orders and ranks; and I found another paper published by another person, sending forth libels. With these I found formidable meetings in various parts of the country. As I have said, I had no desire to put down the liberty of the press—that organ which whether for good or for evil, is one of the most powerful instruments in this country; so valuable, that I should almost be averse to curbing even its licentiousness too much. My object was this—to use these libels to prove the conspiracy of the Chartists. It was a charge in the indictment and not objected to. Though there was every disposition shown at Lancaster to find an exception to everything that occurred; yet I can remember but one exception that was made by F. O'Connor himself. He complained of the length of the indictment. I gave up several counts the omission of which was suggested by the Judge. There was a complaint as to the number of defendants, and that too was removed by me as speedily as possible. At the conclusion of the trial Mr. F. O'Connor stated that the circumstances of the country warranted a prosecution. He did not complain of that step, and in his address he admitted that the prosecutions had been conducted in a manner that did credit to the administration of justice. I know that it is a matter of no little surprise to find that found fault with here, which I did in the case of Mr. F. O'Connor, for there I gave in the libels to show the connection of the parties. In the same way, with regard to the Irish trials, if the charge was true and well founded, then the course pursued in conducting the prosecution was a proper one. Another matter that has been observed upon, is the challenge to the Jury, as put upon the record. With respect to the challenge of the array in Ireland, the substance of it is,—the traversers alleged that the array had been framed by fraud, and to that the Counsel for the Crown demurred, and therefore, it is said by hon. Gentlemen opposite, they admitted the truth of the allegation. I hope I shall not get into much disfavour by what I state upon this; but I am obliged to show that the Attorney General for Ireland did as much, and he did no more than what I myself have done, with the highest approbation. I beg now to state what occurred at Cardiff. Mr. Matthew Davenport Hill, once a Member of this House, appeared as counsel for the prisoners, and he put on record a challenge to the array and the challenge stated that the array was returned by fraud. My hon. and learned Friend (Sir Wm. Follett) and myself did not take so long to consider as they did in Ireland as to the course to be pursued. Within ten minutes we demurred to the challenge. Some hon. Gentleman might say, "What! demur when fraud was alleged?" as was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Worcester, with an effect that those who heard him could not forget, though they may have often in Westminster Hall felt his power, which is there equally exerted for the right or the wrong; for my hon. and learned Friend having read his briefs, is always imbued with the spirit of his client. He is a zealous party in every cause; and his zeal is the result of his earnest and manly nature. What! said my hon. and learned Friend, did you demur?—then you admitted the truth of his allegation of fraud. No, I reply, for fraud is only admitted so far as it is properly alleged. We have nothing to do with the allegation of fraud, where there is not the time nor the place for discussing it. If it had been said that there was fraud in the Sheriff, we should have directly taken issue upon it. If it had been said to be fraud in the returning officer, we should have tried it. If it had been said to be fraud in the agent of the Crown, Mr. Maule, we should have put the matter in issue. The allegation was merely this, that the panel was returned by fraud. He did not say by whom. There was nothing to be tried—we could not join issue. We joined issue by the demurrer. If we had joined issue upon the plea, upon the allegation of fraud, we should have given an opportunity for an endless inquiry regarding persons unknown innumerable; this inquiry would have gone on to the end of the year, and the progress of justice would have been altogether defeated on this occasion. The learned counsel opposed to us made no complaint of the course which we took; the Reporters for the Press reported the proceedings in the usual way, and nobody got up in Westminster Hall to complain of our having acted unfairly. Now this was precisely what took place in Ireland at the recent trial. The allegation in the Cardiff case was, that the panel was returned by fraud, not saying whose fraud, or how, or when or where, giving in short nothing whereupon we could join issue. If the hon. and learned Member for Bath has the words under his eye, perhaps he will furnish me with them; but my im- pression is, that the challenge is for fraud in general, not saying by whom or under what circumstances. [Mr. Roebuck: Certainly. The words were "some person or persons unknown."] Some person or persons unknown. Yes. Then how would it be possible to join issue upon such an allegation not implicating any named parties, without betraying what was due to the business of the public? I ask the hon. and learned Gentlemen what evidence they could bring in support of such an allegation? Did they bring any then? If not, why did they not bring it in the shape of a petition to this House, if they wished this House to take notice of the circumstance? Was it not vain to discuss an allegation which could not be supported by a single witness or by formal statement to this House? With respect to the course which the Attorney General for Ireland pursued in this matter, I entirely approve of it; and nothing will induce me to shrink from my share of the responsibility of his proceedings. I think he did quite right in demurring to the challenge to the array, and that he would have done very wrong if he had consented to have joined issue upon the allegations made in it. The challenger said that he had reason to believe, and was indeed convinced that a fraud had been committed in making up the Panel. But by whom had this alleged fraud been committed? No one was named. I cannot imagine any one against whom such an imputation could be seriously laid. Now, it is as foreign to my nature, as I think it to this inquiry, to cast any suspicion on Mr. M'Grath. I do not say whether there was any foundation even for suspicion; but I do entirely agree with my right hon. Friend, the Attorney General for Ireland, that if the affidavit I allude to were produced in any Court in Westminster Hall, it would not have delayed the proceedings one moment longer than was necessary for reading it. The learned Judge would have said, "Read the affidavit again, what fraud does it disclose? Who perpetrated it? Does the deponent swear he did not practise it himself?" I do not for a moment mean to impute or suggest the notion of the fraud in question having been perpetrated by any of the traversers, or of those privy to them; I am only discussing the bare affidavit as it would probably have been discussed if it had been read in the Courts of Westminster; and all I can say is, if the traversers are not satisfied with the way in which it was treated in Ireland, let Mr. O'Connell and his friends move for a new trial, and so try the merits of the question. That is the best answer I can give to the charges on the other side with respect to the Jury Panel. Don't come and tell us about strong expressions having been used, and about the trial not being a fair one. You come and tell us in Parliament that Mr. O'Connell has not had a fair trial; I say, go and prove it before the Judges in Ireland and have another. The fraud alleged which is supposed to have vitiated the Trial, can only have been perpetrated in one of two quarters, on the part of the Crown or its agents, or by the traversers, or some one in their behalf; and the parties connected with the Crown have all sworn distinctly that they have not been guilty of any fraud. With respect to the policy of adopting these prosecutions, I believe, that the state of Ireland was such as to leave the Government no choice but to adopt them. The question really was, whether we were to have any law in Ireland, or whether Mr. O'Connell was absolutely to supersede its authority. Things were in that state in Ireland, that if this prosecution had not been instituted, we might have awoke one morning and found the Viceroy of Ireland had been shipped hack to us, and the Parliament sitting in College-green, without any further intimation or warning; for it was studiously put forth and argued, throughout all these proceedings, that the Imperial Parliament had no right to legislate for Ireland. One word, before I sit down, upon the subject of Ireland. I can assure the House, most unfeignedly, that I enter upon this subject in no spirit of bitterness or vindictiveness. It has been said, that this is a religious question; but in my humble judgment, if it ever was a religious question, it has ceased to be so altogether. It is purely a question of State; the grievances complained of and their remedies are essentially matters of State; and if I were called upon to point out the most likely and easy course to a remedy for those evils, of which this country as well as Ireland has to complain, I would point to the speech made by the hon. Member for Roscommon the other evening. Let hon. Members and other friends of Ireland speak and act in the spirit of that speech, and we should have a short and easy re- medy to all the grievances in Ireland. The Motion and the speech of the noble Lord the Member for London, appear to involve the destruction of the Church in Ireland as a remedy for her grievances and distresses. But it appears to me that similar grievances and distresses existed in Ireland long before that Church was established, and to quite the same extent as since. And the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard said, that if the Church were abolished in Ireland the work of improvement will then only have to begin. Now, we cannot legislate for Ireland in this or any other matter, without legislating for England also. Let us see whether we cannot legislate to the advantage of Ireland, at the same time consistently with the interests of England. I hope that much that has passed in the course of this debate will tend to produce a more cordial feeling between the people of the two countries than has existed before, and thereby promote the general happiness and welfare of the United Empire. No doubt, England without Ireland, or with Ireland disaffected, would be robbed of half her strength, and much of her happiness. With this feeling I am prepared to go along with the right hon. Baronet in all the remedial measures which he has proposed for Ireland. On the subject of Education, in particular, I know no limits which should be set to improvements in this matter, but the means of the richer country, and the necessities of the poorer. It is impossible for one who has benefited, as I have, by the splendid endowments connected with Education in this country, not to feel an earnest desire for their enlarged application. With regard, generally, to the aspect of affairs in Ireland, I should regret very much if there were any feeling of hopelessness and despondency on the one hand, or of alarm on the other, as to their eventual state. Those who promote this agitation to dissolve the Union, are trifling with the safety of the mightiest Empire that ever existed on the face of the earth, with interests of more vast importance than were ever before confided by the Providence of God to the wisdom of man. The interests of the whole human race are bound up with the prosperity of this country, a misfortune to this country would be a calamity to the whole world, by arresting the march of improvement, of enterprise, and of discovery; and, above all, arrest- ing the progress of the regenerating influence of those pious endeavours by which we are led to hope "that the knowledge of the Lord shall one day cover the earth, as the waters cover the sea." In the true spirit of kindness, of sympathy, and of candour, I conclude by expressing a sincere hope, that for the sake of all mankind the counsels which we shall adopt may be such as to secure the peace, union, and prosperity of the entire Empire.

Mr. Roebuck

said, that no one could have listened to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down without those feelings of respect and regard which his character always inspired. He could not help observing, however, and with regret, that in the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech—as, indeed, in too many which had been made during the last two or three nights of the debate—there was too much attention devoted to matters of secondary consideration, referring to an incidental occurrence, in which much skill was undoubtedly shown by the contending parties, but in the course of which, unfortunately, the more important considerations involved in the terms of the Motion before the House were entirely lost sight of. The noble Lord invited the House to enter into a consideration of various matters relating to the present condition of Ireland. Hon. Gentlemen, who had spoken from the opposite benches, said to the noble Lord, "This is not the time to enter upon such an enquiry, and you are not the fit person to introduce it." They added, that the propounder of such an investigation ought to be one who enjoyed the confidence of the Government, and that, above all things, it ought not to be undertaken now in consequence of the peculiar circumstances of difficulty which existed at the present moment. But it appeared to him that it was the duty of the House in times of danger to be foremost in making enquiry as to the causes of that danger, and the party who were responsible for having brought on that state of things whereby the horrors of a civil war and the dismemberment of the Empire were threatened. Instead of being allowed to institute this inquiry, however, they were told by hon. Gentlemen opposite to have confidence in those who, being in power at the time, had brought or suffered things to come to this state. Now, he must say that he did not think that this was a sufficient answer to the grounds which had been urged in support of this inquiry. There were two distinct points connected with the condition of Ireland which demanded calm inquiry. First, the physical condition of the great mass of the people; and, secondly, their moral condition, as affected by the legislation of this country. No one could look at the present state of Ireland, without being struck with the remarkable anomalies which she presented. There we beheld a country upon which every good gift of nature had been lavished, a population having every requisite of happiness within their reach,—they found a people with virtues and physical capabilities to apply those means to advantage; and yet, looking beyond the outward features of the case into the actual state and condition of the people, they found convincing evidence that they were miserable—probably the most miserable set of men in the world. And there was this remarkable circumstance which struck one in addition, that these people were situated side by side with a nation which surpassed all others in the skilful application of the productions and agencies of nature, in the means of acquiring wealth—that they were under the rule and government of this thriving nation, and yet, that, with all the seeming advantages of this connection, they were the most miserable nation on the face of the earth. This circumstance alone was sufficient to make men deeply ponder upon this state of things, and sedulously to enquire into the means of relieving a picture of so much misery; and were they, when they proposed to enter into such an inquiry, to be deterred from doing so by a Ministerial injunction not to meddle in the matter? But was there not now a circumstance existing of a still more alarming nature than the physical misery of the people of Ireland? Was there not a feeling of hostility to this country which poisoned all the springs of happiness, and divided as it were the country against itself? He did not wish to exaggerate, but this was a circumstance which certainly was at the root of all the misery in Ireland. The national feeling of Ireland was one of national hostility to this country. An Englishman could look back to the pages of history and the deeds of his forefathers with pride and gratulation; all their great deeds had been deeds of note in the cause of their liberties, and they had been crowned with success. But in Ireland the feeling of nationality was different. In looking back upon the long line of his ancestors, the Irishman did not contemplate a picture of happiness, of great deeds done to forward the well-being of the people, but to a long course of humiliation and miseries oocasioned by the interposition of the power of England. The feeling which this recollection must awake, what could it be but that of hatred against the oppressive foes who had occasioned them all these miseries? The common nationality of feeling that ought to exist between the two countries was entirely poisoned by it. Now, in connection with this moral feeling, let the house consider the physical condition of the people of Ireland, and they would form something like an adequate notion of the inherent difficulties which the case of Ireland presented. But to these national and inherent ingredients of disaffection another had since been added. Religious bigotry had been added to national enmity—physical misery unparalleled was aggravated by a relentless religious bigotry. In general words, the condition of Ireland was that described by the noble Lord the other night. England held her only by the force of her arms. Let any soldier look at the map of Ireland, and follow with his eye the way in which our troops were disposed over the surface of that country; he would undertake to say, that no man at all conversant with military matters would do so, and not say that we had got military possession of Ireland. And why was this the case? Why was it that peace was only preserved by force; that fear and alarm were the only ingredients of power in the hands of the Government, and the poor discontented population of Ireland were kept in subjection only by the terrors of a military armament? Search the space of the globe round, he would undertake to say that they would not find another such combination of physical misery and political mischief. But even our arms were not strong enough to secure the peace of the country; that object was attained partly by our arms and partly by the influence of Mr. O'Connell. Was ever a case of the like kind, where the peace of a country was owing in great measure to the forbearance of a single individual? And this, in his opinion, was a symptom of the disease, which alone was sufficient to render inquiry necessary. This circumstance should make us most solicitous about this question. For it should be borne in mind that the nations of other states of Europe and of America were not supposed to be very solicitous to promote the peace trod prosperity of this Empire. The preservation of peace at the present moment depended in a great measure upon accident. If the sagacious monarch who ruled the destinies of France were to die to-morrow, peace might be broken directly. And there was nothing so likely to induce the interruption of our peaceful relations as the knowledge amongst our neighbours of the internal weakness the Empire laboured under in the disaffection of the Irish people. The national vanity of France had long induced a party of her subjects to desire to try again the fortune of war with us. A similar feeling, added to commercial considerations, was rife in the United States; and either of the above nations would not be backward, if occasion offered, of taking advantage of our weakness in Ireland to attack us. Let the House mark what was said in the Congress of the United States, let them see how our encroaching oligarchy was spoken of there—men wise in their generation, who would take advantage of any circumstance which seemed to point out the course of coming events. He hoped the lights of experience would not be thrown away upon this House. After the able exposition on the subject which had been made the other evening by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, he would not now travel back over the past history of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his speech, had given an able exposition, compressed and lucid, of the history of the relations between Ireland and this country. He clearly made out that the misery of Ireland was deducible from two principal sources: first, that we had conquered that people, and, secondly, that before the population of the two countries had become amalgamated we incurred the additional misfortune of imparting religious discord into Ireland. Here we had the origin of all the evils that at present tormented Ireland. They commenced with the conquest, and were aggravated by the Reformation, and we were reaping the fruits of this combination of evils. Contrast the popular feelings of the two countries. In England our feelings and watchwords were all connected with the good points of our Constitution, our liberty and rights; in Ireland they were all mementos of slavery and misery. To put an illustration, the storm that blew at the time of the Reformation had raised a violent commotion, which had not ceased, though the storm itself had ceased to blow; the waves were rolling, though the winds had gone down. In Ireland this agitation had been manifested in hostility, jealousy, and doubt in regard to England; in England it was shown in bigotry and hate towards Ireland; and in later years, though there had been less cause for hate, the bigotry remained unimpaired. The right hon. Gentleman had clearly shown all this; there was no hiatus in the history, until he came to the year 1829, from which to 1835 he made a remarkable leap. It must strike every one at once, that something strange must have happened within this period; and such was the fact. Within that period the Coercion Act had been passed for Ireland. What did he deduce from this fact? This Act had been passed under remarkable circumstances. The English people had recently obtained a measure by which they fancied that their liberties would be better preserved, and the popular voice made to prevail in this House; and the consequence of this seemed to be that the Government of the country would for the future be carried on according to the views of the people of England. This fact was looked upon with uneasiness and apprehension by the people of Ireland, and increased the feeling of doubt, distrust, hatred, and jealousy against the people of this country. And that suspicion, he had no doubt, was not altogether unfounded, when they looked at the circumstances which had attended the passing of that Bill. It had been passed by the overwhelming majority of the Liberal party, which had been first returned under the enthusiasm of the Reform Bill. Then, said the Irish people, if these are the popular expressions of the English, well we know what we are to expect. We see that whatever party is in power, Ireland is to be coerced—we cannot hope for liberty and equality, for those who are at the head of liberty and liberal principles in England are despots when they come to deal with Ireland. The reason he mentioned these circumstances, was to show what he thought the true cause of dissatisfaction, and though they might, and had, produced a sort of lull or calm in the popular mind from 1831 to 1834, they had, at the same time, done that which kept alive and increased the suspicion with which our proceedings in reference to Ireland were viewed, and that suspicion was fanned into flame the moment a special cause arose to ignite it. And what had been the occasion of the continuance of the calm to which he had alluded? The Government, seeing the errors of their predecessors, on returning to office, in 1834, got rid of certain persons, who were the foremost in that House in vindicating the propriety of the conduct of those parties who then ruled Ireland. And it had surprised him that, in the lucid and eloquent history which had been given by his right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay) of Irish affairs and Irish Government, this period had been wholly passed over. He suspected that the circumstance about which he expressed his wonder arose from the peculiar position of parties in that House in reference to each other. Neither party appeared disposed to say very much about the Coercion Bill. The reason was obvious why it was not alluded to by the other side; and he thought there were equally good reasons for silence upon the subject on that, the Opposition side. But as he was of neither party, he took the responsibility upon himself of pointing out the circumstance to which he referred to the House. As he had said, the Government of that day had pursued a much wiser course than their predecessors in reference to Ireland, viz.—a course of conciliation towards the Irish people. He now came to that which was the cause of much of the annoyance, which right hon. Gentlemen the Members of the present Government were now suffering; and here "retribution followed wrong." The Opposition which had been created and followed out by the party to the well-intentioned endeavours of the late Ministry to right the Irish people, was recoiling upon themselves. This was the cause of the discord and discontent in Ireland, and of the great difficulty the Government experienced in governing that country. Unfortunately Ireland was always the battle-field for party conflict in England. When the Tories were in power it was found convenient for the party on that side to take advantage of the wrongs of Ireland, and to resort to them as the armoury from which to obtain weapons for attacking the Government; and when the Whigs were in power, the armoury which the position of Ireland furnished was resorted to with equal avidity and advantage by the Tories. The array of this grand attack was Ireland; but in their case it was not the wrongs of Ireland that furnished them with weapons, but the bigotry of their party. Danger to the Protestant faith was the thing with them. Here, said they, is an attack upon our religion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University said, I am here to vindi- cate religious truth. Assuming to himself infallibility. [Mr. Shaw: "No, no."] On the most mysterious and difficult subject of human contemplation, that man of all others, who had so lately had reason to know his fallibility in mere human matters, he who had taken the utmost pains, with the most perfect intentions of arranging some 700 or 800 names, had, nevertheless, fallen into an error in so small a matter—he it was, who, on the point of religious faith, claimed infallibility. [Mr. Shaw: I do not.] This was the manner in which the attacks between the two parties of that House were carried on. There was this, however, to be said against the one party—and it was a circumstance which added to the suspicion obtaining in the Irish mind—that when the Liberal party were in power, with a majority almost unprecedented, and the means of passing what they pleased, but little liberality was shown in their conduct to Ireland; but the moment they fell into difficulties, and, with their party, were in danger of being overwhelmed by their opponents, they fell back to the principles of liberality—they returned to their reform professions when it was too late, and they were driven from power by that combination of circumstances to which they had themselves contributed. One of the main elements of their defeat was the cry raised amongst the people of England, by the opposite party, respecting their consideration of what was termed the favour shown to the Popish religion. In producing this feeling a forced bigotry was created opposed to the spirit of the country. The flame had been ignited, and hon. Gentlemen opposite were now in office, and whatever mischief that flame might have produced, or might yet produce, he had done what he had intended to do, viz., supply the links in the chain of history, which had been omitted in the retrospect of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh. He now came to the consideration of the great cause of the Repeal agitation in Ireland—the circumstances attending the Episcopal Establishment in Ireland—and it was those circumstances so painful to the great majority of the Irish people, that had created the present state of mind in Ireland, and had induced the people to resist in every possible way the Government opposite, and to demand separation from this country. Why, the cause could not be far off when they looked back to what had taken place. The cause of all this discontent and agitation was not the hon. and learned Member for Cork. That hon. and learned Gentleman's proceedings were merely one of the symptoms. Great as was the individual influence of the hon. and learned Member, his power arose not from himself, not from any act of his own, but from the state of mind of the Irish people, and the wrongs by which that state of mind had been created. The great majority of the people found that a feeling of hatred existed against them in this country on the part of those who were supposed to represent the bigotry which had been raised in this country, and in spite of the good intentions of the Government, which he would speak of as favourably as he could—and he gave every possible belief to the good intentions of the leaders of the party in power—still they were found to represent that bigotry and hatred of the great majority of the Irish people, which did to a certain extent prevail, and which if it was not felt by the leaders of the Government, was possessed by every one of their subordinates in Ireland. The Government had no doubt entered into office actuated by the kindest and most benevolent intentions; but the great evil was die great curse of their Government, that there good intentions were rendered unavailing by that small and bigotted minority to whom Ireland owed all her misfortunes. Say what they would, this was the feeling of the people of that country. It could not be denied that a great number of the appointments which had been made by die right hon. Gentleman opposite had been made in a perfectly fair and honest spirit, but what said the people? They said to the right hon. Baronet, it is very well for you to claim the reputation of being thus liberal and benevolent in your intentions towards us, but we find all our old enemies are in power—all persons who we recollect, and who our fathers recollect, as the most active enemies of the people and of freedom; and who we remember also as the most active instruments in some of the most furious attacks upon the liberties of the mass of the people of Ireland that ever disgraced a Government. He had a book containing an account of prosecutions for conspiracy, so late as the year 1811, when certain Roman Catholic gentlemen were tried for conspiring together to petition Parliament to remove the political disabilities under which the Roman Catholic population then laboured. And many persons in Ireland were still living who had been present at those trials, defending the Roman Catho- lics. Many were also living who had been present as their accusers; and the party now in power, in spite of all their intentions, had found, on coming to office, that the persons who had been active in those prosecutions, must be employed as their colleagues in the government of Ireland. And this was a cause of the suspicion with which the Irish people looked upon the Government. Then came the question, was there any means of repairing the mischief, and allaying the discontent which had been occasioned? The cause of the mischief was, the discontent of the Irish people, and the result was the agitation for Repeal. The point to be considered was, could anything be done to relieve the people from the effects of that overwhelming mischief? Could they, in that Parliament, sit and legislate for the benefit of all classes in both countries, and could they do that which should relieve the Irish people from the dire evils under which they suffered, and produce content in that country? Now, the first thing he had to inquire was, would the Repeal of the Legislative Union have that effect? His answer was, that it would not. He believed it would rather aggravate the mischief at the moment, and be followed by still greater danger hereafter. The minority in Ireland were powerful and rich, and if they had Repeal to-morrow, it would be impossible to maintain the connection between the two countries by the mere trifling bond of allegiance to the Crown. There would be two separate people in the two countries, and the Irish people would still have to fight out their own liberty. He said, then, he could not see any one mischief greater to Ireland than the Repeal of the Union, unless it was a continuation of military government. He should be wrong if he did not at once say, that however much he was opposed to Repeal, he should do himself injustice if he did not say, that while he deprecated—no one could do so more than himself—much that had been done, and still more that had been said, by those who had been foremost in the Repeal movement—still the object which those parties desired it was perfectly competent for them to ask. It was perfectly legal for any man to desire the repeal of any Act of Parliament. And here he must repeat what had already been said by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Worcester (Sir T. Wilde), who had asserted, not as the hon. and learned Attorney General had interpreted his words—that it was prudent or wise to demand the Repeal of the Union; but his hon. and learned Friend had laid it down that the demand was a legal one, and might be made. The hon. and learned Attorney General, on the contrary, had asserted that it was an illegal object to seek to attain the Repeal of the Union. Now, with all respect for that hon. and learned Gentleman's authority, he (Mr. Roebuck) contended that the object was perfectly legal—whether the demand were prudent or not was a totally different question. There were matters connected with the government of the country so important in themselves, and involving consequences so large, that to interfere with them, required much care and forethought on the part of those who would touch them without danger. And so it was with the Repeal of the Union. There was nothing more dangerous to instil into the minds of the Irish people than the idea that it was idle for them to attempt to obtain the reform of the miseries tinder which they were suffering except by a separation from this country; and he was sure the hon. and learned Member for Cork must, during the last few days, have become convinced that it was unfortunate that he had aroused feelings of national animosity on the part of the Irish people against this country, however much those feelings might have been justified in times past. He was sure no good or wise man would attempt to renew those feelings; on the contrary, if it could be done, it would be most desirable that all feelings of national antipathy should be struck out from every man's mind. If that could be done, how much wiser and better would they be; and surely it could not be the desire of him, whose chief object was the benefit of mankind, to revive national antipathies by using the watchwords of national hate. He was quite sure that what had been witnessed by that hon. and learned Gentleman (who possessed so much influence in Ireland) since his arrival in this country, would strike deeply into his mind, and convince him that feelings of sympathy for Ireland did obtain amongst the English people. Then, was he to say that the woes of Ireland were to be remedied only by force? Was there no alternative—force or concession? Now, what could be expected from force? At the best it would but leave them where they were. And what was that? With an army of 25,000 men, or 21,000 men, as the Government returns stated, but which returns did not include the army of the Constabulary, and with a garrison in Ireland from one end to the other, did they expect the people of England would bear the continuance of such a state of things for any length of time? But suppose they did. They had the army in Ireland, which they must maintain there so long as discontent continued; and discontent would continue so long as the causes which had produced it continued to exist. Those causes were to be found deeply set in the institutions of the country, which institutions they had created by force and fraud; and when there was an outbreak against such institutions, the people were coerced into peace by the presence of an army. If this was to be the mode of governing Ireland, what a waste of treasure and of blood would ensue; and even that would fail to prevent feelings of animosity prevailing even deeper than any that now existed; and under such circumstances the last hope and resource would be to get rid altogether of such an unhappy companion. This would be the last consolation of a Government of force. They found in 1843 a strong feeling in Ireland that they had no confidence in the legislature of that House. The man who possessed greater power and influence in Ireland than any other was spreading the opinion throughout Ireland that the only hope of justice was in separation. What course did the Government then take? Did they do any thing to soothe the feelings of the people, and to redress their wrongs? Did they do anything by which that equality should really be extended which every man of a dignified and generous spirit not only required for himself, but for his fellows? Equality did not and could not exist, while the present Church Establishment remained. No step had been taken—nothing had been done—to convince Ireland that, in the opinion of this country and of Parliament, equality was necessary for the Irish people. They had not yet reached the point for which the hon. Member for Wakefield contended, who had asked the House to deal with the Church of Ireland as they would deal with the question of Free-trade. On that subject they acknowledged the true principles, and took their own time to carry them out. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion was an useful one, and, if adopted, might be attended with beneficial advantages to the Government themselves. But upon the question of the Irish Church, "no surrender" was still the cry—and the motto of the other side—and expressed in terms as offensive as any that had been used in former times. But he had not thought the liberal spirit of the right hon. Baronet would have taken up that doctrine, and that he would have stood up for what was called the maintenance of religious truth by means of the institutions of that country. For the moment they did this the State Church was no longer a Church of political necessity, but a persecuting Church. He could understand the man who said, "I am obliged to maintain it as a political institution. I do not say which religion is right, but I am obliged to uphold this." The feeling thus created was different from that which was produced by the man who said, like the right hon. and learned Recorder (Mr. Shaw), "I maintain those Institutions and this Church as the best;" and with that dogged feeling which showed the party to which he belonged, and from whence he drew his opinions, said, "I will maintain the true religion by means of the State Church;" and carrying out his principles by being a persecutor in reality, This persecution was only narrowed in its consequences by the want of power. The spirit of bigotry existed, but it was deprived of much of its mischief, because those who maintained it had lost their power. There was not a man on that side who would go with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It was easy to assert such an opinion, and then, when the natural inference was drawn from it, to say that was not my meaning. He was not pressing on the right hon. Gentleman what was his intention, be had merely repeated what he had said. The right hon. Gentleman had said he would maintain the Church, because it was the supporter of religious truth; and he contended that any man who maintained a Church Establishment as a means of upholding what he considered religious truth, was a persecutor in spirit. It was infallibility, and no longer State necessity, that was his motive. Then the State necessity ceasing, persecution coming into its place, the people of Ireland had a right to rise up against it, and say, "we also have an infallible religion," and that religion, which had seven to one of the people in its favour had, he imagined, seven claims to one in its favour. The right hon. Gentleman ought to have some charity for others. He believed the feelings which had been created by the system of persecution to which he had referred was precisely that which would continue all that religious animosity which had been the bane of Ireland, and was the means of perpetuating that national hate which all condemned. Now he wanted to know what was to be done under the circumstances? The Government had employed force to govern Ireland, and they had used the law; he would not say they had wrested the law; legal forms had been maintained with very great nicety: but what he did say was, that in spite of every explanation that had been given, it was quite clear that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had mistaken the functions of his office, and had, in the conduct of the late trials, supposed himself to be a mere nisi prius advocate, whose business it was to obtain a verdict, and that only; instead of saying, "I am here, the minister of the law, and uninfluenced as the Judge who is to try the cause; I go not to convict, but should be happy if it could be proved that the traversers were innocent; but it is my duty to maintain the law, and I will do that in such a way as shall create for the law feelings of respect from my manner and my conduct; nothing that I do shall militate against the law, for I am here its minister, and as it were its incarnation." But the charge he made against the right hon. Gentleman was, that from the beginning to the end of the proceeding he misconceived his office. From the very commencement of the trial the right hon. and learned Gentleman had permitted feelings of personal animosity, to mix with his judicial duties, and while he was complaining of delay on the part of the traversers, he was himself guilty of indecent haste. This he would prove from the right hon. Gentleman's conduct; and it was proper the country should hear something in answer to the charge. The right hon. Gentleman had commenced his explanation by repeating a great portion of his own conduct in reference to certain refusals he had given to requests made by the traversers, and asserting that those refusals were the result of the conduct of the traversers themselves; and he spoke of two instances, the one in reference to certain interference with the witness, Mr. Bond Hughes, and the other with respect to the Jurors and to certain notices which had been served. First, he said the witness had been persecuted, and then the Jurors. Now, with regard to the witness, it was clear that Mr. Hughes had seen Mr. Barrett at Mullaghmast, and rightly attributed to him a certain speech. Therefore it was supposed Mr. Hughes knew that party. Afterwards Mr. Hughes attributed two other speeches as having been uttered at certain meetings, at which it appeared subsequently that Mr. Barrett was not present. This, then, was a palpable mistake. There was a reason why Mr. Barrett should be included in the information, he being an editor of one of the papers which advocated the Repeal movement. Then was there anything wrong on the part of the accused in saying this is an unsafe witness? He is to give evidence of what he has heard and seen, and we show you he has twice been in error; and we have a right, under the circumstances, to charge him with being so wilfully. And it was remarkable, that when it was attempted to bring this witness to trial for his conduct, the Crown Lawyers, though they knew he had made a mistake (for he had told them of it), did not acknowledge or explain the fact to the traversers, but allowed the charge of perjury to go on, and the witness to remain under the imputation. The fact was known by Mr. Kemmis, and he thought also by the Attorney General. The former was deeply culpable, and if the Attorney General was aware of the facts, he must also share the blame. As to the Jury Notices, no objection, except on notice served, could be taken. By the Act of Parliament this was imperative. The right hon. Gentleman the Recorder, in reference to the Jury List, had a two-fold duty—first, he had that of a judge, and then as a ministerial officer. In the first character he was to vindicate each man's right to he on the list that was finished the 23rd of November. Then came his ministerial functions, and it appeared the right hon. Gentleman had neglected this duty and had left it to a subordinate. The affidavit of the traversers had not been denied, and until the facts there stated were contradicted, he had a right to assume they were correct. One of the officers in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's office was Mr. McGrath. Now, let them remark the way in which this Gentleman had been dealt with by the Attorney General for Ireland. The Attorney General insinuated that there was something wrong in his office, and he had pointed pretty distinctly and very significantly to Mr. McGrath. Now, mark how the spirit in which these trials were conducted sprung up on every side, and in every possible shape. Mr. McGrath was a Catholic, and, therefore, he must be utterly regardless of the duties of his office, and must do—what? Must abstract fifteen Catholic names from the Panel which was about to try, or rather from which Jurors were to be selected to try, Catholic traversers. So that the Attorney General makes out this, that the Catholics are so in love with grievances that they were determined to strike off their friends from the Panel, in order to have an opportunity of complaining to the House. And upon that species of statement, on no better ground, the right hon. Gentleman chose to make an insinuation which should subject Mr. McGrath, were it well-founded, to instant punishment, for having filched fifteen names from the list to serve certain purposes of his own. Now, when he recollected all the attacks which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had lately made upon those who were opposed to him, surely he had at least a right to say that he was not very careful or prudent in his accusation, and that there was not much trust to be placed in his judgment, he said nothing of his honour. On Saturday, the 28th of December, the right hon. and learned Gentleman returned to Ireland. On that day he stated that he had given the jury-book to the Sheriff; and on the previous day (the 27th) the notice had been served on the traversers to strike on the 3rd of January. So that this notice had been served before the book was in the hands of the Sheriff, and the book was not given to the traversers themselves until the 3rd of January. During the whole period therefore, from the 24th of November to the 28th of December, there was nothing done by which the List should be made out and communicated to the traversers; but, on the contrary, every thing was done to keep it back until the last moment; and then, of course, hurry and confusion ensued. What were the consequences? Why, one consequence was, that when the 3rd of January came, the copies having only just been furnished, an objection was taken, and it was said, "We cannot strike, we have only just got the copies." And yet the complaint was made on the part of the Attorney General that there was a great delay sought for by the opposite party. Yes there was a delay sought, and very properly sought too, and what was that delay? He took the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself. The Jury Panel of 1843 was, according to him, wholly unfit for the purposes of the trial. But the Attorney General made a motion to the effect that the day fixed for the trials should be the 11th of December. What was the duty of the Counsel for the traversers? I t would be to say, "It is clear that this is not a fair trial—will not the law allow us the means of fighting off the trial until we can get a fair panel?" And he asked every man who heard him whether this procedure was not justifiable? Were the persons who conducted the late trials to be allowed to turn round and say that the spirit of haste and precipitation which they had manifested had arisen out of these applications for delay? These applications were not only justifiable, but desirable—desirable not only on the part of the traversers, but on the part of the Government; for, had the traversers been tried under the Panel of 1843—a Panel stigmatised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself—what would the world have said? Why, it would have said, that even the Recorder for Dublin admitted that the Panel was an unfair one. And yet the imputation of struggling for undue delay was cast upon the traversers. Now he repeated, and he challenged any man in the House or out of it to deny, that there was anything which was not fair, perfectly justifiable, in the traversers using any means which the law allowed them to take advantage of it in order to fight off the evil and injustice of being tried by that Panel. But what happened next? The traversers applied for certain names. Here came the answer of the Attorney General. He would not give names, because of the manner in which they had treated Mr. Bond Hughes. One of the Judges said that the names ought to be given; another that he did not agree that the traversers had an actual legal right to demand them, but that they should have them; and a third said that the application was merely made too soon. The traversers said they would be content if the names they wanted were supplied ten days before the trial. The application was rejected. Now, he would show the spirit in which the thing had all along been carried on. Had they a man of kind and enlightened mind, how differently would these trials have proceeded. He could fancy a way in which the proceedings could have been conducted, which would not have rendered them liable to the imputations which had so deservedly been cast upon them. There were four days allowed to plead. The indictment was found at five o'clock in the afternoon; a copy was not handed to the traversers until seven o'clock; and yet the Attorney General wished to have that day counted as one of the four. Take that as a specimen of the man. Again, on the demurrer, the Attorney General wished the traversers to join issue upon all the points instanter. What said then this mild personage—this kind man, who was to represent all the kindness of his sovereign—why he immediately said, "I stand here on my prerogative, and I demand that this one day—that on which the indictments were found—shall be considered as one of the four on which the traversers are to plead." He asked what any fair man would think of such conduct? "I stand here upon my Prerogative!" He supposed that the Queen wished her subjects to be tried by a beneficent law, and not in this vindictive spirit. But the Judges, acting on a proper sense of their own dignity—feeling that that dignity was involved in the question—overruled the "Prerogative" of the Attorney General. Why did be mention these things? He did so in answer to the statements of the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to the traversers having struggled so hardly for undue and unnecessary delay. Yes, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had made a grand point as to the unfair fighting for delay; but he repeated solemnly that the fighting for delay was as justifiable on the one side, as the struggle to hurry matters to a crisis was indecent on the other. Now the motion on the part of the traversers to quash the Panel was made on a statement of fraud positively attested by an affidavit. But his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for England asked, by whom was the fraud committed? Why, the traversers replied that they did not know, but that they would show that a fraud did exist, or, at all events, they would show that there were such circumstances connected with the Panel that, if there was no fraud, there had been a degree of culpable negligence; and, that if there had not been a degree of culpable negligence, there had at all events been a degree which very much militated against them, the traversers. And what did Judge Perrin say? That the case was one of grave suspicion. Now he wished to know why the fraud had not been denied. Certain parties were charged on affidavit with fraud, which it was denied that the parties making the affidavit had anything to do with. A similar case occurred to a predecessor of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General in 1812. There was then a demurrer similar to the late one, and a challenge to the array, stating fraud on the part of the Sheriff. Now, what had been the reply? Why, that the allegation was so flagrantly untrue, that they were ready to join issue upon the facts. But in the present case the conclusion that they could draw from the conduct of the Attorney General was, that the allegation was not flagrantly untrue—that he was afraid to take issue upon the facts. The justice of the case was tarnished by the constitution of the Panel. But that was not all. The Attorney General for Ireland stated, that he had no alternative in this case but to go back to the Panel of 1843, or to put off the trials until 1845, and that, therefore, he had persevered in the course which he had taken. Now for a moment admitting this, could the traversers have been worse off with the List of 1843 than they were with that of 1844, when by a fraud so many persons had been struck off the Panel that the traversers were deprived of a fair chance, and had none but enemies upon the Jury, so that, under the circumstances, they could not have been worse off, but they might have been better off. But, supposing that there was no other alternative, was there no ground for hesitating as to the trials after a fraud had been charged and proved with respect to the constitution of the Panel. Common prudence might have whispered, "put off the trials upon any condition. Go forward to 1845, or go back to 1843, but don't let trial go on under the stigma of fraud." But the Attorney General had another alternative—he had the alternative of a Common Jury. What happened? The leading Counsel for the traversers offered that if the Attorney General would discharge the Special Jury, that they would consent that the Court should direct its officer to return a Panel of respectable persons from the Jury List, from whom the Jury might be selected. That offer was refused. But there was this course which might and which should have been pursued. The Attorney General should have moved for a discharge of his rule, taken a Common Jury, and tried by that Jury. He might have challenged that Jury as he thought proper. He might have said, that such a man was a Member of the Repeal Association, and as such have challenged him. As to the fact of a man's entertaining opinions favourable to Repeal, he would remark, he did not think that constituted any ground for his being challenged. Was it not clear that the persons who were left on the List were of very opposite character—persons hostile to the hon. and learned Member for Cork? Parties were left on the List to whom there was as much objection on the one hand, as there was to Repealers on the other. He would draw a very wide distinction between Repealers and Members of the Repeal Association. The fact of being a Member of the Repeal Association was included in the indictment, but the fact of being a mere Repealer was not, and he (Mr. Roebuck) could conceive a man unconnected with the Repeal Association, and yet who entertained favourable opinions towards Repeal, being a quite unobjectionable person to serve on the Jury. Now he wanted the right hon. and learned Gentleman to explain why the Common Jury had not been taken. Pending such clear explanation he could only come to the same conclusion as his learned Friend the Member for Worcester, that they did not take the Common Jury because they did not dare to strike off from it those whose names they wished to get rid of, and that they took the Special Jury because they believed that that course gave them a better chance of getting a Jury such as they desired, than they would be likely to obtain by taking a Common Jury. After having condemned so much of the constitution of the Jury Panel, he would not trouble the House with further detail upon the subject, but he thought that he had said much that went to show that there were great causes for distrust and suspicion about the whole of the proceedings of those prosecutions. He did not say whether it happened by fraud or through accident, but it was unfortunately the fact—most unfortunately for the prosecutors—that there were circumstances connected with them which utterly destroyed their moral influence in Ireland as in this country. England would not bear to sec the forms of law thus trifled with—thus perverted—thus subjected to abuse. And they might depend upon it that after all their array of Judges, of jurors, and of counsel, they had at last exalted the hon. and learned Member for Cork into a species of martyr, and had turned the tide of English feeling in his favour, just at the moment when his own imprudence had turned that tide most strongly against him. Before those trials—he spoke for himself—all his feelings were strongly against the hon. and learned Gentleman; but he had since seen such oppressive measures taken—he had seen the forms of law perverted in such a disgraceful way, that his feeling of indignation with respect to the former proceedings of the hon. and learned Gentleman had undergone a complete change. He still deeply disapproved of and lamented the unwise, the imprudent, and the mischievous course which the hon. and learned Gentleman pursued; but, in putting a stop to that course as they had done, Government had acted in a more mischievous and imprudent manner still. When it was said, that the late proceedings were trials fit for the occasion, he met them on the principle of the Attorney General for England, who said that it was a difficult thing to draw the distinction between the time when the prosecuted proceedings were legal, and when they were wrong and mischievous. It was very difficult to do this; to point to the moment when the meetings became illegal, and mischievous, and dangerous. When they were persuading men to be of their opinion by means of argument—so long as peace was maintained, so long as all the meetings held were perfectly peaceful—he wished to know how the traversers had acted illegally? What had made the meeting of those great multitudes illegal? Their own construction of it. The object of these meetings was legal—the means adopted for its attainment were legal, but they had construed from them, they had drawn by inference from them the conclusion that they were intended to overawe the Government by a display of force. And this, not because force was employed, but merely because a vast number of meetings were held. He quarrelled with the principle. It was difficult to say when this mode of persuading the people became illegal—how soon it became illegal to attempt to convert all people to one opinion. All had been done by persuasion. There was no force; all had been accomplished by meetings, by talking, by using moral influence. The Ministers admitted that all was done in peace, and with propriety. He wanted them to show him how, and when, and where the illegality commenced. Imprudent and mischievous much of the language used throughout the late proceedings undoubtedly was; he deeply deplored and condemned this, but still no case of illegality was made out. The persons accused were not convicted, or only convicted by a Jury whose verdict carried no moral influence. They had convicted the traversers, but they had not convinced the world. What was the moral effect of that conviction? It carried none. And what was the Government to do now? Where were they now? Were they not upon the very verge of those difficulties which they had always foreseen? Were they not beholden for the peace of Ireland at this moment to the man whom they had brought into the toils of the law? And what were their means of getting rid of the grievances complained of? He wished the physical misery of Ireland to be relieved; but that misery could not be relieved until they first got rid of civil dissensions. Let them produce peace and they would soon create happiness. They could not produce peace by the course which they had taken. As to his own opinion, he was for putting down the present system pursued with respect to the Church of Ireland. He would wish, as livings became vacant, that the proceeds should be put into the hands of Government, and that they should be expended upon the great cause of education. [Hear.] He wished to know from those who cried hear, the objection to this course. He would take no notice of the argument that the Church should be maintained because it was based upon religious truth. He wished to know why it should be maintained, doing nothing which a Church should do, but being the fertile source of misery and discontent. He would say, put it down, and let happiness and content be restored. Why did they not do so? He would tell them why: they were afraid that the principles which in such an event they would apply to Ireland, would one day be applied to England. But they might take this difference with them—the Church of England was not the Church of merely one-seventh part of the population. It was really the Church of a very large proportion of the people—a Church which they loved and venerated; but the Church of Ireland was at once a dominant Church, and a sinecure Church—hated by six-sevenths of the population. The great grievance was the Church of Ireland, and if the time should ever come when the Church of England should be the Church of only one-seventh of the population, he thought he knew his countrymen well enough to be pretty sure that under such circumstances it would not be maintained a day. It was maintained now because it was the Church of a large body of the people; but the Irish Church could be maintained by the bayonet, and the bayonet only. He would ask, were Christian feelings—were Christian truths in any way forwarded by such an institution; and could they, desiring the peace and happiness of not merely Ireland, but of England, and not merely England, but of the whole world—could they persevere in maintaining such an institution? Could there be any doubt as to the course which they should pursue? No; the path was clear—it lay straight before them—to pursue it, only required some man who should have that in him which should teach him the way to lead the people—it only required a man who could teach as well as govern—who would put himself above the prejudices of his time, and by incurring that responsibility, receive the great reward of his magnanimity, the admiration of posterity.

Mr. O'Connell

spoke as follows: Sir, I hope that there is not an individual in this House who will suppose that I have risen to say anything about myself, or that there is an individual in this House, who, after I have said what I intend to say, will have discovered—had he not known it by other means—that I had any personal interest in the late trials: Sir, I rise for another purpose: I am here to make a protestation, I am here to ask a question, I am here to protest in the name of my country, and on behalf of my countrymen, against the commission of one additional injustice to Ireland; and I am also here to ask the simple question of how is Ireland to be governed? I don't ask who is to govern it. I may have my preferences on that point—probably I have—but I ask, how is it to be governed? Sir, there is one fact which no man can deny; and that is—that there is no one country in the world which ever inflicted so much oppression, which ever committed so many crimes against another, as England has committed against Ireland. That, Sir, is an undeniable truth. It did not require the talents of the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Edinburgh, to elicit that fact—every page of history teems with it—every page of history trumpets it forth to the world, that the greatest crimes that have ever been committed by one nation against another have been those of England against Ireland. But I do not mean to go through the history of Ireland to prove this point—I do not mean to go further back than the period of the Union. But for the misgovernment which has existed since the Union to the present day this Parliament is clearly responsible. You ought to think of the situation of Ireland at the Union, and compare it with its present state. If Ireland was then in a condition of distress and destitution, and if it has since arisen to prosperity and comfort, then applaud your Government, talk of your wisdom as statesmen, and refer to the fact of the transition from want and misery to plenty and comfort as decisive evidence of the wisdom of your councils. But is it so? Is that the state in which the facts are before the world? No, Sir, directly the reverse is the fact. At the period of the Union there was considerable prosperity in Ireland. For eighteen years before that time it had enjoyed the benefit of self-government, and it is a portion of history that no country in the world ever rose so fast in prosperity as Ireland did during those eighteen years. In the year 1800, when Mr. Pitt proposed the Act of Union, what were his arguments? He did not inform the House that Ireland was in a state of want and misery, and that, therefore, it would be advantageous for it to be connected with this great country, and to enjoy a participation in its commercial and manufacturing prosperity. No, Sir; the case he made out, the case which it was his duty to make out, and which the facts only warranted him in making out, was, that Ireland had advanced most rapidly in prosperity for years previously—that she exported three millions' worth of manufactured goods, and imported one million's worth of manufactured goods—that her prosperity had thus accumulated when she was separate from England, and that it was clear that if she were connected with a country so much richer than herself as England, that prosperity would be multiplied beyond calculation. He admitted, of course—he admitted, even against his own interest—that Ireland was in a state of prosperity; and the same thing was declared by the other side by one of the most powerful statesmen in Ireland—Lord Clare. Both concurred in the material point; but not content with letting well alone, not content with allowing that prosperity to go on progressing, they thought they could accelerate its progress by joining Ireland with England. How few there were informed of the fact, that at the time of the Union, Mr. Pitt thought that Ireland, prosperous as she then was, would multiply her prosperity in an incalculable degree by the carrying out of that measure. Sir, has the fact borne him out? Is he justified in his prophecy? Is Ireland in a state of prosperity? I am not here to talk of claims for political, and what, in some cases, may be fanciful rights. I am not speaking of the franchise—or of corporate rights—or of Municipal rights—or of Parliamentary rights; but I am speaking of material and actual prosperity. Sir, what is the condition of Ireland? You talk of demagogues having power there. Oh! see the materials of their power—the poverty and distress of the country! I suppose many Gentlemen have read the Times newspaper of yesterday. I assure the House that it was not through any influence of mine that it published the paragraph which I refer to. I did not procure it for it; but if I did, I could not get one better for my purpose. I mean the notice of a work upon Ireland. There is a German traveller, Kohl, who has visited all the countries of Europe, and who has published accounts of his travels. He is unconnected with Ireland, he has no sympathies with Repealers; on the contrary, he showed a distrust towards them. That man, in his book on Ireland, has declared having travelled through all the countries of Europe—that, in none of them did he find distress such as he saw in Ireland. There was no such thing known in other countries; and this, Sir, forty-four years after the Union! But I may refer to another witness: there is a Gentleman of the very euphonious name of Wiggins. He is agent to Lord Headley; he was examined before Mr. Spring Rice's Committee, in 1830, to show that there then existed a good prospect for the prosperity of Ireland. He said, certainly the Union was not very useful as yet, but as we are coming to a period of tranquillity, by means of the adjustment of the Catholic claims, he conceived that there was every likelihood of future prosperity. He even quoted instances of this incipient prosperity. He has now published a book. Fifteen years after his prophecy he has published a book; and, being a man familiar with Ireland, and with the condition of the people, he has declared that poverty has increased—is increasing—that everything is growing worse—that the sufferings of the people are hardly pronounceable. Those are the materials on which a popular man in Ireland grows powerful. But I have still further evidence. Look again, at what the Poor Law Commissioners state. They enumerate 2,300,000 of the popula- tion, as being in a state of destitution, throughout a considerable portion of the year. Considerably more than one-third of the population were in a state of destitution throughout the year. It is not Kohl or Wiggins, or any other particular individual alone, but every one who has examined into it, that has found these facts. You have enumerated the population of Ireland—you did in 1821, again in 1831, and again in 184l. Captain Larcom, of the Artillery, superintended the enumeration in 184l. A Government report was made not only of the population, but of the state of the country too; and what facts do I find there? That out of the agricultural population 70 per cent. are in a state of poverty, living in cabins having only one room; and that 30 per cent. of the town population are in a similar state, no family having more than one room, and in some cases several families in the same room. That is Captain Larcom's testimony. And there is another fact, he gives, which will convince every one who reflects how horrid the state of distress must be. Between 1821 and 1831 the population increased rapidly. Between 1831 and 1841 the ratio of increase was 70,000 per annum less than in the previous decennial periods. There were consequently 700,000 persons less in 1841 than ought to have been, and could have been found in Ireland, if the ratio had gone on from 1831 to 1841 as it had from 1821 to 183l. Can any man who hears these facts—can any one who goes across the Channel and looks for himself deny them? And these are the effects of party—this is the situation into which we have been brought by your Government. I have shown that Ireland was prosperous before the Union. I have given you a faithful picture of her at present. Now how do you mean to govern Ireland? You can, to be sure, take legal proceedings against some of her people. You have sent an army over; but will that remedy the evils under which she is suffering—will it mitigate them? Will it case the deplorable poverty in which the mass of the population is sunk? How little I should care for any thing that occurred at these trials, if I could rouse this House—if I could rouse the people of this country to a due sense of the condition of Ireland, and, by inducing you to give up past, contentions, I could lead you to ameliorate the state of the people. And for this end the discussion you have had on this Motion is not wholly fruitless. I may be permitted to say, that I have felt the effect of it personally. With all my delinquencies on my head, the generous sympathy I have met in this country I shall never forget or conceal. I shall proclaim it from one end of Ireland to the other. This, then, is your time. Rally now for the elevation of the Irish people. Ah, but what little hope have we that this wise course will be taken? Is there any expectation of it? Is it prejudice to deny the probability of a better spirit actuating you? Has the Union been what it ought to be, the amalgamation of the two countries? It ought to have been an identification of the two Islands. There should have been no rights or privileges with one that should not have been communicated to the other. The Franchise should have been the same—all corporate rights the same—every civic privilege identical. Cork should have no more difference from Kent than York from Lancashire. That ought to have been the Union. That was Mr. Pitt's object. He distinctly obtained the sanction of the Sovereign to the measure on the ground of identifying the two people, which could not be done if a dominant religion was to be maintained. Emancipation was, therefore, part of the terms of the Union. The moment it was carried some ill-advisers of the Crown—some exceedingly conscientious men, who deemed their own religion the sole depository of religious truth, induced the King to withdraw his consent. The minister withdrew from office; but what folly, what absurdity it was not to complete a measure then ripe for adjustment! Is there any man living who will say the Union was completed? Is there any man on the other side of the House so besotted as not to admit that the Union was nominal and not real? See what an opportunity you then had of settling the differences which now beset you. There were eleven or fourteen of the Bishops—I don't exactly remember which—who were willing to receive salaries from the State, and to give the Crown of Great Britain the power of nomination. You could have made your own arrangements; everything might have been settled according to your wish. But unhappily "the Church in danger" was the cry raised. The Union took place—an identification which was no other than that which Lord Byron speaks of as the shark identified with his prey by swallowing it. And what was the first Act of your Imperial Legislature? An Act for suspending the Habeas Corpus Act, and abolishing Trial by Jury. That was the first Act passed by the Imperial Legislature, and it was emblematic enough of the spirit in which it was intended that the Union was to be worked out. In 1805, Mr. Pitt was a party to the rejection of the Catholic petition. He lost his honour, but he reserved his place. Immediately after his death, the Whigs came into office, and carried one great measure. They abolished the Slave-trade with the West Indies. They were able to do nothing for Ireland. They brought in a Bill, however, to the effect that the Crown should have the power of raising to high rank in the Army and Navy those individuals who were the proper objects of Royal appointment. We were in the midst of a tremendous war—our opponent being the most powerful Individual that had appeared on the globe for centuries. The Bill I have alluded to conferred nothing on the Catholics—it was a mere increase of the Prerogative of the Crown. There was no compulsion on the part of the King to appoint a single additional officer. And here, Sir, I cannot help putting it to the gallant Officer on the other side (Sir H. Hardinge), how he should have felt it, for the bravery which he displayed on the part of his country and the personal sacrifices which he cheerfully made, if he had had no hope of reward because his religion happened to be different from that of his Commander-in-Chief. Never forget that there was as gallant spirits in that Army, whose chivalrous courage must have been depressed because they were conscious they could never have reaped the reward of their valour on account of their religion. And what a paltry and short-sighted policy was yours, not to use every inducement to inflame the public ardour, and to make the love of glory subservient to the interests of the Empire. Yet what was the wise and sagacious policy of England? The No-popery cry was raised to an extent that seems now almost incredible. Some of the Whigs, who had been Representatives of counties and open towns for half a century before, lost their places. Was ever popular insanity carried to a height so absurd? You have now an opportunity of acting in the spirit which the Whigs manifested in 1805, neglect it and you will ex- hibit still greater absurdities than were exhibited in 1805 and 1806. Mr. Perceval then came into the Ministry. He proclaimed perpetual hostility to the Catholics, and said that the spirit of the Union was to preserve the Protestants and never to relieve the Catholics. Just as now, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw), and the noble Lord (Lord Stanley), say that the Established Church is one of the Articles of the Union, and Catholic subserviency a necessary consequence. You have at last however, outgrown the No-popery cry. Are you very sure that your Church cry is more likely to stand the test of time? Will this discussion—will the sentiments announced by the noble Member for Sunderland, a man of high rank and station, born I may say one of the leading statesmen of your country, will the sentiments of the Glasgow meeting, which echoed the opinion of the noble Lord, tend to strengthen the position of your Church? When Mr. Perceval declared that concession could not go further, the Catholics were determined they would not take him at his word. They saw no chance for success but in their own exertions. Two prosecutions were instituted; one succeeded, the other failed. But the combination went on; the power of Napoleon increased, and its stimulating influence extended to Ireland. But through that war the Irish went with you. The Catholic priesthood, astounded by the infidelity of France, and seeing how the Revolution was marked by the hideous progress of crime which spread its lava over continental Europe, stood by you, gave good counsel to the people, prevented many and many a revolt, many and many an uprising, and demonstrated that over such a population France, with her principles, could never hope to rule. Napoleon committed a great mistake; he was blind to the value of Ireland for his purposes. Let me rather say that a providential care preserved these countries from the frightful spread of revolutionary infidelity. As the career of Napoleon progressed and the English grew wiser, and the battles of Lutzen and Bautzen having been fought, his power was supposed to revive; the House of Commons declared that, in the next Session, the claims of the Catholics should be considered. In the interval he fell, and his name became a bye-word of contempt. The English nation was safe, and the House of Commons did not hesitate to slight its own pledge. The Catholics were again ill-treated. They rallied—a six years' struggle took place, and the Catholic Association was formed. We had Monster meetings of various descriptions—provincial meetings, general meetings, simultaneous meetings of parishes—all these we had by our Catholic Association. You attempted a prosecution—there you failed; but you revenged yourselves by a Coercion Bill. That was in 1825. Well, you neglected the opportunity you then had of conciliating Ireland. Recollect that all the leading Agitators, the Bishops, persons of every class influential amongst the Catholics, repaired to London. We threw ourselves upon our knees before you—we begged, as a beggar would ask, that you would take the state of Ireland into consideration. Did you want securities? Then you could have had them. Could you get them now? Do you expect the Thames to flow backwards? Emancipation would then have been received with gratitude. You would have been looked on as benefactors, organization would have ceased, and the elements of opposition would have dissolved in society. You had the opportunity, and I was sitting here and heard the right hon. Baronet speak of the majority with which he carried the Coercion Bill, and but for the House of Lords it would have been carried. No one did more to conciliate Ireland by the hope of Emancipation than I did in 1825. You rejected it. We returned to Ireland. There was nothing left us but to say— Hereditary bondsmen, know you not Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow? That was our motto: we assembled: the people were roused, indignant at this treatment: we made offers, and we should have been grateful had they been accepted: they were refused, and Emancipation was carried. You attempted to return a supporter of the Government in the county of Clare. The freeholders turned out; they returned me for that county in 1828 by a majority of 1,900. Emancipation necessarily followed. You granted it in an undignified way. That which you might have given to entreaty you yielded to necessity. That which would have been received as a favour was esteemed as a triumph. Perhaps I am wrong in saying we rejoiced at it, for I am bound to say that not one atom of the insolence of triumph was shown by any of our countrymen. But your Union was full of mischief,—a fraudulent—not compact—but it was a fraudulent surrender—terms of capitulation granted by superior force. You had 175,000 bayonets in Ireland to carry it; you expended 275,000l. in bribery and corruption, and yet you did it in a spirit of the sheerest dishonesty, taking away 200 representatives from Ireland and leaving her but 100, when every calculation that was directed to that purpose demonstrated that she was entitled to at least 150. When you did grant Emancipation you did it at a sacrifice of the poorer classes of voters. You sacrificed the 40s. freeholders, and raised the suffrage to 10l., and you indemnified yourselves by an act of the grossest injustice on the other side, all because the Church was in danger. [Hear and conversation.] I understand that whisper. The noble Lord is mistaken. I did not consent to give up the 40s. freeholders. The noble Lord will find it in that book. I will open the book for him. I insisted that the 40s. freeholders of perpetual tenure should not be meddled with; but the 40s. freeholders for a single life or death, as it would be called in Ireland, who were made for an election, I consented to give up, and I wish I could have found the same spirit elsewhere; but, that could not exist on account of this unjust Protestant Church. It is the scapegoat of all your iniquity. You think it makes your Protestant Church sure, and the hon. Gentleman opposite is ready to die for it, and has surrounded it with lines of circumvallation. Every oppression in Ireland, every iniquity perpetrated on the people of that country, every right you deprive them of,—corporate reform, a limited Reform Bill—everything is placed outside as a buttress to defend and support that Church. And at the present moment what is it that prevents perfect justice to Ireland but the Established Church? Well, but Emancipation having been carried, the Reform Bill, I think, was its necessary consequence, and I take some credit to myself for having assisted in carrying it. But what did the Irish get by it? You added to the Representation of the counties of England—you gave Scotland eight additional Representatives—you gave five to Ireland; and yet Scotland has only a population of 5,000,000, whilst that of Ireland is 8,000,000. You gave to every one of your English coun- ties having a population of l50,000, on the scale of population alone, an increased representation. When the population was above 100,000 you gave two additional Members. To Anglesea you gave two, being an additional one. You gave to Cork, with a population of 700,000, not one Member additional. I not only spoke in this House until hon. Gentlemen were weary of listening to me, but I relaxed from my studies by writing letters for newspapers demonstrating this iniquity. I put them in the shape of a pamphlet and placed one in the hands of every Member of this House. We remonstrated at the iniquity—we showed the injustice, and that, considering the species of franchise you were to give us, and the short representation we were to have, it was impossible Ireland should have justice done her; and if there were 150 Members for Ireland in this House, do you think you would be able to get an exclusive scheme of Government in that country? But the noble Lord opposite was one of those who were too careful of the Church to do justice to Ireland. His piety exceeded his love of his neighbour—his principle of doing to his neighbour as he would be done by, did not exceed his attachment to the Established Church. Then we complain of the limited state of the Franchise. I am not going into statistics at any length, but in the county of Mayo there are 380,000 population with 900 voters. In Cork there are 750,000, an agricultural population, with 1,500 voters. Wales, with 800,000, very little more than Cork, has twenty-seven Representatives in that House, and 36,000 voters. Does any man imagine that the Irish are so stupid that they would contentedly live under such a scheme of Government as that—that every preference should be made against them, every insulting restriction should be enacted against them? But this was not enough. We were in this limited state of Franchise when, an effort being attempted with the then Government to increase that Franchise, out came the noble Lord upon us, and he brought in a Bill the effect of which would have totally annihilates the Franchise we had. Though in opposition, he carried that measure through two readings in this House, and many who voted with the Ministry on every other question, voted with the noble Lord against Irish rights. Under these circumstances we thought it right to bring the Repeal question before the House. It was debated by the House in 1832; there was a division, we had just one Englishman with us,—forty-two Irish and one English; 500 and odd voted against us. But there was, at least, this done,—there was a solemn pledge given to this House, re-echoed by the House of Lords, and assented to by the King, declaring that, although they were determined to maintain the Union, they would, notwithstanding that, redress all the grievances of Ireland. I wish the House to recollect, that instantly Repeal Agitation was given up. We accepted that pledge in 1834. An attempt was made to realize it, but the Members who attempted it were overruled, partly in this House and partly in the House of Lords. You redressed no grievance. Will any man show me that one grievance was redressed? We lay by for four years; still no grievance was redressed. If we commenced agitation, it would have been said, "We gave you a solemn pledge, to which the King, Lords, and Commons were parties, having the moral effect, though not the legal effect of an Act of Parliament, all branches of the Legislature being parties to the pledge. You would not believe it—you refused to credit it—and we therefore have not been able to redress your grievances." We passed four years without stirring, in the hope that something would be done for Ireland; and something, it appears, was done, for the noble lord brought his Bill through two readings in this House. I do not wish to trouble the House by reading documents, but as one which I hold in my hand contains a good deal of what I should otherwise have to state in a less condensed form, I shall take the liberty of reading it, and I implore the House to observe from it what our conduct was with respect to this subject. Before we took any further step to procure a Repeal of the Union we formed what was called the Precursor Society, and I presented this petition from that society, and moved upon it myself in this House. The hon. and learned Gentleman then read the petition as follows:— The Petition of the undersigned Natives and Inhabitants, Electors and Citizens of the City of Dublin, Humbly showeth, We, the undersigned, respectfully demand the attention of this honourable House to our claim for full and equal justice to Ireland. Equal justice means a perfect identification of rights, privileges, and franchises for the people of Ireland, with those enjoyed by the people of England. We respectfully but most firmly demand and insist upon that identification. The people of Ireland are entitled to, and must have an equality of Political and Religious Freedom with the people of England. They seek nothing more—they will not be content with anything less. They are entitled to the identification and equality of rights. First, as British subjects, contributing to the extent of their means equally with the British people to the revenues of the State. Secondly, As the associates of the British people in all the perils, privations, and sufferings of naval and military life—contributing, as they do, more than their proportion to the ranks of the army and navy. Thirdly, They are emphatically entitled to this equalization by reason of the Act of the Legislative Union, which to have any rational and equitable meaning, must be construed as intended to terminate all invidious distinctions and preferences between one portion of the British Empire and the other. They are also entitled to it by the determination expressed by both Houses of Parliament to perpetuate the Union between both countries. Our present object is to render the Union complete and irreversible, by making it a real instead of a nominal Union, by changing it from an Union of parchment to an Union of interest and affection, by giving to the Irish people the benefit of the Union principle, and by abolishing the monstrous absurdity of considering both countries united only when the one is favoured and exalted, and the other oppressed and degraded. That to render the Union complete, and in order to carry out the principle of that Measure with practical effect, we respectfully demand the following Measures:— First, We demand a perfect equalization of the Elective Franchise in both countries, by extending the rights of voting of each country to the other; and we respectfully, also, submit that these rights ought to be enlarged in both. Secondly, We demand an immediate Corporate Reform, equal in every respect with that which England has obtained. Thirdly, We demand an adequate number of Representatives for Ireland, in the United Parliament, deeming the injustice of the inferiority of Ireland to the other parts of the United Kingdom, in respect of the quantity of its Representatives, as one of the greatest grievances imposed by, and as the most unjust part of the Union Statute. Fourthly, We demand an equalization of religions freedom with England and Scotland. The people of England are not burthened with the Church of the minority: the people of Scotland are not burthened with the Church of the minority. In order to place the people of Ireland on a just equality with those of England and Scotland, they ought not to be burthened with the support of the Church of the minority; and our demand is, that they may be disembarrassed of that burthen, by the application to public purposes—especially to purposes of education and charity—of the temporalities of the Protestant Church in Ireland. Such is the extent of our demand— The equalization and extension of the Elective Franchise. The equalization of Municipal Reform. The equalization of Representation. The equalization of Religious Liberty. Equalization in every right and privilege—inferiority in none—superiority on our part being out of the question. The basis of our demand is identification. We are one nation, or we are not. If we be not, it is absurd and unjust to call the present political connection a nation. If we be one nation, then it is profligately iniquitous to treat us as aliens, either in blood, in language, or in religion. Should the just prayer of our respectful petition be granted, we who have signed this petition are bound, by integrity and good faith, not to seek the Repeal of the Union Statute. We do not put the case in the alternative. We menace nothing. We threaten no ulterior measure; but we may venture to prophecy, that if the justice we require be refused us, the social elements of Ireland will never settle into tranquillity whilst the Union is a mere mockery and delusion, insulting and oppressive, by the inferiority which it inflicts upon the people of Ireland. We tell this honourable House, that there are elements in the moral and physical energy of the Irish people, which wilt hereafter cause many to regret that they did not avail themselves of the present opportunity of consolidating the Union? We respectfully inform this honourable House that the Irish people will laugh to scorn the pretences under which justice is refused to them. Even if the Protestant Church in Ireland were in danger from the concession of the just rights of the Irish people, that danger should be incurred. We believe that the real danger to that Church consists in its being obtruded, upon all occasions, as the motive for refusing to the people of Ireland the rights and privileges which the people of England enjoy. We deem those persons false and foolish friends of the Protestant Church, who put forward Protestantism as the shield and protector of corporate iniquity and political oppression in Ireland; and as there is no other excuse for withholding the rights of the Irish people, save the alleged danger to the Protestant Church, from doing us justice, we do loudly and firmly, though respectfully, call upon this House not to debase religion by making it the cloak and accessory of crime, hut to act now at length justly, and even generously, towards the people of Ireland, and to indemnify them for past oppression, by giving them full guarantee for future freedom. May it, therefore, please this honourable House to identify the Elective Franchise in England and Ireland—countries in which the tenures of land and houses are similar—and to give to Ireland as complete Municipal Reform as England has obtained, and to give also to Ireland her adequate proportion in the representation, and finally to place Ireland on a footing of equality in religious freedom with England, by allocating the temporalities of the Church of the minority in that country to purposes of charity, education, and public utility. And petitioners will pray. I moved, Sir, on that petition, for an increase of the Franchises in favour of Ireland; but what success had my Motion? It was seconded, certainly; but that was all. It was opposed by the Government then in office—it was opposed by the Government now in office. It was opposed by both sides of the House alike. I will say that reasonable—that fair—offer ought to have been accepted; or if all the relief I demanded were not acceded, I submit that the House ought at least to have instituted an inquiry into the grievances of Ireland. Something ought to have been done. Nothing was done. We were scouted out of the House with contempt; and he knows little of the feelings of the Irish heart who thinks that we should not regard ourselves as degraded, if we acquiesced by our silence in the injustice thus perpetrated against us by those who sanctioned every grievance of the Union. Recollect that I should have been comparatively powerless if I had not a strong case of physical suffering in the country backing me. The poverty—the destitution of the people of Ireland, might be laughed to scorn in this House, but when you had declined affording us any remedy, was it not our duty to look for that remedy from ourselves, and to endeavour, by our own acts, to mitigate the physical sufferings of the country? I have entered more at length than I intended to have done into the history of the crimes which England has perpetrated against Ireland since the Union. I have but little more to say, but I have, in the name of the people of Ireland, and I do it in their name only, to protest against your prosecutions. In the name of the people of Ireland I protest against the whole of that prosecution. Forty-one public meetings had been held, every one of which was admitted to be legal. Not one of those meetings has been impeached as being against law—each made in the calendar of crime a cypher, but by multiplying cyphers you come, by a species of legal witchcraft, to make a unit. This, that, and the other meeting were each legal, but the three together made one illegal meeting. Do you think that the people of Ireland understand that species of arguing? I tell you that they do not, and that though you may oppress them, you cannot laugh at them with impunity. Secondly, I protest, in the name of the Irish people, against the striking out of all the Catholics from the Jury panel. There is no doubt about the fact that there were eleven Catholics on the panel, and that every one of them were struck off. The fact is certain; it is undisputed. There were excuses, to be sure, offered for it, but there are always excuses made for wrong committed. Oh, but the noble Lord said he had a precedent, and he quoted a case in which I had acted in a similar manner. To be sure I did not hear him say the words, as I happened not to be present in the House at the time, but I perceived by those "ordinary channels" through which matters that take place in this House reach the public ear, that he charged me with having packed a Catholic Jury. Perhaps he did not use the word "packed." That is not so refined a word as the noble Lord would employ, but it is equally significant. He said that I had "arranged" an exclusively Catholic Jury to try a Protestant gentleman. I admit that to be a very serious charge indeed; for though I had no public responsibility vested in me on the occasion, I had that responsibility which every Gentleman at the bar feels to rest with him—namely, that of not outraging decency and justice by any act of his in the discharge of his professional duties. The case to which the noble Lord alluded was that of General Bingham, a gentleman who, as a politician, was favourably disposed towards the popular party, and who was a very distinguished officer. He happened to enter into an altercation on the high road, and to drive against his opponent. The assault was not very serious, and yet that is the great case—that is the "State Trial" on which I am charged with having packed a Catholic Jury. I am liter ally stating facts, but, perhaps, the hon. Gen- tleman opposite has an objection to facts. The counsel with me in that case were John Bennett, a Protestant, and Feargus O'Connor, a Protestant, and it was by them that the proceedings connected with the formation of the Jury were conducted. I am not shrinking from any responsibility, either direct or remote, that may be attached to my conduct; but the fact was, I happened to be engaged in another court until the moment when the last Juror was in the act of being sworn. But, then, was it a packed Jury? There were two Protestant gentlemen on that Jury, and as all the Jurors must be unanimous before the prisoner could be found guilty, it could not be regarded as a religiously packed Jury. It happened, besides, that after I had commenced my statement of the case, Mr. B. Travers, one of the Protestants upon the Jury, was seized with sudden illness, and had to retire, and I then allowed Mr. O'Hea, a Protestant Magistrate, to be sworn in his place. I admit, that if I had the baseness of packing a Jury of a different religion from the prisoner, to try one who had been a violent political partizan—if I had packed a Jury of Catholics to try a man who had felt it to be his duty through life to take an active and vigorous part in sustaining what are called Protestant principles against the Catholics—there is no possible degradation that I should not think myself deserving of. But General Bingham was not opposed to the Catholics or popular claims; and the Jury before whom he was tried was not exclusively composed of Catholics; and I think I have, therefore, vindicated myself from the charge which the noble Lord thought fit to bring against me. They have also sent me lists of two other Juries along with that which I have just referred to. One of these was a Jury of five Catholics and seven Protestants, that in the year 1838 tried a Catholic priest on a charge of conspiracy; and what was the verdict of the Jury so composed? Was it an acquittal, or did the Jury disagree? No; but found the prisoner guilty without leaving the box. The other case has been sent to me from Middleton. It was a case of sedition that had been tried there. The prisoner was a Catholic, and the Jury which was composed of ten Catholics and two Protestants, found the prisoner guilty also without leaving the box. I mention these cases to the House, because they enable me to spurn with indignation the base insinuation, that ten or eleven Catholic Jurors would perjure themselves in any case on which they could be empanelled. Protesting in the name of the people of Ireland against that accusation, and knowing it, as they do, to be utterly untrue, I leave it as a stigma with you for the mode in which you constituted the Jury in the recent Trial. They have also bid me complain of the diminution of the Jury List, which, whatever insinuations may have been thrown out against the man M'Grath, has not been, I think, by any means clearly accounted for. A challenge was put in to the array—not set forth generally, as in the Welch case, but averring distinctly, that the omission of the names was fraudulently done with intent to injure the traversers. I was not here when, as I have been informed, it was said by the very learned Attorney General for England—than whom I do not think any Gentleman ever conducted a prosecution with more perfect accuracy and propriety than has been exhibited by him on every occasion in which he has been concerned, that there could not be, as he thought, a reply to that plea, because the names were riot set forth. But surely he cannot forget, that a man may be tried for murder where the name of the person murdered is unknown, and if the law were otherwise would not the effect be that crime would escape with impunity if it could not be punished where, though the clime was witnessed, the injured party happened to be unknown? But would it not, I ask, have been prudent and wise, when a fraud with such an intent was set forth as the ground of challenge, for the Attorney General for Ireland not to have shrunk from the proof, but to have met it boldly and openly? The Attorney General did act wisely and well according to his mode of proceeding in declining to meet that proof, because he knew the case which he had to sustain, and he has claimed credit for having done so. I have but one observation more to make on the subject of that Trial. It is one which I would make with some regret if it were not the fact, that I make it with some peril to myself. It is with reference to the charge of the Chief Justice, and I fearlessly assert, that since the time of Scroggs and Titus Oates, there never was delivered so one-sided a charge. These are the complaints that I have to make on the part of the people of Ireland, and I now turn front them and ask you what is it you propose to do for the people of Ireland? You probably intend to keep an army of some 22,000 or 23,000 men there, but can you continue to do so consistent with the necessary demands upon you from the colonies? But there are some proposals of amelioration made, as I have learned through the same channels through which I discovered what the noble Lord had said of me. The first of these is the enlargement, of the grant—I do not know, is it to Maynooth? [No, no.] Well, it is for education generally, and I have to express my gratification at any aid given to education, as I think you cannot educate the people too much, though you may educate them to a formidable purpose against yourself. The next measure of conciliation is the introduction into Ireland of the English Catholic Charities Bill, known as Mr. Lamb's Bill. I do not know any measure that would do a greater amount of mischief in Ireland, than that would effect, though it had been introduced originally for England by myself. The hon. Member for Oxford, however, took care to he most punctual in his attendance whenever I had it in the list; and I had at length to complain to the then Administration of my inability to carry it, and they got Mr. Lamb to introduce it in his own name. The Statute for Superstitious Uses, passed in the reign of King Edward VI., has never been extended to Ireland, and even in England it was a mere retrospective Act, though, singularly enough, Lord Eldon treated it as being also a declaratory Act. The old Statutes of Mort main do not apply to the Catholic Clergy in Ireland, as they are not recognised as corporations, and Catholic charities have accordingly been administered by the Equity Courts in Ireland at all times as efficiently as Protestant charities. What I would suggest would be the introduction of a Bill making the Catholic Bishop in each diocese a quasi corporator, so as to enable hint to take any quantity of land, the extent of which you might, if you wished, fix within certain limits and give him power to leave it to his successor without the intervention of trustees, heirs at law, or executors. There is another point—that which relates to Fixity of Tenure. Now I say you are doing immense mischief by not acting expeditiously with reference to that matter, because you are unsettling the minds of all the actual occupiers. There is a feeling abroad that all who have been ejected within the last six years will be restored. It is a melancholy fact which cannot be prevented—there is a difficulty in your Government getting credit for any useful measure, and the moment the people see a probability of a change you unsettle their position. You must act rapidly. What I propose you should do is this—you must first make the Law of Landlord and Tenant similar to the law as it stood at the time of the Union; you must strike out every statute you have passed from that day to this, to benefit the landlord. That can be accomplished; you have the laws, and the landlords made them, and how can the landlords complain? They even preceded you in passing Acts for facilitating the making distresses in Ireland. The General Replevin Act was passed in Ireland before it was passed in England; in England it was passed in the reign of George II., and in Ireland in the reign of Anne. This is within your own limits. You have much more to do, if you will only try with a spirit and disposition to act fairly for Ireland. You should inquire into the financial arrangements which were made at the Union. I will not trouble you by reading the documents which have been drawn up by the Repeal Association on the subject of the financial condition of Ireland; but if you will condescend to read them they will show you that a greater injustice was never committed than that which has been committed since the Union, and in consequence of the Union, by the nature of the financial arrangements in Ireland. I say to you on that subject, do her financial justice. The only grievance that has been redressed is that of the corporations; but that is an insult and not a redress. It has thrown out one party from power and given the shadow of power to the other party, and has dissatisfied them. Make a corporate reform for Ireland equal to that which you have made for England. We do not ask more. Give us that redress which you have given to others. Regulate the corporations in Ireland according to the proportion that the Protestant population bears to the Roman Catholic. I now come to another question—Absenteeism, the cause of increasing poverty and destitution. Look upon absenteeism as a crime in Ireland. It ought to be pun- ished as if it were a crime. It is said, how can you get at absentees to tax them? I say you have done it—you have done it by your Income Tax. The Irish landlord in England pays the Income Tax. You have the machinery; you can compel him to go back to his country and attend to his wretched serfs. [A cheer from an Irish Member.] An Irish landlord cheers me—I am glad of it, for there is not a better landlord in Ireland; there is no necessity for a law to compel him to attend to his tenants; send back others, and let them follow his example. I am talking of an evil with which I am afraid you will not meddle; it wants a radical cure, for it is an evil too great to be borne. There is another boon I ask for Ireland. Give us an adequate share in the representation. You have rotten boroughs which you can lop off; there is Harwich, with 175 voters, returning two Members, and the county of Cork, with a population of 750,000, returning two Members also. It has been admitted at the commencement of the present Parliament that there never were instances of greater profligacy than those which occurred at time last election. The hon. Member for Bath made disclosures to you—you should act upon them, and give us a fair representation. I come now to the last obstacle of all, and the greatest—the Church. Can tranquillity ever exist in Ireland as long as there is a poor Church totally unconnected with the State, perfect in all its parts, supported by the majority of the people, and, I am bound to say, insulted by the superiority of a wealthy Church supported by the minority? No one asks you to deprive any living man in this rich Church of his vested interest. Let not the revenues of the present incumbents be diminished, only apply the principle to the successor. You should look at Ireland with the eye of a master, and you will see that till there is religious equality there cannot be political peace. How will you give religious equality? You are told by some to pay the stipends of the Roman Catholic Bishops and Clergy; they refuse it; it is impossible for them to accept the money of the State—they would lose caste if they did accept it. They are convinced that the connexion between Church and State is injurious to the one and destructive to the other; that is their thorough conviction, and is also my thorough conscientious feeling. You have not a sufficient Treasury to pay them; you could only dole out pitiful salaries, which would excite, but not satisfy them. At whatever point of view you look at it, it is impossible. As to talking of their sitting in Parliament, I would rather see them in any place that was not disreputable than in Parliament. Well, as to the other plan—does the Protestant religion require all the money it now enjoys? Would it fall if the Clergy were not paid by the State? Is it necessary that religious truth should be backed by money? You tell me the Protestant religion would fall if its Ministers were not so paid; if that be the case, what a triumph it must be to me to belong to the Roman Catholic Church! The Catholics once had all the livings; they have been taken away, and that Church has only had some donations since the Reformation. You deprived the Roman Catholic Church of Ireland of all her revenues, and hunted her priests into the fastnesses. You set the same price on the head of a wolf as you did on that of a priest. And has the Catholic Church fallen for want of money? No; she never was in a more triumphant state than at the present moment. She has four Archbishops, twenty-three Bishops, fifty Deans, sixty Archdeacons, 2,000 parish Priests, with two or three Curates each. She has an unbroken hierarchy, as regular, as orderly, and as perfect as it was the day before Henry VIII. ascended the Throne. It is not money, then, that supports her; she is no disciple of money; in that respect she gives you a lesson. Have you not the same faith as we have? Are not the Scripture truths propagated by the power of argument, by the influence of education, and the talents of the Clergy? Are they not sufficient for the defence and the protection of your religion? Why, then, is the country to be divided? I implore you, then, to look with the eyes of men and statesmen and cure this anomaly of the Church of the few possessing temporalities, and the Church of the poor possessing nothing but their blessings. I will go back to my country, and carry back your answer. I am afraid it will not be satisfactory. I wish it were. Since the connexion between the two countries, has there not been enough of? Is it not time to lay aside all enmity and malice? Has not the period come when, as Christians, as men, as brothers, we should put an end to the distinetion—the odious distinction between Irishmen and English men, between Catholic and Protestant? Is it not time that all those distinctions, odious in all their relations, should be abolished and done away with, and that here should be a rivalry only in offices of charity and justice?

Sir R. Peel

Sir, I should be appalled by the duty which I have to perform, if I had not great confidence in the justice, and still greater confidence in the indulgence of this House. The House, I am sure, will consider that in now rising, at the close of he ninth night's debate, to address them, am not rising for the purpose of gratifying my personal wish of my own, or for any purpose of idle display; but I rise in the performance of my public duty towards the I louse and towards the Government, which imposes on me, considering the situation in which I stand, the obligation of addressing he House. I know, Sir, that in a debate, conducted on both sides with extraordinary Ability, and carried on through such a long period of time, every argument that could he brought to bear upon the question before us must be exhausted; and I know likewise that, under such circumstances, it is next to impossible to offer any novel observations to the House; but yet, I have no other alternative than in the discharge of my duty, to present in a connected and intelligible form my opinions and views on the several matters which have been brought forward. I cannot do that effectually without travelling over a field which has already been exhausted. I must therefore, appeal to the patience and indulgence of the House to bear with me while I perform that duty. I have another and a greater duty—I have to exercise that privilege which belongs to the accused. On the part of the Government I stand here to make our defence, I am naturally influenced by the feeling of a consciousness of having been exposed to unjust and unmerited imputations. I must exercise that privilege of defence—the liberty of giving vent to that feeling; yet I will not permit that feeling to be mixed up with the consideration of important matters of policy affecting the interests of Ireland; and on all that part of the question which relates to public policy—the question of future legislation—I trust, I shall address myself to it with that care, moderation and forbearance which becomes a subject of such immense magnitude, In replying to the many charges brought against me, I hope I shall not forget that reserve respecting all matters of a per- sonal nature, affecting the position of those Gentlemen who have been the subject of criminal proceedings, which should be maintained. If I transgress the rule which I lay down, it will be contrary to my intention, as I wish to conduct the defence of the Government with a perfect recollection of the position of the hon. Gentleman who spoke last. I wish the hon. Gentleman instead daily of agitating the passions of his countrymen on the subject of Repeal, would give us here an opportunity of meeting him and replying to his arguments, and I should not doubt as to what would be the result. I beg you to bear in mind what were the arguments and statements on which the hon. Gentleman has this night rested his appeal for the Repeal of the Union. What a perversion of history is necessary to vindicate his demands for what he calls justice to Ireland! The hon. and learned Gentleman said, that for eighteen years anterior to the Union, Ireland had the happiness of enjoying an independent Parliament. An independent Parliament! What! the Parliament that sat from 1782 to 1800 an independent Parliament, providing for the social happiness of those for whose interests they legislated! Why, I thought one of the gravest allegations of the hon. and learned Gentleman was, that through the corruption of that Parliament the Union had been effected, and that the rights and liberties of the people of Ireland had been sacrificed through the corruption of that Parliament. And was the condition of the people really happy under that Parliament? What said Mr. Grattan? He asked after 1782—long after, if I recollect rightly—"What has the independent Legislature effected for us?" He said, "We have got a Police Bill, we have a Riot Act, we have got pensions without end, we have a privileged traffic in the sale of Peerages." That was Mr. Grattan's account of the virtue of that independent Parliament. He said, in fact, that Ireland was reduced to the condition of a province; and is it true that the condition of the people of Ireland was happy? Look at the statements presented of the condition of the City of Dublin and other cities from 1795; look at the accounts of the trade of Ireland; look at the diminution of trade and the shipping interests for the ten years preceding the Union, and you will see whether the hon. and learned Gentleman proved his statement that Ireland was in a state of ad- vancing prosperity. Was the condition of the people happy—was their social state perfect—was Ireland governed without insurrectionary Acts, or other Acts against the liberty of the people? Talk of the state of Ireland between 1783 and 1800—why, the Rebellion and all the terrible consequences of it occurred during that period. The Rebellion broke out in 1798, and was but just suppressed at the time of the Union. But if this Irish Parliament did as greatly conduce to the happiness of Ireland, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has stated, how, I ask, was it constituted? If the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement was true, how completely did it show that that happiness is entirely independent of, and unconnected with, the social institutions of its Government. For at any rate the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot deny this, that that Parliament which he now says promoted the happiness and prosperity of the people of Ireland, was a Parliament returned by small boroughs; that that Parliament was composed exclusively of Protestants; that during that whole period, at any rate, there was the Established Protestant Church. Yes, during that period, when the hon. and learned Gentleman says the social state of Ireland was almost perfect, the Roman Catholics were subject to disabilities, the Parliament was exclusively Protestant, and the Established Church was in its full efficiency. I leave therefore the hon. and learned Member the choice either of admitting that it is consistent with the interests of Ireland that the Established Church should be preserved, and even that the civil disabilities of the Roman Catholics should have remained in force; or he must admit to me, which is the real fact, that you only carried on the Government of Ireland with the Parliament which existed from 1782 to 1800, through the instrumentality of corruption and venality. But history proves that the social condition of Ireland was not a happy one, and that that Parliament did not promote, and was not calculated to promote, the peace and welfare of Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman must also admit to me, if there be truth in history, that there never existed a Legislature less entitled to the character of independence, in any sense of the term, than the Parliament which he now says was the pride and boast of Ireland, and had contributed more to its happiness and prosperity than any other institution. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman would better consult the interests of his country, and take a course more corresponding with his own permanent fame, if he would give us the opportunity here of examining his statements, and of encountering his arguments, instead of inflaming the passions of the ignorant by misstatements like these. We may judge what the nature of those misstatements of the hon. and learned Gentleman must be on such an audience by those he has ventured to make in the face of a British Parliament. Having reluctantly been diverted from the consideration of the Motion of the noble Lord by the new topics introduced by the hon. and learned Gentleman, I now pass from them, and proceed to address myself to the merits of that Motion. With respect to the Motion itself, I think the noble Lord will admit to me that it is a Motion exclusively—I won't say exclusively—but one deserving strictly the name of party Motion. It is a perfectly legitimate Motion, and one in conformity with ancient precedent, and a perfectly constitutional mode of trying the confidence of the House in the Government. That it is a party Motion the noble Lord, I think, will admit himself. It is not a Motion for inquiry into the state of Ireland. The noble Lord might have pursued this course. He might have said, "I won't mix up the considerations of party with the higher consideration of the Government of Ireland. I will challenge your conduct. I will put you upon your defence; but I will support my charge against you, not from party considerations, but for the more important consideration of the social state of Ireland." But the noble Lord has not taken that course. Has the noble Lord moved for a Committee on the whole state of Ireland? No such thing. But as if he were afraid of the possibility of success; as if he shrunk from the risk of being compelled in that Committee to explain in details what were his own views with respect to the policy to be pursued in Ireland, at the moment he gives his notice he publicly declares—"I mean to move a Resolution strongly condemnatory of the conduct of the Government, and I will make it impossible for the Government, consistently with their own honour and character, to acquiesce in my Motion, and will force them into a declaration of policy that shall render it impossible for them to govern Ireland." Not so the noble Member for Sunderland. His speech expressed strong opinions, from which, however, I may differ, I will say I am sure are sincere. I never was snore convinced in my life, from the tone and manner of the noble Lord, that the opinions he submitted to the House without any regard to the consequences, were his real opinions. But I think that the speech of the noble Lord the Member for London was quite of a different character. He was in a difficult position. He was solving a great question in political fluxions, and undoubtedly he did come to the solution of it like a great mathematician. He had to reconcile the maximum of crimination against the Government with the minimum of inconvenience to his supporters. Quod erat demonstrandum. Now, the only thing I can extract from the noble Lord's speech is this sentiment—"Remove the present Government, and place me in office." He dealt plentifully in impeachments and accusations against us, but when he came to explain his own views with respect to Ireland, and the policy to be pursued in that country, he said nothing whatever which could compel him when in office to adopt any course different from that of the present Government. Did the noble Lord say, "If I could realize my own wishes I would divide the funds of the Church Establishment in Ireland, and give one portion to the Roman Catholics, another to the Presbyterians, and a third part to the Protestants?" Did he say, "These are great projects, but I fear that at present the prospect of consummating them is most remote? I see no chance of its arriving for a considerable period, but I will make some progress to meet it; and I think the first step towards it is doubling the grant to Maynooth?" Should the noble Lord succeed through this Motion, and be reinstated in power, his success will involve him in less of inconvenience and difficulty with regard to the Church question than any public man was ever in before. I rejoice at this—I rejoice that the noble Lord has not committed himself on his return to power to any measure which may very materially endanger the support of the Established Church. With respect to the accusations of the noble Lord against the Government, allow me to say that I think it would have been better far for him to have abstained from attacking us in such an acrimonious way as he did. I think, considering the exposed position of the house in which the noble Lord lives, and looking to the very brittle materials of which it is composed—with a Coercion Act and an Appropriation Clause—I think, I say, that the noble Lord might have been far less dangerously employed than in throwing stones at us. I do not mean, however, to follow that example, I will ward off the blows of the noble Lord as I can; but I will not disturb the temper of calmness and moderation in which I wish to consider the affairs of Ireland by seeking any opportunity for recrimination. The first charge made against us is a very serious and a very unjust one, which I scarcely expected would have come from the noble Lord. It was to the effect that the Government, that is, I, who, as the head of it, am mainly responsible for its acts, had selected the present Lord Chancellor on account of his hostility to the Irish people. The noble Lord denied his talents. [No, no.] The noble Lord certainly denied that the Lord Chancellor efficiently discharged his duties. He asserted that the appointment should not have been made, and undertaking to answer not only for the conduct but the very motives of other men, had declared his opinion that I had selected Lord Lyndhurst for the Chancellorship because of his enmity to Ireland—nay, worse still, on account of his offensive language to the people of that country. The noble Lord absolutely asserted, that I had so far disgraced myself as to have selected for the highest office in the Law Courts of the Empire a man whose qualifications for that situation consisted in enmity and the use of offensive language to the Irish people. I am sure that escaped the noble Lord in the heat of debate, and I ask him in his cooler moments whether he does not think that this is an accusation which he had no right to prefer except upon some stronger evidence than mere suspicion? I have been in the administration of affairs twice before—now, three times, and in every instance have been connected with Lord Lyndhurst. In 1829 Lord Lyndhurst held the office of Lord Chancellor. In the short administration of 1835 he held the same important post. In 1841 I was called upon by her Majesty to form an administration: and the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) thinks that it would have been just that I should have said to Lord Lyndhurst, "True, I have twice been connected with you in office; true I was associated with you at that critical time when the Roman Catholic Disabilities were removed; true, I asked for your assistance and influence in mitigating the objections of the House of Lords, and I received your cordial support; but you have used some hasty expressions at which offence has been taken, and I must now exclude you from office, and make you the sacrifice in order that I may court popularity in Ireland." Lord Lyndhurst would have replied to me—"I deny the use of any such expressions. In the face of the House of Lords I have denied them. When I used them they were not challenged. A fortnight afterwards I was taunted with them by those who had heard them at the time, and this was my reply"—This was the language which Lord Lyndhurst used— Now as to the charge itself, what is it? It is this—that I stated, as a reason for not granting municipal institutions to the Irish people, that they were aliens by descent—that they speak a different language, and that they have different habits from ours—that they considered us to be invaders of their soil, and that they were desirous of removing us from their country. That was the charge. Lord Lyndhurst's answer was— I made no such statement, nor did I say anything at all resembling it. No expression ever fell from me upon which any person not of weak intellect, or not disposed to misunderstand or misrepresent what I stated, could have put such a construction. The noble Marquess (referring to the Marquess of Lansdowne) referred to these words, regretting that I had used them, and hoping that I should explain them. I replied that I had nothing to explain, and that I would satisfy your Lordships that I had never made the statement. That hasty expressions should have been thus construed, no one can regret snore than myself, except Lord Lyndhurst; but would it have been fair, when he had explained the offensive interpretation put upon them, if, six years after I had said to my noble Friend, "I cannot advise the Crown to appoint you, in consideration of some hasty expressions in debate made use of by you six years ago? "When I look at men like Lord Lyndhurst, who have raised themselves from the position in society in which they were born to the occupation of the highest office of the State—when I look to the manner in which the office of Lord Chancellor has been filled within the last eight or ten years—when I see that it has been occupied by such men as Lord Eldon, Lord Brougham, Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Plunket and Sir Edward Sugden—when I recollect the origin of such men, and their elevation by the force of merit from comparative obscurity to the highest civil station next the Throne—this is, I conceive, the proudest homage to the democratic principle of the British Constitution. It affords the strong- est practical contradiction to the remark of the Roman satirist— Haud facile emergunt quorum virtutibus obstat Res angusta domi. In this country, the res angusta domi has been no impediment to the elevation of men of talent, who, by the force of their own energy and character, have raised themselves to the highest stations in the Empire. I had difficulties to encounter, which I know the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had not to deal with, in overlooking the claims of candidates for the appointment of Lord Chancellor. The noble Lord has exhibited examples of resolution and virtue in respect of that office of Chancellor which since the atrox animus Catonis, have hardly been equalled. It was, I know, in the noble Lord, virtue, and no meaner motive. The noble Lord had the good fortune to be connected with a man who had long been a faithful friend of the Whig party, the pride of the Bar of Ireland, the ornament of the British Senate, the friend of Grattan. He had the happiness of being connected with Lord Plunket, whose name will go down to remote posterity as one of the brightest stars that shine in the constellation of Irish eminence. Lord Plunket was the son of a Presbyterian minister: he raised himself in his own country to the rank of Chancellor, and the Irish Bar rejoiced in his elevation. The noble Lord opposite thinks it necessary to consult the prejudices and feelings of the Irish people; he taunts us with overlooking Irish claims—with making English appointments. The noble Lord had a Chancellor, the most eminent man the Bar of Ireland ever produced; and six weeks before the noble Lord quitted office he, so sensitive to Irish feelings—he, so jealous of offence offered to Ireland—he, so jealous of the preference of Englishmen—he, having that man as Chancellor whose connexion with his Ministry was the pride and boast of the Whig party—he signified to that Irishman, to Lord Plunket, to that Chancellor, that it was expedient for him to retire. And for what—so far at least as the public is apprized? In order that he might gratify the vanity of, certainly an eminent and distinguished lawyer, of whom I wish to speak with the respect that I feel for him—but, in order to gratify the vanity of a Scotchman. In order to gratify that noble and learned individual with a six weeks tenure of office the people of Ireland were subjected to an affront which, whatever the noble Lord may think of my disposition towards that country, I declare if I had offered them, I should have been unworthy to have retained office for a single hour. The noble Lord quitted this question relating to Lord Lyndhurst, and what was the next topic to which the noble Lord referred? The noble Lord, the representative of a great party, when expatiating on the wrongs of Ireland, thought right to occupy his time in raking in the kennels for the refuse of election dinners; and the noble Lord quoted a speech which was made at the Canterbury election, in order that he might charge me with participation and adoption of the sentiments there expressed. Why this would be a hard rule for public men. It is hard to make me responsible for expressions either used by, or attributed to Mr. Bradshaw, the Member for Canterbury. The noble Lord is followed by a powerful party, confederated with him in promoting political objects, who will vote to-night, naturally and justifiably, with him for the purpose of removing us from office, and replacing us by the noble Lord. But the noble Lord would think it exceedingly unjust if I imputed to him any sentiment that may have been uttered by one of his supporters at a dinner or at a meeting. Whether the noble Lord disavowed the sentiment or not, he would say,—"It is unjust of you to ransack the records of Anti Corn Law meetings, picking out some violent or offensive expressions, charging landlords with cold-blooded insensibility to the distresses of the country, and then saying, that because I vote on the same side with the persons who used them, and may be united with them in general political sentiments, you will therefore make me individually responsible for their language." But suppose I had always disclaimed the sentiments which the noble Lord imputes to my hon. Friend—suppose I had said, "I will not countenance these prejudices"—suppose I had declared, as well in Opposition as in Government, "approve the appointment of Catholics to office; I think the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. O'Ferrall), at one time the Secretary to the Admiralty, and afterwards Secretary to the Treasury, was entitled to the place he occupied; I make no objection to the appointment of Mr. Wyse; I think the Roman Catholic Relief Bill has removed their disabilities, and I conceive that the Government was justified in their appointment;"—suppose I had said this, as I did say it, in public, would it not be unjust on the part of the noble Lord to say to me—"I make you responsible for what passed at the dinner at Canterbury?" I do not carry the doctrine of conspiracy quite so far as the noble Lord seems disposed to do. Here is the noble Lord protesting against the injustice of making one man responsible for the acts of another, and yet he says—"It is convenient for party purposes that I should make you responsible for an election speech delivered at Canterbury." Sir, I consider this to be a most important matter, on account of the use the noble Lord makes of it. Says the noble Lord—"These are the men entertaining those feelings with respect to Roman Catholics. These are those men,"—speaking of the Government—"offering to you, their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, those insults; speaking in that language of your ministers of religion." Then the noble Lord says,—"Will any Roman Catholic of honour and spirit consent to receive favours from such a Government?" Sir, what the noble Lord wants to do, is this; he wants to make it impossible for a Roman Catholic to accept favour from the present Government and then to turn round upon the Government and say, "Why, how unequally and unjustly you distribute your patronage: here are twenty Protestants and not one Roman Catholic." Is that just? First to create an impediment by raising unjust prejudices against us, founded upon unjust accusations and then to make it a charge against us, when you have succeeded in deterring Roman Catholics from accepting favour, that we are guilty of having withheld favour from them. Sir, I have often said in this House publicly what my opinions were on the subject of the position of Roman Catholics, and I am taunted, and it is said, "Yes, these are fine declarations you make in debate but you don't practically adopt them." Allow me to say, and I say it with perfect frankness, that the subject is one of great difficulty. I recognise that where there are equal qualifications there ought to be no practical disabilities. I say this with respect to every office. I care not what prejudice I may create against me: and I say now, in the possession of power, what I said when I was not in office, that with respect to the judicial office, with respect to the Privy Council, to every office there ought to be no impediment whatever to the appointment of a Rowan Catholic upon the ground of his religious opinions. Sir, since Parliament last met, there has been one, and I think only one office of a judicial nature vacant in Ireland; it was an office in the Ecclesiastical Court; I apprehend no one will contend that any body but a member of the Church of England ought to have been appointed to that situation. The appointment was placed at my disposal by the Lord Primate. I determined to place in that situation the most eminent man at the Bar of Ireland, with reference to professional attainments and nothing else; and I think it will be admitted that I did so when I appointed Mr. Sergeant Keating to that situation. Mr. Sergeant Keating vacated the office of third Sergeant, which it was necessary to till. A communication took place between the Government of England and the Government of Ireland upon the subject of that appointment. And now, as I want to destroy those prejudices which the noble Lord is trying to create—to show to the Roman Catholics that I don't participate in the opinions delivered at election dinners—and to show them that I am not delivering these sentiments upon the impulse of the moment in debate, I shall take the liberty of reading to them, unjustly accused as I am, the letter which I addressed to the Lord Lieutenant on the subject of that appointment, addressed, be it observed, not now under the pressure of debate, but in the course of last year. It is dated August 22, 1843, and is as follows:— I admit that political considerations would not justify a bad appointment of any kind, still less a bad judicial appointment; but I must, on the other hand, express my strong opinion that considerations of policy, and also of justice, demand a liberal and indulgent estimate of the claims to the favour of the Crown of such Roman Catholics as abstain from political agitation, and take no part in politics offensive to the dispensers of that patronage. What is the advantage to Roman Catholics of having removed their legal disabilities, if, some how or other, they are constantly met by a preferable claim on the part of Protestants, and if they do not practically reap the advantage of their nominal equality as to civil rights? I can with truth say I wrote this letter with reference to the appointment then vacant, and without reference to this debate. The letter continues— I can readily believe that for nearly every office that may become vacant for ten years to come, there may be found a Protestant candidate with at least equal claims in point of qualifications, and superior on account of professed attachment to the Church, If that claim is always to be admitted, there is still a practical disqualification; and what motive can we hold out to Roman Catholics to abjure agitation and the notoriety and fame which are its reward, if honourable appointments, and legitimate distinctions, be in fact withheld from them? I fear they will not be satisfied with the answer, 'true it is we have made fifty appointments, but for every one a Protestant had a preferable claim.' Why have Protestants a preferable claim? Because they have had for a long series of years the advantage of a monopoly of privileges secured to them by law, and have been thrown in constant contact and intercourse with the Government. The policy of the law has been changed, and surely we ought not to allow the effects of the preceding policy to remain in full force, and ought not to plead the inferiority of the Roman Catholic as a conclusive reason for preferring his more fortunate opponent. I have read that letter as indicative of the spirit with which the Government was anxious to treat Roman Catholics. The result was, that Mr. Sergeant Howley was appointed. I have not the slightest doubt, had there been a wish to exclude a Roman Catholic from the appointment, that it would have been easy to have found men of at least equal professional abilities in the Four Courts. But Mr. Sergeant Howley, a Roman Catholic, was appointed. Now, just to show the spirit that actuates that system of declining every appointment when we do make it—of trying to persuade Roman Catholics into a refusal, in order that you may found a claim for your own rise to political power—I will read what was the impression sought to be raised by your party organs. Hear what this paper, the organ of Gentlemen opposite, hear what it says upon making the announcement of a Roman Catholic appointment by a Conservative Government. ["Name."] Oh, this is the Morning Chronicle. We are often made liable for indiscreet expressions in other papers over which we have no control, and I think it is quite fair that I should quote from this. Well, it says— The present Government have, during their career of office, made many bad and some absurd appointments; but we do not remember any one so curiously infelicitous as their last legal promotion in Ireland. The dignity of Sergeant-at-Law is one of much more importance in Ireland than it is in this country. The Irish Sergeants, three in number, act from time to time as Judges of Assize, and the coif is generally regarded as a preparation for the ermine. It goes on— How this extraordinary appointment came to be made is a question which has produced no little speculation. The explanation, however, does not seem very difficult; it is only necessary to suppose a little shallow cunning and a large share of blockheadism on the part of the Government, and the whole matter will be accounted for. That's the encouragement they give us. Then,— Whatever motive may have dictated the selection of Mr. Howley, the result has been most damaging to the Government. The exasperation of the Irish Tories was, of course, expected. Yes; but they give us no credit for that. But it was not anticipated that the Liberal members of the Bar would regard Mr. Howley's elevation as an insult, and take pains to disclaim him as a political friend. It is quite clear that Sir Robert Peel's Government cannot govern Ireland. Now, what is the truth with respect to this Mr. Howley, totally unconnected with us in politics, whom we never saw, of whom we never heard, except from the respect attaching to his name, who had the manliness and courage, notwithstanding the denunciations of the noble Lord and his party organs, to receive the proferred advancement from a Conservative Government? What took place on his appointment which was said to be an insult to the Bar of Ireland? As soon as his appointment was known, from the county in which he had acted as a Judge most honourable testimonials to his conduct, ability, and integrity, were received, and more honourable testimonials were never received by any man. Here is an address to Mr. Sergeant Howley, the man whose appointment is an insult to the people of Ireland, and whose appointment proves that the present Government is not fit to govern Ireland. To Mr. Sergeant Howley was presented this address from the Magistrates of the county of Tipperary. They say:— It is with heartfelt pleasure we take this opportunity of expressing the deep sense of the gratitude we feel to be justly due to you from all classes of the community in this county, for the admirable manner in which you have for so many years administered the duties of the arduous office of assistant barrister. That address is signed by no less than 105 Magistrates, all coming forward to bear testimony to the integrity and ability with which Mr. Howley had discharged his functions. There is also an address to him from the Grand Jury, and an address to him from every practising solicitor in the county of Tipperary. Is this then fair warfare to the Government? It may be fair towards us, but is it fair to the individual? Is it fair to the character of an honourable man, so soon as we give him the proper reward of professional merit, to turn round upon him and injure his character, and depreciate his merit, in order that through him you may strike a blow at the Conservative Government? Sir, I think that is an answer to the attempt of the noble Lord to involve me in the responsibility of expressions hostile to the Catholics used by Gentlemen with whom I may be joined in party politics. And now as to the disposition to encourage offensive or hostile expressions used to the Roman Catholic body. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shell) made an appeal to me last night on that subject. He referred to an address of a Protestant Operative Association in Dublin presented to my noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant, and asked me if I approved of the expressions and sentiments it contained, offensive to the Roman Catholics, and he read an answer of my noble Friend to that address. He did not state that that answer referred merely to the approbation expressed in the address, of the conduct of my noble Friend. [Mr. Sheil: I read it all.] Yes; but the right hon. Gentleman dropped his voice after he had read the words "warm acknowledgments," which were followed by a loud cheer, that prevented the rest of the passage being heard. It very often happens, that when a public man receives in the press of business one of these very long controversial addresses, he does not read them all, and a common official answer is returned; and is an answer of that kind to be brought forward against him in the House of Commons as the written answer of a man who approves of expressions offensive to Roman Catholics. I am sure the House will allow me to do myself and the Government justice on this part of the charge preferred against us. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sheil) referred to me; and I have had memorials addressed to me, to the same effect, from Protestant Operative Associations. I had one before the agitation begun, addressed to me in the year 1842. It was from the Cork Protestant Operative Association. It began in this manner:— We, the members of the Protestant Operative Association of the city of Cork, feel called on by a sense of duty to ourselves, to our country, and to our God, to address ourselves to you on a subject of the first importance, namely, National Education. It then went on— If the homilies be true (and their authors sealed their truth with their blood, and raised a testimony against error which can never be overthrown), then are the priests of the Romish Church the priests of Anti-Christ—then are they the special instruments of the Devil. I must state that the climax improves as it proceeds; but I think I have read enough to show what was the tenour of that address. Now, what was my answer? It was sent in December, 1842. This was the answer:— Sir—I have received your letter accompanying an address to me from the members of the Protestant Operative Association of the city of Cork. I am sorry that they feel themselves called upon by their duty to their God to express uncharitable sentiments in offensive language. Have I shown to the right hon. Gentleman what was my feeling on this subject? [Mr. Sheil: I said I was sure this was not your feeling.] Yes; and I am trying to confirm your opinion. I thought I made them rather a sharp answer. I must in justice say of them they certainly received it in a very becoming manner. It is but justice to them that I should read the way in which they received my rebuke:— We feel great pleasure in acknowledging the receipt of your letter (really it is a most charitable and becoming answer) in reply to an address of the Cork Protestant Operative Association. We feel it necessary to make a few observations, which are called for by the manner in which you have expressed yourself towards us: We first offer our warmest thanks for the prompt and gentlemanly manner in which you answered our communication. It was what we expected, and what from your universally known courteous disposition and kind demeanour, even to the humblest individual, we might have anticipated; while the reply itself has not disappointed our expectations. Now, Sir, there was an address from the Dublin Protestant Operative Association to Her Majesty. [Mr. Sheil: Was that subsequent to your answer?] Yes. This was transmitted to my right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham), with a request that he would lay it before Her Majesty. I hold in my hand the answer of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to that address. I really had better not read it, He says:— I will not comment on other passages in the address; but I find the expressions 'millions of factious Irishmen,' and the general expressions of that address, if not intended to be insulting, are, at any rate, so open to misconstruction, that I cannot be a party to laying the address before Her Majesty. Now observe, that was in the year 1842; and I do think that these things are indicative of the spirit in which we were desirous of administering the Government of Ireland, and that we were content to relinquish support rather than to gain it by fomenting jealousies. Sir, I come now to the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in respect to the recent Trials. We took office in September, 1841, and up to March, 1843, there appeared certainly no great dissatisfaction with the manner in which the Government was conducted. As I have shown you, we had been desirous of abating religious animosities; we had done what we could to rebuke attempts at offence or insult to the Roman Catholics. You charge us with a desire to govern Ireland by military force. You confound the necessity which has led us to increase the military force in Ireland with our own disposition and wishes. Yes, I want to know who is responsible for the military force in Ireland? I want to know to whom it is owing that our expectations and hopes of presenting reduced Estimates have been defeated? I want to put that fairly before the country—before the intelligent reasoning classes of the community—to make an appeal in this House to impartial men, whether opponents or not. We took office in September, 184l. In March, 1843, so far from having evinced any disposition to govern by military force; we then had a smaller number of regular forces employed in Ireland than there ever had been before, except on one or two occasions. The total number of forces in April, 1841, when the hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power, was 14,000 men. On the (lay on which we took office, the last day of August, 1841, we found the force in Ireland to be 14,843 men. On the last of September, after we were in office, the force was 16,267 men, and in March, 1843, there were 13,900 men; the number in September, 1841, 16,267 men, having been reduced in March, 1843, at the commencement of these troubles, to 13,900. That shows no disposition on our part to govern Ireland by military force. In March, 1843, began this systematic agitation. Was that in consequence of any act of the Government? Were we charged with any injustice—any undue partiality? No; but my belief is, that it did not suit the purposes of some that the Government of Ireland should be successful. It was, therefore, determined to have recourse to agitation. There were also at the time other causes of excitement. The Poor-rate imposed by an Act supported by and perfected by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) began at that time to be levied, and through many parts of Ireland, occasioned great dissatisfaction. That Act was most unfortunate, for it subjected every occupier, whatever might be the value of his holding, almost without exception to the Poor-law. There were thousands of instances in which people in the west of Ireland were called upon to pay a rate—some of three farthings, and some of more. This occasioned great dissatisfaction. It became our duty to remedy, I will not call it the negligence but the unfortunate mistake made in drawing up that Act. [Lord J. Russell: That mistake was adopted by the present Government.] Yes; and the noble Lord shall hear no more from me on that point. I shall not endeavour to repay him in the coin he offered to me. Henceforth, there shall be no more recrimination. That Act subjected the poorest occupiers to the payment of the rate. Concurrently with that Act was a period of great agricultural depression, and there was no part of the United Kingdom where that depression was more severely felt than in Ireland. Concurrently with that depression was the alarm that the new Tariff would cause a reduction in prices, and that alarm alienated the minds of many from the Government. These things gave great facilities for agitation. The country then was in a peculiar state. There was great b agitation and great excitement in the west of Ireland. Great congregations of men assembled in some parishes—not against the Government, but against the Ecclesiastical claims. In Sligo there were meetings of large bodies of men at the chapel door for the purpose of demanding a reduction of those claims. The people of those districts, and probably of other parts of Ireland, began to feel that the payments to their Priests were exceedingly oppressive—at least so they were disposed to represent them—and they took such measures as might be expected from persons in such circumstances. There was, at this time, as I have already said, great distress, and the resistance to the demands of the Romish Priesthood becoming formidable, the agitation for the Repeal of the Union was set on foot. We deeply regretted that agitation; we did all in our power to discourage it; but when it arose, we lost no time in determining upon the mode of meeting it. There was nothing in the mode that we resolved to adopt which at all laid us open to the charge since brought against us of having encouraged those meetings, or at least of having avoided to discourage them with the view of entrapping eminent men into a violation of the law, and then turning on them, and subjecting them to its penalties. I declare here publicly that that charge is utterly destitute of any foundation. There was one thing on which we determined from the first, and that was not to apply to Parliament for any new powers. I declare, after my long experience in public life, there is nothing I deprecate more than an application to Parliament for extraordinary powers. I do not think there is anything that has a greater tendency to impair the real efficacy of the ordinary law, than suddenly to take it into our heads that it will not be efficacious, and, listening to some appeal, founded on local alarm, to procure some Bill, destructive of the ordinary liberties of the subject, by surpassing the ordinary powers of the law. This I hold to be most injudicious; so far from adding to the authority of Government, there is nothing more calculated to paralyze a Government and weaken authority than a recourse to extraordinary powers: Let the ordinary law be relied upon; for if we get into a habit of listening to such applications, people by-and-bye will not resort to the ordinary law at all to suppress what they think wrong, in the hope of driving the Government to extraordinary measures. With such feelings as these, we made up our minds, whatever the risk, to take the chance, relying with confidence upon the inherent vigour of the ordinary law. It is not as a matter of reproach to them, but in justice to ourselves, that I remind the House that our predecessors in office did not pursue this course. There was the same agitation in 1833. The noble Lord, in reviewing the conduct of public men, asked that we should begin the consideration of his own, at a very convenient date for himself, namely, in 1835, just at the very time when he formed that compact with Lichfield House. The noble Lord says, "I claim the right to review your lives without any such restriction;" and the noble Lord goes back to the year 1829. The noble Lord says, "Look at all your pledges from that time, it is impossible for you to do anything for Ireland at variance with those pledges: but at the same time," says the noble Lord, "let me be exempt from any reference to that part of my life from the year 1831 to the year 1835. That part of my life," says the noble Lord, "must be exempted from your notice." I shall, on my part, beg leave to trace back the noble Lord's proceedings somewhat beyond the period he has himself selected as the limit of that zone of his political life to which he wishes to confine us, and refer to some matters occurring between 1831 and 1835. I have observed, that the late Government did not feel that reliance upon the ordinary powers of the law upon which we have acted. The House cannot have forgotten that the noble Lord was in office during that period, that Lord Althorp was the colleague of the noble Lord opposite, and that then an Irish Coercion Bill was introduced into this House. You, who tell us, who charge us with having acted with supineness at the beginning, and unnecessary vigour at the close—you were not content to take the course we have taken, or to rely on the force and operation of the ordinary laws; but you made your demand on Parliament for additional powers, and I supported you in your demands, because you, the Government, solemnly assured us that to comply with it, was essential to the well-being of the country. I did not try to aggravate your difficulties. I entered into no confederacy with those who were disturbing the peace; and you, the Liberal Statesmen—you, the devoted, special, exclusive supporters of the rights and happiness of Ireland—proceeded to pass for Ireland what may be safely described as rather a strong enactment. Really, the noble Lord must think the House has forgotten all these matters, or he would have somewhat moderated the attacks he has been, right and left, making upon us. That Act was an "Act for the more effectual suppression of certain local dangerous disturbances in Ireland." To suppress such disturbances, the noble Lord—the friend of Ireland—thought it essential to have recourse to extraordinary powers. For my own part, I think the bolder course would have been for the noble Lord to rely on the ordinary law. The Act is, as will be seen, a very strict Act of Parliament. The Preamble runs thus:— And whereas divers meetings and assem- blies, inconsistent with the public peace and safety, and with the exercise of regular Government, have for some time past been held in Ireland; and whereas the laws now in force in that part of the United Kingdom have been found inadequate to the prompt and effectual suppression of the said mischiefs, and the interposition of Parliament is necessary for the purpose of checking the further progress of the same. And then the Act went on to subject all persons committing delinquencies under the Act to be tried by a Court Martial, consisting of not less than five officers. And as to signals, why what said the Act of the noble Lord? It subjected to the operation of the Act all persons guilty of making signals by "fire, bonfire, flash, blaze, smoke, or who were present at such signal making by bonfire, flash, blaze, or smoke;" and it further enacted "that the onus of proving that such signal had not been made should lie on the person charged." Such was the Act of the noble Lord—the Act which he impressed upon the House as indispensable for the safety of the country. We asked for no such Act: we all concurred in deeming it unnecessary to pass a Coercion Act for Ireland, such as her peculiar friends required at our hands; we relied upon the ordinary law, and the support of that party, Protestant and Roman Catholic, which was averse from disturbance and agitation. We determined to accept no assistance, which I am bound to say was liberally offered, from any yeomanry corps in Ireland which might have the effect of arousing a spirit of religious animosity. We could not have embodied the yeomanry corps—we could not have called them to aid the Government, without risking the engendering of animosities that it might require a great lapse of time to efface. We were determined, unless in case of the last necessity, to waive the assistance, though we thereby discouraged and dispirited many of those who were ready to support us. Our only reliance was on the ordinary powers of the law, energetically but prudently exercised. The charge that you make against us is, that we were supine and inactive, and that we first entrapped those men into the commission of crime. Now, to that charge I give a peremptory denial. But, it is said, we issued no Proclamation in time. To this I answer, that we did give a public expression of our views as regarded this agitation for the Repeal of the Union. At the end of last Session, Her Majesty expressed her disapproval of that Repeal Agitation. You say we issued no Proclamation on the subject, but I ask what Proclamation could have been stronger than that declaration of Her Majesty's disapproval of the agitation which was then going on in Ireland? In what more emphatic terms could that disapproval of the agitation have been expressed than it was expressed at the Prorogation of Parliament? Her Majesty, in Proroguing the Parliament last Session, said:— I have observed with the deepest concern the persevering efforts which are made to stir up discontent and disaffection among my subjects in Ireland, and to excite them to demand a Repeal of the Legislative Union. Her Majesty added:— I have forborne from requiring any additional powers for the counteraction of designs hostile to the concord and welfare of my Dominions, as well from my unwillingness to distrust the efficacy of the ordinary law, as from my reliance on the good sense and patriotism of my people, and on the solemn declarations of Parliament in support of the Legislative Union. I feel assured that those of my faithful subjects who have influence and authority in Ireland will discourage to the utmost of their power a system of pernicious agitation, which disturbs the industry and retards the improvement of that country, and excites feelings of mutual distrust and animosity between different classes of my people. That was the Proclamation of the Crown with respect to the Repeal agitation; and, as Ministers of the Crown, we felt it to be our duty to dismiss those Magistrates who took part in that agitation. Was not that a sufficient indication of our opinion? But we went further: we dismissed the Magistrates who took part in the Repeal agitation: and I ask was that no significant expression of our opinion on the subject? But we are blamed for having dismissed them without any previous Proclamation on the subject of the meetings. I believe the noble Lord opposite considered himself entitled to dismiss Frost, whom he had made a Magistrate, because he was a Member of the National Convention, without having given any Proclamation previous to his dismissal. The noble Lord wrote to Frost to know if he were a Member of the National Convention whom he had appointed a Magistrate. The noble Lord at first thought the answer of Mr. Frost satisfactory. But Mr. Frost made a comment on the noble Lord's letter, and Frost was dismissed for attending those meetings, at which violent and inflammatory language was used, although the noble Lord did not prosecute those who attended them. We dismissed the Magistrates who took part in an agitation which we believed was calculated to endanger the peace of the Empire and to sever the two countries, and we gave these instructions to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland:— The moment you are entitled by law to interfere with meetings that endanger the public peace, that moment we authorize and desire you to do so. I state this to show that the charge against us, that we remained dormant, with folded arms watched the progress of these meetings, is utterly without foundation. Our intention was clearly expressed, that whenever the law enabled and required us to interfere, then we would do so. But at first these meetings were not considered illegal, though there were great doubts of their legality. Separately taken, they were not considered illegal. Suppose, then, we had issued a Proclamation, while these doubts yet existed, to disperse these meetings by military force, and there should have been resistance and bloodshed, and homicide had ensued, in what a position should we have been? But there were occasions in the progress of these meetings when there did appear a possibility of interfering in conformity with the law. There was a great meeting at Cashel on the 23rd of May. We wrote to the Lord Lieutenant that we had received alarming accounts as to that meeting, and we directed him to send down to the Lieutenant of the County to confer with the Magistrates, and if affidavits were made by respectable and trustworthy persons, that they apprehended danger to the public peace and safety, they were then to interfere. There was great doubt whether, without affidavits of that nature, there could be any reason for interference; and we said, let the affidavits be voluntary; do not hunt them out in order to warrant interference; but, if trustworthy men of firm minds come forward and testify their alarm at the numbers that are expected at the meeting, and the military organization of the people, in that case we advise you to interfere. My right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham), wrote and said:— We held a Cabinet to day, and the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers were present. The statements of—and—in the absence of depositions and of official information, are too vague to form the groundwork of a safe decision, much less of a positive instruction. We think that you should direct the Lieutenant of the county to repair to Tipperary without delay; to consult the Magistracy and resident gentry; and to ascertain, as far as possible, the probable character and numbers of the intended meeting. If these inquiries should satisfy the Lieutenant that the apprehensions are not exaggerated, and that Processions of large multitudes from distant points, with hands and banners, may be expected to flock to the meeting, thereby creating reasonable alarm in the minds of firm and trustworthy men, these statements should be supported by affidavits to be transmitted to you without delay; and in concert with the Lord Chancellor and your Law Advisers, it will then be safely open to you to issue a Proclamation warning the public of the apprehended danger, and calling on all loyal subjects to abstain from attendance, and from giving any countenance to such an assembly. On a careful consideration of the affidavits in the case supposed, you must determine whether it may not be prudent to prevent the assembly by occupying the ground, and even by dispersing it, if they persevere, after notice, in coming together. This last step should be avoided if possible, since it may lead to a serious collision and loss of life. That was the course which we took with regard to a meeting at which it was supposed that interference might be called for. There was to have been another meeting, at which we had every reason to expect that, had it taken place, there would have been a collision between the people and the military, and these are the orders we gave that the meeting should be prevented: this is an extract from a letter dated the 18th of May:— But the most important subject is the intended Repeal Meeting at Enniskillen, summoned by the Roman Catholic Priest, to be held in the Chapel Yard. There can be no doubt whatever, that such a meeting in that place, in present circumstances, would lead to a most serious affray. It is the duty of the Magistrates, if there be affidavits deposing to apprehension of danger, to transmit them to the Castle; and to me it is clear that, if these affidavits set forth the just apprehensions of firm and reasonable men, the Government is hound to interpose and to prevent the assembly. Whatever the event may be, law is on the side of the Authorities, which seek to preserve the public peace. Why did we not interfere then with that meeting? Because, in consequence of the peculiar circumstances, those who intended to hold it decided on not meeting, and accordingly it did not take place. A meeting was held at Clones, in the county Monaghan, at which a life was lost, and a meeting was afterwards to be held at Dun- gannon, at which a collision was apprehended. Well, did we want to provoke a collision? Were we mad and wicked enough to wish to see bloodshed? Badly as you think of us, we wished to be forbearing; we wished to avoid a conflict; we wished to prevent a collision of physical force; we saw thousands and tens of thousands of men, organized and assembling together, obedient to the commands of the leaders, and acting in concert together. Still, while all was peaceable, while there was no apprehension of danger, we determined, if possible, not lightly to interfere—not to issue out a special Proclamation—not to call for the interference of the military. But when actual danger was apprehended from the calling of various meetings, then we felt it our duty to interfere and to prevent such meetings as were pregnant with danger from being held. A meeting was to be held in the North of Ireland, at which it was anticipated there might be just cause of alarm as to its effect on the public peace. That meeting was to be held at Dungannon, and we gave orders to have care taken to prevent any collision, but the meeting was not held, and any interference was therefore unnecessary. I stated that if affidavits were made as to the chance of a collision or danger to the public peace, by persons capable of forming a correct opinion, then the authorities ought to interfere, but they ought not to interfere on vague intelligence. Why did they not interfere with respect to the meeting to be held at Dungannon? Because the Repealers did not hold their intended meeting at that town. We made no parade of the intention to interfere, in order to prevent a collision, and the good sense of the people prevented any riot or collision. Have I not now satisfied the House, that there was no covert design on the part of the Government to entrap men into the commission of crime? We witnessed, it is true, the attempts made to keep up the agitation, but we had hopes t hat it would subside; but the Irish people, with all their good qualities, are a mercurial people, and liable to be excited by such appeals as were made to them, and we accordingly took those precautions which you now consider proofs of a design to govern Ireland by a military force; but we were most desirous to avoid any necessity for resorting to force to prevent any of those meetings. When those meetings assumed a dangerous character, it was necessary to interfere. I am trying to make no comments that are not absolutely necessary; but what friend of peace would advise a meeting in the county of Tipperary, and would choose as the day of meeting the Anniversary of the Irish Rebellion—a meeting to be called in a county in such a disturbed state, and in which soon afterwards was perpetrated the most horrid tragedy to be found in the records of crime—the murder of Mr. Waller—who, I say, would advise hundreds and thousands of the people to be invited to hear inflammatory speeches, and that the day selected for such a purpose should be the Anniversary of the Irish Rebellion? And what were the scenes selected for these meetings? The Hill of Tara, the Rath of Mullaghmast, Clontarf—these were the spots that were selected; and every appeal was made by some to revive the bitter animosities of barbarous times, to throw back the tie of civilization, and to evoke the bitter spirit of former times, which distinguished and exasperated the different races that prevailed in Ireland. Look at the days that were chosen for these objects. Look at the scenes which were selected for the meetings, and I ask you is there not evidence—as far as anniversaries of days and places can furnish evidence—of a conspiracy to effect a legal object by illegal means—not by the present use, but by the display of physical force? Well, but you say, "Why did you interfere at all at Clontarf?" Sir, those who act with forbearance are always liable to that taunt. You forbear from acting, and when the necessity for acting arises you certainly expose yourself to that imputation. Having forborne so long, why did you act then? We interfered at Clontarf on this account—Clontarf was the second meeting in the Metropolis. There had been a previous meeting in Dublin. Clontarf followed on the meetings of Tara and Mullaghmast. Clontarf had this distinguishing character, that there was a military array. The Repeal cavalry was invited to be present. I apprehend that cavalry are hardly necessary for the purpose of petitioning. The cavalry were invited to attend under a Proclamation which formed them as a military body. Military terms were made use of, and that Proclamation issued from the Corn Exchange. [Mr. E. B. Roche.—Not from the Corn Exchange.] The first Prochonation came from the Corn Exchange. [Mr. E. B. Roche.—The second did, not the first.] I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I am pretty well versed in these documents, and I think I am correct in stating that the first Proclamation came from the Corn Exchange. The hon. Gentleman says only the second Proclamation issued from the Corn Exchange; but I have the most confident belief that the first Proclamation issued from the Corn Exchange too. There is the same proof that the first issued from the Corn Exchange that we have as to the second—both are dated from the Corn Exchange. I think I am right in what I state. The Proclamation says— All mounted Repealers are to muster in the open ground, and to form into troops, each troop to consist of twenty-five horsemen, to be led by one officer in front, followed by six ranks, four abreast, half distance, each wearing wand and cockade, distinguishing the number of his respective troop. The Committee will meet at the Corn Exchange, every day in the ensuing week, from four to five o'clock. (Dated Corn Exchange, September 13, 1843.") But it is asked why we proceeded in this case when we had issued no Proclamation to prevent the previous meetings? Because having consulted the Lord Chancellor of England, having consulted the Attorney General, and the Solicitor General, we put this question—"independent of affidavit, does this summoning of a meeting in military array, and with military organization, of itself constitute an illegal meeting, because if it does, we are then determined to interfere by Proclamation?" The answer was, that that one particular individual meeting did differ in its character from the meetings of Cashel, of Mallow, and others; that that meeting, not on account of its numbers, but on account of its military character, was in itself illegal, and the Government was warranted in issuing a Proclamation. We then resolved on issuing a Proclamation. The circumstances under which that Proclamation was issued have already been fully explained to the House, and I shall not again travel over them. We lamented the shortness of the notice, but if we attempted to interfere with that meeting, the shortness of notice was inevitable. It is said we did not issue the notice till late in the day. It is said we did not issue it till five in the evening, when it was too dark to read the Proclamation, I have here the Counter Proclamation—and, which is a matter of great importance, I refute that statement by a reference to this document The Counter-Proclamation of Mr. O'Connell is dated Saturday, October 7, 3 o'clock, p.m., and this Counter-Proclamation begins by stating, Whereas there has appeared, under the signature of 'E. B. Sugden,' a paper being, or purporting to be, a Proclamation," &c. Now, observe, this Counter-Proclamation is printed and dated Saturday, 3 o'clock. There was, therefore, time to print this Proclamation after they had seen the Proclamation which was issued by the Government. I lament the shortness of the notice, but don't, for the purpose of aggravating the charge against us, depart from the facts, and make the notice shorter than it really was. We determined, therefore, to disperse the meeting at Clontarf, or rather to occupy the ground, and make such a demonstration as would prevent, the meeting taking place, giving the earliest notice, and taking every possible precaution to prevent the possibility of collision. We determined also, after the notice given by the declaration of Her Majesty at the close of last Session, by this Proclamation, and after the notice given by the dismissal of Magistrates—we determined to prosecute the parties who had been instrumental in causing these meetings to be held, and adopting these acts—we determined to prosecute them for that conspiracy of which we conscientiously thought them guilty. The right hon. Gentleman asks, why did we not prosecute the printers. My hon. Friend has given the answer. We might incarcerate the printers, but even where the name of the author of the seditious paper was attached to it, there were no means of getting at the author. Printers had been prosecuted before, and Government was covered with ridicule for not striking at the causes of the danger, but contenting themselves with the punishment of the mere instruments. Sir, I ask the House to put together these facts—the references to the United States—the publication of the speeches which the son of the President thought it decent to make—the declaration of the son of the chief executive officer of the United States, that "the libation to freedom must sometimes be quaffed in blood." I ask you to bear in mind that these newspapers were not individual publications, and unconnected with the parties to this offence which we call conspiracy. The reason why we read the extracts from newspapers, and made the defendants responsible for those newspapers, was this—that they belonged to an association which undertook the circulation of them—that those newspapers contained appeals to the Army—that they contained appeals to every prejudice which could be raised in the mind of the Celt against the Saxon. I ask you to bear in mind the scenes chosen fur the meetings, for the express purpose of reminding the Irishmen attending them of events in past history which you cannot reflect on without the deepest lamentation—bear in mind that the 23rd of May was chosen as the anniversary of the Irish insurrection—remember the songs that were distributed and introduced by sonic, I know not by whom, into the barracks of the troops. Who was responsible for circulating such songs as this?— Who fears to speak of 'Ninety-eight? Who blushes at the name? When cowards mock the patriot's fate, Who hangs his head for shame? He's all a knave, or half a slave, Who slights his country thus; But a true man, like you, man, Will fill your glass with us. Can you mistake what the object was of the studious circulation among an inflammable people of songs like this? Who are the really responsible parties? The printer who printed them? Was it not he, whoever he may be, who belonged to an association which had officers, subordinate officers, whose duty it was to circulate the newspapers containing such songs and appeals, because of the subscriptions they received? Should we have been justified, in the state in which the country was, in refusing to appeal to that which teas our only instrument—the ordinary law of this country—for the repression of such proceedings? I will not enter into the subject of the trials themselves; the House must he completely exhausted on that topic. We determined to appeal to the law. We did appeal to it. I declare that it was far from our wish that the Jury should be constituted on any other principle than those which are consistent with public justice. Our advice was, "Don't strike off a Roman Catholic in his capacity of Roman Catholic," thus acknowledging the perfect equality between the Roman Catholic and the Protestant. We appealed to the law. We succeeded in proving that the offence charged was within the law. It is impossible, certainly, to satisfy those who object to our course. The right hon. Gentleman opposite says, you have only convinced us that there should have been no prosecution. We had only one instrument; we had no Coercion Act. We determined not to avail ourselves of the Protestant feeling existing in Ireland; but we had only the Common Law; and then, when we use that instru- ment, you turn round upon us, and you charge us that upon us rests the responsibility of all these affairs, as promoting the discontent which we would suppress. But was, I ask you, the country in that state that you could forbear? You charge us with seeking to govern Ireland by military law. See, you say, how the Army has been increased by 7,000 men. Let me now put the House in possession of the state in which the country was placed by this continued agitation. In the South of Ireland, night after night there appeared the most extraordinary display of signal fires on every eminence in the country. Here are some of the accounts we received. On the 20th of October, 1843, the account I am about to read is dated from the county of Tipperary. Last evening, about eight or nine o'clock, the hills in this part of the country, through nearly an entire district, were lighted simultaneously, and they continued so for nearly an hour. We have not ascertained the object of these fires, but they seem to be in connexion with the Repeal movement. Much excitement prevails, particularly amongst the Protestants, many of whom congregated at my quarters next the police-barracks in self-defence. However, the night passed quietly by. Another letter from Tipperary describes a similar state of things, and adds, We could hear the shouts of the people. The Protestants of the town and neighbourhood are in great alarm, fearing that the town will be attacked. About ten young men armed themselves, and came to the police-barracks, in order to render assistance. From Galway there were the same accounts. One letter says,— Last night there were more signal fires, and in the adjoining counties of Clare and Tipperary. We could hear the blowing of horns and the shouts of the people. Candles were lighted in all the houses in Woodford, except three, and the inhabitants thought an insurrectionary movement was about to take place. Sir, were these things for the purpose of petition? Were not these things the result of that fearful system of agitation which left us at last no alternative, if we wished to prevent collision and insurrectionary outbreak, but to appeal to the only instrument left to us, and to call on the chief movers of the agitation to answer to their country for their conduct? We preferred the charge—not lightly, as I have shown—not, as I have shown, having trapped the parties into the offence; we preferred the charge under the ordinary law—under the same law in which you prosecuted Vincent, under the same law to which you appealed when you read newspapers that had been published at a previous period, and made Vincent responsible for their publication. We charged those persons under the law of conspiracy, because we did not wish to proceed against subordinate agents; we proceeded against those who told us that our "do-nothing" policy would not do—who declared that the Queen had the power to Repeal the Act of Union—who boasted that they would drive a coach and six through all our Acts of Parliament—that they would evade and defy the law. We stepped forward, not in consequence of these taunts, but because of the state of the country, brought on by this pernicious agitation; we went to the Court and asked whether such proceedings were tolerable in a country where Civil Government prevails. The Bench were unanimous in their opinion as to the law, the Jury brought in a discriminating and considerate verdict, and the parties charged were convicted of the offence laid in the indictment. We have done this without coercion, without appealing to the excited and irritated feelings; and having done this, and having at least succeeded without the effusion of blood, without conflict, without collision, then comes a powerful party in this House to arraign us for the course we have pursued. The whole indignation of that party is directed against us—sometimes for our forbearance, sometimes for our vigour. Wise after the result, every step we have taken during this painful and anxious effort to maintain the law by the ordinary powers of the law—every step, I say, is now tracked with the sagacity of party, to fasten on some little error or mistake—to charge us with being reckless of life—to allege against us an indifference to liberty, and a desire to govern Ireland by the sword instead of by the law. If we had taken some other course—if we had been too precipitate in our interference—if we had dispersed a meeting when we were not legally empowered to do so—if we had charged illegality as against a single individual meeting, and had failed to prove it—had we selected some poor printer and shut him in gaol—had we done either or all of these things, I appeal to the House with what very different sounds, with what very different accusations, would these walls now have been ringing. You would have told us that we had interposed without a neces- sity—that we had evinced a desire to interfere with the right of petition—that we had not the courage to select the favourites of the people—that we had pursued the unmanly and paltry course of inflicting vengeance on a printer. But we had the courage to face the difficulties of the case, to apprehend and bring to trial the powerful among the leaders of the people. Sir, I must say, in the face of the country, that in repressing this agitation we have had no assistance whatever from the other side. At the same time, I can say with perfect truth, that you (addressing the Opposition) know what it is to be exposed to the same painful trials. You have had organized meetings against the public peace; it has been your fate—your painful fate—to have had to deal with the fires at Bristol, the attack on Newport, and the insurrection in Canada. If you had then found a powerful party ranged against you,—if we had taken up Mr. Papineau and espoused his cause—I beg pardon, you took him up,—if we had watched all your proceedings in Cauada,—if we had brought forward a Motion inculpating you, when the Grand Jury ignored the Bills, and you sent ex officio informations against the disturbers of the public peace,—if we had tracked you at every step, expressing a faint disapprobation only of the "hardly justifiable conduct" of men engaged in the cause of liberty;—had we done these things, then, let me tell you, you would have found it a much more difficult task than you did to vindicate the law, and protect the authority of the Government. Sir, this is the defence which I offer on the part of the Government—for our forbearance at first—for our determination to snake use of no other instrument than the law—and for our application of the law, when considerations of the public safety left us no alternative but to pursue a course of repression. Sir, I have still to make some observations on that which will be remembered, when these party conflicts shall have been forgotten. By far the most important part of this great question is the policy to be hereafter pursued towards Ireland. Sir, I do not hesitate to declare, upon this occasion, that I shall consider it my first duty to consider what in the present state of Ireland—the public interests require. I shall not be driven by the fear of any taunts, or by any quotations from Hansard, from freely and fully expressing my opinions as to the course which should now be pursued. I should be utterly ashamed of myself if I was prevented by the fear of being charged with inconsistency, from advising and adopting any measure which I believed would be conducive to the restoration of peace, and the advancement of the general interests of the whole country. Sir, this is a comprehensive and difficult subject; it embraces the position of Ireland with respect to her physical and material interests; it concerns the civil mid political rights of the people it refers to matters connected with their religious sentiments and their religious instruction. Sir, the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. O'Connell), attached great, but not undue importance to the physical condition of Ireland; he stated, and with truth, that political grievances would be less felt if the material condition of the people were less miserable; but if his be a true representation, I wonder that when the hon. and learned Gentleman demanded an identity in the Franchise—when he claimed at least an equality of the Franchise proportionate to the amount of property and population—I wonder it did not occur to him that if wealth be taken into the calculation, supposing his statement that 70 per cent. of the whole population are involved in pauperism to be accurate, that a Franchise in exact proportion to the population would be full of danger, and involve a hazard which it would be most unwise to encounter. Sir, whatever may be our differences in other respects, in one thing, at least, we all agree, in the endeavour to improve the social condition of Ireland apart from political considerations. Sir, Her Majesty's Government gave to that subject, during the continuance of the late excitement, their fullest consideration. In the course of last Session a Bill was brought in by a benevolent Member of this House—the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. S. Crawford), to improve the Law of Landlord and Tenant in Ireland. I promised, on the part of the Government, that all due consideration should be given to that Bill; that promise I fulfilled: but upon reflection, we felt that the subject was so vast, and the evils connected with it so various and complicated, that no legislation upon it could be beneficial except it were founded on the very fullest information as to the actual circumstances of the case. I therefore advised Her Majesty to appoint a Commission composed of landlords in Ireland, whom I took care should be men equally distinguished for their character and intelligence as for the extent of their property. In order to shew that we wished no reli- gious feeling or prejudice to creep into this inquiry, if our wishes had been fulfilled, the Commission would have consisted of four Gentlemen, besides the Earl of Devon, two of whom should have been Protestants, and two Roman Catholics. One of the Gentlemen, however, to whom I applied, was prevented from agreeing to my request, not from any unwillingness to forward the inquiry, but from the circumstances that his health or the calls of other duties would prevent him; and I then proceeded to form the Commission in such a way as I thought most likely to render it efficient for the object in view. I desired that the whole state of the relations of landlords and tenants in Ireland should be ascertained and made clear. It is, I am aware, a very difficult question. A very strong, and I do not hesitate to say, a very unfair and unjust prejudice exists against the whole class of landlords in Ireland, as though they were of a different class of men, and actuated by different motives and feelings to the landlords in England, no account being taken of the peculiar and unfavourable circumstances in which they were themselves placed with regard to their property. I thought it better, therefore, that we should institute an inquiry into the state of those connected with land in various parts of the country, rather than depend upon the information received casually from particular districts; as for instance, in some parts of the North, where the condition of the tenant is said to be an improved and improving one. Above all things, I thought that this inquiry would do good, by bringing to light the conduct of landlords, and so restraining them from the habit of perverting the law to do wrong. I thought it would be of use to bring to light and contrast the conduct of the good and judicious landlord with that of the harsh and overbearing landlord. In bringing all these facts to light, I thought we should be taking the best means to draw attention to the subject, and to lead to a practical amelioration of the tenantry of Ireland. The noble Lord opposite has referred to a book entitled "A Cry from Ireland." I have read that book, and it is impossible for any mall to read it without being shocked at the manner in which the legal powers of the landlords are too frequently used in Ireland. The noble Lord suggests that a short Act of Parliament might at once be introduced to remedy this evil. Then why does not the noble Lord bring it in himself Will he allow me to ask him—I do not speak for the purpose of crimination—what he has been doing for the last ten years, if legislation on this subject is so easy? Is there not, indeed, a greater danger that when altering the legal exercise of rights as they at present exist, by the interposition of a new law, you may not be incurring new evils as great as those which you so attempt to remedy? Just see how conflicting are the opinions. The noble Lord says that Commissions are dangerous. I know they are. But I have heard a good deal more said about this Commission than some others that I remember. I know the expectations which such Commissions always excite. We could not enquire into the disturbances in South Wales by means of a Commission without exciting the most ridiculous expectations. In short, it is impossible to detail the extraordinary delusive expectations which are derived from inquiries of this kind. But the noble Lord says, "I wish for a small Bill," not explaining what is to be the character of it. Now, this is exactly the course which has been adopted for the last ten years. Some Member not connected with the Government asks leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to Landlord and Tenant in Ireland. The Chief Secretary for Ireland gets up and says, "This is a subject full of difficulties, but I do not object to the hon. Member bringing in his Bill." The Bill is brought in and read a first time. The second reading is moved; the Chief Secretary does not object to that, but reserves himself for the Committee. The Bill gets into Committee, and on the first Clause the hon. Member is met by ten thousand valid objections; the Bill consequently stands over, the Session closes, and nothing is done. That has been the course for the last ten years. Sir, we have done precisely this:—We allowed the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. S. Crawford) to introduce his Bill; we allowed it to be read a second time, and then on some Wednesday, when the Committee came on, it was inevitably postponed and laid over until the Session closed. Could it he otherwise? Is not that the way we should have been obliged to redeem our pledge to the hon. Member of giving the Bill our consideration? Then says the right hon. Gentleman opposite, "I will take the opinions of two Irishmen supposed to be particularly versed in the subject of the relation of Landlord and Tenant in Ireland." Says one of them the hon. and learned Member for Cork. I anticipate the greatest objections to the Landlord and Tenant Commission. There is one simple remedy for the evils of Ireland. Repeal all the laws that have been passed since the Union. That will restore Ireland to the happy state in which she was under that Parliament which was so celebrated for its purity, and integrity—the last that sat in Dublin. This is the opinion of one of two authorities. What says the right hon. Gentleman, Mr. Sheil? He was determined to give warning beforehand. I understand," says he, "that you intend to interfere with the Bill introduced by that consummate master of the law of Landlord and Tenant, Mr. Lynch, who is actually a Master in Chancery. I warn you to take heed how you tamper with a law which is the Magna Charta of Landlords and Tenants in Ireland. That, then, is the contradictory advice of two eminent Irish Members. One says that we must not touch the last Act which has been passed on the subject, for by so doing we shall compromise the rights of Landlords and Tenants, and he is followed by his hon. and learned Friend, who says that the only thing is to abolish every law that has been passed since the Union. Sir, I ask the House, is it not wiser to adopt that course which has met with the approbation of the very high authority of two Roman Catholic Members who have spoken in the course of this debate, in a spirit which entitles them to the highest respect—I mean the Members for Louth and Roscommon? Those hon. Members, in speeches in which was not infused one particle of party spirit, have declared their approbation of the Landlord and Tenant Commission, stating that they thought the motives of Her Majesty's Government in appointing it were honest, and that the course pursued was, in all the difficulties, the wisest course. Sir, we have been influenced by no other motives in appointing that Commission than because we believe it will form the foundation of permanent and useful legislation—protecting the rights of property, encouraging no vain expectations; but being fully convinced that we cannot probe the evil to it's bottom, except through the instrumentality of extensive local information. So much for a measure upon which we depend, not so much for the purpose of immediate improvement, as because it will lay the foundation of future improvement in the moral and physical condition of the people, so far as that is mixed up with the relation of Landlord and Tenant. And now, Sir, as to the Franchise. I have no hesitation on the part of the Government in declaring their desire that every privilege given by the Catholic Relief Bill, and every vote given by the Reform Bill should be fully and fairly exercised. I do not know what the noble Lord's opinions may be on this point. I am certain, however, it would be unwise now to disturb the relative proportions of Members fixed by the Reform Act for the two countries. But, as to the Franchise on principle I think it ought to be one of substantial equality between Ireland and Great Britain. I do not say identity—that would be impossible. I do not say nominal equality—that would be unattainable; but I cannot contend against this principle—I willingly indeed admit it—that there ought to be substantial equality of civil privileges for Protestant and Catholic, and that the Franchise should be really equal in the two countries. That there ought not to be identity nor nominal equality many even on the Opposite side will, I suppose be foremost to contend; for on that side in the course of this Debate there has been the most anxious endeavour to deprecate the extension to Ireland of the "Chandos clause," it having been said that the application of that clause to Ireland would encourage landlords to refuse to grant leases for years or lives, and to require tenancies at will. I give, Sir, no opinion on that subject. I refer only to arguments used in this Debate, to show that Gentlemen on the other side do not contend for identity or nominal equality of Franchise. Nor, Sir, do I mean that in the case of any Irish Franchise which may have been abolished on account of the manner in which it has been abused, that it should be restored merely because it exists in England. But I hope I shall not be misunderstood when I say—(it is sufficient for the purposes of this Debate)—speaking of the Franchise—I think the principle on which we ought to go—I will not recur to the past on this subject; I will not be deterred by fear of taunts about Registration Bills, from freely avowing my opinion—the principle which we wish to apply is that of substantial equality between the two countries. It is enough for the purpose of this Debate, to deal with principles, and. I abstain from entering into details. And now, Sir, I approach by far the most important subject connected with Ireland, namely, the course we ought to take with respect to the Established Church in Ireland. On that I will without reserve, with the same explicitness as my noble and right hon. Friends, declare my opinion; and, if the House permit me, I will state the reasons for that opinion. I find in Ireland the Protestant Reformed Religion and the Episcopal Church established in that country. I find that they have been established for a period of above 250 years, and I find that Establishment ratified and confirmed by Acts of Parliament, partaking of the nature of a solemn compact, so far as an Act of Parliament can. I believe that will hardly be denied by hon. Members on the other side. It was the intention of Parliament at the time of the Union, to give an assurance to the Protestants of Ireland and to the Protestants of this country, that the passing of the Act of Union should not endanger the existence of the Established Church, and that its endowments should be secured to it. I am stating as far as possible what were the intentions of the Legislature. At a subsequent period, in 1829, I am bound to say, the intentions of those who passed the measure of that year—of those who invited Protestants to waive their objections, and who used all their influence to combat those objections,—their intention was to give assurance to the Protestants, and if they acquiesced in the removal of Catholic disabilities, there should be a guarantee to the Established Church. Now, I must say, that so far as compacts can have force, the Union and the Emancipation Act were such compacts. Precisely the same compact was established with Scotland at the time of the Union. At that time a guarantee was given that the Presbyterian Church should be the Established Religion—or rather at an earlier period that assurance was given; but it was confirmed by Queen Anne at the time of the Union. I was rather surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Edinburgh, (Mr. Macaulay) in the course of his eloquent and very able speech, advert to what took place on the Abolition of the Slave Trade, with the view of justifying our departing from the compact entered into at the period of the Union with Ireland. "Men have changed their opinions on many important points," said the right hon. Gentleman; and then he described the scene graphically, in which he said Mr. Wilberforce had "pulled down the present Duke of Northumberland when rising to propose the Abolition of Slavery." Those who recollect the relative size of the two individuals must admit the picture of the right hon. Gentleman to have been purely imaginative. And the right hon. Gentle- man drew not less upon his imagination for the debate than for the description. I have referred to it since, and this is really what took place:—So far from Mr. Wilberforce abjuring the notion of the Abolition of Slavery, he said he did not press it then, he expressly said,— I have never been of opinion, that slavery should not be ultimately abolished. I wished to postpone the period of Abolition until the time when the mild of the negro shall have been prepared by education for the blessings of freedom. And this the right hon. Gentleman considers a parallel case to that of the guarantee given at the Union for the perpetuation of the Established Church! All I say is, that so far as national compacts can have force, that compact does exist for the maintenance of the Established Church in Ireland. But, again, so far as authority can go, I can refer to the highest in favour of its maintenance. I will not quote men prejudiced in favour of the Church. I will take those than whom I could not name men whose opinions you would sooner take on matters affecting the comprehensive interests of Ireland, and particularly with respect to the Church and the Catholics—I will cite the opinions of Mr. Burke, Mr. Grattan, Lord Plunkett, and Sir J. Newport. Mr. Burke, the earliest and the ablest of the advocates of Catholic claims—entertaining the keenest sense of the wrongs inflicted by the penal code, and whose speeches showed that he then maintained principles subsequently carried out, but which at that time excited little attention—Mr. Burke did not conceal from himself any part of the truth as respects the Church:— You have in Ireland an Establishment which, though the religion of the Prince, and of most of the first classes of landed proprietors, is not the religion of the major part of the inhabitants, and which, consequently, does not answer to them any one purpose of a religious Establishment." "It is an Establishment from which they did not partake the least, living or dying, either of instruction or of consolation. Therefore Mr. Burke did not conceal from himself any of the objections which are now urged against the Established Church; but at the same time he went on and said,— Not one of the zealots for a Protestant interest wishes more sincerely than I do, perhaps not half so sincerely, for the support of the Established Church in both these King- doms. It is a great link towards holding fast the connection of Religion with the State. I wish it well, as the religion of the greater number of the primary land proprietors of the Kingdom, with whom all Establishments of Church and State, for strong political reasons, ought, in my opinion, to be firmly connected. I wish it well, because it is more closely combined than any other of the Church systems with the Crown, which is the stay of the mixed constitution. I have another and infinitely stronger reason for wishing it well. It is, that at the present time I consider it as one of the main pillars of the Christian religion itself. Now, these are the opinions of Mr. Burke—with all the objections to the Establishment clearly before hint, and placed on record by himself. With respect to Lord Plunkett, he said he would fling the Roman Catholic question to the winds if he thought the removal of the Roman Catholic disabilities would compromise the existence of the Established Church. The dying bequest of Mr. Grattan to his country was an earnest wish that the removal of the Roman Catholic disabilities might be combined with that which he thought essential, namely, the maintenance of the Protestant Church in Ireland. The opinion of Sir J. Newport was, that the Protestant Established Church, at the time he was speaking, required extensive reforms, and it was also the opinion of Sir J. Newport—a man inferior to the others in point of intellectual grasp, but not in devotion and tried fidelity to Ireland—that the Roman Catholic disabilities ought to be removed—that there ought to be perfect equality of privilege and franchise, but that the Protestant Church in Ireland ought to be maintained as the Establishment of the country. I think, therefore, I am not going too far in saying, that as far as compact and authority are concerned, they have as great weight as they possibly can have in favour of the Established Church. But it may be asked, are compact and authority to be conclusive and decisive If we are now ourselves convinced, that the social welfare of Ireland requires an alteration of the law, and a departure from that compact, and a disregard of that authority, are our legislative functions to be so bound up, that they must maintain the compact in spite of our conviction? I for one am not prepared to contend for such a proposition. But at the same time this compact is a most material element for our consideration:—Nothing would have a greater tendency to lower the authority of Parliament than not to keep the faith you have pledged; to make these compacts, and then, within ten years, to revoke them. While I do not think they impose on you a paramount obligation, to which you are bound at all hazards and at all risks to defer, yet I do think that nothing would be more unfortunate, and nothing more prejudicial to your authority—nothing so destructive of the prospect of future legislation, as a departure from such compacts. How can you hope to persuade parts of the population of this country, having strong feelings and opinions, to relinquish them in consequence of your guarantee and assurances, unless you are prepared to maintain them, or prepared to show that there is a positive overwhelming necessity which obliges you to depart from them? I maintain the Church in Ireland not only on compact, not only on authority, but I maintain it on that higher ground which is convincing to my own mind. After the most dispassionate consideration I bring reason and conviction in aid of both compact and authority. I therefore will not defend the Church merely on the comparatively narrow ground of compact. I will not say, "I wish I could alter it, I think it is for the interest of Ireland to alter it, but I am bound by a compact." That is not my impediment. My impediment to the destruction or undermining of the Protestant Church is derived from the conviction of my own mind. I do not believe it to be for the interest of Ireland, or any portion of Ireland, that I should acquiesce in the destruction of the Protestant Church; and I will assign my reasons for this conviction. I am not now to determine what is the best condition in respect to a new state of society in which more than 7,000,000 profess a religion different from the Protestant Church, and not more than 2,000,000 profess the faith of the Protestant Church. I am not considering what is the best constitution for that society. I am to deal with a country in respect to which these compacts and guarantees exist, and with respect to which there is a prescription of 250 years—and with respect to which the landed proprietors, the great mass of them Protestants, are identified in feeling with the Established Church. I am now to consider what, under all the circumstances of this case, is the best arrangement to make? First of all, I contend for the necessity of an Establishment. I apprehend, that without infringing on the privileges or conscience of any man, I have a right to maintain this opinion. I think, with the example of Establishments in England and Scotland, and with my conviction as to what is necessary for the purpose of religion, that in Ireland an Establishment of some kind is necessary. [Hear.] Do not take advantage of an expression. I am now addressing myself to the first step in the argument—shall there be an Establishment or not? You say I am wrong, for that an Establishment is not necessary. You may cavil at my expression, but I am considering the great question, is it for the public interest to have an Establishment? One of my reasons for maintaining an Establishment in Ireland is because I think it important for Ireland. I think if you had no Establishment in that country you would have bitterer religious animosities. I look at the question, first, as it affects Ireland; and, next; of this I am certain, that if you establish the precedent of having no Establishment in Ireland, little time will elapse before the precedent will be referred to as a principle applicable to England. How long a period do you suppose would elapse? The other night an hon. Friend of mine, the Member for Ponte-fract, gave notice of his intention to move a resolution in favour of a provision for the secular Roman Catholic clergy; and immediately the hon. Member for Sheffield gave notice of his intention to move, as an amendment upon that Motion, That no provision for the maintenance of the secular Roman Catholic Clergy in Ireland can be just or expedient, or will tend to the re-establishment of tranquillity in that country, unless based upon such a revision of the whole Ecclesiastical system as will place the Clergy of all religious denominations upon a footing of perfect equality. And the hon. Member for Montrose was so impatient that he would not wait for the introduction of the Bill, or even for the discussion of the Motion; but, on hearing the Notices given, was good enough at once to signify his intention to apply the same principle to this country as his hon. Friend intended to apply to the Establishment of Ireland, and gave notice of a motion for an Address to her Majesty— That she will be pleased to institute an inquiry whether the number of Her Majesty's subjects dissenting from the doctrines and discipline of the Established Churches of England, Ireland, and Scotland, are now more in number than those who belong to and attend the Established Churches; and, if so, whether the time is not arrived when all the public property granted by Parliament for the support of those Established Churches; should be withdrawn from them, respect being had to the existing interests of the Clergy and other persons actually employed in the service of the Established Churches; and whether it will not be more just and useful to the people of this Kingdom to apply the Revenue of the Church for the purpose of educating the people, or for such other national purposes as Parliament may think fit. If you apply this principle in Ireland it will be referred to as a rule for England; and, therefore, my opinion is decidedly in favour of an Establishment, and it is decidedly in favour of continuing the Protestant Church as that Establishment. I cannot conceive a more important question than that which will arise as to the nature of the relations between an Established Church and the State. The Roman Catholics say they will submit to no regulations. In the case of the Protestant Church—when you made it a State Establishment—when you gave it endowments—you subjected it to great restrictions. You controlled the meeting of its convocation; you expressed great anxiety regarding its authority: you displayed considerable jealousy of its acts; and you subjected it to the restraints of the law; at the same time that you also subjected it to the milder restraints of patronage, and gave to the Crown the right of preferment to its highest offices. It is difficult to estimate the influence of these circumstances over the Church. It is difficult to decide how it may have affected its position. But what do the Roman Catholics say? They tell you—If we take our endowments, we will not submit to your power. We will not be subjected to your restraints; we will refuse to concede you any control; and the appointment to our highest offices shall be vested in a spiritual, and not a civil, functionary. Said the hon. Member for Kildare the other night, speaking with great decision and much authority, if you try to interfere with our arrrangements with the Pope, if you take the course that other countries take, I tell you that your authority will not prevail—that your regulations will not be observed—that the Ecclesiastical Authorities in Ireland will rebel, That is the opinion of the hon. Member for Kildare. Will he tell me, then, what equality there can be in giving the endowments of the Church, which is now under our control, to a form of religious faith which refuses to submit to our regulations? On the part of all Churches there is a disposition to remonstrate against the exercise of the civil power—there is an impatience, a great impatience, of civil control. You have thought proper to control the Church. You have ever been jealous of those who claimed more than ordinary exemption from secular authority. In Scotland within the last two years, you have found a party in the Established Church claiming exemption from civil control, demanding to be subjected to spiritual authority only, and requiring that the boundaries between spiritual and civil control should be defined. You have not conceded these demands. What would you do with your own, the Protestant Episcopal Church, supposing she was to ask for the same immunities and exemptions now demanded on behalf of the Catholics of Ireland? Would you grant her supreme authority in spiritual matters? I am sure you would not; and I ask, therefore, what right has a Church which refuses to submit to your control to claim for itself the transfer of those privileges which now belong to a Church which submits to control? The noble Lord (Lord Howick) said, that it was an objection to Establishments that the selection of one form of worship was an insult to the professors of another faith.

Lord Howick.

—No, no. The learned Recorder said, that he defended the maintenance of the Established Church because it rested on the eternal principle of religious truth. What I said was, that if you declared it to rest on the eternal principles of religious truth, you implied that others rested on principles of religious error.

Sir R. Peel.

—I don't admit that as a consequence, and I tell the noble Lord at once, that I do say, that in this country a preference is given by the Legislature to the Protestant Church from a preference—a decided preference—to its doctrines. Yes, and I say more; I say that the preference to its doctrines implies no insult to those who dissent from those doctrines, and that it is extravagant to say that because I prefer my own form of religious faith, I am involved in the necessity of insulting or persecuting those who differ from me. I say, too, that as far as this objection goes, the principle of an Establishment does not depend on majorities or minorities. You may think it right to establish a form of religion on account of the majority adopting and professing that form; but the fact of your establishing that form gives you no right to insult the minority who dissent from it. Every one has a proposition on this subject, and the hon. Member for Sheffield has his. I consider the proposition of the hon. Member tantamount to a total suppression of all Churches. He proposes to divide the Revenue into three parts, according to certain proportions. He gives 70,000 to the Presbyterians, 70,000 to the Episcopalian Church, and 430,000 to the Catholic Church. I say it evinces no equality to give 70,000 to a Church which submits to your control, and 430,000 to a Church which does not. To do that would be, I think, to reverse the principle of justice. If you follow out the principle of numbers, the mere analogy would lead you to establish the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland. Is the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) prepared for that? Are you prepared to admit those who owe their promotion to another power than the Crown to sit on the Bishops' Bench in the House of Lords? If you are not prepared to do that, you must admit that your principle of equality requires modification. What is the proposition? "On account of those difficulties which you say exist, permit us to relieve you from them and to destroy the Established Church." I must say, a more unreasonable and unjust proposition was never made. Here is a religion guaranteed by solemn Acts of Parliament, by long prescription, the Protestant religion, which is in alliance with the State, which has endowed it for 250 years. I am told I cannot maintain it, not because they want the Roman Catholic religion to be established, but because it is inconvenient that an Establishment should contain what will promote religious peace in Ireland. Do you believe it will promote mutual concord to say to the Protestants, "Civil disabilities have been removed, equality of Franchise has been granted, we now tell you we cannot maintain the Established Church any longer, and you must relinquish it?" You don't know to what extent you would then go. Would you stop with the endowments? What will you do as to the places of worship? Do you mean that you would confer religious peace on the country by calling upon the Protestants to sacrifice their endowments, and to transfer their churches to the Roman Catholics? You must do that if you adopt the principle of analogy, on the principle of the hon. Member for Sheffield. Very little, indeed, do you know the spirit you would provoke. I believe that a proposition more calculated to insure discord could not be imagined, and, therefore, I am prepared to offer just as decided an objection to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, as I am to transfer the revenues to the Roman Catholics. There is another course that may be pursued, not to stand upon compact, not to stand upon authority, not to venture at once to destroy the Church, but to take some course for the purpose of undermining and impairing its foundations. I think that course is just as fatal as any other. I think that not to destroy life, but to infuse some slow poison into its veins, which shall ultimately lead to its destruction, is a course as little in unison with religious or social peace as any of the others. Therefore I come to the conclusion, founding myself upon compact, upon authority, and upon the conviction of my mind, that the best course—and the course which I, for one, as far as my humble powers can be exerted, will pursue—is to maintain in its integrity the Protestant Church. When I in its say in its integrity, I do not mean to exclude all such reforms as may increase the efficiency of its Establishment for the purposes of the Church; but I do mean that I will neither consent to the overthrow of the Church, to the establishment of three forms of religion in Ireland, to the division of the revenues between Protestant, Presbyterian, and Roman Catholic; nor can I consent to any of those similar devices which mean nothing, if they do not mean the ultimate destruction of the Church. I have stated, therefore, the grounds on which I propose to act with respect to the religious Establishment. Does that compel me to exclude altogether from consideration the position of the Roman Catholic Church? Am I to consider that Church altogether as an outcast, and to refuse the consideration of any regulations which may improve its condition? Endowment from the State you absolutely reject. We have been assured that the voluntary endowment by individuals might be provided for without any violation of conscience, and would be considered as a great boon. The noble Lord, the Member for Tiverton, threw out that suggestion in the course of last Session. The noble Lord, if I mistake not, declared opinions as to a Protestant Establishment little different from what I have stated; but at the same time he said he was prepared to treat the Roman Catholic religion with every consideration compatible with the maintenance of the Establishment. He desired us in a friendly spirit to consider whether there could be any objection to permit voluntary endowment by individuals, Protestant and Roman Catholic, for the purpose of making a provision for Roman Catholics. We professed our readiness to consider the subject, and the moment we profess our readiness to consider it, we are met as usual by the declaration that it will not be of the slightest advantage, unless brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman opposite! Certainly we undertook to consider it, and I believe there were many landed proprietors, Protestant as well as Roman Catholic, who would have been disposed, for the sake of promoting peace, for the purpose of improving the condition of Roman Catholic Ecclesiastics, to make a voluntary provision for endowment. The absence of such endowment used to be dwelt on as a great grievance. In a work which must be familiar to the right hon. Gentleman, "Scully on the Penal Laws," he describes the state of the law as to charitable endowments:— It is, therefore, not too much to affirm," he says, "on a view of all the circumstances, that no person can safely give or grant any land, money, or other property, to or for the permanent support of any Catholic Priest, house of worship, school, or charitable edifice, or foundation of any charitable description, subject, as such donation must be, to serious doubts and difficulties. That these donations would be diverted to Protestant institutions, directly contrary to the donor's interest is a prospect sufficiently discouraging to deter every person from making them. This may be taken to amount to actual and positive prohibition. The actual and positive prohibition we are willing to remove, accompanied with such securities as may prevent abuse; and certainly I am surprised that our proposition should in this debate have been met in the manner in which it has. We persevere, however, in our intentions, and are perfectly prepared to consider the means. There only remains the subject of Education. I must refer to the course which we have taken on the subject of National Education as sufficiently indicative of our determination to adopt those measures which we believe to be for the welfare of Ireland, even at the risk of offending many of our countrymen. We propose, in the present year, to make a considerable increase to the grant for National Education, I should be very sorry to refuse to consider the means of still further increasing the Revenue. It has been suggested that instruction in the science of Agriculture might be usefully given in Ireland, and grafted on the present system of National Education. I should be sorry to exclude the consideration of matters of that sort; I should be very sorry to exclude the consideration of the means of providing some system of academical education for higher classes than those educated in the National Schools; but for the present we intend to give an increased vote; to a considerable extent, for the purpose of National Education. I have now completed what I had to say, and I thank the House for the indulgence. I trust they believe I have only trespassed upon them at such length in the performance of a public duty. I have stated our general views of the policy and of the measures which we propose to adopt. In themselves they may not be immediate anti effectual remedies for the evils under which Ireland labours; but I trust at least I have said enough to show the spirit in which the Government is prepared to consider the question of Irish Legislation. I was reminded by the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Shrewsbury, in the course of the very able speech which he made the other night, a speech not the less to be admired because it departed from the ordinary routine of Parliamentary eloquence, and touched on more comprehensive and general views,—I was reminded by him of a declaration which I made, that I thought Ireland was a subject of too much importance to be sacrificed to our party feelings. I say, and say with perfect truth, in a friendly and not in a hostile spirit, that if any Gentleman, however attached to the party of the Government, should consider that the state of Ireland requires more efficient remedies than we are prepared to adopt, should consider that we are not the instruments by which good can be effected in Ireland—I say, and say it with perfect truth and sincerity, that I think this is a subject of such paramount importance, that all ordinary party considerations should give way, and that any Gentleman who thinks that by a vote hostile to the Government, he will be promoting the permanent welfare of Ireland, I give my opinion that in that vote he would be justified. I declare, for myself, that upon that opinion I would act, that I would make no sacrifice of judgment, no sacrifice of conscientious feeling to party purposes or personal ambition, where the welfare of that part of the Empire is concerned. I think I may say, I have some right to hold that language, I have made sacrifices before for the purpose of restoring peace to Ireland, the least of which was the loss of official power. I have encountered reproaches, the more bitter, because they came from friends and not opponents. I suffered the loss of private friendship and the alienation of private esteem. Why am I not at this moment the cherished representative instead of the rejected candidate of the University of Oxford? When we proposed in 1829, the removal of the Roman Catholic disabilities, the loss of office was a mere secondary consideration, and in the hope of securing peace in Ireland, I sacrificed that which was the greatest distinction I ever aspired to—the representation of that honoured institution where I had slaked the thirst of early ambition. I am asked whether I consider the present state of Ireland satisfactory. I confess that I consider it any thing but satisfactory. But I certainly hope that Civil Government, without resorting to the use of military force, may be maintained in that country. While we retain office, we will maintain the law. We will exert all the authority and power of the Crown—at least we will advise its exercise, and exert the authority of the law temperately, firmly, and moderately—for the purpose of resisting agitation. We hold ourselves not responsible for the increase of military force. We deprecate the necessity for it. We only applied it for the purpose of averting calamities of which we were not the authors. But, having done this, I am bound to admit that this is, I think, an unsatisfactory tenure of power. Our policy has been to maintain peace, to restore friendly relations with great powers, and to increase commerce. We have succeeded in improving the revenue, in restoring the balance between income and expenditure. We have witnessed with the highest satisfaction the gradual improvement of trade, and we trust the revival of prosperity in the commercial and manufacturing districts will be permanent. But at the same time, we cannot but confess, that with this intestinum et domesticum malum—this unfortunate condition of Ireland—we cannot look upon the picture with unmingled satisfaction. I trust, however, that that alternative which party suggests—that we are unable to govern Ireland except by force—I trust and believe there is no foundation for that assertion. If indeed party influence he exercised for the purpose of making Ireland ungovernable, it may possibly succeed; but without the exertion of such party influence, I do not believe that it is impossible to govern Ireland by the ordinary rules by which a country should be governed—with a continuance of the principles which we have always professed. Sir, I see much cause for entertaining bright hopes for the future. By the wonderful applications of science, we are about, I trust, still further to shorten physical distance. I should not be surprised if, even during my own life-time, we are able by its aid to bring Dublin nearer to London than many towns in England now are. I shall not be surprised, seeing the rapid improvement in science, and in the application of machinery—I shall not, I say, be surprised, if the interval between London and Dublin shall be shortened to twelve hours. You have prospectuses before you, some drawn up by eminent engineers, which contemplate the shortening of that interval to fourteen hours; and my own belief is that with the progress of improvement the interval will be still further reduced. I cannot help thinking, too, that there is in the higher classes of society a growing disposition to obliterate old partizanship—to forget all animosities. I never hear a debate of the present day upon the state of Ireland, and compare its tone and spirit with those which animated the old debates upon the same subject, without marking the prevalence through the House of a strong disposition to forget differences of opinion, and to obliterate the recollections of the effect which these differences produced. From this side of the House feelings are frequently expressed favourable towards Ireland, and they are met on the other side by many Roman Catholic Gentlemen in a spirit corresponding to the temper in which they are uttered. I do earnestly trust that the influence of public opinion, as well as that of the law, may control this agitation—may convince those who are concerned in it, that they are prejudicing the best interests of Ireland—impeding its improvement—preventing the application of capital—and hindering the redress of those grievances which can, I think, be better redressed by the application of individual enterprise, than by almost any legislative interference. Sir, I have the firmest conviction that, if there were calmness and tranquillity in Ireland, there is no part of the British dominions which would make such rapid progress as that country, for I know that there are facilities for improvement—opportunities for improvement, which would make that advance more rapid than that of any other part of our Empire. Sir, I do hope,—and I will conclude by expressing that earnest hope—that this agitation and all its evil consequences, may be permitted to cease. I should rejoice—in whatever capacity I may fill, I should consider it the happiest day of my life—when I see the beloved Sovereign of these realms fulfilling the fondest wishes of her heart—of that heart so full of affection to all her people, but mingling that affection with peculiar sympathy and tenderness to Ireland—I should hail the dawning of that auspicious day, when she could alight like some benignant spirit, on its shores, and there lay the foundations of a temple of peace; when she could, in accents which, proceeding from the heart, speak to the heart, rather than to the ear; when she could call on her Irish subjects, of all classes and of all denominations, Protestant and Catholic, Saxon and Celt, to forget the differences of creed and of race, and to hallow that holy Temple of Peace, of which she laid the foundations—to hallow it with sacrifices, still holier than the sacrifices by which the temples of old were hallowed—to hallow it by the sacrifice of those evil passions which dishonour our common faith, and prevent the union of heart and hand in defence of our common country.

Sir Valentine Blake

moved, that the Debate be adjourned. The hon. Baronet attempted to address the Mouse, but the House would not hear him. He concluded by moving, that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. E. B. Roche

seconded the motion. He would not, under any other circumstances, have attempted anything so unreasonable, but he was connected with a party which had been accused by the right hon. Baronet of a crime the grossest which human nature could be guilty of—namely, that of willingly deluding their countrymen by a wilful perversion of history. But the right hon. Baronet, in attempting to prove that accusation, perverted the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and by that perversion the right hon. Gentleman attempted to delude the House of Commons and the British public. The right hon. Baronet said, that Mr. O'Connell asserted that the Parliament which existed in Ireland before 1800 was desired again. He said no such thing. That Parliament was corrupt, and no one could defend it. He regretted that the right hon. Baronet should not have attempted, instead of flinging unworthy accusations against agitators, to grapple with the subjects that made them agitators; for he might depend upon it, that if he did not grapple with them, they would grapple with him. He had always avowed himself an agitator; and he was sorry to say, that he was likely to continue an agitator, because it appeared to him that the majority who supported the right hon. Baronet, were not at all disposed to take from him the cause of agitation.

Lord John Russell,

in reply, said, I certainly have neither the wish nor the power, considering the exhausted state of the House and of my own strength, to delay the House for any length of time, after this very protracted debate, from coming to a division. There have however, been some things stated, either personally affecting myself, or having very immediate relation to the Motion I have brought forward, upon which I cannot refrain troubling the House for a few moments. The right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for the Home Department, who spoke on the first night of the Debate, was pleased (and he was followed afterwards by the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies), to taunt me with the great interest I had evinced on behalf of Mr. O'Connell since the prosecution. Certainly I did think that when Mr. O'Connell had been convicted in a Court of Law, it was the very last period which he could have taken for offering to that hon. Gentleman anything of a disparaging nature. I stated last year my opinion with respect to the Repeal of the Union, and with regard to the Repeal Agitation; and also with regard to the lawfulness of the meetings that were then taking place in Ireland; and having stated these opinions then, I did not think the present moment was the best to indulge in any indignation or complaint of the proceedings of Mr. O'Connell. But all that I did on the subject of Mr. O'Connell's proceedings was, to say that which had often occurred to me, namely, that that hon. Gentleman had rendered very great and essential service with respect to the suppression of the rebellion in Canada—to the opposition of the English Chartists—and the putting down of the Trades' Unions in Ireland; and I shall never regret, whatever the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel), or the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) may say, that I subjected myself to the imputation which has been thrown out against me, because I think that if anything was capable of being said in favour of the course which Mr. O'Connell has pursued, particularly tending to promote at various periods the peace of the country, that this was the moment for doing it. The right hon. Gentleman has taken unnecessary pains, in order to show that I must wish this Motion to be defeated, because previously I had declared my intention to bring forward resolutions as to the future government of Ireland, which it would have been very difficult for me to have done, and the right hon. Gentleman says, that if I had wished to carry a Motion of this kind, I should have made it with respect to the state of Ireland only, and totally apart from all party considerations. But I recollect that such a Motion was made last year by a representative of Ireland, which was sufficiently impartial to impute blame to the late Government, as well as to the present. But was that Motion acceded to? Was it not stoutly opposed, and considered in the light of a vote of censure by the Minister of the Crown, without any remedies being suggested, or any mode of conciliation pointed out? Therefore I think I was justified in coming forward at the commencement of this Session, to point out what I considered to be the cause of the evils existing in Ireland, and what measures I thought the Government ought to adopt, and to blend their conduct with the general consideration of the state of that country. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the observations which I made with respect to the language once used by Lord Lyndhurst; but he entirely left out all mention of the purpose for which I made that observation, and by so doing he gave the observation itself a totally different meaning. The reason why I stated the words that had been used by Lord Lyndhurst, and also words which had been used by the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, and likewise by Mr. Bradshawe—though certainly the right hon. Gentleman said I might have left that gentleman out of the list—but the reason I alluded to their conduct and mentioned their language was this—that the indictment against the traversers in Ireland showed, in more than one of its counts, that it was a prosecution for exciting in the minds of the people of Ireland a feeling of hostility and ill-will against the people of England; and I could not but say, when I saw such a prosecution, who are these men that are thus prosecuting? Are these men entirely free from the same accusations? Is not much of that conduct which they blame in the Irish, and of the ill-will in the people of Ireland against the people of England, owing to the language used in past years in respect to the people of Ireland, by those who are now directing this very prosecution? The words which the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) had adopted were "the minions of Popery."

Lord Stanley

I beg the noble Lord's pardon; but those were not my words, and they never were applied by me to the Roman Catholics. I applied them to the noble Lord and to the Members of the Government who acted with him. My denial of having used the words with reference to the Roman Catholics was made at length, and may be proved by reference to former debates. If the noble Lord doubts what I state, I beg to refer him to the Debates, and he will see that the words were never applied by me, as he states, to the Roman Catholics, but to the Government.

Lord J. Russell

I was not aware that the noble Lord had explained the words last year. I said that they were the words of the hon. Member for Woodstock, and that they had been also used by the hon. Member for Sheffield. They were adopted by the noble Lord. [Lord Stanley: Never.] I quoted the words from the report, and they were that he would not admit into the offices of Government the minions of Popery. They were repeated by the hon. Member for Sheffield and not denied. As to Lord Lyndhurst I certainly said nothing in disparagement of his talents; both the right hon. Baronets seemed to think that I had spoken slightingly of his abilities; but nobody can have a higher opinion of them than I have, or has listened with more pleasure to his speeches. What I said was, that it was owing to his hostility to Ireland and not to his judicial qualities that he was chosen to fill his high office, and I added, that he had shown carelessness in the performance of his duties as Lord Chancellor. Perhaps that was an ill-considered expression, but I still think that he was appointed to his high situation for his political conduct—for his political abilities—for the political part he had taken, and not for any care he bestows on his judgments in the Court of Equity. I am fully aware of the great talents he has shown in politics, but I am not aware of the great assiduity he has displayed in his Court, though of that I can only speak from report. Be it observed, that neither of the right hon. Gentlemen have contradicted me regarding the discharge of his official duties; and it was just the same with respect to the Chief Justice of Ireland. Everybody has spoken of him with more or less severity, and admitted that the charge was intemperate. Who has defended the Chief Justice? I thought that the Attorney General for Ireland, who pronounced a panegyric upon him was about to say that the charge was remarkable for all the judicial qualities—that it was sober, discreet, and impartial; but when he came to speak of the charge, he turned off from it with the observation that traversers and their counsel were seldom pleased with the charge of the Judge. The right hon. Baronet told us in his outset, that he was not going to speak with any of the acrimony I had displayed, but with great temper and forbearance. And then he went on to say, after some description of my conduct in office, that he would rather have cut off his right hand than retained office as I had done, after the retirement of Lord Plunket. That may be what he calls one of his mild and temperate expressions; but it seems to me much more like the acrimony which he attributes to me. All the circumstances connected with that transaction cannot be detailed now, but some of them I may be permitted to mention. It had been stated to Lord Melbourne that Lord Plunket, at his advanced age, was desirous of relinquishing his situation: the present Lord Campbell came to me, and asked, as a dissolution was depending, whether he were to stand his election as Attorney General. I communicated with Lord Melbourne, and he informed me that he believed Lord Plunket was about to retire; he added that he would write upon the subject, and that if he did retire, the Attorney General should be made Lord Chancellor. A day or two afterwards it was found that Lord Plunket instead of being desirous of retiring, had no such intention; and I told Lord Campbell, that such being the case, neither Lord Melbourne nor I would do anything disagreeable to Lord Plunket. Lord Campbell said that he was perfectly content, that he would send down his address to Edinburgh and stand his election as Attorney General. From circumstances which I need not detail, Lord Plunket subsequently retired. I can assure hon. Members that it gave me pain that he should have taken that course; and I regretted deeply that anything had occurred which was painful to Lord Plunket's feelings. It may be that the right hon. Baronet thinks that this was an insult to Lord Plunket. I can only say that there was no intention to insult him, or to do anything unkind towards a man of his eminence. I always said, that of all the men I have seen in Parliament, Lord Plunket was the most eloquent, and during the whole of my acquaintance, of many years standing, I have had occasion to admire his extraordinary abilities. I admit that the transaction was a painful one, and disagreeable in many of its circumstances; but I repeat that not the slightest offence was intended. The right hon. Baronet has opened to us some of the measures he means to propose for Ireland. I do not wish now to speak of all those measures, but I must make some remarks upon what he said of the conduct of himself and his friends when in Opposition. He was pleased to say that we had various difficulties, disturbances, and insurrections, especially in Canada, and that the support he and his friends gave us when they were out of office must have been most useful. I confess that they gave us very fair and handsome support in any measures for enforcing obedience to the law, but with respect to measures of conciliation, by which the mind of Ireland in particular was to be quieted and contented, by which the government of that country was to be made more easy, so far from receiving from the right hon. Baronet and his friends any assistance, they proclaimed their intention to obstruct our measures, which I must say was completely fulfilled. On the very subject of the Franchise—the hon. Member for Cork puts me in mind of the circumstance—a Motion was brought forward to put the Franchise in England and Ireland on the same footing. We thought there was a great deal of reason in many of the observations of the hon. Mover; yet, upon consideration, my noble Friend, Lord Morpeth, was not disposed then to disturb the Franchise. Even the modified declaration of Lord Morpeth, that he did not mean to say that the Franchise ought never to be extended, and that it could not be considered eternally and irrevocably fixed, brought down all kinds of invectives against us. We were charged with intending to disturb the Reform Bill—that we did not mean to adhere to the settled Franchise, but to alter it; and whenever we talked of the possible fitness of some alterations we were constantly met by the assertion that the Reform Bill must not be touched. Yet now the right hon. Baronet claims great credit—and I am glad to hear of his intention—for a project to place the Franchise on some footing equivalent to that of England. Therefore, I repeat, that although they lent their support to measures for the maintenance of the supremacy of the law, which certainly were just and necessary measures, yet they were continually obstructing those plans which we brought forward to reform, conciliate, and improve Ireland. The right hon. Baronet read to us certain parts of the Coercion Bill. I was a party to it. Does the right hon. Baronet blame that Measure? If he do, he can obtain the details of it much better from his noble Friend, then Secretary for Ireland (Lord Stanley) than from any other quarter. The noble Lord is more intimately acquainted with the provisions of that Bill which Lord Anglesey and he declared to be necessary for the protection of life and property in Ireland, than I could pretend to be. Let me say, however, that I thought the great reason for that Bill to be the outrages then committed in the rural districts, and it was more for the protection of life than for any other cause that I gave my consent to that Bill. I will not say it was not a full consent, though we all felt a reluctance in giving it. I am ready to bear the responsibility of that Bill, but I must bear it along with others, and the noble Lord who was then Secretary for Ireland, and the right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Admiralty of that time (Sir J. Graham) must not be exempt from all responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the Commission to inquire into the relations of Landlord and Tenant, but I am not sure that he quoted me correctly, for I do not recollect saying, that it would be better to bring in a Bill for a larger or a smaller object. The evils of the Commission for a change are obvious; the advantages may compensate them; but the right hon. Gentleman can hardly deny that there are expectations raised which may disturb the public mind in Ireland, on the subject of the occupation of land. Still, Sir, I cannot but recollect that when a late lamented Friend of mine, who devoted the latter part of his life to the service of Ireland, said that property had its duties as well as its rights, it brought clown a lecture from the right hon. Gentleman of the danger of those abstract declarations which might injure the rights of the landlords. Although the appointment of a Commission may be a wise measure, I certainly heard with great suspicion the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that one of his great objects would be to expose the landlords who had used their property wrongfully. Tenants might have grievances against their landlords, but that a Commission should sit to hear evidence given of these grievances appears to me a dangerous thing. I should, Sir, hope, as the hon. and learned Member for the County of Cork said, and I think said wisely, that the Commission will collect the evidence as quickly as possible; that having received that report, the Government will soon make up their minds whether anything is to be done, and if so, what is to be done, and how far it will go. I do not say that it was not wise to appoint a Commission, but to ex tend the inquiry over a year, and to postpone the decision, may, in my opinion, have an injurious effect. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman spoke also of the great question of the Church. I will not borrow his elaborate reasoning, but I will say, that I take a totally different view of that subject from the right hon. Gentleman. I never can separate two things. The first object of a Church Establishment must be to give religious instruction to the people. In the next place, it may be used to make the religious instructors of that people independent of them; and, thirdly, it may be for the purpose of making the people religious, moral, and contented. And, first, with respect to religious instruction, I may take an instance from a work I was reading this morning, where there is related a case of a Parish with one Protestant and one hundred Catholics. What religious instruction can the Church give in that Parish? of what use can be a Protestant. Minister there? How can I reconcile this with any description which any one person has ever given of the objects of a Church Establishment? Then, as to making the instructors of the people independent of popular passions, you do not effect that object. Are not the mass of the people the supporters of the voluntary system, and are not the instructors so supported, exposed to every bad influence resulting from it? Then, again, as to the contentment of the people. I believe that so long as the Church remains in its present condition, so long as you make it territorial, the contentment of the people never will exist. You make it territorial, as if the object of the Church were to preach to so many acres—as if you would attach a Minister to so much land, not signifying whether there be any souls or not. As there must exist a Protestant Establishment, I should like to see it confined to places where the people would gladly avail themselves of its offices, where they are attached to the Church, and where they would gladly learn the doctrines of the United Church of England and Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman has stated many objections against a Roman Catholic Establishment. I own, however, that I think those objections are comparatively light, when contrasted with the dangers and difficulties of your present position, What I stated, and what I thought best to do was, in the first place, to give every civil and political privilege to the Irish people which is possessed by the English people. Next, I said that I would give equality to the members of the two Churches, and then I said, instead of looking immediately to an endowment, I would render the Roman Catholics so satisfied with their situation, that we might propose an endowment without any feeling of humiliating dependence. That such a proposition so made would not be inconsistent with their feelings, may be gathered from the evidence of Dr. Doyle delivered in 1825. He was one of the best, one of the most learned instructors of the Roman Catholics, and was ready to consider some scheme for a provision. I would, then, make the Protestant Establishment commensurate with the wants of the Protestants, which it is not now, and then I would place the Roman Catholics in such a situation as to be ready to accept of honourable endowment. I think that all the questions about how much funds may be required, and where are we to get them, and whether the Roman Catholic Prelates shall sit in the House of Lords, is nothing compared with the difficulties to which we are exposed in our present anomalous position. The right hon. Gentleman said that I was careful in my mode of making this Motion, that I had not committed myself if I came into office, and the noble Lord said that he did not consider I proposed anything. Now, recollecting that I had proposed an extension of the Parliamentary and Municipal Franchise, an increase of the grant to Maynooth, a fit provision for the Church, and total equality of the two religions, I do not think that in the whole ten years during which the right hon. Gentleman was out of office, there was not any one speech or any one year in which he proposed half as much. Now the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, has addressed me and told me to weigh well the responsibility I incurred in making this Motion. Sir, I did carefully weigh—I did weigh well that responsibility—and I own it occurs to me that I incurred much less responsibility in making this Motion, than if I discountenanced bringing the grievances of the Irish people before this House. I believe that if the Government had been left to its own course of troops and arms—to its own measures, which upon the whole are trifling measures of reform—if no notice had been taken of these grievances, or of what had been going on, the Repeal party would have been greatly strengthened in Ireland. It would have been said—"See how indifferent you are to what takes place in our country. You are eager to pass Horse-racing Penalties Bills, and similar important measures, but how have you dealt with a great measure? To the mode in which we are governed in Ireland you are perfectly indifferent." Now, in the whole course of this Debate it has appeared to me, both on the one side and the other, that there has been a tendency to induce the people of Ireland to believe that their grievances will be considered in an English House of Commons. I believe that many things which they ask are founded in reason and justice, and if they see such propositions brought forward here, and supported by the talents by which this Motion has been supported by Members on this side of the House—if they see that this House of Commons will apply itself to their grievances, they will come to the Parliament of Great Britain as the place to which they shall petition for the redress of those grievances. I say, then, with respect to the "responsibility" of this Motion I feel perfectly satisfied, because I believe that having been brought forward it will unite the Irish people to the English nation. I should have been glad, Sir, that if all recriminations as to Protestants and Catholics had been at an end, and I was exceedingly sorry to hear in the course of this Debate, the noble Lord propose to read the terms of the Catholic Oath. Who could mistake the purport with which the noble Lord read that Oath? If the noble Lord was in a Court of Justice giving his evidence, as he would be sure to do most frankly and honestly, what would he think of a vexatious lawyer who might say to him, "mind you are on your oath, you have sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; look at the terms of the oath, and answer me that question." What would the noble Lord think, but that the lawyer was insinuating that in what he had spoken he was not telling the truth? Must not the impression then be the same to all professing the Roman Catholic religion, who hear such emphasis laid on the terms of the Oath read by the noble Lord? Might it not be likewise a word of great encouragement to those in this country, less informed than the noble Lord, more prejudiced and bigoted, who are apt to bandy about the insinuation that Catholics ought not to be admitted into Parliament because they do not regard an oath. I am not making these observations from a mere spirit of hostility. I have the greatest respect for the talents of the noble Lord. I may, perhaps, be permitted to mention, that the first time Lord Melbourne told me it was his desire and that of his Colleagues, that I should take the chief part in the buinesss of the House of Commons, I told him that I felt myself very unequal to the task, but I was ready to undertake it if it was the wish of my Colleagues, but I did hope, if that which I trusted was only a temporary rupture with the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) should ever be healed, and he should join the party with which he from early life had been connected, he would permit me to place myself under his lead. I therefore had not then, and I have not now, any motive in mentioning those things to injure the noble Lord in public opinion; but he must consider, that with his situation, influence, and talents, it is of the utmost importance to what sentiments he gives utterance with respect to the relations of Protestant and Roman Catholic; that it is desir- able that he should, with the Government to which he belongs, and no doubt they will tonight have a great majority, desirable, I say, that he and his Colleagues should give a frank and full and fair confidence to the Roman Catholics, and that he should endeavour, if possible, to heal those melancholy divisions by which the country has been so long distracted.

The House divided on the question, that the House do resolve itself into a Committee to take into consideration the state of Ireland.—Ayes 225; Noes 324:—Majority 99.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A. Cowper, hon. W. F.
Aldam, W. Craig, W. G.
Anson, hon. Col. Crawford, W. S.
Armstrong, Sir A. Currie, R.
Arundel and Surrey, Earl of Curteis, H. B.
Dalrymple, Capt.
Bannerman, A. Dashwood, G. H.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T. Dawson, hon. T. V.
Barnard, E. G. Denison, W. J.
Barron, Sir H. W. Denison, J. E.
Bell, J. Dennistoun, J.
Bellew, R. M. D'Eyncourt,rt.hn.C.T
Berkeley, hon. C. Divett, E.
Berkeley, hon. Capt. Duke, Sir J.
Berkeley, hon. H. F. Duncan, Visct.
Bernal, R. Duncan, G.
Bernal, Capt. Duncannon, Visct.
Blake, M. Duncombe, T.
Blake, M. J. Dundas, Adm.
Blake, Sir V. Dundas, F.
Blewitt, R. J. Dundas, D.
Bodkin, J. J. Dundas, hon. J. C.
Bowes, J. Easthope, Sir J.
Bowring, Dr. Ebrington, Visct.
Bright, J. Ellice, E.
Broeklehurst, J. Ellis, W.
Brotherton, J. Elphinstone, H.
Browne, R. D. Esmonde, Sir T.
Browne, hon. W. Etwall, R.
Bulkeley, Sir R. B.W. Evans, W.
Buller, C. Ewart, W.
Buller, E. Fielden, J.
Busfeild, W. Ferguson, Col.
Butler, hon. Col. Ferguson, Sir R. A.
Butler, P. S. Fitzroy, Lord C.
Byng, G. Fitzwilliam, hn. G. W.
Byng, rt. hon. G. S. Fleetwood, Sir P. H.
Carew, hon. R. S. Forster, M.
Cave, hon. R. O. Fox, C. R.
Cavendish, hon. C. C. Gibson, T. M.
Chapman, B, Gill, T.
Childers, J. W. Gisborne, T.
Christie, W. D. Gore, hon. R.
Clay, Sir W. Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.
Clements, Visct. Grosvenor, Lord R.
Colborne, hn. W.N.R. Hall, Sir B.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Hallyburton, Lord J. F. G.
Collett, J.
Collins, W. Hastie, A.
Hatton, Capt. V. Ponsonby, hon. C.F.A.
Hawes, B. Powell, C.
Hay, Sir A. L. Power, J.
Hayter, W. G. Protheroe, E.
Heron, Sir R. Pulsford, R.
Hindley, C. Ramsbottom, J.
Hobhouse, right hon. Sir J. Rawdon, Col.
Rice, E. R.
Hollond, R. Roche, Sir D.
Horsman, E. Roche, E. B.
Howard, hn. C. W. G. Roebuck, J. A.
Howard, hon. J. K. Ross, D. R.
Howard, Lord Rumbold, C. E.
Howard, hn. E. G. G. Russell, Lord J.
Howard. P. H. Scholefield, J.
Howard, hon. H. Scott, R.
Howick, Visct. Scrope, G. P.
Hume, J. Seymour, Lord
Humphery, Mr. Ald. Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.
Hutt, W. Shelburne, Earl of
James, W. Smith, B.
Jervis, J. Smith, J. A.
Labouchere, rt. hn. H. Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Langston, J. H. Somers, J. P.
Layard, Capt. Standish, C.
Leader, J. T. Stanley, hon. W. O.
Lemon, Sir C. Stansfield, W. R. C.
Leveson, Lord Stanton, W. H.
Macaulay, rt hn. T. B. Staunton, Sir G. T.
Macnamara, Major Stewart, P. M.
McTaggart, Sir J. Stuart, Lord J.
Maher, N. Stuart, W. V.
Mangles, R. D. Stock, Mr. Serjt.
Marjoribanks, S. Strickland, Sir G.
Marshall, W. Strutt, E.
Marsland, H. Tancred, H. W.
Martin, J. Thornely, T.
Mitcalfe, H. Towneley, J.
Mitchell, T. A. Traill, G.
Morris, D. Trelawny, J. S.
Morison, Gen. Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Morrison, J. Tufnell, H.
Muntz, G. F. Turner, E.
Murphy, F. S. Vane, Lord H.
Murray, A. Villiers, hon. C.
Napier, Sir C. Vivian, J. H.
Norreys, Sir D. J. Wakley, T.
O'Brien, J. Walker, R.
O'Connell, M. Wall, C. B.
O'Connell, M. J. Wallace, R.
O'Connell, J. Warburton, H.
O'Conor Don Ward, H. G.
O'Ferrall, R. M. Watson, W. H.
Ord, W. Wawn, J. T.
Paget, Col. White, S.
Paget, Lord A. White, H.
Palmerston, Visct. Wilde, Sir T.
Parker, J. Williams, W.
Pattison, J. Wilshere, W.
Pechell, Capt. Winnington, Sir T. E.
Pendarves, E. W. W. Worsley, Lord
Philips, G. R. Wrightson, W. B.
Philipps, Sir R. B. P. Yorke, H. R.
Philips, M.
Phillpotts, J. TELLERS.
Pigot, rt. hon. D. Hill, Lord M.
Plumridge, Capt. Wyse, T.
List of the NOES.
Acland, Sir T. D. Clayton, R. R.
Acland, T. D. Clerk, Sir G.
A'Court, Capt. Clive, Visct.
Adare, Visct. Clive, hon. R. H.
Adderley, C. B. Cochrane, A.
Alexander, N. Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.
Alford, Visct. Codrington, Sir W.
Allix, J. P. Collett, W. R.
Antrobus, E. Colville, C. R.
Arbuthnott, hon. H. Compton, H. C.
Archdall, Capt. M. Connolly, Col.
Arkwright, G. Coote, Sir C. H.
Ashley, Lord Copeland, Mr. Ald.
Ashley, hon. H. Corry, rt. hon. H.
Astell, W. Courtenay, Lord
Attwood, M. Cresswell, B.
Bagge, W. Cripps, W.
Bagot, hon. W. Damer, hon. Col.
Bailey, J. Darby, G.
Bailey, J. jun. Davies, D. A. S.
Baillie, Col. Dawnay, hon. W. H.
Baillie, H. J. Denison, E. B.
Baird, W. Dick, Q.
Baldwin, B. Dickinson, F. H.
Balfour, J. M. Disraeli, B.
Bankes, G. Dodd, G.
Baring, hon. W. B. Douglas, Sir H.
Barneby, J. Douglas, Sir C. E.
Barrington, Visct. Douglas, J. D. S.
Baskerville, T. B. M. Douro, Marquis of
Beckett, W. Dowdeswell, W.
Bell, M. Drummond, H. H.
Bentinck, Lord G. Duffield, T.
Beresford, Major Dugdale, W. S.
Blackburne, J. I. Duncombe, hon. A.
Blackstone, W. S. Duncombe, hon. O.
Blakemore, R. Du Pre, C. G.
Boldero, H G. East, J. B.
Borthwick, P. Eaton, R. J.
Botfield, B. Egerton, W. T.
Boyd, J. Egerton, Sir P.
Bradshaw, J. Eliot, Lord
Bramston, T. W. Emlyn, Visct.
Broadley, H. Escott, B.
Brooke, Sir A. B. Estcourt, T. G. B.
Brownrigg, J. S. Farnham, E. B.
Bruce, Lord E. Fellowes, E.
Bruce, C. L. C. Ferrand, W. B.
Bruen, Col. Filmer, Sir E.
Bruges, W. H. L. Fitzmaurice, hon. W.
Buck, L. W. Flower, Sir J.
Buckley, E. Follett, Sir W. W.
Buller, Sir, J. Y. Ffolliott, J.
Bunbury, T. Forester, hn. G. C. W.
Burrell, Sir C. M. Fox, S. L.
Burroughes, H. N. Fuller, A. E.
Campbell, J. H. Gardner, J. D.
Cardwell, E. Gaskell, J. Milnes
Castlereagh, Visct. Gladstone, rt. hn. W.E.
Chapman, A. Gladstone, Capt.
Charteris, hon. F. Glynne, Sir S. R.
Chetwode, Sir J. Godson, R.
Cholmondeley, hn. H. Gordon, hon. Capt.
Christopher, R. A. Gore, M.
Chute, W. L. W. Gore, W. O.
Gore, W. R. O. Lincoln, Earl of
Goring, C. Lindsay, H. H.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Lockhart, W.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J. Long, W.
Granby, Marquis of Lowther, J. H.
Greenall, P. Lowther, hon. Col.
Greene, T. Lyall, G.
Gregory, W. H. Lygon, hon. Gen.
Grimsditch, T. McGeachy, F. A.
Grimston, Visct. Mackenzie, T.
Grogan, E. Mackenzie, W. F.
Hale, R. B. Maclean, D.
Halford, H. McNeill, D.
Hamilton, J. H. Mahon, Visct.
Hamilton, G. A. Mainwaring, T.
Hamilton, W. J. Manners, Lord C. S.
Hamilton, Lord C. Manners, Lord J.
Hampden, R. March, Earl of
Hanmer, Sir J. Marsham, Visct.
Harcourt, G. G. Martin, C. W.
Hardinge, rt. hon. Sir H. Marton, G.
Hardy, J. Master, T. W. C.
Hayes, Sir E. Masterman, J.
Heathcote, Sir W. Maunsell, T. P.
Heneage, G. H. W. Maxwell, hon. J. P.
Henley, J. W. Meynell, hon. Capt.
Henniker, Lord Mildmay, H. St. J.
Herbert, hon. S. Miles, P. W. S.
Hervey, Lord A. Miles, W.
Hillsborough, Earl of Milnes, R. M.
Hinde, J. H. Morgan, O.
Hodgson, F. Morgan, C.
Hodgson, R. Mundy, E. M.
Holmes, hn. W. A'C. Neeld, J.
Hope, hon. C. Neville, R.
Hope, A. Newdegate, C. N.
Hope, G. W. Newport, Visct.
Hornby, J. Nicholl, rt. hon. J.
Hotham, Lord Norreys, Lord
Houldsworth, T. Northland, Visct.
Hughes, W. B. O'Brien, A. S.
Hussey, A. Ossulston, Lord
Hussey, T. Oswald, A.
Ingestre, Visct. Owen, Sir J.
Inglis, Sir R. H. Packe, C. W.
Irton, S. Paget, Lord W.
Irving, J. Pakington, J. S.
James, Sir W. C. Palmer, R.
Jermyn, Earl Palmer, G.
Jocelyn, Visct. Patten, J. W.
Johnstone, Sir J. Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H. Peel, J.
Jones, Capt. Pennant, hon. Col.
Kelly, F. R. Pigot, Sir R.
Kemble, H. Plumptre, J. P.
Ker, D. S. Polhill, F.
Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E Pollington, Visct.
Knight, H. G. Pollock, Sir F.
Knight, F. W. Powell, Col.
Knightley, Sir C. Praed, W. T.
Lascelles, hon. W. S. Pringle, A.
Law, hon. C. E. Pusey, P.
Lawson, A. Rashleigh, W.
Lefroy, A. Reid, Sir J. R.
Legh, G. C. Rendlesham, Lord
Leslie, C. P. Repton, G. W. J.
Liddell, hon. H. T. Richards, R.
Rose, rt. hon. Sir G. Thompson, Mr. Ald.
Round, J. Thornhill, G.
Rous, hon. Capt. Tollemache, hn. F. J.
Rushbrooke, Col. Tollemache, J.
Russell, C. Tomline, G.
Russell, J. D. W. Trevor, hon. G. R.
Ryder, hon. G. D. Trollope, Sir J.
Sanderson, R. Trotter, J.
Sandon, Visct. Turnor, C.
Scarlett, hon. R. C. Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Scott, hon. F. Verner, Col.
Seymour, Sir H. B. Vivian, J. E.
Shaw, rt. hon. F. Waddington, H. S.
Shirley, E.J. Walsh, Sir J. B.
Shirley, E. P. Welby, G. E.
Sibthorp, Col. Wellesley, Lord C.
Smith, A. Whitmore, T. C.
Smith, rt. hon. T. B.C. Wilbraham, hn. R. B.
Smyth, Sir H. Williams, T. P.
Smythe, hon. G. Wodehouse, E.
Smollett, A. Wood, Col.
Somerset, Lord G. Wood, Col. T.
Sotheron, T. H. S. Wortley, hon. J. S.
Spry, Sir S. T. Wortley, hon. J. S.
Stanley, Lord Wyndham, Col. C.
Stewart, J. Wynn, Sir W. W.
Stuart, H. Yorke, hon. E. T.
Sturt, H. C. Young, J.
Sutton, hon. H. M.
Taylor, J. A. TELLERS.
Tennent, J. E. Fremantle, Sir T.
Thesiger, F. Baring, H.
Paired off (Non Official).
Berkeley, hon. G. Achers, J.
Archbold, R. Acton, Col.
Redington, T. N. Bernard, Lord
Grainger, T. C. Bodkin, W. H.
Duff, J. Broadwood, H.
Ellice, rt. hon. E. Campbell, Sir H.
Wood, C. Cartwright, W. R.
Barclay, D. Chelsea, Lord
Dalmeny, Lord Cole, hon. A.
O'Connell, D. Colquhoun, J. C.
Loch, J. Egerton, Lord F.
Cavendish, hon. G. Fielden, W.
Heneage, E. Fitzroy, hon. H.
Oswald, J. Forbes, W.
Vivian, hon. Capt. Hawkes, T.
Maule, rt. hon. F. Hepburn, Sir T.
Grattan, H. Hogg, J. W.
Wemyss, Capt. Johnstone, J. H.
Acheson, Lord Kerrison, Sir E.
O'Brien, C. kirk, P.
Listowell, Lord Lennox, Lord A.
Seale, Sir J. Lopes, Sir R.
Heathcoat, J. Mordaunt, Sir J.
Mathison, J. Murray, C. R. S.
Westenra, hon. Col. Newry, Lord
Wood, B. Planta, rt. hon. J.
Hoskins, K. Price, R.
Rutherford, A. Ramsay, W. R.
Howard, Sir R. Round, C. G.
Guest, Sir J. Stanley, E.
Corbally, M. E. Taylor, Capt. T. E.
Russell, Lord E. Trench, Sir F.
Ogle, S. Vernon, G. H.
French, F. Vesey, hon. T.
Pryse, P. Wynn, rt, hon. C. W.
Ainsworth, P. Johnston, A.
Bridgeman, H. Lambton, H.
Callaghan, D. Langton, G.
Cayley, E. S. Martin, T. B.
Clive, E. B. O'Brien, W. S.
Cobden, R. Ricardo, J. L.
Drax, J. W. E. Somerville, Sir W.
Greenaway, C. Talbot, C.
Heathcote, G. J. Tinte, H. M.
Johnson, Gen.
Attwood, J. Mackinnon, W. A.
Benet, J. Neeld, J.
Carnegie, hon. Capt. Rolleston, Col.
Eastnor, Lord Shepperd, T.
Forman, T. S. Somerton, Lord
Hamilton, C. J. B. Vyvyan, Sir R.
Majority, including Teller 326
Minority, including Teller 227
Paired 70
Absent—Noes 12
Ayes 19
Speaker 1
Seats vacant—Sudbury 2 3
Londonderry, county 1

House adjourned at four o'clock.