HC Deb 12 July 1855 vol 139 cc832-49

[Progress, 5th July.] Order for Committee read.

House in Committee.

On Question that Clause 15 stand part of the Bill,

MR. HORSMAN moved that the Chairman report progress.

MR. MALINS

Mr. Fitzroy, before you leave the chair, I wish to put a question to the noble Lord at the head of the Government. A rumour is afloat in this House—and it has reached me from various quarters—that, during the present political pressure upon the Government, the noble Lord has been waited upon by a number of Irish Members, who have made representations to him with regard to the 14th clause of this Bill, a clause which has been rejected by a majority of thirty-six. The rumour goes that the noble Lord, under pressure, has made an arrangement to put up some supposed or quasi independent Member, to move the re-insertion of that clause, and has promised to support it. What service those hon. Gentlemen were to perform in return does not appear, but it appears to me incredible that any such arrangement should have been made by the noble Lord. Many Members of this House, however, do believe in this rumour, although I myself cannot, and I shall continue to disbelieve that any arrangement so discreditable to all parties concerned has been made, unless I hear it asserted upon the authority of the noble Lord. I beg now to ask the noble Lord whether he has made any such arrangement, and whether there is any foundation for this malignant report?

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

Mr. Fitzroy, what has passed is a transaction most simple in its character and most easily explained. A certain number of Irish Members expressed a Wish to see me yesterday, and, when they waited upon me, they said that they were desirous that the 14th clause should be re-inserted, and they wished to know whether, if a Motion to that effect were made, I was willing to support it? My answer was that, as I had supported the clause when it stood in the Bill, if any Member brought forward a Motion for its re-insertion, I should feel myself bound as a matter of consistency to support the Motion. At that interview no other topic was referred to, no pressure was exercised, and no bargain made. What I then stated was in perfect unison with the course I have pursued with regard to this Bill, and, having supported the clause as it originally stood in the Bill, I stated that if a Motion were brought forward for its re-insertion, and not as the hon. and learned Gentleman appears to think, by a quasi independent Member, but a perfectly independent Member, it would meet with my support.

MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD

Sir, one point relating to this transaction has escaped the notice of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Malins), and, in order to throw some light upon it, I beg to ask the noble Lord if in the conversation which he held with those Irish Members it was not pointed out to him that several Members of the Government were not present at the division upon the 14th clause, and if he did not then promise that if a Motion for its re-insertion were made it should be supported by the whole force of the Government?

COLONEL DUNNE

Before the noble Lord answers the last question, I wish to ask him whether the clause, the re-insertion of which he promised to support, was the clause as brought in by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Serjeant Shee), or that clause as amended by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

Of course, what I intended was, that I should support what I had supported before. [Colonel DUNNE: But which clause is that?] Why, the clause as amended by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland. With regard to the question of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. S. Fitzgerald) there can be no doubt that the deputation did take occasion to observe that certain Members of the Government were absent from the division which led to the rejection of the clause. I made answer that I had had occasion to remark the absence of some of the Members of the Government upon other divisions, and I took the opportunity of expressing a hope that I should not have occasion to regret such absence again.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE

Sir, as I was not one of the hon. Members who waited upon the noble Lord, and, as I have only heard accidentally in this House of the circumstance of any one waiting upon him at all, perhaps I may be allowed to ask him a question. I wish to ask him if the hon. Gentlemen who waited upon him requested him to support the clause as I introduced it, or as amended by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland? [An hon. MEMBER: He has answered that.] No, excuse me, he has not. As I understand the noble Lord, he stated to those hon. Gentlemen who waited upon him that he would support the clause as amended by the right hon. Gentleman; but what I wish to know is whether those hon. Gentlemen requested him to support the clause as amended, or the clause as I introduced it? If the hon. Members who waited upon him requested him to support the clause as amended by the Secretary for Ireland, I should like to know who those hon. Members were, because, in my simplicity, I believed that all the Irish Members supported the clause as proposed by me. If I am right in that opinion, I think it is of importance that the House should know who were the hon. Gentlemen who requested the noble Lord to support the re-insertion of that clause, mutilated as it was by the right hon. Secretary for Ireland.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to know who were the hon. Members that came to me, he can no doubt find out by inquiring among his friends. With regard to the question as to whether I was asked to support the re-insertion of the clause as it originally stood, or as amended by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland, I apprehend that no man could have reasonably asked me to support that which I had originally opposed. I have supported the Amendments of my right hon. Friend, and no man could expect me to support the re-insertion of a clause without those alterations in it to the introduction of which I was a consenting party.

MR. DISRAELI

I wish, Sir, to call attention to what seems to me the very lamentable fact, that the business of the House of Commons appears every now and then to be transacted elsewhere than in the House of Commons. I have noticed this once or twice, even during the present Session, and I think it is much to be regretted and deprecated by every gentleman in this House, whether he be a quasi independent or a really independent Member (for the noble Lord has made this distinction), that these private communications with a Minister, which are to affect the progress of affairs and the decisions of this House, should be carried on in so sinister and mysterious a manner. I do not think it is much to the credit or to the satisfaction of Members who represent Irish constituencies, that by an unhappy fatality, whenever these occurrences have happened, we always find it is upon an Irish question, and a question, in fact, in which there is a deputation of Irish Members, whose doings, when the matter is brought before the House, are repudiated even by their own brethren. I really think this is not the course which the noble Lord ought to have taken. It seems to me that the noble Lord, in the high position which he holds, ought to have formed his opinion upon public matters and to have communicated it to the House, and that when such a deputation—such a menacing deputation, as we are led to infer—waited upon him, he ought to have said, "In the House of Commons I will give my opinion, and there you will hear what are the sentiments of the Government on the subject." However, I quite agree that the position of a Minister just now is a very difficult one, and that the noble Lord is, therefore, to some extent entitled to our indulgence. From what I can gather, the noble Lord does not appear to have pledged himself to anything; he only said he was prepared to do again, if called upon, what he did before; and, as far as can be judged from what has passed this evening, the noble Lord has not made any unconstitutional pledge in order to influence the votes of Members in this House, but gave the deputation to understand that they could not count upon any support from him which they had not received before. At the same time, I should be very glad if the noble Lord would take this opportunity of defining, for the information of the House, the difference between a quasi independent and a really independent Member. If that could be done, it would, in my opinion, facilitate the course of public business, and probably might prevent the repetition of such a scene as has so unexpectedly, and unhappily occurred this evening.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

Sir, the term quasi independent Member is not mine—it was first used by the hon. and learned Member who introduced this subject. Nor did I say that I had received a menacing deputation, as asserted by the right hon. Gentleman who has addressed us, for nothing could be less menacing than either the tone or the demands of the gentlemen who waited on me. As for what the right hon. Gentleman says about receiving deputations in general, the doctrine which he lays down is perfectly novel to me, for I consider that it is quite consistent with the proper working of the functions of the House that Members should wait upon the Minister to suggest amendments or additions to the Bills in progress. But, according to the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman, it is improper for any number of Members of this House to come to the Minister, and express to him their opinions upon public measures, and their intentions or wishes in regard to the manner in which those measures should be dealt with. Such a doctrine is totally novel to me, and, so far from thinking there is any impropriety in such a proceeding, I should say it is not only strictly proper, but highly calculated to promote the despatch of business in the House. The gentlemen who came to me came to suggest what they thought an improvement in the Bill; so far from there being anything in such a communication which deserves censure, I think it is eminently calculated to facilitate the progress of public business in this House. With regard to transacting the business of this House elsewhere, I am afraid if I were permitted to ask questions of the right hon. Gentleman's followers, it would be found that the business of this House, so far as they are concerned, is but too often prepared and regulated at interviews which take place out of the House; and I am afraid, to use a French expression, the support of the balance of truth would be greatly in favour of myself. I should be happy to have an opportunity of settling the question with the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. WHITESIDE

Sir, it was a saying of Rochefoucault, that in serious affairs he did not like a joke. Now, as this is a matter of some small consequence, I think the remarks with which the noble Lord has just concluded are rather out of place. Let me ask, what is the point we are discussing; for, does the noble Lord think he imposes upon any man of common sense by the speech he has just delivered? A very important question connected with Ireland was before this House. In the Committee upon which I had the honour of sitting with the noble Lord, on almost every question raised by the hon. and learned Serjeant (Mr. Serjeant Shee), he was opposed by the noble Lord. However, a man's judgment is altered by time and reflection, and by due consideration of all the facts of the case. The noble Lord became Prime Minister; this question was discussed in the House of Commons, and the 14th Clause was rejected after full debate. Well, has the noble Lord's reason been convinced by any arguments put forward since that debate? Has anything occurred in the interval to affect his judgment? Does anybody for a moment suppose such a thing? No. I want, then, to be informed what was "the consideration" in return for this promise on the part of the noble Lord, because there is, I am well aware, always a consideration for a promise of this kind? On the eve of a debate which affects the existence of the noble Lord as a Minister—["Oh, oh!"]—I ought, then, to have said which may affect his existence as a Minister—a body of Irish gentlemen wait upon him and say to him significantly "An important clause has been rejected by the House of Commons, and we ask you now, if it shall be proposed to rescind that vote, to give us your promise to support the restoration of that clause." Are we to believe that, under those circumstances, it was the force of truth—for the noble Lord was so unfortunate as to make reference to truth—or the Palace of Truth, which induced him to say on that occasion, "I will support that clause and bring to bear the entire force of the Ministry?" Sir, if it was the object of the noble Lord to strike a blow at constitutional government ["Oh, oh!"]—I may be wrong, and should be very glad to be corrected by the eminent authorities on the Ministerial bench—but I still venture to hold the opinion that, as, after full debate and discussion, the House of Commons came to the conclusion that a particular portion of a certain measure ought to be rejected, it is a proceeding fraught with injurious consequences for a Minister, when placed in circumstances of difficulty, to be waited upon in private by a number of gentlemen, and then accede to their request that he would assist in reversing the decision of this House. Sir, I will supply what was omitted by the noble Lord. It may not have been so stated at the interview, but any man of plain understanding must be aware, that what the deputation meant to say was this, "If you do agree in what we propose, we shall, on the occasion that will be presented to us on Monday night, be forced to vote against you." I say that is the meaning of the contract. The noble Lord laughed it off very agreeably and pleasantly; but will he allow me to remind him that, upon the question of whether the Income-tax should be imposed on Ireland or not, a number of gentlemen also waited upon a Minister and got a promise from him, which was systematically and consistently broken? Those Irish Members who waited upon the noble Lord stand in precisely the same circumstances now, and they may fail, as on a former occasion, in obtaining any consideration in return for the promise of support they apparently have given to the noble Lord. With the utmost deference to the gentlemen who waited upon the noble Lord, I think that was not a very creditable way of enforcing their demands and their opinions upon the Government, and I think it injurious to the country as well as to the character and authority of this House.

SIR GEORGE GREY

Sir, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), remarked that it was unfortunate that a dispute of this kind should generally have reference to Ireland. Sir, I think it is also deeply to be regretted that when Irish Members take a course with regard to a measure, which is constantly taken by English and Scotch members—namely, that of waiting by deputation upon any Minister of the Crown, who may be charged with that measure—I say, it is deeply to be regretted that in such a case some other Irish Member always gets up in this House and charges his fellow-countrymen with base and dishonourable conduct. That is the opinion which seems to be entertained by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside), of those of his countrymen who waited upon the noble Lord. He insinuates that they stipulated for a consideration in return for the promise they obtained. Now, I must leave this to be settled between the hon. and learned Gentleman and his countrymen, who, at least, had the right and the title to be considered as honourable, as independent, and as free from all suspicion of base and dishonourable motives as the hon. and learned Gentleman himself. The hon. and learned Gentleman appears to think there is something extraordinary, after a Bill has passed in which a clause has been expunged, in an attempt to restore that clause. Sir, I believe nothing is more common than such a proceeding; and I can conceive nothing more natural than that Irish Members having an interest in this particular clause should wait upon a Minister of the Crown to know whether he would support a proposal for the restoration of that clause. I can conceive nothing discreditable, nothing dishonourable, and nothing unusual in such conduct. The hon. and learned Gentleman insinuates that, because a majority of some thirty or forty rejected the clause, the deputation waited upon my noble Friend and proposed to him that he should act contrary to his opinion, and vote now in a manner directly opposite to that in which he voted the other night. The hon. and learned Gentleman has singularly enough directly reversed the case. The inconsistency would be, if my noble Friend were guilty of inconsistency, in voting against a clause which he had supported in Committee. And here let mo ask the Committee if there is no precedent for a deputation of this kind? Not long ago the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Whiteside), was Solicitor-General, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman on his right (Mr. Napier) was Attorney-General for Ireland, in the Administration of Lord Derby. During the time they held office a Bill upon the subject of tenants' compensation was brought forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General for Ireland. The hon. and learned Serjeant (Mr. Serjeant Shee), had also a Bill before the House, including clauses that went far beyond the 14th clause respecting compensation. Now, what was the course adopted in that case? The right hon. and learned Gentleman consented to both these Bills being read a second time in this House, and what was the consequence? Those hon. Members who were opposed to the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman—and whom I will not charge with base and discreditable motives—objected especially to the clause which gave retrospective compensation, and, if the report be not incorrect, they went in a body to Lord Derby and complained of the conduct of his Attorney and, if I mistake not, of his Solicitor-General for Ireland. I am not in a condition to state whether they extracted a promise from the noble Lord, but, at all events, the result was that the noble Lord took the earliest opportunity in another place of saying that the Bills had been read merely pro formâ, and that the Government were not pledged to support them in the slightest degree. The Government, by thus consenting to what was called pro formâ second reading, though I believe there is no such thing as a pro formâ second reading, acknowledged that they gave their consent to what was purely an illusory proceeding, and left themselves perfectly free to object to the principle of the Bill,

MR. BRADY

said, he had not formed one of the deputation who had waited upon the noble Lord at the head of the Government, but as he had been instrumental in forming the deputation, he thought he could throw some light upon the reason why it had been formed. It had been communicated to him by an influential Irish Member who sat upon the Opposition benches, that many Members upon that side of the House would support the retrospective clause as amended in Committee, if the Government would bring it forward again. [Cries of "Name!"] He was not at liberty to mention the name until he had first communicated with the hon. Gentleman, but the hon. Member was at that moment in the House. In consequence of what the hon. Gentleman stated, he communicated with a friend of the Government, and stated that such sentiments were entertained, and he believed that that fact alone had led to the formation of the deputation. He had certainty been surprised to hear the indignant feeling expressed by hon. Members against a deputation under such circumstances waiting upon the noble Lord.

MR. NAPIER

said, the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department had stated, that he (Mr. Napier) and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Enniskillen had given their consent to an illusory proceeding in having a pro formâ second reading of a Bill of the hon. and learned Serjeant the Member for Kilkenny. For his part, in the presence of the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen and the hon. Member for Kilkenny, he could only give that statement the most direct contradiction. He had been no consenting party whatever to any such arrangement, and the simple fact of the matter was this, that his right hon. Friend the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole) had consented to the Bill of the Government and the Bill of the hon. and learned Serjeant being referred to a Select Committee. He (Mr. Napier) had had no communication whatever with the hon. and learned Serjeant, but, on the contrary, he had altogether refused to have any communication with him upon the subject. With regard to the conduct of Lord Derby, so far from giving any encouragement to the Irish Members, although, perhaps, the fate of the Ministry might have depended upon the course then adopted. Lord Derby, with the independence of character which had always distinguished him through life, stated, that come what would, he would never support the Bill of the hon. and learned Serjeant, and the result was, that he lost the support of many of the Irish Members. [Viscount PALMERSTON: But there was a deputation.] A deputation certainly waited on him. But was it to make any secret or express bargain? It was to remonstrate against the Bill going to a Select Committee. Again, he gave an express and peremptory contradiction to the statement that there had been any negotiations to which he had been a party; and he thought the right hon. Baronet ought in future to be better informed before he ventured to make such statements.

COLONEL GREVILLE

said, that though he could not see any impropriety in a deputation waiting upon the Government upon any subject whatever, he had not formed part of the deputation which had been referred to by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Malins) because the object which that deputation had in view was one with which he did not concur.

MR. VINCENT SCULLY

said, he felt called upon to defend the propriety of the course adopted by the Irish Members in waiting upon the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown, in order to induce him to consent to the reintroduction of the 14th clause. He had always endeavoured to avoid getting into any sort of row, whether English, Irish, or Scotch, and he had certainly not expected to see the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire take part in one. He thought that the language used by the right hon. Gentleman had been unbecoming his position, and that it was derogatory to the character of Gentlemen who were fully his equals in position and in every other respect. He could not help remarking, that that sort of language was only directed to Irish Members, and that Irish gentlemen always avoided using it with respect to English Members. It appeared, however, that Irish Members could never meet for any purpose whatever without some prying, inquisitorial system being set on foot, in order to ascertain who they were, and what they had been doing. He should be ashamed to adopt such a course in regard to any meeting of Conservative Members. He had never complained that the hon. and learned Gentlemen who occupied the posts of Attorney General and Solicitor General for Ireland, under Lord Derby's Administration, had introduced a Bill containing a retrospective clause of a, much more comprehensive nature than that in the present Bill. It was the 20th clause of a Bill he held in his hand, and was to the following effect:—"If any tenant, or those under whom he derives, at any time before the passing of this Act shall have executed improvements on his land of the nature contemplating the foregoing provisions," and so on, he shall be entitled to compensation. Those improvements included several not included in the Bill now before the House. He hoped, therefore, that he should not again hear the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen (Mr.Whiteside) attempting to lead the House to believe that he never was a party to a retrospective clause much more extensive than that against which his Colleagues voted the other day, and which he (Mr. Scully) had, to his infinite disgust, repeatedly heard him denounce. He must confess, that he was not satisfied with the Bill as it now stood, but it contained some provisions which he believed would be beneficial, and the question was, whether they would reject the measure, or accept it, rather than get nothing at all. He found, however, to his astonishment, that on Thursday evening only 102 Members voted for the 14th clause, which was by no means so stringent as a similar clause proposed by the Attorney General and the Solicitor General for Ireland under Lord Derby's Government; and he found, also, that the minority comprised only forty-seven Irish Members, some of whom were Members of the Conservative party, and rather more than fifty English Members, some thirty-five or thirty-six of whom were Government Members. Seeing this state of things on Saturday morning, he thought of inditing a letter on the subject to the noble Lord at the head of the Government; but he abandoned that intention, as he was asked to consult with some of his hon. Friends, They talked the matter over, and decided upon going to head-quarters and asking for an interview with the Premier. The noble Lord received them with great courtesy, and they explained to him that they were dissatisfied with the manner in which the Bill had been mutilated, after the statements which had been publicly made in the House. They called upon the noble Lord to assist them in obtaining the re-insertion of the clause which had been expunged, and which—although they were as much dissatisfied with it in its mutilated state as the hon. and learned Serjeant (Mr. Serjeant Shee) and the hon. and gallant Colonel (Colonel Greville), both of whom had voted for it in that mutilated form—they conceived would be better than nothing. They represented to the noble Lord their opinion that the decision which had been arrived at upon the clause was by no means satisfactory, as it had been adopted in a very thin House, and they informed him that they wished the question to be determined when there was a full attendance of Members. They strongly expressed to the noble Lord their desire that the clause which had been expunged should be reinserted. He (Mr. Scully) wished he could say that any compact had been entered into on the subject; but, unfortunately, all he could say was, that the noble Lord gave them an assurance that their representations should receive full consideration. Would the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) say, that he had never been in conversation with Members from all sides of that House in the lobby, or in the smoking or dining rooms; and that the conversation which took place on some of those occasions did not relate to matters similar to those which were sometimes discussed by deputations in the presence of the Ministers?

MR. DISRAELI

said, he could hardly answer the question of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, unless it were made somewhat more specific. He could not say what might, or might not, have passed in the smoking room or dining-room of the House. He generally dined alone. He might have been spoken to in the dining-room by Members who sat on both sides of the House, but he hoped the hon. Gentleman did not suppose for a moment that he was likely to restrict the polite and gentleman-like intercourse that took place between the Members of that House in such circumstances, whatever their opinions might be. Such intercourse was not to be mixed up with the instance now under the consideration of the House. It was not to be mixed up with the instance of a deputation waiting upon a Minister—a deputation waiting upon a Minister just before an expected division upon a matter of great national importance. I will not enter into the question which has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the interviews between Lord Derby and Members of that House on the subject of Bills similar to the one now before them. The right hon. Gentleman said, two or three deputations waited on Lord Derby. [Sir GEORGE GREY: Only one.] Only one; but reference might be made to more than one. First of all, the friends of Lord Derby waited on him, and said, "Your representatives in the House of Commons have agreed to send these Bills before a Select Committee—take the consequences of it," and Lord Derby did take the consequences of it. Then the opponents of Lord Derby went to him and said," unless you take particular care, you cannot count on our support." They got their answer, and in both cases Lord Derby acted according to the dictates of his conscience. But was there anything in those instances analogous to the one now before the House? The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Scully) had accused him of using insulting language to the Irish Members. He was not in the habit of using insulting language, either to Irish Members or to any other class of men; and the hon. and learned Gentleman, when he made the charge, was bound to state in what respect his language had been insulting. The words which fell from him, even with the worst interpretation the hon. and learned Gentleman was able to put upon them, could not be made to wear that colour.

MR. VINCENT SCULLY

said, he was quite satisfied to accept the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman was so habituated to impute motives to the Irish Members, that he was, perhaps, unconscious of it; but he was, nevertheless, satisfied with his explanation.

LORD CLAUD HAMILTON

said, he should like to know who deputed those eighteen gentlemen to go to the Minister as the representatives of all Ireland? He had a right to ask the question, especially as the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Grey) spoke of the deputation as one conducted in the usual manner. There were 105 representatives for Ireland, and the great majority of those gentlemen voted equally with "the eighteen" in favour of the 14th clause. Then, why were they not all equally invited to join the deputation? They were all in town, and yet not one syllable was communicated to them of the intention to wait on the Minister. He had often gone on deputations, and had always been courteously informed of them beforehand; but in this case there was a departure from that usage. Could these eighteen gentlemen show their credentials to act as a deputation in the name of all Ireland? He was informed that the resolution to form the deputation had been taken after the hon. Member for Hertfordshire (Sir B. Lytton) had given notice of his Motion; and it appeared to him as if the only question with them was, not how they should act with regard to the 14th clause, but how they should vote on the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Hertfordshire. That was the reason why they did not intimate their intention to those sitting on that (the Opposition) side of the House, who voted with them on the 14th clause. He denied, therefore, the accuracy of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, that this was a deputation after the usual manner. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Scully) referred to a Bill on the subject of tenant right in 1853, which, he said, had the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin on the back; but though that Bill had the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the back in 1853, it was, in reality, the Bill printed as it came from the Committee to which it was sent in 1852. It was usual in such cases to retain the name on the back, and it was so in that case, though his right hon. and learned Friend had twice thrown up the Bill, and only resumed it at the earnest request of the Committee.

MR. VINCENT SCULLY

said, the Bill he had quoted from was the Bill introduced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin in 1852.

MR. MAGUIRE

said, he wished to state that no formal communication was made to him of the intention to have an interview with the Premier. He and the hon. Gentleman near him did disapprove of the deputation to the noble Lord, not because they thought such a proceeding was not perfectly regular and correct, but because they did not believe the Government to be sincere and in earnest upon the question. If the Government were sincere, why did not the noble Viscount make it a Cabinet measure, and oblige his subordinates to follow him into the lobby in support of it? He did not believe that a Cabinet could he coerced by friendly interviews such as the one which had taken place; those who wished to carry a particular Bill would gain their object, not by always following the Government into the lobby, but by adopting an independent and resolute course, so that they could turn the scale when a Ministry was in danger. He, and those with whom he acted, were determined to persevere in their efforts to settle the question, not by coming to the rescue of a Cabinet when it happened to be in a fix, hut by holding themselves in independent opposition, by keeping themselves dangerous to either side of the House. He had no sympathy with the opinions of many Gentlemen upon the Opposition side of the House; but why did he sit upon that side? Because he could not sit upon the other side ["Hear, hear!"] because he could not in honour and in conscience sit upon the other side, having given a solemn pledge that he would sit in opposition, to the Government until the Government had made a Cabinet question of a measure embodying the principles of Mr. Sharman Crawford's Bill. Even if the 14th clause were re-inserted, he thought the Bill had been so treated by the Government that it could not pass through the House of Lords during the present Session, but it could be carried next year if thirty Irish Members would act together and support it.

MR. HORSMAN

said, that before the hon. Baronet the Member for Hertfordshire's notice of Motion had been given, he was told by a Member of that House that a communication had been addressed to him by two supporters of the right hon. Gentleman opposite who had taken an active part in the Bill, to the effect that they regretted the rejection of the 14th clause; that they would be glad if the Government would propose its re-insertion; and that many Gentlemen upon the Opposition side would support such a proposition. He was asked what course the Government would take. He replied that he was not authorised to give a decided answer, but his conviction was that the Government would not feel justified in opposing the re-insertion of the clause. He was then asked what course the Government would take if any independent Member were to make the proposition? He replied that he was not authorised to speak positively, but he thought that if any independent Member proposed the reinsertion, the Government would vote as it had before voted. The next morning he stated the conversation to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who approved of what he had said. That was as he had just stated previous to the notice of the hon. Baronet opposite. Communications went on for two or three days with different Members of the House, and while they were going on the hon. Baronet's notice was given. He believed that the deputation which waited on the noble Lord received the same answers as those which he had given, and which had been approved by the noble Lord before the hon. Baronet's notice. He admitted that that coincidence which had been referred to might have excited suspicion in those who had conducted themselves throughout the proceedings in a consistent manner, and who, as regarded consistency, had shown a very honourable contrast to some of their opponents.

MR. CAIRNS

said, the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had thrown a new light upon the discussion. It appeared that previous to the notice of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) announced the course he intended to take. Perhaps, then, the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to explain why, after the hon. Member for Hertfordshire's Motion, it was found necessary that the deputation should take place?

MR. HORSMAN

said, he had not said that an announcement had been made to the Irish Members. One Gentleman had come to him, and he had communicated with two Gentlemen opposite whom he now saw in their places, but who seemed ashamed of the part they had taken in the transaction.

MR. MALINS

said, that, after a subject had been fully discussed and decided by a large majority of the House, he did not think it was a usual or a proper course for a few hon. Gentlemen to wait upon the head of the Government in order to endeavour to get that decision rescinded. He had put this question as one affecting, not the honour of individuals, but the honour of the Government; and he felt satisfied that, after the lengthened discussion which had ensued, the country would consider the present transaction was one which did not redound to the credit of the Government.

MR. MACMAHON

said, he wished to state, on the behalf of himself and the Friends he usually acted with, that when they had first heard the deputation mentioned they had, on the first blush of the matter, declared that they could have nothing to do with such a transaction. [Cries of "Question!"]

MR. GUINNESS

said, he would submit to the Committee that they ought not to be hurried in their deliberations on a question of the present importance, but that they ought to be afforded an opportunity to discuss it fully and fairly. He rose to call attention to the attempt which had been made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the early part of the evening to divert the attention of the House from the subject which engrossed it, by alluding to deputations which he said had been received by Lord Derby's Government at improper crises. He (Mr. Guinness) pronounced it unconstitutional in the highest degree, after a clause had been fully discussed and negatived by a large majority, for a deputation to wait upon the Prime Minister, at a crisis like the present, to endeavour to get him to rescind the decision of the House; such a proceeding was not only disgraceful but disgusting, and he could not help thinking that the Minister should have answered that deputation by refusing to give consideration to their proposition.

MR. JOHN SADLEIR

said, that he had formed one of the body of Irish Members that had waited upon the Minister. Nothing could be more contrary to the fact than to say that that was a deputation from any body whatever which had waited upon the Prime Minister. They represented no party but themselves, and were influenced only by a wish to have restored to the Bill a clause which they considered of the utmost importance to the interests of Ireland. The hon. Member who had last spoken had, in his amiable impetuosity, used language which he (Mr. Sadleir) was certain could not be endorsed by the Gentlemen by whom the hon. Member was surrounded.

MR. D. O'CONNELL

said, he thought that the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Guinness) was out of order when he used the words "disgraceful and disgusting;" if the words were intended to apply to him, as one of the deputation, he must tell the hon. Member he had given utterance to that which was a calumny and a libel.

The House resumed; Committee report progress.

The House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.