Lords Sitting of 27 February 1832

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lord STRANGFORD, from Woodstock for an Inquiry into the State of the Glove Trade:—By a NOBLE LORD, from the Inhabitants of Kingston with the same prayer:—By Lord PLUNKETT, from the President and Fellows of the College of Physicians (Ireland), praying that their Rights may be preserved in any Bill passed to facilitate the Study of Anatomy:—By Lord HOLLAND, from Ampthill, in favour of the Factories Bill.

THE POOR LAWS.
The Marquis of Salisburyrequested the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would have the kindness to inform him, what steps had been taken by his Majesty's Government towards the formation of the Commission which the noble and learned Lord had given notice of for the investigation of the state of the Poor-laws? It was nearly two years since his Majesty's Ministers had promised to take up the subject, and it was full time that something effectual should be done.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the noble Marquis was in error in imagining that so long a time as two years had elapsed since the attention of his colleagues had been called to this question. It was in the beginning of last Session, including the summer Session, and certainly not more than a year ago, that the subject had been introduced. He assured the noble Marquis that no unnecessary delay had taken place, and he hoped, that in two or three days the plan would be matured. The central body of Commissioners was appointed, but the country Commissioners were not yet named.
The Duke of Buckinghaminquired if the central Commissioners were to have the nomination of the country Commissioners.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the town body would recommend the country members of the Commission—of course they would not have the appointment without the sanction of Government to each particular name.
The Marquis of Salisburybegged to ask the noble and learned Lord further, whether there would be any objection to
724
lay before Parliament a copy of the instructions which he presumed it was intended to issue to the Commissioners.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he really, at the present moment, could not answer the question. He believed it was rather unusual to ask for the production of papers which at the time had no existence.

JAMAICA.
The Duke of Wellington, seeing the noble Secretary for the Colonies in his place, wished to be informed if the noble Viscount could explain how it happened that the proclamation respecting the Colonies, which had been agreed upon by his Majesty in Council in June 1831, did not reach the Governor General of Jamaica until the 22nd of December in that year, and the causes why it had not been made public?
Viscount Goderich, in answer to the question of the noble Duke, said, that the Order in Council had been sent to Jamaica, as well as to all the other Colonies, in the course of the last Summer. It was accompanied by a despatch, which empowered the Governors to distribute the proclamation, if they considered that the existing circumstances in each island required it; but the despatch, at the same time, intimated that there might be prudential reasons why that course might not be desirable. It was sent to Jamaica in May or June, and the Governor received it in July; and he stated, in his acknowledgement of its arrival, that there was nothing in the circumstances which then prevailed in the island to make the issuing of the proclamation advisable but he sent to the different Magistrates extracts of the despatch which accompanied the order, by which means all the proper persons were made acquainted with the extent of the authority vested in the Governor's hands. Lord Belmore did not issue the order itself; and certainly he (Viscount Goderich) was bound to say, that, under the circumstances, he approved of the course pursued by that officer.
The Duke of Wellingtonwas desirous of ascertaining if a copy of the despatch, and of the correspondence with the Governor, could be laid on the Table.
Viscount Goderichsaid, as he was at present advised, he could see no objection to produce the despatch; but with regard to the correspondence, he must look into it, to see if the whole, or extracts, could properly be placed on the Table, before he could answer the question of the noble Duke.

THE FRENCH EXPEDITION TO ITALY.
The Earl of Aberdeen: Although I must generally apologise to the noble Earl, for proposing questions to him with regard to the foreign policy of the country, yet I feel that I am not called upon to do so at present, as I cannot recollect any public transaction, where the national interests were concerned, which more immediately demanded an explanation than that which I am now about to bring under your Lordships' notice. Your Lordships are aware that an expedition has sailed, or is about to sail, from a port in France to the coast of Italy. The extent of that equipment, and the object for which it is destined, are variously stated; and I wish to ask the noble Earl if he is enabled to state officially the objects and intentions of the French government in fitting out this expedition; or has it been undertaken with the consent or the sanction of his Majesty's Government?
Earl Grey: I do not believe, my Lords, it is usual for the Minister of the Crown to be called on for explanations on subjects similar to that to which the noble Earl now directs his inquiry; and I believe it has not been the custom of those who have preceded me in the situation which I have the honour to hold, to give the explanation which the noble Earl calls for. All that I can say, my Lords, is, that a communication has been made to his Majesty's Government of the intention of the French government to direct an expedition to the coast of Italy.
The Earl of Aberdeen: My Lords, I must say, that the answer of the noble Earl infinitely surprises me, for, as you will perceive, it is altogether incompatible with the praises which that noble Earl has so often lavished on the frankness, openness, and liberal faith of the present government of France. Not to have given at once the fullest explanation of the extent of the expedition, and the objects which it was destined to accomplish, is scarcely worthy of the confiding disposition which the noble Earl has so often alleged the French government to manifest towards this country. The character of the expedition is so extraordinary, that I am not astonished to find that it has excited suspicion in every quarter; and I am at a loss to know why the noble Earl has been treated with so much reserve, and why the little information which he seems to have received has been communicated in a manner so little worthy of that warm attach-
726
ment and close union of which the noble Earl so often boasts, as prevailing at present between this country and France, and which he has so lately solemnized in the presence of that great personage, the Lord Mayor of London. My Lords, after this I cannot but congratulate the House on the termination of the ridiculous farce of non-intervention. It is quite clear that the farce of non-intervention has gone by, and that we shall hear no more of it. It is not a year ago since the noble Earl gave a definition of non-intervention, and certainly the most despotic government in Europe could not object to that explanation of the term. But what, my Lords, did it amount to? Why, that intervention was not permitted unless in cases where the security or great interests of a state were immediately affected by what was going on in a neighbouring country. This certainly was the understanding of the phrase universally adopted; but, my Lords, you are aware that the difficulty lies not in the principle, but in its application; and I trust that the result of the present proceedings will be, to induce the noble Earl never to allow the French government to constitute itself the judge of that which the interests or the honour of England require; and I further trust, that the principles will be clearly maintained and understood by every power in Europe, so that each state shall have the right to interfere in the affairs of its neighbours, when it is necessary to do so for its own safety, or the preservation of its great interests. The intervention of the noble Earl depends as Seldon said, of the equity of the Court of Chancery on the length of the foot of the noble Earl. I ask the noble Earl to look at the present case, and to say if it is in accordance with his practice, not with his definition of nonintervention? A revolt takes place in some of the Papal states—the Austrian government, afraid of damage being done to some of its own possessions, and invited by the Papal authority, sends a force into those states for the purpose of restoring tranquillity. That may be right, or it may be wrong; but Austria constitutes itself sole judge in its own case, and it is only to that government that we can apply for an explanation, if we desire to know the principle on which it is acting. But what does the French Ministry do? Oh, it says to the Papal government, "Austria has gone to protect you; so will we, too." But what I wish to know is, has the Papal

727
government called on France, as it has on Austria, for assistance? and why is it that the French troops are directed to a point where no disturbances have prevailed, and where tranquillity has existed up to the present moment?—where, I say, tranquillity has prevailed up to the present moment, but where, I fear, it will not exist, after the arrival of the French troops, or I am much deceived in my anticipations. My Lords, what can that French force do in the quarter to which it has been directed? Nothing, but to foment revolt, and excite insubordination; or what other consequences can attend the appearance of the tri-coloured flag in Italy, contrary to the known wishes of its government? My Lords, I know that the tri-coloured flag has been devoted in France to purposes of triumph and of glory, but I know that, out of France, it is every where viewed with suspicion, and that it has been looked upon as the standard of revolution and disorder. I ask you, my Lords, to consider for a moment what are the consequences which may arise from this forced intervention of France? If a French force goes to the coast of Italy contrary to the wishes of the Papal government, it will be necessary for the neighbouring states to look about them, and the king of Sardinia, in particular, must take measures to secure his territory from the effects of such an interference. Indeed, my Lord, such an interference as the present is almost without parallel in the history of modern Europe, and it is worthy of the best days of the republic, when France sent an expedition to Egypt, under the pretence of aiding the Sultan, and to deliver him from the Beys. It is, you must allow, my Lords, an instance of the most barefaced intervention; and whatever be our opinions about it, it appears to me to be a subject well worthy of the watchfulness of his Majesty's Government; and it is one upon which we had a right to expect more explicit information, as few circumstances, in the present day, are more calculated to excite suspicion and distrust in every part of Europe.
Earl Grey: My Lords, I must say the course pursued by the noble Earl is not a little extraordinary. He puts a question to me on a point on which it is not customary to demand an explanation, and I give him the best answer that I feel authorised to give, in the discharge of my public duty; but the noble Earl is not satisfied with that, and rises again to create a discussion on an assumption of facts, which, perhaps,
728
he will find hereafter is unfounded, if he has reserved for himself the means of obtaining better information than that which he seems to be now possessed of. But, my Lords, I will not, by anything the noble Earl has said, be tempted to go into a discussion whether the interference of France is justifiable or not, or whether it will lead to the conclusions which the noble Earl, has imagined, though, perhaps, the result may show that these conclusions will altogether fail, like many others to which the noble Earl stands pledged. All I can say, my Lords, in answer to the question, I have already said; and however much the noble Earl may taunt me about the close union which subsists between this country and France, and the declaration which I have made of reliance on the faith and fair dealing of the French government, I have only to avow that I still retain the same opinions, and I believe the cultivation of a good understanding with the government of that country is at the present period more than ever desirable. Yes, my Lords, more than ever desirable for the preservation of the general peace, which, I trust, all the exertions of the noble Earl will not be successful enough, to disturb. Whatever inconsistency the noble Earl may think he sees in the interference of France, I will frankly state, as I have done before, that the conduct of the French government on the occasion gives me no reason to alter the opinion I have already expressed of my belief in its honour and good faith. My Lords, the noble Earl has called me to task for some supposed discrepancy between my practice and the definition of non-intervention which I have heretofore given; but, my Lords, the principle of intervention, as I have stated it, rests upon grounds which I have over and over again explained. I stated it as a general rule, but I never said that there should be no exceptions. My Lords, what I laid down was this: whenever the circumstances of another state, or the occurrences which take place in a neighbouring country, are such as threaten the safety or the interests of a state, the right of intervention is given even on the principle of self-preservation. That is the only ground which can be taken by any man who pretends to any thing like the character of a statesman. The noble Lord charges me with unfairly withholding the communication which may have taken place between his Majesty's Government and the French ministry. I do not think

729
it consistent with my duty and responsibility to say more than that the intention of the French government to send an armed force to the coast of Italy has been communicated to us. That does not satisfy the noble Lord: but I ask him, what would he himself do in similar circumstances? Would he give me, were our situations changed, any other answer than that which I give him? Surely it is not long since a much larger expedition—more important in all its parts, and likely to be much more so in its consequences than this—sailed from a port in the south of France for the coast of Africa, with the consent of his Majesty's Government. I do not recollect that any person asked the noble Earl, under what circumstances the consent of his Majesty's Government was then given; nor do I recollect that the noble Lord came forward with any explanation on the subject. No such communication was demanded; but I am sure, if it had been, the noble Earl would have said that he acted on his own responsibility, and, at the proper time for explanation, it would not be withheld. Here then, my Lords, as far as I am concerned, I will put an end to this conversation, confident that though the noble Earl has endeavoured to pervert the case by an assumption of facts for which he has no warrant, and with which he cannot possibly be acquainted, he will not succeed in creating an impression in the country to the prejudice of the present Administration.
The Marquis of Londonderr, although he could scarcely expect from the noble Earl explanations so complete and satisfactory as those he had thought proper to give with respect to the foreign policy of the country to the Lord Mayor and the Lady Mayoress, at a recent public feast in the city, would yet, with all humility, venture to ask the noble Earl a question or two. He must, at the same time, take leave to say, that all our ancient allies and foreign governments in general, had reason to complain of the strong leaning of the present Administration to France and French interests. This was a new order of things which he much deplored. The question he was about to put, arose in a great measure out of papers which had been laid on the Table, with reference to the ratification of the treaty relating to Holland and Belgium. He very much wished to understand whether the noble Earl expected that the ratification of the treaty respecting Belgium would travel faster,
730
when it was known to the other powers of Europe that the policy of Great Britain was unfolded to the new conseil politique of the noble Earl at the east end of the town, while the noble Earl refused explanations in that House? Did the noble Earl think that the king of Holland, when he saw the course the noble Earl was pursuing, would be the more ready to accede to the arrangements which the British Government had made on his behalf? He thought a fearful crisis had arrived, notwithstanding the noble Earl, in the enjoyment of civic hospitality, and in the indulgence of his predilection for Lord Mayor's feasts, might conceal it from himself. If the noble Earl maintained and vaunted upon all occasions his partiality to France, and his disregard of the magnanimous allies who had carried us through the fearful but glorious contest in which we had been engaged, he believed the peace of Europe would be disturbed, sooner than the noble Earl had given the Lord Mayor and Lady Mayoress to understand. He wished to ask the noble Earl if he had received any intelligence which led him to believe that the ratifications of the treaty relating to Belgium, were likely to be soon exchanged, and also whether any arrangement had been concluded with respect to the Belgic fortresses?
Earl Greywould not now allude to what he had said elsewhere. His sentiments with respect to France had been stated in that House; but he must repel the imputation that his anxiety to cultivate mutual feelings of confidence and good-will between England and France was attended by any neglect of the former allies, the magnanimous allies, as the noble Marquis said, and he did not dispute the propriety of the epithet, of this country. He was disposed to maintain a good understanding, and he would state, what, perhaps, might be a disappointment to the noble Marquis, that a good understanding did prevail between this country and the other powers of Europe. With respect to the ratification of the treaty for the settlement of the Netherlands, he could state nothing positive; he would only say, that his Majesty's Government had a right to expect, and that his own confident belief was, that the ratifications would be given. As to further explanations, when the time arrived in which they could with propriety be demanded, he should be prepared to give them.
The conversation dropped.

TITHES (IRELAND).
The Duke of Buckinghamsaid, he did not wish to raise a premature discussion or require an explanation relative to the intended measure of Government on the subject of Tithes in Ireland, though an explanation given by two members of the Administration, contained statements in which no slight discrepancy prevailed; but he wished to remind the noble Earl that Ireland was in the most disastrous condition, that the question of Tithes was agitating that country from one end to the other, and, therefore, whatever plan Government had to produce to allay this excitement ought to be immediately matured. He wished to ask, therefore, when the proposed measure was likely to come before the House?
Earl Grey: My Lords, all I can say, in answer to the question of the noble Duke, is, that the measure on which his Majesty's Ministers have decided, is in a forward state; but as the noble Duke knows that it must originate in the other House, some little time must elapse before it can be laid on your Lordships' Table. My Lords, I am aware of the unhappy circumstances which at present affect a part of Ireland, and I am most anxious to apply aremedy, but I must say, the difficulties under which that country labours have not been produced by us—they have existed under previous Administrations, and our predecessors were unable to provide a remedy for them. Indeed, my Lords, it is too much to expect from his Majesty's present Ministers, considering the short time we have been in office, that questions which have so long agitated that country should be brought to an immediate and satisfactory conclusion. I feel, with the noble Duke, the necessity of providing for the tranquillity of Ireland, and our object is, to settle one question, at least, in such a manner as will conduce to the safety of the country and the maintenance of all its institutions. The Report of the Committee to which the question of tithes has been referred, will be presented without delay, and the Ministers hope soon to follow it with such a measure as will place the great interests of the country on a proper and settled basis.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, that the evidence taken before the Committee had not been communicated to the other House, and, therefore, it was impossible that the measure to be founded upon such evidence, could be introduced yet for a few days.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid: My Lords, I have not had an opportunity, or, perhaps, I should rather say, I have avoided the opportunity of saying one word on tithes since they have been first discussed before your Lordships. I had an objection to doing so until the noble Earl should have brought forward his promised measure, which was to originate on the Report of the Committee, appointed, as the noble Earl stated, upon the recommendation of his Majesty. But when the noble Earl declared, in reply to the question put to him by the noble Duke, that difficulties have for a long period existed, and that no measure had been adopted to remove them by any preceding Cabinet, and I having belonged to several preceding Cabinets, and having been in that very Cabinet to which the noble Earl succeeded, I feel that I cannot sit by and listen to what the noble Earl has stated, without giving a direct contradiction to it. My Lords, until the period when the noble Earl took on himself the conduct of public affairs, we had never heard of tithes from the moment that the Tithe Composition Act was put in force. This Act, my Lords, was brought in by a right hon. colleague and friend of mine; and I say that it did put an end to almost all disturbance upon the subject of tithes in Ireland. Two-thirds of the livings in that country were brought under the Tithe Composition Act. Well, then, my Lords, what is the cause of the present state of the tithe question? We have already considered—first, his Majesty's reference to the subject in his Speech from the Throne; and next, that this House is not to be called upon to adopt a measure upon the responsibility of Ministers, but that they have sheltered themselves under Committees; and now, we find, that we are to entertain the question with a view to the formation of a new system, under the pretence that Ireland was left in a disturbed state by previous administrations. My Lords, the main cause of the present excitement, is the encouragement which has been given to agitators to disturb the country. I can tell the noble Earl, that, so long as encouragement is given to agitators, you may double and treble the regular army in Ireland—you may heap measures of severity upon measures of severity—but you will not succeed in putting down agitation upon this question, or upon any of the others which may follow it. My Lords, we talk of a question of property. A noble Lord, the

733
other night, in discussing the question of tithes, observed, the people of Ireland are ready to pay that for which they receive value, to pay their rent, and to pay all the taxes on the land, and that they wished not to deprive any man of his property.* I say, then, my Lords, is any property held so sacred by our law as tithes? In the first place, the King is sworn—his Majesty was sworn, a few months ago—to protect the property and rights of the clergy above all classes of men. I desire, also, to bring to your Lordships' recollection, that, in two recent Acts of Parliament, in which we conferred notable advantages on the Dissenters from the Church of England, we endeavoured, as far as we might by oaths, to secure the property of the Church. If any principle, indeed, can secure property to any portion of his Majesty's subjects, the property of the Church ought to be safe. It is a principle of the Constitution that tithes, above all other property, should be secured to the owner. In declaring my opinion thusstrongly, I am well aware that difficulties do now surround this question in Ireland, and I was ready, and I am ready, to support any fair proposition of the noble Earl to prevent disturbance, and not only to support it myself, but to use every influence I may be supposed to possess to prevent opposition to it. But I cannot bear that we should be accused of having done nothing in this matter, when the fact is, that we did every thing in our power to pacify the country, and put an end to that disturbance which we are indirectly accused, by the noble Earl, of promoting.
Earl Grey: I should, certainly, my Lords, at all times, be much gratified by the support which the noble Duke may be pleased to give to any measure of his Majesty's Government which I might propose; but I anxiously hope it will be given in a temper different from that in which the noble Duke has now addressed your Lordships. I do not think, my Lords, that any thing that fell from me was calculated to provoke the warmth which the noble Duke has exhibited. The noble Duke accused me of having charged his Administration with promoting the disturbed state of Ireland; but while the noble Duke was speaking, I endeavoured to call to mind the exact words I had used, and I think that what I uttered was to this purpose: that the difficulties which we, on coming into office,
* Hansard's Parl, Debates, vol. x. p. 674.
734
found, had long existed, and had continued to increase under preceding governments, and that no government, including that of the noble Duke, had been able to find a satisfactory remedy for them. I did not say, my Lords, that no attempts had been made at removing these difficulties, but I did say, and I now repeat, that no means had been found to overcome, by legislative measures, those causes which had so long distracted Ireland, and even threatened the safety of that country. In saying this, I did not mean to charge the Administration of which the noble Duke was the head, with neglecting all attempts to pacify that country. I did not allude to the Tithes Composition Act particularly, which was passed in 1823, and promised for a time to be successful; but I ask the noble Lords well acquainted with the state of Ireland, if that Act has not long since ceased to work beneficially, and it the omission, by the House of Commons, of the compulsory clause has not produced discontent in many places, and been the main feature of the opposition which has since become so alarming? That the opposition to the collection of tithes has been more systematic and violent since the period of 1830, when we came into office, I am willing to admit, but I say, it originated in causes with which we have nothing to do. The noble and learned Lord opposite (the Earl of Eldon) may shake his head, and try to throw the blame on the present administration, but with every respect to that noble and venerable Lord, I must repeat, that the opposition to the collection of tithes arose from causes over which we had no control, and with which, as I said before, we had nothing to do. The question of tithes in Ireland has ever distracted that country, and was a source of baleful dissension in it long before either the noble Duke or I was born. It has been a stumbling-block to every Administration, and successive Statesmen have in turn directed their attention to it. Various Acts of Parliament have been passed to regulate the tithes of agistment, and to maintain the collection of them generally, until the Composition Act was introduced by the Administration of the noble Duke; but how signal has been the failure of them all!—We have done every thing in our power to protect the rights of the Church. We have interfered with force when we were called upon to act, and where it was possible to use it, but there were many cases which defied the application of force, and

735
therefore, we now seek, by a change of system, to support that property, on the maintenance of which the noble Duke has so warmly declaimed, and which I have, with equal sincerity, always supported. The preservation of the settled institutions of the country has been the constant principle of my conduct, and I hope, my Lords, you will do me the justice to believe, that it will continue so to be. The noble Duke has said, that I may double and triple the army in Ireland, and load the country with measures of severity—as if I had any such intentions in view—but that I might do so in vain, as long as encouragement was given to agitation. This, my Lords, is a serious charge. It is a charge against the Government of the country, nothing less than that of encouraging those agitators whose views are directed against the public peace, and the safety of the State. My Lords, after such a charge, I have a right to call on the noble Duke for an explanation—or for a specific accusation. In what way, my Lords, has the Government given encouragement to agitation? I contradict that charge as flatly as the noble Duke has contradicted what I asserted. I contradict, my Lords, as flatly as words can, the truth of the statement; and I deny that any encouragement has been given to agitation. My Lords, I would have put it down by lenient measures, if possible, but by force, if it was necessary; and it is my opinion that the application of force will not be the less powerful if conciliation be first tried. My Lords, I will not shrink from the performance of my duty; and, when so serious a charge as that of the encouragement of agitation in Ireland be brought forward against his Majesty's Government, I think we have a right to call on the noble Duke to state the grounds on which he makes it.
The Duke of Wellington: My Lords, I never have made, and I never will make, a charge which I am not ready to repeat, and able to substantiate, and I will forthwith prove that which the noble Earl calls upon me to explain. In doing this, I beg leave to remind your Lordships, that, some months ago, I suggested to the noble Earl that an Act of Parliament, which had been passed for the purpose of suppressing illegal associations in Ireland, was about to expire, and I asked him, if he intended to propose the renewal of that Act. The noble Earl replied, that he did; but, my Lords, you will recollect that Parliament was dis-
736
solved without any further notice of the Act, and, of course, it expired. The result of this was, that the noble Earl stated in the House, when it met again, that the noble Marquis at the head of the Irish Administration felt that he could carry on the Government of that country without any additional powers; and the consequences of the noble Earl having declined to apply to the Legislature for any authority beyond the existing laws were, that agitation began again, and that meeting after meeting has again been held from that time to the present moment. This is not all, my Lords; the great agitator, the prime mover of the whole machinery, escaped the execution of the sentence of the law in consequence of the expiration of the Act of Parliament to which I have referred. Well, my Lords, what has since taken place? This very person, the great agitator, whom the Government had prosecuted to conviction, was considered to be a person worthy of the honours which the Crown could bestow, and he received the highest favour which any gentleman of the Bar ever received from the hands of the noble Earl and his Government; he received a patent of precedence, which placed him next the Attorney General, and above a gentleman who was once Attorney General, but was still a member of the same Bar. If this was not a premium given to that gentleman to continue his course of disturbing the country, I do not know what else could be so considered. I feel that no more effectual mode could be found to encourage agitation than to reward the promoter of it. But it is not alone in this respect that his Majesty's Government has encouraged agitation. What was the meaning, I ask, of the friends of Government taking the course they have taken out of doors with reference to the Reform Bill? What was the meaning of the letter of a noble Lord in another House—addressed to the Political Union of Birmingham, in which that noble Lord designated the sentiments of noble Peers on this side of the House as the "whisper of a faction?" What was the meaning of two friends of Government collecting a mob in Hyde-park and the Regent's-park, on one of the days in which the House of Lords was discussing the Reform Bill? What was the meaning of these individuals directing the line of march of the assembled multitude upon St. James's, and publishing their orders in the papers devoted to Government?—and

737
what was the meaning of the publications in the Government newspapers libelling and maligning all those who opposed the Bill? What was the meaning of all these deeds being allowed by Government, and why did they tolerate and abet them, unless they calculated upon some advantages to themselves in encouraging such agitation? I don't accuse the noble Earl of instigating these mobs—I do not mean to say, that he was delighted at seeing my house assailed, or any other work of destruction committed; but I say some of his colleagues, and some of the friends of Government, have encouraged and incited the people to works of violence. I must say, I have long felt on this subject very strongly. I feel that the country is in a most dangerous state. I find the country is in a most dangerous state on account of Government not taking the proper measures to put a stop to confusion and agitation; and, on the contrary, in place of putting a stop to such scenes, allowing some Lords of his Majesty's household to encourage and instigate the people to lawless acts.
The Earl of Eldonsaid, that on the first topic that had been introduced that evening, relating to the foreign affairs of the country, he would give no opinion until the various negotiations and the public transactions respecting them had been concluded, except by saying, that it appeared to him, from all he could yet understand, that those who had been the most strenuous opponents of interference had now become its warmest defenders and advocates. On the present situation of this country and Ireland, however, he begged to be allowed to make a few observations. He would ask the noble Lords from Ireland, who were now present, whether the powers of the common law (which he had been told were as great in Ireland as in England) had ever been put fully into execution in that country, in order to prevent it from falling into its present miserable state; and whether they did not conscientiously believe, that to the non-execution of that law the present state of Ireland was attributable? Let their Lordships look at what had been passing in Ireland. He begged to know how it was, that such shameful proceedings as had taken place there had been allowed to go on without any prosecutions having been instituted on the subject? He would not presume to say that, they were so; but if the speeches in the Irish papers were
738
really the speeches of the persons to whom a noble Duke had alluded, and of Mr. O'Connell, he had no hesitation in declaring, that the government of Ireland ought to be brought to the Bar of that House, for not having applied the powers of the common law to punish those gross and shameful violations of the law. Things were in such a situation that the question was neither more nor less than whether or not the government of Ireland was to be allowed to exist? It was, in truth, he feared, much the same in this country, for he verily believed they were approaching a crisis when the existence of the Government here would be endangered. It was idle to believe, that if the Reform Bill, as it had been offered to their Lordships last Session, had passed, their Lordships would have been long left sitting in that House. There was no man who had been more deeply obliged to the father of the late King—there was no man who had entertained a more devoted attachment to the late King—there was no man who entertained a firmer sense of allegiance to his present Majesty than himself; and he felt it his duty now distinctly to state, in the presence of a brother of his present Majesty, that if that Reform Bill had passed, the consequence of the agitation which it would have produced, by opening the questions of Universal Suffrage, and other dangerous but popular doctrines would have been, that, in the course of ten years, there would not be a single member of the house of Hanover on the Throne. It would have crushed both the Monarchy and that House. He would now say a few words on the subject of tithes in Ireland. As to the advantage of the proposed commutation he would reserve himself until he saw the Bill upon the subject before their Lordships. But let it be considered how the subject had been introduced to their notice. It had been introduced by tirades of all kinds against the clergy of Ireland. Those attacks had been accompanied by similar attacks on the lay impropriators. A petition had been presented a few nights since on this subject, which had excited some debate, and, on referring to it afterwards, he was surprised to find that it did not relate to the clergy at all, but to lay impropriators, who, it said, desecrated the property which had been devoted to pious and charitable uses. He hoped the Duke of Bedford, and other noble Peers of that House would look a little closely into the effect of this argument of desecration. He

739
was an old man, and he remembered forty years ago, in the years 1790, 1791, and 1792, when the people were convulsed in a manner similar to that in which they were convulsed at present, reading speeches containing the same sentiments, and uttered by some of the same individuals who, at that period, endeavoured to promote revolution. He begged, therefore, to ask the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor for Ireland) how it was, that, with all this agitation and tumult in that country, there had not been a single prosecution for inflammatory speeches? He had had a good deal of experience in such matters, and he could not see any valid reasons why such orators had not been prosecuted. He might be told of the difficulty of bringing home the inflammatory language to the speakers; but where would be the difficulty of prosecuting the publishers of such libels? And he would also ask whether, though the Proclamation Act had expired, the powers of the common law would not be sufficient to put an end to such sedition? There were now, too, associations against tithes existing in Ireland, which were conducted upon principles that subjected the parties to indictments for conspiracies. No man, he said, who was a lawyer would so degrade himself as to say, that those combinations to prevent the purchase of tithes in Ireland were not highly illegal? Yet all these classes of offenders were left undisturbed by prosecution, and they were allowed to continue their evil practices with impunity. He did not mean to accuse the noble Earl opposite, nor the noble and learned Lord Chancellor of Ireland, with having given any support to such proceedings; on the contrary, he was persuaded they were ashamed of their existence, yet the persons who promoted them were allowed to go on in their career of tumult without fear, as the prompt and vigorous interference of Government had not been exerted to control them. These tumults were, he suspected, winked at, or made as light of as possible, by those who had their own purposes to promote, which at present were held forth as the Repeal of the Union, and to insure the success of the Reform Bill, which was in progress; upon the latter subject he would say nothing until it was brought regularly before their Lordships, but he would repeat, that if it was passed, and contained the same provisions as the Bill of last Session, their Lordships would not long sit there; and what was nearest
740
his heart, if things continued to go on long as they were going on at present, he was unhappily convinced, that the family which he had hoped would long have remained on the Throne, would cease to reign. That was his conscientious opinion. He was so satisfied of this fact, that let the consequences be what they might, and let the observation subject him to whatever misconstruction it might, he would fearlessly say, that any of the Acts of James the 2nd, were as excusable, as would be the Act of that monarch who should give his sanction to such measure. It would prove the most destructive to the Constitution of England of any measure that had ever been resorted to by any government. This might be his last declaration in that House—it was a most conscientious one. There was another point on which he was desirous of making an observation or two. He alluded to the letter which had been written by a Spiritual Peer, in which that right rev. Prelate, speaking of those of their Lordships who had opposed the measure of his Majesty's Government, had denominated them "an ignorant faction;" and in which that right rev. Prelate had expressed his hope that the King would do that, which he (Lord Eldon) sincerely believed, if the King really did, he would destroy the Constitution of the country. He really could hardly believe, that that letter was actually written by the right rev. Prelate. Whether the right rev. Prelate wrote it or not, however, he thought he owed it to their Lordships, to the Constitution, and to the country, to declare, that the statement, that the opposition to the late Reform Bill was factious, was an inexcusable libel. For himself, he had been fifty years in Parliament, and he was not conscious of ever having been influenced by a factious or a personally interested motive. He had never solicited any advancement in his profession but that which resulted from his own industry; and he was sure that the great body of the people, who enjoyed so many blessings under the Constitution, would never attach the term "factious" to those whose most strenuous efforts had been directed to preserve that Constitution inviolate.
The Bishop of Chichestesaid, that but for the observations of the noble and learned Lord, he should not have thought it necessary to make any observation or give any explanation relative to the letter in question, and he would first of all say, that though differing from the noble Lord

741
in other points, he must concur with him in expressing his strong disapprobation of the conduct of some of those persons to whom he had alluded, who promoted and encouraged tumult and agitation. With regard to the expression which the noble and learned Lord complained of, he would only say, that he did not apply the terms "factious and ignorant" to any individuals; he applied them only in a general sense, and what he meant to state was, that if the House of Lords did again reject the measure at present in progress, with the same precipitation as that with which they rejected the last, the Constitution provided a remedy for such a factious opposition. He did not presume to compete with the noble and learned Lord in a knowledge of the law and of the Constitution; but he certainly conceived, that when the Opposition in that House arrived at such a pitch, that it was inconvenient and impracticable to pass measures necessary for the State, there was a remedy in the hands of the Crown, in the same way as the King had a remedy against factious opposition in the Commons. When the measures of the other House were calculated to disturb the Government, the King had the power of nutting an end to such measures by dissolving Parliament, and the King, in like manner, was armed with power to defeat an opposition in that House, when that opposition was at total variance with the best interests of the country. He would, however, beg the noble and learned Lord to read the letter again, and he would find that the words were meant to apply only to factious opposition, and that it was meant that such a measure should he resorted to only in case of such an opposition, and, in order to prevent, the recurrence of such violent and tumultuous proceedings, as had disgraced the country. He must, at the same time, say, that he wrote the letter in a hurry, and not for publication; that he was earnestly requested to allow it to be published, and he did not like to refuse to publish what were his real sentiments. Had he taken more time to write it, he should, probably, have guarded against that misconception which, he was sorry to observe, that the noble and learned Lord had formed.
Viscount Melbournsaid, that he felt that it was necessary for him to notice the charges which had been made against his noble friend (Earl Grey) and himself by the noble Duke and the noble and learned
742
Earl; and he rose for the purpose of repelling them. It was not his intention to follow the noble and learned Earl into the subject of Reform; nor should he go into the subject of tithes; nor was it necessary for him to do so, inasmuch as the noble Duke himself had said, it was his intention to support the measures of the Government; and, therefore, he need not rescue them from any imputation of hostility to the rights of property. He would not go into the general subject of debate, but would confine himself to the observation of the noble Duke with respect to the department over which he (Lord Melbourne) had the honour to preside, and which, therefore, he felt it to be impossible to pass over. The first charge was that of the Government allowing the Proclamation Act to expire. As to the advantage of that Bill, he would refer the noble Duke to the noble and learned Earl (the Earl of Eldon) who had said, at the time it passed, that it would produce no effect—that it would be good for nothing—and that it would only be productive of ridicule in those against whom it was directed. But the noble Duke had said, that this evil of not reviving this Act was the fruit of the dissolution of Parliament—undoubtedly it was, and if the main fact of the dissolution was wrong, so must be its accessory; but that the fact of the dissolution was not considered wrong by the noble Duke and his supporters he must take for granted, inasmuch as there had been no vote of censure proposed by any one of them; and he too well knew the manliness of the noble Duke's character not to be certain that he would have brought such a motion before the House, if he had thought the proposition tenable; and as to the renewal of the Proclamation Act, he would appeal to any one acquainted with Ireland, whether such a proceeding would at all have met the evils of that country. The resistance to tithes arose from pre-existing circumstances, and such a state of things, as that the least spark speedily was blown into a flame. But could that Act do any thing to prevent this? Certainly not; and he would defy the noble Duke, even admitting that the Bill was better and more efficacious than the noble and learned Earl would allow it to be, to prove, that it could have had the least effect in preventing the agitation on the subject of tithes in Ireland. The next point of accusation against the Government was, the honour and favour bestowed by them upon Mr. O'Connell. He had always held it to

743
be a great and capital error to have passed that gentleman over in the legal promotions. From his knowledge and station in the profession, that Gentleman was entitled to the rank he had obtained, and if any judge in Ireland were asked the question, he would declare him to be so entitled. Whatever might be that Gentleman's political conduct, and little as he was inclined to praise, and incapable as he was of giving his approbation to Mr. O'Connell's political conduct, still no such conduct ought to exclude him from the fair honours of his profession. These honours were given to professional knowledge and merit, not to political sentiments; and unless there was something in his conduct as a Barrister to render him unfit for a patent of precedence, or the rank of King's Counsel, no political conduct should be allowed to deprive Mr. O'Connell of the rank due to his professional eminence. The noble Duke had then brought another charge, founded upon a letter written by a noble colleague of his (Lord Melbourne), the words of which, as he did not recollect, and had not before him, he was of course not prepared to defend. But if he understood the noble Duke aright, the letter designated the conduct of the writer's political opponents as the whisper of a faction. Now, he would ask, whether there were not both in and out of that House noble Lords who did not always restrain themselves within the bounds of Parliamentary language, and whether it was by any means extraordinary to hear political men designate their opponents as factious? He would, in short, ask whether, although it was not used in the House, this was not the common language of party, and certainly the noble Duke could not consider this a strong and stable ground for an accusation. Then the noble Duke had said, that the meeting in the Regent's-park had been collected by two friends of the Government. But that a party was to be held responsible for the conduct of all its supporters was rather too much to ask, although he must, at the same time, declare, that he knew of no impropriety which could be charged to that meeting. The noble Duke said, that the line of march of the columns upon St. James's was published in the Government newspapers. Did the noble Duke mean The Gazette? In that there was nothing of the kind inserted, and he knew of no other Government newspaper. The Ministers could not always be responsible for what their friends might say or do, and
744
though there might be some who maintained their cause, still they could not be accountable when they had no control over them. But what a situation would the Government be placed in, if they were held responsible, not merely for all the arguments in newspapers, but especially for every advertisement that might appear in them. He thought that, on the whole, he had now touched on all the various topics, and satisfactorily answered the different statements, which had been made by the noble Duke in support of the charge which he had preferred against his Majesty's Government; and he would, in conclusion, only say, that that charge had been made a little too eagerly—somewhat harshly, and without consideration; and that he was sure the noble Duke himself would, on reflection, be ready to acknowledge, that the grounds on which it rested were utterly untenable and unfounded.
The Duke of Wellington, in explanation, said, that when he spoke of the Government taking a part in the proceedings at the meeting that had occurred in the Regent's-park, he alluded to persons who were in the confidence of the Government, and who had relatives in office under the Government. He did not think that such persons should be allowed to preach up such a kind of agitation through the country. ["Name, Name"] He would not state the names of the individuals to whom he alluded, but their names were known to his Majesty's Government. With regard to the Proclamation Act, he had merely to say, that he recollected very well hearing the noble Earl at the head of the Government state in that House, shortly before the expiration of the Act in question, that it was his intention to bring in a Bill to continue it for a longer period. The noble Earl had not done so. The Gentleman who had been convicted under that Act had been convicted of a serious legal offence, and though it certainly had been said on a former occasion by his noble and learned friend, that you might drive a coach and six through that Act, it was plain that it was effectual for the purpose in this instance, as Mr. O'Connell had been convicted under it, and made liable to punishment. But it had been urged by the noble Viscount who had just spoken, that professional honours should not be withheld from a gentleman, who was otherwise entitled to them, on account of his political offences. He begged to set the noble Lord right on that point. The

745
offences of which Mr. O'Connell was convicted were not political or professional, but legal offences. They had been pronounced such by the law of the country, and it was to an individual who had been convicted of such offences that his Majesty's Government thought it right to give a patent of precedence.
Earl Greysaid, that it was with no small reluctance he was about to protract, even for a very short time, this very irregular discussion, which, having arisen in the first instance upon a single isolated question, had afterwards branched into a variety of matters, with which that question had nothing to do. He could not avoid expressing the great satisfaction which he had experienced in hearing the noble Duke opposite state the grounds on which he rested the heavy charge which he had brought forward against his Majesty's Government; for grounds more untenable, or proofs less decisive, he had never known adduced in support of a charge of such a grave and weighty description. The noble Duke first accused his Majesty's Government of affording active means of encouragement to the agitation which existed in the country, but he afterwards explained his charge against the Government to be not so much for the encouragement which they afforded to that agitation, as for their negligence in not putting it down. With respect to that portion of the noble Duke's attack on his Majesty's Government, and the topics which he had adduced in support of it, he (Earl Grey) might safely rest upon the answer which had been given to the charge by his noble friend at the head of the Home Department. But he was actuated by personal feelings, and considerations, more than by the persuasion that it was necessary to add any thing further in reply to that attack, to address a few words to their Lordships on this occasion. With respect to what the noble Duke said as to the expiration of the Proclamation Act, he remembered perfectly well the answer which he gave to a question from the noble Duke about that period. He perfectly well recollected that his answer then was, that it was his intention to bring in a Bill to renew the provisions of that Act, and to extend them for a longer term. That intention was, at the time, prevented from being carried into execution, as their Lordships all knew, by the sudden and unexpected dissolution of the Parliament, which event also caused the expiration of the Act in question. His Majes-
746
ty's Government then submitted the point as to whether the persons who had been convicted under that Act could now, that it had expired, be brought up for judgment, to the consideration of the legal advisers of the Crown. He was sure that their Lordships would see, that no other course than this, under such circumstances, was open to Government. The Ministers had accordingly obtained the best legal opinions on the subject, and all the law authorities concurred in stating, that the persons who had been convicted under that Act of Parliament could not, in consequence of its expiration, be brought up for judgment. Why he did not bring in a Bill to revive that Act of Parliament, he would now shortly explain. In the first place, the sort of agitation which existed in Ireland was in no degree lessened by that Act while it was in force, and it would have been necessary to alter and extend the provisions of that Act considerably, in order to render it effectual for that purpose. In the next place, he had hopes that the existing law of the land (and those hopes were confirmed by the opinion of the government of Ireland) would be sufficient for the purpose in question. When the noble and learned Lord opposite said, that the powers of the common-law had not been resorted to, he begged to bring to that noble and learned Lord's recollection the fact, that when a part of the country was violently disturbed, and when, in fact, a rustic insurrection prevailed there—he alluded to the county of Clare—Special Commissions were sent down—prosecutions were instituted—several of the unfortunate persons who had been engaged in those disturbances suffered the penalty of death, and many others were transported to a distant land. It was then proved that the powers of the existing law of the land were sufficient for all purposes, and that they afforded effectual means for meeting such emergencies, for the disturbances which prevailed at the time in that part of Ireland were, in the way he had stated, put down and extinguished. Under these circumstances, his Majesty's Government had not proposed to revive the Act against unlawful associations. That that fact should be adduced as a strong proof of their having afforded encouragement to the agitation which prevailed in Ireland was, to say the least of it, not a little extraordinary; and when noble Lords opposite talked of such an Act as that as a remedy for the evils which afflicted that

747
unhappy country, he must say, that he entertained a very different opinion as to the cause of those evils, and as to the mode by which they could be removed. He should now proceed to another circumstance, which had been adduced by the noble Duke as a matter of charge against his Majesty's Government, namely, the giving a silk gown to Mr. O'Connell. That proceeding had been so fully explained, and so well defended by his noble friend, the Secretary for the Home Department, that it was quite unnecessary for him to go into any detailed vindication of it. But the noble Duke said, that Mr. O'Connell had been convicted of a legal offence, and, on that account he should be debarred from the customary honours of his profession. Assuming that the conviction was good, there were many instances to prove that similar convictions, for legal offences, did not stand in the way of the professional preferment of the persons so convicted, and he would refer to the cases of Sir Richard Steele and Dean Swift in illustration of that fact. A noble friend behind him reminded him that Mr. O'Connell was not convicted of a legal offence; but, at all events, he did that which incurred the sentence of the law, and for which a legal conviction was had. He would maintain, however, that offences of this nature should not exclude a man from all the advantages and honours of the profession to which he belonged. But he had no hesitation in avowing, distinctly and fairly, that the agitation in Ireland after a time having considerably subsided, and with the hope that Mr. O'Connell might be thereby induced to alter his conduct, and to refrain from those mischievous courses which he was pursuing—in the hope, he repeated, that so great a good might be effected, he (Earl Grey) advised (and for that advice he was ready and willing to take all the responsibility which attached to it) that Mr. O'Connell should no longer be excluded from those honours to which his professional rank, standing character, and talents, so justly entitled him. He had no hesitation in saying, that, in the hopes which influenced him in advising that proceeding, and in entertaining which he was not singular at the time, he had been since grievously disappointed. The noble Duke and noble Lords opposite might take whatever advantage they pleased of that admission, but he certainly did not regret the advice which he had then given. So far from such a proceeding having been any encouragement
748
to the agitation existing in Ireland, it was calculated to have a very different effect. But this he would say, that that agitation had been encouraged, and, in a great measure, continued, by the conduct pursued by the opponents of the Government in that country. Though the notion—the unfounded notion—had been industriously circulated by those persons throughout the country, that his Majesty's Government were not indisposed to put down tithes, and though those persons, for the purpose of injuring the Government, and careless of the effect which such statements might have on the peace and tranquillity of the country, had propagated the most mischievous calumnies against the Ministers on that subject, yet he would fearlessly assert, that the Government had applied the military force throughout that country to an extent and degree that it had never before been applied, for the purpose of enforcing the legal demands of the clergy, wherever they were resisted. Was it on such things as these that the noble Duke founded the very serious charge which he had brought against his Majesty's Government, was it on letters written, returning thanks for an address—imprudently expressed letters certainly—and on speeches made at meetings, by those who called themselves the friends of the Government, or who were attached to the Government—was it on the meetings of those who called themselves the friends of the Government that the noble Duke founded his serious charges? He did not know what the noble Duke, when at the head of the Government, was able, by his energy and decision, to accomplish, but he was ready to acknowledge, that he did not find himself able, either in the Government or in the Opposition, to control the imprudent zeal of his friends, for which he had frequently suffered. Circumstances of the kind had often afflicted him at the time of their occurrence, but surely the matters to which the noble Duke had referred were not such as justified in any respect the serious charge which he had brought against his Majesty's Government? Indeed, in reference to the point to which he was now alluding, he was ashamed of dwelling upon it, as his noble friend had so satisfactorily answered the noble Duke with regard to it. But, said the noble Duke, the lines of march agreed upon at the meeting in the Regent's-park appeared in the Government papers. Now, he begged, to ask the noble Duke, what were the Government

749
papers? He could assure the noble Duke that he possessed no control over the newspapers. The noble Duke might have been more fortunate in that respect than he was; and he thought, that if the noble Duke would only read the articles which continually appeared in those papers which the noble Duke called the Government papers—papers that were conducted with much ability—that contained much valuable information—but which were not always conducted in the most friendly spirit, either towards the Government or towards himself personally—the noble Duke would see reason to think that those papers should not be called "Government papers, if, by such a term, the noble Duke meant to convey the impression that he or the Government possessed any power or influence over them whatever. Such was the amount of the noble Duke's charge against his Majesty's Government, and such was his answer to it; and he was satisfied that it must appear to their Lordships, that, so far from his Majesty's Government having given any encouragement to agitation, they had done all in their power to suppress it. Before he sat down, he had a few words to say in reference to what had fallen from the noble Earl opposite. That noble and learned Lord laid at the door of the Government disturbances which he should be very sorry for one moment to vindicate, and accused the Ministers of having allowed all these things to advance with a rapid progress, without endeavouring to put them down. Now, he begged leave to observe that all the evils of which the noble and learned Lord complained were in existence, and were advancing rapidly to their present state before his Majesty's present Ministers came into office. The Political Union of Birmingham had commenced in the January previous to their accession to office, and had already acquired great strength, and excited considerable alarm, before the noble Duke opposite gave up the reins of Government. Yet no measure was proposed by the late Government for the purpose of putting that union down. The Trades' Unions, too, especially in the manufacturing districts, had, before that period excited much alarm, yet no measures for their suppression were brought forward by the noble Duke's Government; and when he (Earl Grey) and his colleagues came into office, the only measure they found that had been taken by their predecessors with regard to those societies, consisted in a communication from the late
750
Secretary for the Home Department, calling the attention of Government to them. At the period when he was called to the head of the Government, up almost to the very gates of the metropolis, a rustic insurrection prevailed; the fires blazed in all directions throughout the country, and no measures whatever had been taken to put a stop to such a calamitous state of things. When the noble and learned Lord said, that the powers of the law were not exerted by the present Government, he begged to tell him in reply, that, from the moment of their accession to office, not an hour was lost by his Majesty's Ministers in exerting the powers of the law to restore the peace of the country. Special Commissions were at once sent out into the disturbed counties, the civil force was put in active requisition, and the army was augmented, for the purpose of putting an end to the disturbances; in short, every thing that could be done was done with that view, and for that purpose; and the result was, that the peace and tranquillity of the country were effectually restored. With regard to the attack which had been made on the house of the noble Duke, he would say this—that, however he might differ from the noble Duke in political matters, he most sincerely and deeply regretted that, against him, of all men living, such an attack should have been directed. But he would appeal to the candour of the noble Duke, and of other noble Lords who were made the objects of attack on that occasion, to say, whether every precaution had not been taken by his Majesty's Government to provide, as far as was possible, against such attacks on the night in question. The military and police force of the town were put in requisition, and directed to give every protection they could to the houses of those noble Lords, and especially to the mansion of the noble Duke, on which an attack was apprehended. But the noble and learned Lord had made it a matter of charge against Government, that they did not prosecute the libels which he said had been published in the shape of speeches in the Irish papers. Now, he very well recollected having heard that noble and learned Lord himself say, that it was an easy thing for a gentleman to read a newspaper, and to say, that such and such an article was a libel; but that it was a different thing for an Attorney General to undertake the responsibility of prosecuting for it; for that, before doing so, he had to consider whether sufficient evidence,

751
could be obtained to support the charge of libel, and whether, after all, the Jury would convict. All these difficulties interposed in this instance. With regard to the speeches which the noble Lord complained of as libels, the noble Lord should be aware that speeches of that character were not confined to one side of the question. Besides, it would have been exceedingly difficult to get evidence to bring home those libels to their authors. Of course, the proprietors of the papers in which such speeches were published were responsible for them; but Government wished to avoid instituting prosecutions against them, while they were anxious to prosecute the authors of such speeches, if they could get at them; but the difficulty of getting evidence sufficient to ensure a conviction stood in the way of the adoption of such a course of proceeding. He could not sit down without expressing the gratification that he felt at being relieved from the weight of apprehension which the serious and heavy charge brought forward by the noble Duke was calculated to excite. The speech in which the noble Duke endeavoured to sustain that charge quite relieved his mind from any—the least—apprehension that any reasonable man in the community could for a moment think that that of which his own conscience perfectly acquitted him, namely, the having been guilty of any encouragement of agitation, or of any negligence in protecting the peace and security of the country, could be fairly imputed to him.
The Earl of Rodenthought that the noble Duke had stated only what was the fact, when he said, that the Government had given active encouragement to agitation. If it were, then, asked, who was the greatest agitator in Ireland, would not every one of their Lordships answer, in plain terms, "Mr O'Connell?" If that were so, was it not, also, a notorious fact, that the Government had raised Mr. O'Connell to the highest position to which they could promote him in the exercise of the profession to which he belonged? On these grounds, then, he maintained, that Mr. O'Connell, being an agitator, had received encouragement from the Government. The noble Earl at the head of the Government had stated, in plain terms, that the object of Ministers, in thus elevating Mr. O'Connell, was to prevent him from continuing longer a course of proceeding which was objectionable to them. In point of fact, that was to say, that the
752
Government had given to Mr. O'Connell a bribe to induce him to relinquish a course which he believed it was his duty to pursue. He was not a defender of Mr. O'Connell; he had ever been opposed to that gentleman. He knew him not personally, but only in his popular, and, as he considered, mischievous character; but he must say, that he preferred the hostility of Mr. O'Connell, which was open, fair, and undisguised, to the cold and hollow pledges of those who professed to be the friends of the Protestants of Ireland. When he stated this, he could not but bear in mind the conduct of Mr. O'Connell to himself, in days that were gone by, which he had considered to be unmanly and unfair. That, however, being a matter only personal to himself he could forgive; but he could not forget that Mr. O'Connell was, to this day, the greatest enemy of the Protestant interests in Ireland. He had always struggled for the Protestant interests of Ireland, and while he lived he would ever support them. As much time had been consumed in the present discussion, he should postpone presenting the petition of which he had given notice, and which he had intended to have submitted to their Lordships' attention that evening, until to-morrow. He would, in conclusion, repeat, that he considered that the conduct of his Majesty's Government had promoted that agitation of which the Protestants of Ireland had so much reason to complain.
Lord Plunkettsaid, that, as he was connected with the Irish Government, and as an attack had been made on that Government, he thought the House would excuse him for wishing to say a few words on this subject, and in defence of the conduct of the Government of which he formed a part. He wished that the noble Earl who had just sat down had presented the petition to which he had alluded, for the points it contained were involved in this irregular discussion, the only object of which was, to hold out to the people of this country, that the Government was opposed to the maintenance of the Established Church in Ireland, and was the enemy of the Protestant interest in that country. Whether the propagation of such doctrines, unfounded as they were, was calculated to heal the divisions—to promote the tranquillity of that unfortunate country, or effect any good object, legal or political, he would leave those noble Lords, who promulgated them, to determine. He was certain,

753
however, that whatever was done with respect to tithes, there was no such effectual encouragement given to agitators, the value of whose promises the people well appreciated, as such opinions as those he had just alluded to, put forth by persons of character and property. Those opinions came with great gravity and weight, and were calculated, on that account, to be most mischievous. With respect to what had been said of Mr. O'Connell, he would remind their Lordships that that gentleman could not be considered as having been legally convicted of any offence; he had not been found guilty by the verdict of a Jury. The state of his position with regard to the law was this: he had been indicted under a certain Act of Parliament—he had suffered judgment by default, and the Act on which he had been indicted expired shortly afterwards. Now, if the noble and learned Lord opposite would produce any authorities to show that, under such circumstances, a conviction could legally be carried into execution, he should be ready to meet the noble and learned Earl on that question. He was himself ready to maintain the negative, both on principle and on authority. If he was right in that opinion—that the judgment suffered by default, under such circumstances, left Mr. O'Connell at liberty to move in arrest of that judgment, surely they would not say that punishment, which could not be visited on him in point of law, should be visited on him in his professional character. He was responsible for having affixed the Great Seal to the patent of precedence to Mr. O'Connell. He did not stand up there as his advocate, nor for the agitators of either side, from both of whom he had received nothing but obloquy, which he valued for this reason, that, next to the approbation of good men, he most esteemed the obloquy of bad men. He, therefore, rested his defence on the same grounds as those who sat beside him. But he might also observe, that that proceeding was totally unconnected with any question of politics, and the patent of precedence was given to Mr. O'Connell only on account of his professional eminence. The ordinary way of granting a patent of precedence in Ireland was, to enable the man to whom it was granted to rank next after the King's Attorney and Solicitor General. That, however, had not been done for Mr. O'Connell. He had only been named to take rank above those gentlemen much his juniors, whom he had seen promoted over
754
his head. Whatever he might think of Mr. O'Connell in a political point of view, it was impossible to deny that, in his profession, no individual exhibited higher attainments, nor was any man more worthy of the distinction he had received. That being the case, the Government was bound to accord him the distinction. It was the object of a rational Government not to be vindictive, but just, and the gift of the patent of precedence was required by justice. He should have been happy if, by that mark of kindness, not incompatible with their duty, Mr. O'Connell had been induced to betake himself to his profession, in which he was entitled to expect the highest honours, but he could not regret what had been done. The noble Earl opposite had expressed his disgust at the conduct of agitators. They were to be condemned, undoubtedly; but if he was asked, who was the greatest agitator, he should say, that it was the person who collected together large mobs of ignorant persons—who addressed them in a manner calculated to raise their jealousies, and revive their prejudices—who addressed English people, and called on them to form Protestant associations—telling them that he loved the Catholics as men, but that they were a set of people who wished to put down the Protestants and their religion. Such a person was the true agitator. Such a person, who thus collected these ignorant assemblages together, and scattered among them ambiguous—no, not ambiguous, but unfounded assertions; such a person risked the making of Irish agitation not only formidable but desperate! To accomplish that fearful object in Ireland, all that was wanted was—not a war against the State—not a war against the tithes—but a war between the Protestants and Catholics. The noble and learned Earl opposite had again indulged in prophecies. The noble and learned Earl had followed this course for forty years, according to his own showing. He sincerely hoped that the noble and learned Lord might live for forty years more to prophesy; and he sincerely hoped, too, that the noble and learned Earl's prophecies might be, at the end of that time, as visionary as they had been up to this moment. But, passing from that, he begged to make a few observations on the statement which the noble and learned lord had made, that the law was not vindicated in Ireland, the noble and learned Lord had said, that the law was the same in both countries. He believed that it was in the

755
abstract—that, as far as the letter of the law went, the guilt of entering into a conspiracy to refuse payment of tithes was in both countries the same; but it was a very different thing for the Chancellor to furnish the Attorney General with the abstract principle of the law, and to tell him that such was the law, and for the Attorney General to carry on a prosecution under it. In these prosecutions there were such things as witnesses, and jurors, and the public, all of whom were to be considered; but he would venture to say, that, in every instance in which an outrage had been committed, a prosecution had been instituted, had been successful, and the authority of the law had been vindicated by the punishment of the offender. Although he was not the public prosecutor, he was not insensible to the duties of the office. He had communicated with the law-officers of the Crown in Ireland, and with the distinguished and very learned person who filled the office of Attorney-General; and he would venture to assert, that, in no instance in which a prosecution could be successfully instituted had that prosecution been neglected. If the noble and learned Earl opposite would ask for the papers connected with this subject, he would undertake to show, from those papers, that what he had stated was really the case. He assured the noble and learned Lord, that if he would communicate with him upon any case in which he thought a prosecution advisable, he would undertake either that a prosecution should be instituted, or that he should satisfy the noble Lord's mind that it could not be effectually done, and that he would point out to the noble Lord the difficulty which would prevent such a prosecution. This he would readily do if the noble Lord would do him the honour of making to him such a communication.
The Earl of Eldonasserted, that if the information against Mr. O'Connell had been filed by an English Attorney General, it would have contained counts that would have rendered it impossible for him to escape as he had done. But, putting that out of the question at the present moment, as the evil could not now be remedied, he would assert, that whatever had been said with regard to the difficulty of prosecuting agitators for their speeches, did not at all apply to publishers, who could have been easily prosecuted; and if such prosecutions had been commenced, and the common law enforced two or three years be-
756
fore, these associations would never have attained their present magnitude. Unless the common law was enforced, the same evils would come to exist in England as well as in Ireland, and the institutions of the country would be endangered, if not destroyed.
The Earl of Rodensaid, that if the noble and learned Lord alluded to him, or to any Protestant meeting in Ireland, at which he had thought it his duty to attend, when he spoke of persons assembled for the purpose of agitation, he must beg leave to deny, that he had ever made himself a party to anything in the shape of agitation. On the occasion to which he supposed the noble and learned Lord alluded, a meeting was assembled, for what he conceived to be the constitutional purpose of addressing his Majesty, and of petitioning the Houses of Parliament for the removal of those grievances of which the Protestants of Ireland thought they had a right to complain. He had seen it asserted in a public print, as coming from the mouth of a noble Lord, that such meetings were lawless and senseless.
Lord Plunkett: If the noble Lord alludes to me, I beg to state, that I never used those expressions.
The Earl of Roden: I saw them in a public print, but if the noble Lord denies—
Lord Plunkett: I assure the noble Earl that I did not use that language. On the occasion to which I suppose the noble Earl is alluding, I said, that I regretted the course which had been adopted by persons of high station in the country, for the purpose of protecting the Protestant interests. And I certainly did say, that there was a great difference between the meetings of the factious agitators on the one hand, and the good Protestants on the other, because the first had some grievances to complain of, while the meetings of the latter seemed to be without sense or meaning.
The Earl of Rodensaid, he had no wish to put language in the mouth of the noble and learned Lord, which he disclaimed, but still he must be permitted to say, that the meetings of the Irish Protestants were plain and intelligible enough to those who would understand them, but there were none so deaf as those who would not hear. At all events, it would shortly be his duty to present to his Majesty, an address signed by upwards of 230,000 Protestants, composing the greater part of all the wealth and respectability of Ireland, and

757
he was afraid, from the noble and learned Lord's previous prepossessions, that the language of such petitions would be to him quite unintelligible.
The Earl of Gosfordsaid, that he knew many Protestant gentlemen of Ireland—sensible men, and men of wealth and rank, and of the highest respectability—who had not attended at these meetings, and who dreaded the violence and extravagance of language there made use of. He protested, therefore, against the assertion of the noble Ear], that the petition, emanating from these meetings, represented the sentiments of all the wealth, knowledge, property, and respectability of the country. He declared that that was not the case, as would be shown, perhaps, on some future occasion; and, if one-tenth part of what was said at these meetings was correctly given to the public, he thought it was the duty of every Christian to pause before he joined them. Some of the speakers at these meetings were not content with condemning measures, and insinuating motives, but actually assigned a purpose which the proposers of these measures had in view, and declared, that that purpose was the destruction of the Protestant interest, and the raising of Popery on its ruins. If people of talent, of wealth, of rank, and of influence in the country, would talk in that way, there could be no surprise that strong feelings were excited. He knew that many of those who had been present at these meetings had expressed their regret at the warmth of the expressions there used. He felt as warmly as any man in existence for the welfare of the Protestants in Ireland, but he could not see that their welfare was promoted by those violent expressions employed by some among their Members.
The Earl of Wicklowhad read an account in a newspaper of a great Protestant meeting, which took place in a county in which the noble Lord, who had just sat down, was an active Magistrate. He confessed he should have been better pleased if he had found that the forcible eloquence of which the noble Lord had just favoured them with a specimen had been exerted upon that occasion. When the noble Lord was last in the neighbourhood of his own residence, it was in his power to have attended one of those meetings, and to have exerted his eloquence in refuting the argument of those whom he seemed to despise. If he had combatted them openly in the field, was it not possible, nay, was
758
it not probable, that the persons attending such meeting would have been convinced, by his argument and reasoning? Why did not the noble Earl attend? The noble Earl's reason, if he might be allowed to suggest one for him, was this—that he knew that his opinions, if he ventured to assert them, would have been scouted by the whole assembly. The explanation of the noble and learned Lord opposite conveyed this meaning, that if the Protestant meetings were not dangerous, they were either senseless or impotent. Now, that one filling the situation of the noble and learned Lord, who was doubtless possessed of great talent, judgment, and experience, should think it consistent with the duties which he owed to his country, to become a political partisan, to sacrifice the duties of his office, in order to be here to support the Government to which he was attached, was, to him, matter of astonishment and regret. The noble and learned Lord said, that it had been his lot to be censured by all parties. What did that prove? To him it clearly proved the absurdity, and, he would say, the erroneousness of the opinion—an opinion which had only lately arisen—that the Lord Chancellor ought to be a political character. To show how groundless that opinion was, he need only mention the fact, that, throughout the whole of the disturbances that existed in Ireland during the time that the late Lord Chancellor held the Seals, that excellent individual's political opinions were, he believed, totally unknown to any part of the community. In the course of the discussion, he had heard from two of the noble Lords opposite, assertions which were loudly cheered by their friends. Those assertions, however, although made upon the same point, did not appear to him, in any respect, to coincide with each other. The noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, said, that Mr. O'Connell was promoted solely on account of his great legal ability, and without any consideration of his political character. But what said the noble Earl at the head of the Government? Why, that he thought he should be perfectly right, knowing the great political influence of Mr. O'Connell, to endeavour, by an act of courtesy, to attach him to the Government. He should like to know how the two noble Lords could reconcile those different assertions. They were both cheered at the time that they were delivered, but no two reasons more different could be advanced in

759
support of the foolish, absurd, and malicious act which they were meant to justify. The noble Earl alluded but slightly to the opposition to the payment of tithes which, only since his Government began, had assumed its giant form. He had been assured by a Magistrate, that a gentleman, a member for a county, was in the habit of calling upon large bodies of the people, in different parts of his county, and of exciting them to resist the payment of tithes. The Magistrate from whom he had received this information, hearing that such an assemblage of persons was to take place, sent a confidential person to the meeting, for the purpose of ascertaining, through him, its character and proceedings. That person, on his return, stated, that he heard the gentleman alluded to, urge the people on no account to continue the payment of tithes; and, moreover, that if they were opposed by the military or police, they were to attack them, not with arms, but sticks. This the Magistrate communicated to the Government, but the only answer he received was, that if he felt it necessary, he might commence a prosecution himself. Another case that he had heard was, that a half-pay officer had headed a party in their resistance against the payment of tithes. If these were facts, and he had reason to believe them so, then the Government, by conniving at them, were more culpable than was insinuated. If the noble Viscount took the trouble of inquiring, and found the facts not to be correct, then he would with pleasure give the noble Viscount his authority, but he did not think it fair towards the public, in the present agitated state of the country, to mention any man's name [cheers]. He did not understand the meaning of those cheers. He was perfectly aware that the noble Lords opposite had but little regard for the lives of individuals intrusted to their charge. He begged pardon, he might possibly have expressed himself rather more strongly than he ought, but this he did say, that if the protection that ought to be afforded was given, there would be no danger whatever. Reference had been made to what took place on a former occasion, when Ministers were blamed for not having come forward with a declaration in the early part of the Session in support of the Established Church; it was said, that the present Government was composed of individuals who were considered by the people in general not as friends to the Esta-
760
blished Church. He had alluded to a motion which had been made in the year 1824, in the House of Commons. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, had called upon him to repeat what the motion was. He had looked back to the history of that period, and found, that the individual to whom he had alluded had not only in the year 1824, but in the previous year, made asimilar motion. He found that, on that occasion, previous to his bringing forward his motion, inquiry was made as to the nature of the motion, and the answer was, that "he should first contend, that the Church property in Ireland was altogether too large for the purpose for which it was intended. Next, that there should be no over-paid absentees of 1,000 l., 2,000 l., or 3,000 l. a-year, and starved curates of 50 l., 60 l., or 70 l. a-year."* The noble and learned Lord (Lord Plunkett) designated the motion, when it was brought forward, as "full of desperation and folly."†The following year, the motion was again brought forward. It was to this effect:—"That it is expedient to require that the present Church Establishment of Ireland be not more than commensurate with the duties performed, both as regards the number of persons employed and the incomes received." He found, in the minority upon that occasion, the following names:—Brougham, Denman, Denison, Ellice, Hobhouse, Lamb, Rice, and Lord John Russell.
Viscount Melbourne: It is not my name.
The Earl of Wicklow: Where were these individuals now? Were they still playing their gambols upon the Opposition benches—still constantly pursuing the same course—and as constantly opposed by a strong, vigorous, and constitutional Government—and, therefore, the ridicule or scorn of the friends of the Established Church? No; they were now in office, and the colleagues of the noble Earl; and it was on this account that he stated, that it was the duty of the noble Earl, finding with whom he was associated, to say, that his Government was determined to maintain the Established Church of the country. But as the noble Lord upon the Woolsack called upon him to produce the motion he had just read, he would carry his courtesy further, and tell him, if he wanted to see what was spoken on the occasion, to read the speech of his own col-
* Hansard's Parl. Debates, vol. viii. p. 91.
†Ibid. p. 467.

761
league (Mr. Stanley),* and also the able speech of the noble Lord, the Chancellor for Ireland. The noble Lord, the Chancellor for Ireland, said—"I will not sail in the same vessel with that hon. Gentleman and his friends."†But as he was now fairly embarked on board of her, notwithstanding his declaration, he ought to take the helm, and guide the vessel clear of those dangerous shoals and rocks which he formerly looked upon with so much dread. But after all, he must say, that he was afraid the vessel had lost her rudder, and was drifting at the mercy of the tempest.
The Earl of Gosfordsaid, he disapproved of the meetings which had been alluded to, because they were calculated to excite the public mind, and cause violent collision between parties, the enmity of which had been the bane and curse of Ireland.
Earl Greysaid, he must take upon himself to deny that he had endeavoured to induce an individual, who had been referred to in the debate, to join the Government. His sole object was, to endeavour to attach him to his profession, which, it was hoped, would induce him to renounce those measures by which he continued to inflame the mind of the people of Ireland. He lamented the failure of their hopes, both on the account of that Gentleman himself, and on account of the public peace. The noble Earl (the Earl of Wicklow) had made it a matter of complaint, that his Majesty's Government had not openly and at first declared the line of policy they meant to adopt towards Ireland. Now, the Speech from the Throne was always considered in Parliament as the speech of the Ministers; and, in the speech at the opening of the Session, was the following declaration:—"In parts of Ireland a systematic opposition has been made to the payment of tithes, attended, in some instances with afflicting results; and it will be one of your first duties to inquire whether it may not be possible to effect improvement in the laws respecting this subject, which may afford the necessary protection to the Established Church, and at the same time, remove the present causes of complaint."‡These were the declarations made by the Government on the very first occasion they could take, and those declarations had been constantly repeated from that time to the present.
* Hansard's Parl. Debates, vol. xi. p. 559.
†Ibid. 570.
‡Ibid. Third Series, vol. ix. p. 31.
The Lord Chancellorapprehended, that if he began by stating that he should not occupy their Lordships' attention long, they would have a right, from their observation of the debate of tonight, to draw this conclusion, that he intended to speak at considerable length. He could, however, assure them, that he should only say a few words on what the noble Earl had now, for the second time, brought before the House. He had, he could truly say, with no personal disrespect to the noble Earl, dismissed the matter, once before mentioned, from his thoughts. He had entirely forgotten the terms of the motion, when the noble Earl, on a former occasion, described it as tearing up by the roots, or pulling down (he forgot which) the Established Church of Ireland; but he was sure that the motion was nothing of the sort then described. He had told their Lordships so at the time; and he might appeal to them—nay, he might almost appeal to the noble Earl—whether his assertion had not now been fully borne out. With the Gentlemen with whom he had then been associated he had acted cordially. They might have been opposed to a vigorous Government—the noble Earl was pleased to say they were—but that they were the ridicule and scorn of that Government, he, from a constant and uniform knowledge of the campaigns in which—for the rights of the people of England—for the rights of the people of Ireland—for the advantage of the Established Constitution itself—they had been engaged, he begged most solemnly to deny. That they were ever ridiculed and scorned by any ministry to which they were ever opposed, he most humbly, but most confidently, in presence of all around him, denied. He had, however, lived to see an Opposition in another place, of which he should say nothing but this—that, with the advantage of talents and of high names, they were pursuing a course of conduct most dangerous to the peace, prosperity, and stability of the Government, and of the settled institutions of the country. How they carried on political warfare all might see, and he must say, that, in all his observations of parliamentary contests, he had never beheld more rancour—more political rancour, than he had seen displayed towards the present Government by the present Opposition.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, in what he at any time uttered, he never meant to

763
use any offensive or unpleasant language. In the course of what he said, he did not mean the slightest disrespect towards any individual, much less against the whole collective Government. He certainly had used the words ridicule and scorn, but not in the sense which the noble and learned Lord had attributed to them. What he meant was, that the people, finding the opposition from which such motions proceeded, so puny, yet so malevolent, treated their efforts with ridicule and scorn, because they saw that their interests were protected by a strong, united, and vigorous Government.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he had no wish to take advantage of expressions when inadvertently and hastily used. The expressions, in this instance, if the noble Earl had not explained them, he must have designated as most culpable.
Viscount Lortonobserved, that, from what Ministers said, persons might suppose that Ireland was in a state of tranquillity, when the very opposite was the fact. Much of the mischief which had arisen in that unfortunate part of the empire was occasioned by the system of conciliation and concession which Ministers had adopted; and until it was wholly altered, they could not expect peace in Ireland.
The Earl of Gosforddisclaimed having used any expressions casting reflections upon the Protestants of Ireland.
The Earl of Caledonsaid, he felt it due to his noble friend, who had been taunted with not attending the meeting in the county of Armagh, to state, that he (Lord Caledon) was in the neighbourhood at the time of the meeting, and that if his noble friend had attended it with a view to its suppression, his doing so would have been followed by a collision productive of bloodshed.
The Marquis of Lansdowndeprecated the discussion of this subject, until the question came regularly before the House. His Lordship moved, that a copy of the evidence given by Dr. Doyle before the Commons' Committee on Irish tithes, should be laid before their Lordships.
Ordered.