Lords Sitting of 17 July 1834

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a third time:—County Rates.
Petitions presented. By the LORD CHANCELLOR, from the Faculty of Advocates in Edinburgh, for postponing the Passing of the Scotch Bankruptcy Bill.—By the Earl of WICKLOW, from the Shareholders of the London and Westminster Bank, for permission to sue and be sued, in the Name of one of their Body.—By. Lord WHAINCLIFFE, from Liverpool, in favour of the Liverpool Court of Passage Bill.—By the Duke of RICHMOND, from the Medical Practitioners of Lincoln, against the County Coroners' Bill.

RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLIES.
Lord Suffield Lord Suffield moved the second reading of the religious Assemblies Bill, which, he thought, would be an advantage, not to the Dissenters, but to the Church. As the law at present stood, no one could legally assemble in his House more than twenty persons, to perform divine worship; a restriction which operated more against Churchmen than Dissenters. He hoped their Lordships would allow this Bill to go into Committee, for to its principle he thought there would be no objection. In the Committee he should propose to introduce a clause applying the Bill to the colonies, where it would be particularly useful in the new condition to which the
28
slaves were now about to be placed. To promote that part of the measure he relied with some confidence on the assistance of the right reverend Bench.
The Bishop of Exeter,in consequence of being called on by the noble Baron, felt himself bound to make a few observations upon the Bill. It was in direct opposition to one of the most important doctrines of the Church of England. The noble Baron had confined himself to topics not in the Bill, and had told their Lordships, if they would only allow it to be read a second time, he would introduce a clause which would make it applicable to the Colonies. The Bill, as it at present stood, was applicable to the state of religious worship in Great Britain and Ireland. If, therefore, their Lordships consented to read the Bill a second time because the noble Lord had promised to introduce a clause that would make it applicable to the colonies, they would be consenting to its second reading, without an atom of argument adduced in its favour. As it at present stood, it affected entirely the mode of religious worship in this country; it applied only to the realm of England and Ireland. The clause to which he now wished particularly to direct their Lordships' attention was this: it declared that in future it should be lawful for any persons to hold religious meetings, consisting of more than twenty persons, at their houses; "and also for any person to teach or preach at any such meeting, without taking any oath, subscribing any declaration, or being otherwise licensed so to do." He was fully convinced, that this Bill had been introduced into the other House of Parliament, and was now brought here, by those who entertained the best intentions towards the Established Church, and who wished to do their utmost to procure it every advantage in teaching its doctrines; and this Bill, so introduced, went to enable any person whatever to set up as a religious teacher. He was quite ready to admit, that there was wanting some Bill to give facilities that did not now exist for the teaching of the doctrines of the Church within the realm of England; but he must say, that he did not think this Bill calculated to effect that object. It could hardly be said, that the Dissenters looked to this Bill as a relief of any of the grievances of which they complained, for among all these grievances he had never heard

29
that of the difficulty of obtaining a license. In fact, for the sum of 1s. any Dissenter might obtain a license to preach to as many persons as pleased to assemble in his house, and for the sum of 2s. 6d. any preacher of a dissenting congregation might have his license continued. He objected to this Bill because it was directly opposed to the 23rd article of the Church of England, which declared that it was not lawful for any man to take upon himself the public teaching of the doctrines of the Church, unless he was lawfully called and sent thereto, by which it was meant the being chosen and sent by men who were lawfully authorized for that purpose—namely, the Bishops of the realm. That was one of the fundamental articles of the Church, as united with the State, and had always been so considered, and he believed that when (as, for instance, at the Union with Scotland) the constitution of the country in Church and State was declared to be preserved "unalterable," these articles of the Church were considered to form part of that Constitution. He would most anxiously lend his aid to any measure calculated to advance the cause of religious freedom. The present Bill, however, was incapable of Amendment. It was thoughtlessly drawn up, and passed through its stages in the other House at a late hour of the night, considerably after midnight. It was now too late a period of the Session to introduce a new Bill or amend the present, and he therefore felt himself compelled to move that it be read a second time that day six months.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that he should support this Bill, because, on looking to Ireland, where the funds of the Church were daily diminishing, and the support of the Church was less and less provided for, he did think that the time was fast approaching when, if it was meant to have religious worship there at all, they must look to have that worship performed in private houses. At the same time, he thought the clause adverted to by the right reverend Prelate was more objectionable; but if the Bill went into a Committee, he would move to omit that clause.
The Bishop of Derrythought, it was his duty to sustain the authority of the Church in Ireland, which, by the enactments of this Bill, would be rendered altogether a nullity. If this Bill were passed, any man might conduct himself as he
30
pleased in preaching to his congregation; if called to account by the Bishop, he might set the Bishop at defiance, by establishing, without control or check, a congregation of his own in any House that he might hire for the purpose. He could not consent to have the proper control of a diocesan over his clergy reduced to nothing.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that whatever might be the opinions of their Lordships as to this Bill, there could be but one opinion as to the temper of the observations of the right reverend Prelate who had just addressed the House, and of the right reverend Prelate who spoke first. He must, for himself, confess that he felt great difficulty in the situation in which he was now placed, as he was perfectly sensible of the grievances complained of, and which this Bill sought to remedy, as he was aware of the great respectability of those by whom the Bill had been introduced; so that on the one hand there was almost enough to lead him to sanction the call made on their Lordships to pass this Bill, while, on the other hand, there were difficulties by which he was compelled, though with great reluctance, to say, that he could not concur in the Motion of the noble Baron. It did, at first sight, appear anomalous that where there was a wish to patronize efforts in favour of the Established Church, and to give facilities to those who desired to extend the knowledge of its forms of worship, it did appear anomalous that a disability should be continued by the persons feeling this wish, a disability which affected the members of the Church principally, so that they could not have a prayer-meeting, according to the forms of their Church, in their own houses. But a little reflection would show, that that anomaly was more apparent than real. Because if it were allowed to Churchmen to have as many meeting-houses as they pleased, according to the rites of their own Church, the consequence would be a defalcation from the service of the Established Church. In fact, Church going, which it was the object of all to encourage, would be reduced; for if men could remain at home instead of going to Church, and yet enjoy the same form of worship, they would of course prefer it to the trouble of walking some distance to Church, and would lose the Church-going habit, which was in itself

31
good; good for the labourer, as it took him once a week into a place where he met in common society the classes superior in life to himself; and good to the higher classes, as it made them come weekly into contact with their fellow-Christians in the same Church, and kneel with them in the same form of worship, a matter which those who had best considered the subject had always deemed a public advantage. He knew, too, that was the opinion of those from whom the Bill proceeded, for they were sticklers for public worship, though they did not go so far as Johnson did in speaking of one of the greatest of our poets that a man in neglecting public worship, neglected all religion. As this Bill would tend to diminish public worship, he objected to it, and on the whole must declare himself adverse to the second reading; but he hoped and trusted the next Session would not be allowed to pass without some measure of relief to Churchmen, free from the objections which, in the present Bill, he considered insuperable. He should be heartily glad to give his support to such a measure. He hoped, that the reasons he had advanced against now passing the measure would be deemed satisfactory, particularly as to the colonies.
Lord Suffieldsaid, that the clause he had proposed to introduce, was suggested by a letter from a Church missionary in Jamaica, who found himself in a worse situation there in consequence of the present law than were the Dissenting missionaries.
The Earl of Mulgravesaid, that that letter was a singular instance of the defect of the law, in consequence of which Church missionaries laboured under much disadvantage in Jamaica. Had he remained there, it was his intention to propose to the Assembly some change of the law on the subject.
The Second Reading was negatived without a division.

SUPPRESSION OF DISTURRANCES(IRELAND)—MINISTERTAL EXPLANATIONS.
Lord Ellenboroughwished to learn from the noble Viscount opposite, what day he meant to fix for the third reading of the Suppression of Disturbances Ireland Bill?
Viscount Melbournesaid, he did not mean to mention any day; but he thought it fair and candid towards their Lordships, to state, that it was the intention of his
32
Majesty's Ministers to introduce into the other House of Parliament, a Bill having for its object the Suppression of Disturbances in Ireland, omitting certain clauses that formed part of the present Bill. Ministers did not intend to proceed with the Bill on their Lordships' Table.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid:—My Lords, since I have had a seat in this House, I never have heard an announcement from a Minister of the Crown with greater astonishment than the one just made. Is it possible—is it credible—is it to be supposed, that after a Minister who, but a fortnight, nay, not ten days ago,—then at the head of the Government, came down to this House, and stated, in the most energetic and determined manner, the absolute necessity for the preservation of Ireland, that this Bill should pass—the noble Lord who now stands at the head of Government, being then Secretary for the Home Department—whose duty it was, to impress on his Majesty's Government the necessity for this measure, and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack stated his concurrence in the measure. My Lords, the noble and learned Lord may smile—it will be well for the noble and learned Lord, if his character, if his future fame and reputation are regarded in the eyes of the country in such a manner as will give him reason to smile at his conduct on this occasion. Is it to be permitted, my Lords, that this House should be so lightly dealt with, after such a statement, now to have the noble Viscount completely turning round and changing the course of the Government and the House? Such a degree of inconsistency, of political tergiversation, of total, unblushing abandonment of principle, never, I verily believe, was exhibited by any set of public men in either House of Parliament. Noble Lords opposite may be satisfied, it may suit their views and convenience to retain their places at whatever sacrifice, and to throw overboard, not only their principles, but the well-being and peace of the country; although, my Lords, I say this may suit their convenience, yet I say this country, and more particularly Ireland, will look with a degree of alarm to the situation in which we are placed. My Lords, if his Majesty's Government had stated, during the early progress of this measure, that they did not believe that a measure of this kind was necessary, I should have been con-

33
tented to trust the maintenance of peace to the same individuals; but when we find the whole Cabinet declaring their unanimity of opinion that the Bill was absolutely necessary,—I say, it is a degree of political baseness, and a degree of desertion of principle that has not been witnessed in this country since the Revolution, and which, I believe, will create the greatest alarm and astonishment throughout the empire. It is only a few nights ago, that the noble Earl, then at the head of the Government, stated, or at least insinuated, that he had been grossly and basely betrayed by some hon. member of the Administration. Well, then, I say, it is due to the present Administration—composed, as it is now, of the same individuals—I say, my Lords, it is due to their honour and integrity, that the individual to whom that noble Earl alluded, should be held up to universal scorn. In an early part of the Session, when, with regard to a portion of the Irish constituency, it was stated that an individual had acted like a traitor—all knew what course was pursued. Every man insisted on the Minister of the Crown declaring to whom that allusion was made; and the same course ought to be followed with regard to the present Government. A statement had been made by the noble Lord who was lately at the head of the Administration, that he had been betrayed—that an individual had clandestinely, and without his knowledge, communicated and corresponded with others with respect to the Government of Ireland; and in consequence of that, the noble Earl was obliged to abandon his post. It is due to the honour of the Government, that the individual who has so acted, should be pointed out. I have risen, my Lords, with more than usual surprise, and have expressed myself with more than usual warmth; but when it has been declared by those to whose guidance the welfare of the country is intrusted, that they mean to abandon that measure which, a few days ago, they said was absolutely necessary, there was every excuse for speaking with more than usual warmth, as no hope or confidence could be placed in them.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, when Ministers recommended to their Lordships to extend the duration of this severe act, they declared that nothing could justify such a proceeding but the extreme necessity of the case. They stated, that their feelings
34
were opposed to it, but that their duty compelled them to bring it forward. Accordingly, the Bill was introduced; that clause which related to courts-martial having been omitted. No objection was made to that alteration, because Ministers stated that they had good grounds for leaving it out. With respect to certain other clauses, they had been told by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that it would be most unjust to pass a Bill of this description, without those clauses. What, then, was the situation in which they now stood? Why, they were given to understand, that a Bill was to be introduced elsewhere, excluding those particular, and, as they had been told, most necessary, clauses. How, then, could the noble Viscount think, that their Lordships were to be thus turned round, without observation or remonstrance? Were they on one day to be called on to pass a Bill, and on another day to be required not to pass the same Bill, without any reason having been assigned for such an alteration?—without any history having been laid before them with respect to the transactions which had taken place, connected with so great a change? All that their Lordships knew of the business was this:—First of all they were told, that in the month of April application was made by the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland for a Bill to renew the expiring law; and his Lordship was described as entertaining a very strong opinion in favour of the measure. Afterwards, in the month of June—the 20th of June, he believed—in consequence of some communication from a Member of the Cabinet—[The Lord Chancellor: No.] Certainly he so understood it—but, at all events, some person connected with the Government here, made a communication to the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland; and in consequence of that communication, which referred, not to the state of Ireland, but to the situation of parties in this country, the Lord-lieutenant had said, on re-consideration, "Well, if by taking this course you gain the end you speak of, we shall endeavour to do without those clauses." The noble Earl, then at the head of the Administration, referred again to the Lord-lieutenant; and he, having once more considered the subject, stated it to be his opinion that it was necessary to pass the Bill with those clauses. It would be wrong for that House to force any measure of this de-

35
scription on Ministers. But Ministers, under existing circumstances, were bound to tell their Lordships, not only their reasons for their present conduct, but they ought also to lay before the House a full statement of everything which had taken place with respect to the subject. He admitted the justice of the argument made use of by a noble Lord on a former night, that the House had nothing to do with the intermediate steps which Ministers might have taken with reference to any measure, if it were ultimately passed. But if, after a measure was brought in, and forwarded to an advanced stage, their Lordships were told to veer about, and not to pass it, by nearly the same persons, too, who had introduced it, the case was extremely different; and a public communication of the facts which induced the change of opinion became necessary. Under these circumstances, he must say, that if the Bill were brought up from the other House without these clauses, he would not allow it to pass through one stage, without endeavouring to re-instate them.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that having been alluded to by the noble Earl in no very measured language—language, however, at which he was not astonished—language which he received with the most perfect calmness, and, without meaning any disrespect to the noble Earl or to their Lordships, with the most entire indifference; facts had been assumed, and conclusions had been drawn, that astonished him as much, if not more, than any assertions he had ever heard made in that House. It was said before a House gifted with a correct recollection, he apprehended, of what had passed there a few days before,—it was ventured to be said, in the presence of the colleagues of the noble Earl who was lately at the head of his Majesty's Government (and no man felt the loss of his presence on this occasion more than he did); but, in the presence of those who heard what passed—in the presence of his own colleagues—and in his (the Lord Chancellor's) presence, who must of necessity have heard all that had passed on this subject, his official duties in that House rendering it impossible that it could be otherwise—in the face of all this, it was stated by the noble Earl, that that was said by the late First Lord of the Treasury, not one tittle of which he ever uttered—nothing resembling which
36
he ever expressed—nothing coming within sight of which, or anything like it, did he ever state;—it was asserted, that his noble friend had said, that he had been betrayed by some person on this side of the water. Betrayed! did he use the word betray? [Earl Wicklow: The word was not "betrayed."]—Oh! the word was not betrayed; then, he supposed, it was nothing for the noble Earl to use a word which fixed upon a man in office, no matter whether high or low in office, the name and character of a traitor. So much for the accuracy with which the noble Earl charged others. The noble Earl, lately at the head of the Government, did not, it appeared, use the word "betrayed," but he had used words which implied that he had been betrayed. If that were the case, then he requested the noble Earl to tell him what those words were, in order that he might see if he could place such a construction on them. He certainly knew that his noble friend meant, and could mean, no such thing. It was admitted, that it had been falsely stated, and the statement was made apparently to facilitate attacks upon other persons; it was admitted, that it was untruly asserted, that his noble friend had said that he was "betrayed." Then, he asked, what were the words on which the implication was founded, he, at the same time, asserting that his noble friend never used any word, or expression, or colour of expression, that implied that he had been betrayed? He knew his noble friend's feeling. He lamented what had passed, and he expressed his disapproval of a communication which had been made by a gentleman in office to one who was not in office. He had stated his ignorance of the transaction, and declared that, if he had known it at the time, he would have prevented it; but be never said anything to warrant the assertion that he complained of the colour—of the tincture—of treachery in the proceeding. Then the noble Earl, to make his incorrectness of statement more flagrant, and to level his charge at a higher quarter, said, that it was some individual in the Cabinet whom his noble friend alluded to, as having betrayed him, But everybody knew, that the individual alluded to had nothing to do with the Cabinet. The gentleman to whom allusion was made, was the Chief Secretary for Ireland. [A noble Lord said: No; the Chancellor of the Ex-

37
chequer.]—Oh! that was a mistake. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had never had any such communication as that referred to. But, suppose there had been a communication between this and the other side of the water; all that his noble friend had said amounted to this—that there had been such a communication, and, as he understood it, that it had begotten in the mind of the Lord-lieutenant a different feeling towards this measure, with respect to certain proceedings here. Now, this matter must rest on the communication between a Gentleman in office and a Gentleman not in office. That was stated in the other House of Parliament, and was referred to here by his noble friend. He stated these as well-known facts, and he wondered how they could have escaped the attention of the noble Earl, who was generally so accurate and so courteous. With respect to his noble friend (Lord Wharncliffe), he should be ready to meet him in the progress of this Bill, should it come up from the other House of Parliament, or on any measure which they might adopt there. All he should say was, that when his noble friend and others complained of the treatment which this House had received from his Majesty's Government, it would be well if they would look to the facts of the case. He should like to know what sort of a complaint would be made, if Ministers had attempted to carry this Bill in the House of Lords without these three clauses? He should like to know in what sort of a situation would Ministers be placed if, attempting so to carry it, they were outvoted by those who supported those three clauses? How would they be situated if their Lordships who were individually pledged to retain those three clauses succeeded, and the Bill was sent down to the other House of Parliament with them—where, he would say, on his responsibility as a Minister of the Crown, and as a Member of their Lordships' House, they might as well attempt to repeal the Reform Bill, or the Catholic Emancipation Bill, as to hope to preserve those three clauses. He should like to know, in that case, whether a charge would not be brought against the Ministers for endeavouring to create a collision between that and the other House of Parliament. If he had advised such a course, or taken such a one, he did not see how he could justify his conduct, as he thought he could
38
justify it at present. He admitted, that the course the Ministers had determined on, proceeded from the assumption of the manner in which the measure would be met in another place, and he certainly thought none of their Lordships would suppose that the objectionable clauses could be carried through the House of Commons.
The Earl of Wicklowunderstood the declaration of the noble Earl, lately at the head of the Government, to be, that an individual member of his Cabinet did, without his knowledge or consent, communicate with the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland. The denial of the noble and learned Lord did not alter to the extent of one iota the impression on his mind as to the statement which had been made on the occasion referred to by the noble Earl then at the head of his Majesty's Government. He could recollect that statement as well as the noble and learned Lord, and he was sure that his version of it was the correct one. He possessed not, indeed, the same powers of sarcasm and of eloquence as the noble and learned Lord. He was not as able as the noble and learned Lord was, to say one thing one day and another thing another day; but he was equally capable as the noble and learned Lord of carrying in his recollection an important and a striking fact, and he would assert again, that the noble Earl lately at the head of his Majesty's Government did make the statement which he (the Earl of Wicklow) had attributed to him. He would maintain, that the noble Earl's statement was to the effect he had mentioned. The noble Earl did make that statement, and he further added, that the moment he discovered that such a correspondence had been going on with the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, he lost not a post in writing to the Lord-lieutenant, telling him not to mind the influence which his decision might have on the opinions of individuals here, but to form his judgment solely with reference to the state of Ireland. That was the impression at the time—that still was the impression on his mind, as to what the noble Earl then said. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was very ready in contradicting his assertion. Now, he would beg that noble and learned Lord just for a moment to compare his speech on a former occasion upon this Bill—that speech in which he stated that those three clauses were the best part of

39
the Bill, and that in his opinion the Bill ought not to be passed without them. Let him compare that speech with the speech he had made this evening, and then let him
"——to supper with what appetite he might."
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the noble Earl had a peculiar felicity in being inaccurate in the statements he made. He did not say that the noble Earl was wilfully inaccurate, for there was no one who heard the noble Earl who must not feel convinced that he believed what he said; but that did not render his assertions the more accurate or the more true. The House had a sample of the noble Earl's accuracy of recollection in the version he had given of the statement which had been made by his noble friend the late head of his Majesty's Government. He would venture to say, that every one who had heard that statement would concur with him in the opinion that nothing could be more completely and totally inaccurate than the noble Earl's version of it. But the noble Earl had given them another notable sample of his powers of memory. The noble Earl asserted that he (the Lord Chancellor) had said in a former speech on this Bill, that those three clauses were the best parts of the Bill, and that without them the Bill ought not to be passed. He (the Lord Chancellor) had said no such thing. His opinion with regard to them was so directly the reverse, that when the Bill was about being brought in, he was anxious, if possible, that they should be left out, and in fact he had conferred with a noble Lord on the leaving them out, on the consideration that they were not necessary, that they would not be of use. But this he then felt, and he would admit he still felt, that it was not a fair thing, when they pressed so heavily in this measure on the peasantry of Ireland; he would admit, he was ready to admit, that it was not a fair thing, that it was not a right thing, if they had the choice left to them, not to press as heavily on the meetings in Dublin as on the meetings of the poor infatuated peasantry throughout the country. He had never said, that those clauses were the only part of the Bill that ought to pass. As to what the noble Earl said with respect to what had fallen from his noble friend, late the head of the Government, he (the Lord Chancellor) would again deny, that his noble friend had said
40
that any communication of the kind alluded to had taken place between any one of his colleagues in the Cabinet and the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland. His noble friend certainly said, that there had been communications of the kind from this side of the water, and he particularly pointed to one individual quarter.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that it was rather strange, after Ministers had thought fit to bring this measure forward, the same Ministers, with the exception of the noble Earl (Earl Grey), should announce to the House, through the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that it would be impossible to pass such a Bill through the House of Commons. [The Lord Chancellor: Impossible now.] He recollected that the noble Earl lately at the head of his Majesty's Government, in the statement which he made to the House on bringing forward this Bill, strongly urged upon their Lordships the necessity of retaining those clauses. In that opinion the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack on that occasion concurred, and the noble Earl (Earl Grey), himself particularly stated that he would not consent that the Bill should pass without those clauses. On that occasion the noble and learned Lord rose in his place, and with all the eloquence that belonged to him said, that he considered those clauses of the Bill essentially necessary, and he pointed out the hardship which would exist if they were to prevent the peasantry of Ireland from going out at night, and at the same time allow those persons in Dublin to meet who by their agitation and inflammatory proceedings excited the lower orders of their countrymen to outrage and insubordination. The noble and learned Lord would require more ingenuity than even he possessed, though he was much distinguished for ingenuity in that House, to convince their Lordships that when he stated that he would support those clauses, as absolutely necessary to the Bill, he thought that there was no likelihood of such a Bill passing the House of Commons. The noble and learned Lord now distinctly told them that they could not carry this Bill through the House of Commons. But, let their Lordships just see what this Bill was, that his Majesty's Ministers said they could not carry through the House of Commons. He must say, that he for one would be far from desiring that that House should press upon his

41
Majesty's Ministers any measure which they should not think proper. He was ignorant, however, that the House of Lords wished to press upon his Majesty's Ministers the adoption of any measure that they did not think proper. But, as he had said already, let their Lordships first look at what the measure in question was, and what was intended by it. They would then see what had been done by the noble Earl late at the head of the Government, and what had been left undone, in consequence of the discussions that had taken place in the House of Commons. It appeared that the noble Lord at the head of the Government in Ireland had sent a great deal of information here on the subject. It appeared from that information that the outrages which disturbed Ireland had, since this Act had been in force, been diminished to the amount of more than three-fifths upon the whole, on a comparison of three months in 1834 with three months in 1833. Another consequence of the measure was, that in a part of the country where the measure was tried—in four baronies which had been proclaimed, there the acts of criminality had been reduced almost to nothing. It further appeared, that the unanimous opinions of all those persons who had been employed by the Government to carry the law into execution was, that it had been the means of preserving the tranquillity of the country, that the people themselves were anxious that it should be renewed—that the Magistrates were anxious that it should be renewed—and that the Government of Ireland was anxious that it should be renewed. The Magistrates in their communications with the Government had expressed that view. Mr. Green, of the county of Kilkenny, where the Bill had been in operation, had told them, that those parts of the Bill directed against political meetings were essentially necessary to the utility of the measure. Mr. Green told them so in distinct terms. He would read his words to their Lordships. Mr. Green said, "There has not been an attempt at agitation since the county and city of Kilkenny were proclaimed; previously, agitation was the order of the day." That was a proof as to the consequences of the measure where it had been in full force. What were the benefits produced by it? Upon that point Mr. Green's testimony was to the following amount:—"The people
42
have been and are gradually assuming their habits of industry, as the present cultivation of this country shows, and their manners are evidently changed for the better with those improvements." Yet this was the Bill which their Lordships were now told could not be carried through the House of Commons, in the Reformed House of Commons. This Bill, which was so much desired by all well-disposed persons in Ireland—this Bill, which was absolutely necessary for preserving the peace of Ireland—this Bill, which the noble Earl, late at the head of the Government, had described as necessary for the preservation of the peace of that country—this Bill, which the noble and learned Lord had said it would be unjust to pass without including that portion of it which was a protection for the people against the agitators; this was the Bill which the noble and learned Lord now came down and told them, that they could not propose to the House of Commons, because it could not possibly be carried through that House. Was it possible that their Lordships were reduced to such a state of degradation? Let them just see what was stated by the noble Lord at the head of the Government in Ireland as to the necessity of renewing this measure. He (the Duke of Wellington) had read the noble Lord's words on a former occasion; but he would again refer to them, for they were of great importance:—"These disturbances have been in every instance excited and inflamed by the agitation of the combined projects for the abolition of tithes and the destruction of the Union with Great Britain. I cannot employ words of sufficient strength to express my solicitude that his Majesty's Government should fix the deepest attention on the intimate connexion marked by the strongest characters in all these transactions between the system of agitation and its inevitable consequence—the system of combination leading to violence and outrage; they are, inseparably, cause and effect; nor can I (after the most attentive consideration of the dreadful scenes passing under my view), by any effort of my understanding, separate one from the other in that unbroken chain of indissoluble connexion." It was impossible for him to quote words to their Lordships demonstrating more completely the absolute necessity of passing this Bill, especially those parts of it which were

43
intended to prevent that agitation which was so pernicious to the tranquillity of Ireland. He might quote many passages from the correspondence to which he had referred to the same effect, from different persons who had been employed by the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland for the purpose of preserving the peace of that country without the execution of this measure. It was stated over and over again in that correspondence, that it was the desire of the people themselves who were suffering from the excitement that was resorted to by means of public meetings in Ireland, that they should be relieved from such dangers by the renewal of this measure, and especially of the clauses to which so much reference had been made. But the noble and learned Lord now distinctly told them that they could not carry this Bill through the House of Commons. Why not, at all events, propose it to the House of Commons, and leave it to that House to pass or reject it? Their Lordships sent a Bill down to the House of Commons last Session, in a very different state from that in which it was sent to their Lordships. Was there any collision between the two Houses in consequence of that? He certainly voted against the measure, and gave it all the opposition in his power, conceiving that it involved principles inimical to the protection of all property. But the majority of their Lordships acquiesced in it. Why, then, not give this measure the advantage of trying whether it would be passed in its present shape by the House of Commons, the more especially as it was a measure approved of by Government, and of which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had particularly stated his marked approbation? His noble friend (the Earl of Wicklow) had been accused of misrepresenting the statement which had been made by the noble Earl lately at the head of the Government. He must say, that he recollected the noble Earl distinctly saying that a member of the Cabinet had written to the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, and had stated to him, as his advice, that he should desire the omission of those clauses from the Bill; that the Lord-lieutenant had in consequence of this communication expressed his desire to accommodate the measure to the views of the Government here, but that he Earl Grey (very properly, in his opinion) wrote
44
to the Lord-lieutenant, telling him to consider the measure solely on Irish grounds, and to leave it to him (Earl Grey) to decide what would be proper and wise to propose and what there would be a chance of carrying in England. The noble Earl had taken that subject into his consideration. He believed, that there was no one more capable of judging of the difficulties which he had to encounter than that noble Earl. He decided, however, upon bringing in the Bill; and he said, in that House, that he would insist on carrying it through. Yet the three most important clauses in the measure were to be omitted. He must say, that he thought the noble and learned Lord was bound by what he had said so recently in reference to those clauses. When they saw, that the protection to person and property which had been afforded by the measure in Ireland, was to be withdrawn from it, because it was alleged that a majority in the House of Commons would not agree to the measure in such a shape, he must say, that he could not but tremble to think of the consequences that might follow such a course of proceeding. He would merely, in conclusion, say, that if the noble Viscount opposite chose to have another Bill instead of that—if he chose to have a Bill less efficient than that which had been introduced with his own approbation, no difficulty would be thrown in the way of the passing of such a measure by him (the Duke of Wellington), or by any noble Lords that he knew, but he would tell the noble Viscount, and he would tell his Majesty's Ministers, that for such a measure he and they would alone be responsible.
The Earl of Limerickobserved, that the orders of the House had been grossly infringed upon this occasion. In order to preserve peace, and to prevent collision, the order, of course, was not to refer directly, at least, to proceedings in the other House of Parliament. On the present occasion, however, they had been told and that, too, upon the highest authority, that it would be vain to pass this Bill, as it would infallibly be rejected by a majority in the other House of Parliament. Good God! were their Lordships reduced to that pass, that they were to be merely a Court of Registration for the other House of Parliament? He trusted that they had not arrived at such a degree of degradation, though, if they put their seal to it, that must be.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that on such a Motion as the present, he certainly should not go into a regular debate, such as the noble Duke had gone into, producing documents, referring to papers, and quoting different authorities in respect to this measure. He was sure, however, that their Lordships would feel, that in the situation in which he stood, and pledged undoubtedly as he was, quite as much as his noble friend lately at the head of the Government, to this Bill, he was called upon to address a few observations to their Lordships upon this occasion. "The noble Earl opposite, (continued the noble Viscount), in the speech which he has made to your Lordships, has accused my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack of not speaking with any measured language. I cannot think that the noble Earl has measured his own language in a speech in which he has accused his Majesty's Ministers of baseness, of tergiversation, and of submitting to the lowest species of indignity rather than quit our places. I now tell that noble Earl, as I told him upon a former occasion, that with him I will not enter into a contest of insult and contumely. I could call, I might easily call, as hard names as that noble Earl. I might impute to him base, and factious, and personal motives. I might impute to him, that he was actuated by two passions, the strongest that human nature can be actuated by—mortified vanity, and disappointed ambition." He would dismiss that subject, however, at once—he would disembarrass the discussion of all allusions of an offensive or personal character. He wished to discuss this question with that coolness and calmness which a question of such importance demanded. In all his political experience, and it was not a short one, he recollected no occasion where a want of confidence was expressed in the persons in office, that it was not usual for the persons on the other side of the House, if they felt as strongly as several noble Lords had stated they felt that night, to bring the subject by motion before Parliament, in order that the country might decide upon it. That was the fair, manly, and proper way of bringing the matter before Parliament. But he would say to the noble Lords opposite, was it fair—was it wise—was it patriotic, merely to try to depreciate those whom they were not prepared to remove, and whom, if they removed, they certainly
46
could not replace? With respect to the question which might be said to be before the House on this occasion, he would just say, that when the Bill was brought in by his noble friend, the late head of the Government, it did not appear to him necessary to add any observation to those then made by his noble friend. He sat, however, on that occasion by his noble friend, and as Secretary for the Home Department, charged as he was with the peculiar interests of the country to which that Bill had reference, he must be considered as entirely agreeing in the statement then made by his noble friend. He agreed with his noble friend in thinking, that the Bill was prudent and expedient in that form. He still continued to be of that opinion; but he did not think, that the portions of the Bill which had been referred to, were absolutely necessary. The noble Duke had said, that they were absolutely necessary for the preservation of the peace of Ireland: but the noble Duke, in making that statement, confounded two parts of the Bill; he confounded those three clauses of the Bill, and that which went to prevent, what, in the jargon of the present day, was called predial agitation, but which was more properly designated nocturnal outrage and rapine. He believed, however, that those two things were very closely connected. Indeed, he was not sure that there was not a necessary connexion between them. Undoubtedly, the most efficient parts of the Bill were those which applied to districts proclaimed, and which prevented meetings in those that were not proclaimed. He would, however, have their Lordships to recollect this—that when it was clear, when it was known, as unfortunately it was, that it was the opinion of the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, that he could maintain the internal tranquillity of that country without the re-enactment of that portion of the Bill which related to political meetings, he would ask their Lordships whether, under such circumstances, Ministers would be justified, unless by the fear of some convulsion or civil war, in attempting to carry such a measure? He believed that that system of political meetings which had existed in Ireland, and which probably would be attempted to be established there again, and the topics generally discussed at them, must have the effect of spreading, if not of producing, discontent in that country,

47
and he had no doubt that they led to those outrages which so deeply and lamentably disturbed that portion of the empire. But when it was known, that the opinion of the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, however that opinion was produced, or upon whatever grounds it was founded—when it was known, he repeated, that the opinion of the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland was, that that portion of the Bill might be dispensed with, would it be wise on the part of his Majesty's Ministers to force those powers on the Government of Ireland, which, whether justly or not, whether properly or improperly, had been repudiated by the Government? He was sure that their Lordships, upon reflection, would see that there was no other course for the Government now to pursue, than to propose the Bill to Parliament without the clauses. He would beg their Lordships to consider, that the opinion given by the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, had produced an impression, not only on the public mind—not only on the minds of Members of both Houses of Parliament, but it had produced a change of opinion in certain members of his Majesty's Government—he alluded to those members of the Cabinet who had opposed this portion of the Bill in the first instance, and who had only assented to the bringing in of the Bill, in deference to the opinion of the majority of their colleagues. He need scarcely say, that his noble friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was one of those persons. That fact brought the whole of this matter to a short issue. He begged their Lordships to attend to it, and to observe the situation in which he was placed. If he had not attended to the call which his Sovereign made upon him—if he should have been justified in leaving his Sovereign without a Ministry, and the country without an Administration, because he felt that he could not obtain those powers from the House of Commons, and because, if those powers were to be continued, he saw an insuperable difficulty of forming an united Administration,—if upon these grounds he should have been justified in not attending to the call of his Sovereign, he admitted that he was subject to their Lordships' condemnation. But if he was right in accepting the Commission of his Sovereign, upon the terms of making the concession in question—a concession very unwillingly made on his part—but which irresistible circumstances
48
seemed to render absolutely necessary,—if, under such circumstances, he was right in accepting the Commission of his Sovereign, then he had a right to call upon their Lordships, not only for a fair hearing and kind indulgence, but, in the name of his Sovereign and of his country, to call upon them, as far as their consciences would permit, for their assistance and support. The noble Lord opposite had said, that Ministers had sacrificed the interests of Ireland for the purpose of accommodating themselves to their places. He felt strongly the observation of the noble Lord, and he should indeed feel deeply grieved if any aggravation of the evils of Ireland should be the result, which he was ready to admit might probably be the result, from passing the Bill in the form proposed. He would say, however, that should those evils arise, should those meetings be renewed, and should that agitation again be resorted to in that country, and should it assume anything like a threatening magnitude, his Majesty's present Ministers, should they then conduct the councils of their Sovereign, would at any hazard, and no matter how unpropitious the season might be, call Parliament together for the purpose of meeting such evils, and they would advise his Majesty to throw himself upon that Parliament, for the purpose of obtaining those powers and those means which might be necessary to meet the difficulties of such an exigency.
The Duke of Buckinghamsaid, that his Majesty's present Ministers were not bound by what had fallen from the noble Earl late at the head of the Ministry, but they were certainly bound by their own words, and their own words could be produced in favour of that Bill which now stood for a third reading in that House. Their Lordships should call upon them for an explanation how it happened that so recently as ten days ago they entertained one opinion, and that they now entertained directly the reverse. The bill which Ministers had given up was in accordance with the feelings of the country, and it should not have been abandoned. They who sat on that side of the House would be glad to support an Administration conducted upon pure and honest principles. Could they now boast to Europe that they had an Administration that was founded upon honest and honourable principles? Let the transactions of the last ten days

49
answer that question. It appeared from the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the noble Lord was in a minority in the Cabinet on this Bill. Why did he not then resign? Instead of doing that, he told the Secretary for Ireland to go and consult with the prime agitator of that country, but to take care not to commit himself. The noble Lord communicated with the Minister for Ireland, who was to communicate with Mr. O'Connell. He heard the noble and learned Lord cry "Order," but he meant no offence in naming that learned person. It was well known, that the communication was made to him.
The Lord Chancellormerely meant to intimate, that Lord Althorp had never done what the noble Duke imputed to him.
The Duke of Buckingham: What then happened? Why, that the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government was, he would not say betrayed, but certainly deceived. That noble Earl himself had distinctly said, that confidence had been reposed where it never should have been placed. By whom was that confidence reposed? By the Minister for Ireland, authorized to do so by a Cabinet Minister. In whom did be repose that confidence? In the prime arch-agitator of Ireland. The noble Earl, the moment that he found he had been deceived, resigned his office. What had been the conduct of the noble Lords opposite? When that noble Earl brought in the Bill, they cheered him his progress, and encouraged him in his enterprise. But now—one week, one little week had followed—the noble Earl had gone to his political sepulture, and the noble Lords opposite, and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack were ready to bring in a measure quite different from that for which they cheered the noble Earl when he introduced it. The country would require an explanation from the noble and learned Lord who had thus acted in contradiction to his own speeches. Was it through fear of Mr. O'Connell that Ministers had acted so? Let them speak out, and let it be known whether that agitator was the real Minister of Ireland. Did the noble Lord opposite suppose that a short speech, or one debate on the subject, could settle the question? He was very much mistaken if he did. The noble Lord might fancy, that he had buried the noble Earl
50
lately at the head of the Government, but he was also mistaken upon that point. The noble Earl's spirit would arise, and scare some of the present dignified occupants from their arm-chairs, would disturb the noble Viscount in his slumbers, and interrupt the festivities of the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack, when he may attempt to forget the history with 'pottle-deep potations' to the health and prosperity of the new Administration.
The Marquess of Lansdown rose, but—
The Lord Chancelloralso rose, and said, "Pray stop a little moment:" the noble Duke who had just addressed the House, must be conversant with the dialect adopted in some alehouse, with which he (the Lord Chancellor) was unacquainted. He was in the habit of meeting the noble Duke elsewhere, but never had the honour of seeing him at the alehouse, where the noble Duke must have been so often in order to have picked up the terms of his slang dictionary.
The Earl of wicklowrose to order.
The Duke of Buckingham: Let the noble and learned Lord go on; do not interrupt him. I shall take anything that may fall from him with perfect coolness.
The Earl of Mansfieldrose to order.
The Lord Chancellor: Oh, then, I shan't trouble your Lordships with anything more on the subject; noble Lords need not rise to order; as I am interrupted, I have done.
The Earl of Mansfieldsaid, that he spoke to order from the plain and sincere wish that the dignity and decorum of their Lordships' House might be maintained. This was his sole motive in rising to address himself to their Lordships, and he put it to them whether, for the sake of their dignity, it was not much better that there should be no explanation from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and no reply or counter-explanation from the noble Duke. He appealed to the good sense of the House, and of the noble Lords themselves, and asked them whether this would not be the better course? The Lord Chancellor again rose; but, before he resumed his address,
The Marquess of Clanricarde, rose to order.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that if the noble Earl behind him had taken him at his word when he said he should not

51
trouble the House with anything further on the subject, it would have been quite as well. He meant to say nothing more. "Don't you——"
The Marquess of Londonderry: I rise to order.
The Lord Chancellor: This is not the way to preserve order.
The Marquess of Londonderryagain rose to order.
The Lord Chancellor: If the noble Marquess had attended to the progress of the discussion, he would have seen that the question was, whether the Lord Chancellor was to be allowed to explain in reference to the noble Duke's observations on what had fallen from him in the course of the debate. This was the first time he had ever heard that it was at all fair, especially in a court of justice—and their Lordships' House was a Court of Justice—nay, the highest in the realm—to listen to the attack upon a noble Peer; but the instant an explanation or defence was offered, to stifle it in the birth with speeches to order, or other equally unfair interruptions. When interrupted, he was speaking in explanation, in reference to the noble Duke's most extraordinary attack upon him. If the noble Duke's speech were intended as a joke, he was ready to receive it in good-humour—quite as ready as any of their Lordships; but if it were really meant as a serious charge, then he should not hesitate to say of it, that it was as gross and unwarrantable, as utterly and completely devoid of foundation, as any, the most untrue, assertion or insinuation that had ever been made by any individual whatsoever. He entirely believed, however, that the noble Duke's remark was meant jocularly and quite in good humour, and accordingly he was willing to take it so.
The Duke of Buckinghamsaid, that it was unnecessary to say the allusion was from Shakspeare, and he intended it in perfect good humour.
The Lord Chancellornodded, and expressed himself ready to take the matter in that way; and the scene terminated.
The Marquess of Lansdownreminded their Lordships, that the whole debate was essentially irregular in its nature, arising as it did upon the question of adjournment. It was highly objectionable, on such a question, to go into debate on the subject of documents that had passed between the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland
52
and the Government, which would be proper matter of discussion when the measure to which those documents related should be submitted to the House. He did not rise to answer the noble Duke, or for the purpose of following him into, not one, but many, unintentional mis-statements of facts with which the noble Duke's speech abounded; but he willingly reserved himself, till that larger and more ample speech, which the noble Lord (Lord Wharncliffe) had announced that he should pronounce on a future occasion, when he would endeavour to answer the noble Lord in reference to this or any other subject. However, he felt it impossible to allow this, call it debate or conversation, to conclude without offering his testimony as a careful and deeply interested witness, on the subject of an allegation, the most unfounded, upon which the whole debate was made to rest—he meant the allegation, that the noble Earl lately at the head of the Government had declared that "he was betrayed by one of the members of his Cabinet." The noble Earl never said "he had been betrayed,"—never used the term "member of his Cabinet." He said this as a deeply interested auditor on the occasion, and one who had closely watched what then passed; for, much as their Lordships had been interested and affected by his noble friend's never-to-be-forgotten speech, he had an additional reason for attentively collecting and weighing every word of it, because it was that speech which influenced his conduct in remaining in office; for he most solemnly declared, that had his noble friend stated "he had been betrayed by one of the members of his Cabinet," with that member he certainly would not have continued to sit; and if it could now be made to appear that such was the noble Earl's declaration (which he was sure was quite impossible), of that Cabinet he would then immediately declare himself no longer a member. His great object, as well as that of his noble friend, was to preserve the peace and tranquillity of Ireland, in connexion with the passing of the Coercion, or more justly speaking, the Protection Bill; and he had always declared, that the permanent maintenance of that tranquillity must be the leading consideration of Government. Not wishing to shelter himself under the silence he happened to observe in the previous debate, he now came forward openly to declare, that he

53
did not fail to attach as much importance as his noble friend on the Woolsack to the three clauses of the Coercion Bill; he was also bound to consider the effect of the measure on the feelings of the people of this country. When noble Lords talked of that revelation which by an unfortunate indiscretion had been made in relation to the Bill, and when they talked of the possibility of still inducing the House of Commons to assent to the measure in its present shape, he asked whether they thought this a Bill which it was desirable to pass through the Commons by a bare and narrow majority? This was a measure conferring extraordinary powers on the Government, and it was desirable that it should receive the assent of a large majority. He put it to noble Lords whether, after the whole extent of the indiscretion came to be known, and it was not known at the time of the former discussion, and when it was communicated to a reformed House, or indeed to any House of Parliament, that the authorities in Ireland did not now require all the powers of the Act for the maintenance of the public peace—he asked their Lordships whether it was astonishing that, under such circumstances, there should exist in the House of Commons (and he reverenced the feeling) a desire to try the experiment to that extent which the head of the Government was willing to accept in the first instance; and to ascertain whether the Government of Ireland could not be carried on, omitting that part of the Bill which did not apply to actual agitation or disturbance, but to the original cause of these, which cause was not at this moment in action. When he said, that he reverenced the feeling which would lead to a trial of a mitigated Coercion Bill, let him not be misunderstood. He believed, that if, contrary to the expectation which the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland appeared of late disposed to form,—namely, that it would be practicable, judging from the experience of the past, and the non-existence of dangerous agitation at present, to maintain the peace of the country without the full powers of the Coercion Bill—if the Lord-lieutenant should prove to be deceived in that opinion, he believed, as the reformed House of Commons did not hesitate last year on an unanswerable case of necessity being made out, to grant the whole powers of the measure, so, if the Government did
54
its duty in again demanding such powers in a like case of necessity, and called Parliament together, the House of Commons, with the same determination to protect his Majesty's loyal subjects, would not hesitate to confer on the Government powers calculated to put down, not only the effect but the cause of disturbance, when called into action. It was in that confidence, and acting on the fixed determination of Government, and influenced by a desire to ensure the Coercion Bill the support of a large majority in the House of Commons, that he gave his consent to a deviation from the course originally proposed to be adopted, and was willing to try the experiment as to the least degree of extraordinary power by means of which public tranquillity could be preserved. At the some time he was determined to uphold the peace of the country, by the unhappy clauses in question, if called on by circumstances which required their application. When disturbances, the effect of agitation, had been put down, let him see their cause revive, and he would be ready to join in calling on Parliament to put it down. But that cause was not now in action, and it had been stated in the name of the Lord-lieutenant, that it was not, and that he did not expect it would be revived. [A Noble Lord; Where has he stated it?] He had not asserted that there was any document in which that opinion of the Lord-lieutenant was stated, but it was known that such was the Lord-lieutenant's opinion. But if the impression now existing in the mind of the Lord-lieutenant turned out to be erroneous, let Parliament and Government do their duty, and act as circumstances should appear to require.
The Marquess of Londonderrycould not understand how the noble Lord could originally be of opinion that the Coercion Bill would pass in its complete form, and could now, after a lapse of ten days, but without any change in the state of things, entertain an entirely different opinion. This was in itself very extraordinary, but what was still more extraordinary, the noble Earl lately at the head of the Government had been sacrificed to this base intrigue. It was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who first suggested the idea of a communication with the great agitator, and that noble Lord was the cause of the recent break-up of the Cabinet. The noble Lord's conduct, as far as had come

55
to their Lordships' knowledge, appeared totally inexplicable, and it seemed to him, that the noble Lord never could excuse it to the country in his place in Parliament. Who was the sufferer? The noble Earl who had stood the brunt of the battle in favour of the reform in that House, and who carried that deplorable measure, was now thrown overboard by the intrigues of the noble Lord, and had become their victim. He regretted, that the noble Earl was not now in his place, in order that their Lordships might see whether he coalesced with his late colleagues in the alterations proposed to be made in the Coercion Bill. He should like to know, also, the opinion of that noble Earl of the present Cabinet, which appeared to him to be a miserable piece of patchwork, which reflected little honour on the parties.
Lord Ellenboroughwished to say one word. He asked the noble Viscount opposite whether the right hon. Gentleman, of whom the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the noble Marquess had spoken in terms not very complimentary to his discretion, still held the office of Secretary for Ireland?
Viscount Melbournewas glad the question had been asked, as it not only afforded him an opportunity of answering it in the affirmative, but of also stating, in justice to the right hon. Gentleman, that the objection taken was not to the fact, but to the extent of the communication with Mr. O'Connell, who, it must be considered, if he were the great agitator of Ireland, was also a leading Member of the House of Commons. It was impossible to conduct the business of Government without occasionally communicating with Members of the Opposition.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that the noble Viscount differed in opinion from the noble Earl lately at the head of the Government, who had stated that his objection was to the character of the man to whom the communication had been made. He must say, that he thought that the right hon. Gentleman had been extremely ill-used, inasmuch as he was allowed to suffer for some time under the imputation of having communicated with Mr. O'Connell, not only without the approbation, but also without the knowledge, of his Majesty's Government. Recollecting the tone and temper of the noble Earl on this subject, he should have said that the noble Earl did not know that the Chancellor of the
56
Exchequer had authorised the communication. He thought it impossible, that the noble Earl could have so spoken if he were aware of that fact. Certainly, the noble Earl did not speak of the extent of the communication, but of the positive indiscretion of making a communication to Mr. O'Connell of a matter in deliberation before the Cabinet. However, to the extent of the fact of communicating with Mr. O'Connell under the authority of a Cabinet Minister, unless the accounts of what occurred elsewhere were extremely incorrect—to that extent the right hon. Gentleman was fully justified. The noble Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, that in the fact of communication he saw no harm, and it was natural to suppose, that the noble Lord would state what had passed to the noble Earl lately at the head of the Government.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he did not call the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman a piece of indiscretion; and he did not think that his noble friend (Earl Grey) had said that he totally disapproved of all communication whatever with Mr. O'Connell. He did not think that his noble friend had said anything of the kind. He might be wrong, but he thought that his noble friend had merely disapproved of the extent to which the communication had gone. It was the ordinary course of Ministers of the Crown to hold communications with parliamentary leaders of opposition. He (the Lord Chancellor) had had communications of a delicate nature with Lord Castlereagh, with Mr. Canning, and with Mr. Perceval—to the last of whom he had been more vehemently opposed than was usual—even to a degree of bitterness, as a party-man in public; yet with that Gentleman he had held an important communication on the day before his lamented end. The fact was, the business of the House of Commons could not be carried on without such communications. With respect to the communication now in question, he had only thought and said, that it had been carried further than it ought.
The Marquess of Londonderry: Did the noble and learned Lord recollect, that this individual was pointed at in the speech from the Throne as the cause of agitation in Ireland, and that by the Government he had been held out as a person with whom no communication ought to have been held?
The Lord Chancelloranswered—No; the hon. and learned Gentleman was not designated nor particularly alluded to in the speech from the Throne.
The Duke of Buckinghamstated, that his impression of the noble Earl's (Grey's) speech was, that the noble Earl blamed the right hon. Secretary for Ireland for having placed confidence in a person to whom no confidence ought to be placed.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, that the noble Earl (Grey) had stated, that the communication had been made without, his knowledge, and that if he had known of it he would have endeavoured to prevent it, and that he never would have communicated with a man who had opposed the laws. The people of Ireland should know whether the position laid down by the noble Earl, or that now stated by the noble Viscount (Melbourne), was the proper one. He must express his disposition to support the Bill in its present shape.
The Marquess of Lansdownmeant to cast no imputation upon the right hon. Secretary for Ireland in what he had just said. In saying that the right hon. Secretary had been guilty of an indiscretion, he had only repeated the words which the right hon. Secretary had himself applied to his own conduct. He thought that both England and Ireland were deeply indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the candour and manliness which had induced him so frankly to admit his error.
Lord Ellenboroughdid entire justice to the manliness with which the right hon. Gentleman had admitted his error, but. it was not always kind and charitable to censure a man in the terms which he had applied to his own conduct.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, that, in his opinion, all the blame of this transaction ought to fall upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and as a superior officer was always responsible for the orders which he gave to his inferior, he thought that Mr. Littleton ought to be exempted from all blame in the matter.
The question of adjournment was put and carried.