Lords Sitting of 28 February 1839

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a third time:—Poor-law Act Amendment (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By Lord RIPON, from Ripon; for Church Extension in Canada; also for a system of National Education founded upon the principles of the Established Church; also from a number of places, against the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, from two places, against any Alteration in the Poor-laws,—By the Earl of HADDINGTON, from two
946
places, and by the Earl of ABERDEEN, from a number of places, for Church Extension in Scotland.

ASSASSINATION OF THE EARL OF NORBURY.
The Earl of Charlevillewished to call the attention of the noble Marquess opposite, to a paper which he held in his hand, and which had reference to a subject to which, hitherto, he had most anxiously avoided making any allusion. That subject was the murder of the Earl of Norbury. When it was formerly mentioned in that House, he was unwilling to touch on it; and he had carefully avoided alluding to it since that time, because he was anxious to have certain petitions in his hands before he brought the circumstance under the consideration of their Lordships. Neither was it now his intention to enter into any particulars that he could possibly avoid; but, after reading the paper to which he had adverted, he felt that he should be guilty of a great neglect, of a gross dereliction of his duty, if he were not to call the attention of the noble Marquess opposite to this subject, and to ask the noble Marquess either to confirm the statement which he was about to make, or to refute it, if he erred in any point. He was about to speak of the matter as it occurred to himself. He was the first magistrate who arrived on the spot after the foul occurrence took place, and he could state that no such information or report as that which was referred to in the paper which he held in his hand had reached him, up to the present hour, from any decent, respectable, or creditable source. He had hoped, that the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Brougham) on the first night of the Session, would have effectually put an end to the insinuations which had been thrown out about the impression of a well-formed shoe or of a neat boot being discovered at the place where the crime was perpetrated. But, notwithstanding the explanation given in another Assembly, notwithstanding what had been said in their Lordships' House, he found that a Dublin newspaper (the circulation of which might not perhaps be very extensive, but the opinions of which, from its connexion with a certain individual, were calculated to create a strong impression on the public mind in Ireland)—he found that that newspaper on Wednesday last, the 20th of February, contained a repetition of those obnoxious statements. The insinuations

947
against an individual were accompanied by some mysterious allusions, but the former reports were restated, and in a way that called for some explanation from the noble Marquess. The paper which he held in his hand, was the Pilot newspaper. The article came to his knowledge by accident; but he had been fortunate enough to procure the paper itself. The article ran thus: the noble Earl here read the article:—
"But there is an object at the bottom for the party. The fact of the well-made shoe goes to disprove the slander of the factious Lords on the poor people of Ireland. Its object is to intimidate the Liberal press from stating the facts by imputing to it the adhering by that statement to a libel on a nobleman. We shall not be thus intimidated. The character of that nobleman stands too high to be influenced by a statement that an assassin wore a neat shoe, or by any general statement about reports, or by the murderous commentaries. We repeat the statement, that the assassin, whoever he was, wore a well-made boot or shoe, and not a brogue. Yes, it can be proved, and will be, whenever there is a trial. The pattern of this shoe-sole was taken ten minutes after the murder by a respectable person, upon whose authority we state it."
Now, in the presence of their Lordships, he decidedly contradicted the entire of that statement. But if the fact were true, he would ask, whether anything more convincing could be required to prove that a conspiracy did exist in Ireland? If this respectable person, within ten minutes, prepared with tracing paper, took a pattern of this footmark—if his ends were honest—if his intentions were just—if it were not a pre-formed and a pre-arranged plot, he would ask, why no magistrate was informed of the circumstance? Why did not that individual, whoever he was, appear at the coroner's inquest? If he was told that that inquest was not fairly chosen, he would say that several gentlemen—he was not aware of the precise number, but several gentlemen holding the strongest and most liberal opinions—were members of that jury; several leading Roman Catholic gentlemen of great respectability, were on that jury. He attended that inquest. Within the court and without it they called, and repeatedly called and inquired, if any one was there prepared to come forward with any evidence. No one, however, did appear. The paper went on to state (and he called the attention of the noble Marquess to the
948
fact), that "the policemen who visited the spot in the morning all stated in the hearing of several persons, whose testimony we can procure, that whoever did it wore a well-made shoe or boot, small at the heel."—[The Marquess of Normanby: Does it state one or more policemen?] Several. It says "the policemen." "This we state upon positive authority. It is the fact. The assassin of Lord Norbury wore, we believe, a well-formed boot or shoe, and not a brogue." This was in large Roman capital letters:—
"We charge no one; we insinuate nothing against any one; we cannot formally accuse any
one; we only say, that there have been various reports, to some of which we have given circulation. We disclaim having directly or indirectly charged any one with the murder. The Mail threatens us with an action. We give them perfect liberty. Our reporter will be our evidence."
He believed that the reporter was the informer on the occasion. The article proceeded—
"He can state who was and who was not called. Curious things must come out. Lords Oxmantown and Charleville may get a sifting, but we shall remain unimpeached."
How stood the case? He was the first magistrate who arrived after the murder. The first words he spoke were to give an order to the chief constable of police, who was in attendance with a large force of men, to take possession of all the avenues leading to the spot. The orders were given by him in his capacity of a magistrate. Of course, as to what happened ten minutes after the murder or up to the time when he arrived he had no knowledge. But this he could aver, that, up to the present moment, he had never heard, from any authority, the least proof of that most extraordinary statement. The noble Marquess, being then Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, sent down to investigate the circumstances attending the murder the provincial inspector of police, Mr. Brownrigg, accompanied by a stipendiary magistrate, Mr. Hill. It was for them to inquire whether the police knew anything of the circumstances of the case. The Irish government might have no confidence in him, but surely they must have confidence in their own officers. He knew that confidential reports were sent to the Irish Government, and the noble Marquess could correct him if his impression were erroneous. He

949
begged again to state, that he had no object in addressing their Lordships, except to give the most distinct denial to these statements, in order to tranquillize the public mind in Ireland, for he knew it had been very much excited and distracted upon the present occasion. He did not want at all to punish the newspaper, or in any way to call it to account, but he begged to set these imputations at rest, for he knew that the topics were brought forward with the sole object of diverting public attention from the real perpetrator of the crime. Having such an object in view, he thought it was his duty to call their Lordships' attention to the subject; and he did hope that the noble Marquess might be enabled to put an end at once, and for ever, to these, in his opinion, most false and absurd reports. He was, perhaps, the first person who visited the spot on the morning after the murder. He saw nothing to lead hire to suspect any such report to have any foundation. Later in the day he was occupied in the examination of witnesses. Other magistrates attended and ordered a plan of the spot to be taken by the clerk of the works and the surveyors in attendance. He did tell a friend of his, upon the occasion, a learned gentleman, that if any track was made by a well-made boot, it might have been made by the boot of Mr. Toler, the second son of Lord Norbury, who was then upon a visit to his father. A system of warfare now was carrying on upon all the constituted authorities of Ireland. It was not long ago that it was stated, in a newspaper of that country, that many of the outrages complained of were committed by policemen in disguise. Yet the same paper contained an admission that the policemen were generally of very good character. He wished to ask, whether any information had reached the noble Marquess, which at all inclined him to suppose that any marks which were found upon the spot correspond with the description he had alluded to.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, the noble Earl had undoubtedly a right to put the question, and he only regretted that the noble Earl had occupied so much of their Lordships' time in reading a long article which he had never seen, and founding an argument on it. He should, however, answer the question of the noble Earl in a very few words, and to the best of his power, reserving anything he might
950
wish to say upon the conduct of the investigation, the zeal and activity of the officers employed in it, and the co-operation they ought to have received, till a future and more fitting occasion. The question was, whether any information had been received by the Government, tending to confirm the suspicion that there was seen a foot-mark corresponding with the boot or shoe that would be worn by a person of a better class than the peasantry. Now, he thought it right to inform their Lordships, that he had never received any information which could lead him to believe that such a circumstance was possible, till he heard what was reported in the public papers, with regard to a statement of an hon. and learned Gentleman in another place, namely, if there were such a footmark, it must be attributed to the cause which the noble Earl had just stated. Mr. Brownrigg, the provincial inspector employed in the investigation, had been in constant communication with the Government, and he had asked Mr. Brownrigg whether he believed it to be possible that such a track could have been observed by any person without his having perceived it. Mr. Brownrigg at once stated to him, that the first time he heard of such a thing was after an hon. and learned Gentleman had mentioned it in another place; that he had investigated every thing, and that he had never observed any such footmark. This was an answer to the noble Earl's question. That such information could not have been received from a police constable was evident, because an officer in that corps would, according to his duty, had he possessed such information, have undoubtedly communicated it to the chief constable, by whom it would have been submitted to the stipendiary magistrate, and by him laid, in the ordinary course, before the Government.
Subject dropped.

LORD EBRINGTON.—LORD-LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND.
Lord Lyndhurstwas anxious to put a question to the noble Viscount opposite. At no distant day the noble Lord, who had been appointed to the office of Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, stated, in reference to the Irish Tithe Bill, that though he did not approve of that measure, he should support it, because he considered that the effect of it would be "to render the war that was then waging

951
against the Protestant church in Ireland more formidable." Now, the direct and necessary inference from those words was this—that the noble Lord who uttered them was desirous that the war then waging against the Protestant church in Ireland should continue, and that it should assume a more formidable character. He wished, therefore, to ask the noble Viscount, whether, when he recommended the noble Lord to this important office, he was aware of these observations. If he were, the state of things in Ireland with reference to the Protestant Church in that country—ay, and with reference to the Protestant Church in England—was disheartening indeed. The natural consequence of this appointment was, that the noble Lord should be desirous of giving effect to those sentiments and principles—that he should be desirous that the war waging against the Protestant Church in Ireland should continue to assume a more formidable character. Under such circumstances, one must naturally suppose, that the whole influence of the Irish Government would be used for the purpose of stimulating that war, and of giving to it the most formidable character. If those observations to which he referred were disavowed, or if the noble Lord was restrained by the obligation of his oath (to which he called the attention of the noble Viscount), still would there not exist a feeling on the part of those who waged this war, that by pursuing it with inveteracy, they would be acting consistently with the wishes of those who were at the head of affairs in this country? But there was another inference, which would inevitably be drawn if the noble Viscount answered his question in the affirmative. The inference would be, that the noble Viscount had adopted those sentiments, and was ready to wage war against the Established Church in Ireland, and, he would take leave to add, against the Protestant Church of this country. He now distinctly asked the noble Viscount whether, when he recommended that noble Lord to fill the situation of Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, he was aware of the observations to which he had drawn the noble Viscount's attention?
Viscount Melbournesaid, it was not orderly or regular to ask a question in that House having reference to what was supposed to have passed in debate in the other House of Parliament.
Lord Lyndhurst.—It is matter of history.
Viscount Melbourne,certainly was not aware of every observation and every expression that might have been made use of by his noble Friend, to whom the noble and learned Lord had alluded. Neither was he aware of those peculiar opinions which had been attributed to his noble Friend by the noble and learned Lord on the present occasion. The Government was anxious to strengthen the Protestant Church in Ireland, and he was perfectly aware that his noble Friend was favourable to the measures which Ministers had endeavoured to carry to effect that object. He knew that the imputation which the noble and learned Lord now threw forth was the same which had been cast by him, and by all those who acted with him, on those who supported the measures of Government with respect to the Irish Church. But he held it to be entirely unjust and entirely without foundation. He was not precisely aware of the particular sentiments and observations that had been referred to; but he was aware of his noble Friend's opinion on this subject; and he thought there was nothing in those opinions that rendered him unfit for the situation which her Majesty had conferred on him, or that in any degree afforded just ground for the alarm that had been expressed by the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Wharncliffenever heard a more unsatisfactory reply than that just given by the noble Viscount. His noble and learned Friend asked, not whether the noble Lord who was appointed to act as Lord-lieutenant of Ireland had supported certain measures of Government, but whether in supporting them, the noble Viscount was aware that he had made use of expressions which evidently pointed at something more—in fact, to nothing less than the ruin of the Protestant establishment in Ireland? He had the honour of the acquaintance of the noble Lord, and he believed that the noble Lord deservedly enjoyed the esteem and regard of all who knew him. He therefore confessed, that, for the noble Lord's sake, he was sorry he was going to Ireland—that he was going with that speech affixed to him, because the inference deducible from those expressions was of a most dangerous character. Let them not talk about the irregularity of alluding to what had passed in another place. It was not irregular to notice it in this instance, because what was alluded to had taken place in a former

953
Session, and was now matter of history. How could the noble Lord proceed to the Government of Ireland, with those expressions attached to his name, without rousing the jealousy and fear of every Protestant in hat country, and exciting the hopes of every Roman Catholic, by encouraging him to think, that under the noble Lord's Government, he would have a better chance of obtaining his wishes? With respect to the Government by whom the noble Lord was appointed, their conduct must be taken as a clear proof that they did not contemplate the measures which they introduced with reference to the Protestant Church in Ireland as final measures.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, the other evening, when a noble Friend of his (the Earl of Roden) had expressed an opinion that the situation of Lord-lieutenant of Ireland might be abrogated without disadvantage, he had cheered the sentiment, upon which the noble Viscount read them an awful lecture, if not by his words, at least by his manner. What had now occurred gave, in his opinion, additional force to that sentiment. He was of opintion, that another administration like that of the late Lord-lieutenant would materially endanger the institutions of Ireland. It became the noble Viscount opposite more than any other Minister that ever guided the helm of State, to mind what he was about with respect to Ireland; for there was a mine under that country which required only another torch to be placed to it to blow it up. As an instance of the dangerous use which was made of her Majesty's name by certain parties in Ireland, he begged leave to read a placard which he had received from the county of Westmeath on Tuesday last. The notice was to the effect, that a meeting of the Precursor Society would be held at Castle Pollard on Sunday, the 24th, at one o'clock for the purpose of extending a branch of the society over the barony of Dennycour in that county—"God Save the Queen"—thereby associating the name of her Majesty with those of persons whose object was to impose on the credulous, ignorant, and unfortunate, but he would say amiable people of that country; who, under a different Government from that which existed at present—a Government that had disgraced England in the eyes of all Europe—would be prosperous and happy.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, if
954
any individual ever enjoyed the respect and esteem of all who were acquainted with him, it was the noble Lord to whom allusion had been made. The noble Lord (Wharncliffe) had expressed his regret that his noble Friend was going to Ireland. Now, far from being a matter of regret, it was a matter of positive satisfaction to him that his noble Friend, possessing so high a character, had been selected by her Majesty as a proper person to fill this important situation. In the somewhat irregular conversation in which their Lordships had been engaged, under the guise of a question, an attempt had been made, with great ingenuity, by the noble and learned Lord, to select some phrase reported to have been used by his noble Friend—he knew not with what truth—he knew not whether correctly reported or not—for the purpose of creating an injurious impression against the character of his noble Friend, and endeavouring, by imputation, to damage the character—to damage the name with which he proceeded to Ireland to administer impartially the govern me of that country. Their Lordships' opinion of that noble Lord ought to be formed not from a particular expression, picked out on purpose, but from his general conduct; and, certainly, his character for attachment to the constitution of the country, and for attachment to the church to which he belonged, as well as his general moral character, in every respect pointed him as well qualified to fill the situation for which he had been chosen. He must be permitted to add, too, that if there was a noble Lord in that House who was eminently interested in not having a particular expression, which was used in one of the Houses of. Parliament, selected without its context as a disqualification for office, that individual was the noble and learned Lord himself.
Lord Lyndhurstbegged, with all deference and submission to the noble Marguess, to state that he was not ashamed of any expression ever used by him in any debate either in that or the other house of Parliament. He was aware of the expression to which the noble Marquess alluded, and he had over and over again explained the sense in which he had used it; and, he repeated he was not ashamed of having so used it. The noble Marquess had charged him with making an attack on the character of the noble Viscount (Ebrington). He repelled the charge; he had

955
made no attack on the noble Lord's character. He had said nothing whatever with regard to the general character and conduct of the noble Lord; but had alluded solely to certain expressions of a very marked nature which the noble Lord was reported to have used in the other House of Parliament, making them the foundation of the questions he put to the noble Viscount at the head of the Government. The noble Marquess had also charged him with having exercised some ingenuity on the present occasion. How stood the case? The expressions he had quoted were distinct enough; and that they were uttered he was perfectly certain, because he had taken great pains to inquire about the matter. He found them recorded in the debates of the other House of Parliament; and he had verified that account by a reference to persons present at the time the expressions were uttered, when they were made the subject of observation and commentary by a noble and distinguished Member of the other House. That the words, therefore, were spoken he was confident, and he was quite sure the noble Viscount (Ebrington) would not repudiate them. What, then, were those words? The noble Viscount said—"I do not approve of the bill itself (the Irish Tithe Bill); but I support it, because I am satisfied that the effect of it will be to render the war now waging against the Protestant Church in Ireland more formidable." The inference he drew from those words (and could any man of common sense say it was not a logical inference?), was, that the noble Lord was desirous that the war against the church should continue, and that it should assume even a more formidable character. Upon this language, then, he placed his finger, and he asked, while acknowledging the high character of the nobleman in question, whose constitutional principles the noble Marquess had extolled, whether it were proper, in the present state of Ireland, to place at the head of affairs there a noble Lord who had stated publicly his desire that the Catholic war against the Protestant establishment in that country should continue to be waged, and with a character more formidable than it had yet assumed? Was it not natural to suppose, that the noble Lord would be desirous of carrying into effect the principles he approved of? Or if he was restrained by the obligation of the oath which he must take,
956
would it not be inferred that all those who were bent on pulling down the Protestant establishment would feel that there efforts and exertions were at least secretly countenanced by the Government; and that consequently they would be stimulated to wage the war with increased ferocity? He was glad that the noble Viscount at the head of the Government had stated that he was not aware of the expressions referred to having been uttered, because, if the noble Viscount had been aware of them, he should hold it to be a rational inference that the noble Viscount had adopted the same opinion, and he should then have been justified in saying that the appointment of the noble Viscount to be Lord-lieutenant of Ireland was a declaration of war on the part of the Government against the Protestant church of Ireland.
Lord Hollandasked whether they were to understand, on the authority of the noble and learned Lord, that, setting aside all the qualifications of the noble Viscount (Ebrington), for the office he was called on to fill, any speech which might have been delivered by him in debate in the other House of Parliament was to act as a disqualification for office? He must say, that he never heard so extraordinary a doctrine broached before, as that a speech delivered in debate on a particular subject a year or two ago, was to be brought forward as a disqualification for office. [Several noble Lords—the speech was delivered at the close of last Session.] Even if it had been yesterday, he was old enough to remember persons twitted with speeches which they had formerly made who had held offices of the highest nature. Even supposing the speech was correctly reported, which they could not know—a question which was likely to come before this House, this very day, perhaps would show a breach of the rules of the Bill of Rights, that a speech in that House, or in the other House was not to be questioned out of the House; and was it to be questioned by the Queen's Ministers—was it to be questioned by the other House? It was a proposition utterly untenable in law; and the only way in which the noble and learned Lord could bring the matter to the test was by proposing a distinct motion on the subject.
The Earl of Wicklow.The noble Lord who has just spoken entirely mistakes the question.
Lord Holland.I speak to order.
Lord Broughamrose amidst some confusion. He said, that to render the present discussion orderly, he should move that the House do adjourn. He should confine his remarks simply to the speech of his noble Friend (Lord Holland.)
Lord Holland,who had continued standing during Lord Brougham's interruption, observed, that he was speaking to order.
Lord Brougham.And so did I.
Lord Holland.But you made a motion.
Lord Broughamthen gave way, and
Lord Hollandproceeded to state, that he had risen for the purpose of noticing that there was no question before the House; and he certainly thought, that for the sake of order, some motion should be made.
Lord Broughamsaid, that as it was agreed, that their Lordships' proceedings were irregular—though they were not more irregular that night than they usually were—he thought they could not do better than get rid of a bad practice, and he therefore, moved, that the House adjourn. In doing so he could not avoid stating, that he never had been in the whole course of his life more astonished than he was at seeing his noble Friend (Lord Holland), who was not only the Lord of order, but also of the constitutional law of the country, which he had an hereditary right to know, and who ought, of all the parts of that law, to be the best acquainted with the Bill of Rights, fall into the most absurd mistake—with all respect be it spoken—of fancying that the privilege of speaking in Parliament free of question out of it meant that no questions were to be asked about what might be said in either House of Parliament. The article in the Bill of Rights meant that no Member of Parliament should be sued or indicted for what he said in Parliament. "To be called in question" was a technical phrase, and signified that a man should not be called in question in any court or place. But it did not mean, that the speeches of Members of Parliament should not be observed upon. He recollected, that upon the motion of Mr. C. Yorke, carried by the influence of Government, Mr. Gale Jones was, in consequence of a misconstruction of the passage in the Bill of Rights committed to prison; but he knew that the late Mr. Huskisson did not approve of that motion. Would any one tell him, that a speech delivered in the House of Commons on an important question
958
might not constitute a ground for advising the Sovereign with reference to the appointment to office of the individual who delivered it? If that did not constitute a ground what did? Nothing was more sacred than a private letter, but if he had received a letter from any individual showing that the writer entertained abominable principles, was he not to act on that letter, with reference to the appointment of the writer to places of trust? And let the House bear in mind, that it would be no punishment to Lord Ebrington not to be made Lord-lieutenant of Ireland. He agreed in all that had been said respecting the character of Lord Ebrington, but so far from thinking it a punishment to that noble Lord not to be sent to preside over the Irish government, under all the circumstances of the case, and under the kind of impression as to the way in which that government must now be administered by persons entertaining such sentiments, he should look upon it as an escape and reprieve from punishment. Some observations had been made respecting a speech made by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) three years ago; but there was this difference between the two cases, that his noble and learned Friend had denied that speech.
The Marquess of Lansdowne.He has not denied a word of it.
Lord Lyndhurst.The sense in which I used the expression referred to, I have already fully explained. I had the choice of two expressions; I might have made use of the word "race," but I spoke of "aliens," and in what signification I have repeatedly stated.
Lord Broughamsaid, that when a man used an unfortunate expression in debate, the explanation sometimes came too late. He was sure, if a question had arisen about sending his noble and learned Friend to Ireland as Lord-lieutenant, immediately after using the expression referred to, that he with the opinions he entertained, would not as a Minister have recommended such an appointment; if the expression were not explained. Perhaps, too, he would not he the Minister to recommend the appointment of the noble Lord. He however, only rose to protest against the extraordinary construction of the Bill of Rights laid down by his noble Friend Lord Holland.
Viscount Strangfordwished to know from the noble Lord (Holland) whether

959
he was aware of the appointment of a noble Marquess as ambassador to a foreign court being objected to in the other House, on account of expressions used in their Lordships' House?
Lord Holland,believed, that he was now in strict order to answer the arguments of his noble and learned Friend. His noble and learned Friend had entirely misunderstood what he had said on the Bill of Rights. It was extremely unusual to be engaged in questioning or discussing speeches made in Parliament, as grounds of qualification or disqualification to hold office. He did not know what the speech was, that had been referred to, but he had reason to believe there were different reports even of that speech; and if speeches were to be made the subjects of inquiry, there ought to be some mode of ascertaining the truth of them, and he did not know how that mode was to be adopted, unless there was to be some way of trying it.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that as he believed he was now in order, he would make a few observations. The noble Lord opposite had got up, knowing he was out of order, made a statement at full length, and when he got up to reply to him, the noble Lord interposed the order of the House, and stated he was out of order, because there was no motion before the House. That might be justice—it might be love of order in the mind of the noble Baron, but he believed he was the only person within those walls who had such a sense of order or justice. The question put by his noble and learned Friend did not go to the point stated by the noble Baron—it did not go to the extent whether he would appoint to an official situation a person who had, at a former period in the course of debate, made use of some intemperate expression which he might wish to recall. No doubt no proceeding could be more unjust than that, but no such question had been put. The whole of the circumstances of the case must be taken together. In the course of the last Session a bill was brought forward by her Majesty's Ministers, professedly, as they stated, for the purpose of settling the long-disputed point with regard to tithes in Ireland, for promoting tranquillity, and for the purpose of strengthening the Protestant Church in that portion of the empire. In the course of the debate, the noble Lord, to whom reference had been made, and for whose personal
960
character nobody had a greater regard than he himself had, took occasion to state, that he was opposed to that measure, but supported it because he thought it would be the groundwork for future wars and contests against the Church. Then his noble and learned Friend had said "Do you with a knowledge of that declaration—with a knowledge that the noble Lord had declared his hostility not only to the law, but his hope that the warfare would be still persevered in?—do you with that knowledge send the noble Lord to be Governor of Ireland?" The noble Viscount answered with great hesitation. He felt the dilemma in which he had placed himself and the Government. He did not state—"I was not aware of it," but he had said—"I do not know whether I was aware of it or not;" that was a very ominous answer coming from the noble Lord. Under those circumstances, his appointing such a person, and his continuing to persevere in that appointment was equivalent to a declaration on his part and on the part of the Government, that they were determined not to maintain the law which they themselves had brought in in the course of the last Session; but that they were determined to proceed still further in a warfare against the Church in that country. He most solemnly asserted, and he had authority for stating it, that the declaration made by the noble Viscount (Ebrington) had, long before any such appointment as this was contemplated, created a great sensation in Ireland. If those sentiments had created great sensation at the time they were uttered, what would be their effect now, when they saw that individual, whose words, as a Member of the Legislature, caused such apprehension, chosen as the person to govern Ireland? He would tell the noble Viscount opposite that the measure he had passed last Session for the settlement of the question and which he had hoped would have a tendency to do so—he begged to state that that measure would be altogether frustrated, if the noble Viscount persevered in the appointment. He trusted the noble Lord would again reflect upon this appointment, and seeing the danger likely to result from it, would be induced even now to withdraw it.
The Earl of Rodensaid, no individual had greater regard than himself for the noble Viscount who had been the subject of the present conversation. That noble

961
individual and himself had lived together in early life in the closest intimacy, and, however different their political opinions, he should always esteem and be proud of his society. But he conceived the case brought under their Lordships' notice to be one of serious importance, and the noble and learned Lord who introduced it had entitled himself to the thanks of all persons in Ireland anxious for the preservation of the Protestant religion. The appointment of the noble Viscount as governor of that country could not but create alarm in the minds of all Protestants, when they became acquainted with the speech which had been delivered by him. The noble Marquess opposite having taunted the noble and learned Lord with referring only to a particular passage in that speech, he thought it but right to read the whole of the speech as reported, and their Lordships would then see whether the imputations cast on the noble and learned Lord were not unjust in the extreme. The speech which was spoken on the third reading of the Irish Tithe Bill, and which was now matter of history, he found reported in a work to be had in their Lordships' library, and it was as follows:—
"Lord Ebrington.—I am desirous of saying only a few words. I, for one, entirely concur in what was lately said, by the noble Secretary at War, (Lord Howick), that this bill will be a mere adjournment of the question. I have ever considered the existence of a church establishment so utterly disproportioned to the wants of the people as that of Ireland a stain and disgrace to the Protestant religion, and a great misfortune to the country. I should not be induced to support the bill if I thought its effect would be to prevent that reduction of the Irish establishment which I believe will soon be extorted by the unanimous demands of the people. If I could see in the present state of parties any prospect of carrying into effect the principles of appropriation, no consideration whatever would lead me to listen to the question of a compromise. I shall vote for the bill only because I expect, that solar from preventing a thorough reform of the Irish church it will, by throwing the payment of tithes into the hands of those who have more power and influence than the present payers, render the war now waged against the church more formidable."*
*The speech was quoted from the Mirror of Parliament, and was delivered on July 26, 1838. So much was said of this speech, and that version of it quoted, having been described by Lord Ebrington, as the most incor-
962
He would ask the noble Viscount whether these were the sentiments with which the Government sent the noble Lord to Ireland? It would have been much more candid, much more open, and much better for the country at large, that the Government should tell the people of England whether it was their intention to destroy Protestantism in Ireland, which indeed they were virtually doing, by sending the noble Viceroy just appointed with such sentiments as those he had expressed, although the noble Viscount had denied it. But he trusted, that their Lordships would never consent to any measure being introduced, in consequence of this appointment, that would interfere with the Protestant establishment in Ireland—an establishment that was the depository of all that was good and true in that country, and England might be sure, that when the destruction of that system took place there, the same spirit would within a few years extend to her institutions also. He would address himself to those spiritual Lords who sat in that House, and would call on them, who were the legitimate guardians of the Protestant Church (and it was not merely the Church of Ireland, that was now in question, but the Church of the whole empire), to stand forward in their place in these times of danger and protect that establishment against all attacks. He had considered it his duty to state
rect of any, that we think it right to reproduce here our own report of it.
"Viscount Ebrington had ever considered that the existence of a Church Establishment in Ireland so disproportionate to the wants of the community was a stain and disgrace on the institutions of the country; and he should have found great difficulty in bringing himself to support the measure if he thought that it would tend to prevent that reduction of the Church Establishment which at no very distant period he hoped to see accomplished. With respect to the principle of appropriation, if in the present state of things he saw any prospect of carrying that principle into operation—no consideration should induce him to acquiesce in a bill which did not include it, But if the struggle against tithes were still to go on, notwithstanding this bill, the burden would be on the shoulders of those who were much better able to bear it, and who he hoped, would carry on the war with effect. He should support this measure, therefore, not as the best which he could wish to be carried into effect, but as the best which the present state of parties held out a hope of obtaining."—Hansard, 3rd Series, vol. xliv. p. 665.

963
these as his opinions, and because he considered that Protestantism in Ireland was, as it ever would be, the protection of all civil and religious liberty in that country.
The conversation dropped.

INDIA.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that from what had been reported as occurring in another place, he found that it was the intention of Government to furnish certain papers connected with events that had recently taken place in India, at no distant period. Now it was not his wish, either at this or at any other time, to embarrass the Government by calling for the production of any papers, but there were some in particular which he thought might be produced without any detriment. He wished, however, to know whether any treaty had been made with the Ameers of Sinde, for the purpose of facilitating the march of our army through their territories; and whether the information which he desired to have produced was such as would show the course pursued by the British Government with respect to the expedition of Schah Soojah to Candahar in 1834. The only ground remaining now for the military movements takingplace beyond the Indus being the supposed hostility of Dost Mahomed to our Government, it was of importance to ascertain whether that hostility had not been provoked and justified by our acquiescence in the expedition of Schah Soojah to Candahar in 1834. Schah Soojah was then our prisoner, residing within our territory, to which he returned after his defeat, and the de facto rulers of Cabal and Candahar were on terms of friendship with our Government.
Viscount Melbournebelieved there was no such treaty in existence as that to which the noble Lord had referred. With respect to the other points referred to by the noble Lord, it would, of course, be desirable that the Government should lay before Parliament the fullest information on all these subjects, with a view to inquiring fully into them; and he thought it would be found, that there was no paper which would bear out the noble Lord's apprehension, that the honour and character of the British Government had been at all compromised in the way suspected by the noble Lord. It was, however, the intention of her Majesty's Government to lay the fullest information on the subject
964
of the affairs, not only of India, but of our relations in Asia generally, before both Houses of Parliament, and if the noble Lord wished for any particular papers he should be glad to consult his wishes as far as possible.