Sitting of 14 June 1822

KENT PETITION—REFORM OF PARLIAMENT, AND REDUCTION OF THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC DEBT.
Mr. Honywoodrose to present a petition from the county of Kent, complaining of Agricultural Distress, and praying for Parliamentary Reform. There was a concluding paragraph tacked to it, the introduction of which no man regretted more sincerely than himself; he meant that rider which called upon parliament to make a reduction in the interest of the national debt, as soon as that House should have reformed itself. Had government, two years ago, adopted that economy and retrenchment so loudly called for by the distresses of the country, they would never have heard such a sentiment from the freeholders of Kent.
Sir E. Knatchbulladmitted, that the meeting was numerous and highly respectable. The meeting was convened for the purpose of considering the distressed state of the country, and the expediency of parliamentary reform. The meeting took place, and very little was said about agricultural distress, but a great deal about reform. Every thing went on peaceably, until a gentleman (he supposed he must call him so, for he said he was a freeholder) thought fit to propose the rider alluded to. In his opinion, it was the lamest rider a Whig horse ever had to carry. When the clause was proposed to the meeting, a considerable pause, as if of astonishment, ensued. Sadie time elapsed before any body had the confidence to second the motion. At last an individual seconded it. During the whole of the time, the great Whig leaders who had called the meeting were silent land expressed no opinion with respect to the clause. A noble lord (Darnley) opposed the rider, as recommending a breach of public faith, and no doubt With a feeling of strong repugnance at seeing the aristocracy of the county dictated to by such a character as Cobbett. Had his honourable colleague and the noble lord called upon the meeting to oppose that rider, they would have vindicated the high, character and unblemished honour which the county of Kent had ever maintained. The person who moved the rider had stated, that the main object of parliamentary reform was, a reduction of the interest of the national debt. If that was so, his objections to parliamentary reform were strengthened and confirmed. He was perfectly persuaded that this disgraceful rider would never have been adopted, if the Whig-
1080
leaders had expressed their dislike to it as strongly as his hon. colleague had now done. He protested against this amendment being considered as the expression of the opinion of the freeholders. Whatever might be their opinion with respect to parliamentary reform, nine-tenths of them would have rejected a proposition for breaking faith with the public creditor. He protested, therefore, against this part of the petition in the name of his constituents, and he had the authority of his hon. colleague for protesting against it on behalf of the Whig leaders of the county.
Mr. Honywoodsaid, that this petition did not emanate merely from the Whig leaders. The requisition had been signed by a number of persons who had never called themselves Whigs, and who were once the enemies of reform. With respect to the rider, be had opposed it at the time, and he utterly disavowed the sentiment it contained.
Lord J. Russellcould not help expressing his surprise, that if, as the hon. baronet stated, so large a majority of the meeting were opposed to this proposition, he had not himself brought forward some counter resolution. The truth was, and it was, a melancholy truth, that persons not of the lowest order, nor seditiously inclined, but possessing considerable property in the county, found themselves in a state or approaching ruin, and in the wreck of their fortunes, upon hearing any proposition which bore the appearance of relief, they caught at it, as drowning men catch at straws, without any intention of injuring the government or the constitution of the country. With regard to parliamentary reform, he had been applied to by several of his friends to know whether it was his intention to renew the motion which he had lately made, and he now begged to state, that upon the first favourable opportunity he would renew his attempt to effect a just, necessary, and constitutional reform. With respect to the part of this petition, which prayed for a just reduction of the interest of the public debt, he knew of no such as a just reduction of that interest, and considered parliamentary reform wholly unconnected, with the public debt. Even if he were disposed to say that late war was entered into, and persisted in against the will of the great majority of the people—a proposition which he was by no means ready to admit,—he should still contend, that that House was the legal representa-

1081
tive of the people, and that if any debts were contracted by it, future governments were bound to discharge them. The Cortes of Spain might furnish an example in this respect; for though they succeeded to one of the most vicious and detestable despotisms by which a nation had ever been oppressed, they still considered themselves bound to discharge the debts contracted by the former government. To such a measure as that recommended in this petition he would never consent, except in a case of overwhelming necessity—not a necessity wantonly assumed, or gratuitously suggested, but such a necessity as would be felt by all parties in that House, and which, if it ever arrived, ministers would probably be more quick-sighted in perceiving than any other party in that House. Did such a necessity exist at present? Far from it. Not only were we paying the interest of the debt, but we were reducing taxes which had hitherto been paid. Ever since the time of William 3rd, we had been contracting this debt. We had begun it in our struggles to preserve on the throne the king of our choice, in opposition to a rejected family whom foreign despots wanted to force back upon us. If we were the first to create a public debt and for so great a purpose, surely we could never be the first to violate faith with the public creditor [Hear, hear!].
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, he was not in the House when the petition was read, but he hoped that no objection would be made to its reception. However strongly he might reprobate the particular paragraph in question, he did not apprehend that it formed any objection to the petition being received. On the contrary, he thought it would be highly useful that this petition of the county of Kent should remain on the records of parliament, to warn other counties against being betrayed into the avowal of principles so disgraceful to themselves, and so calculated to bring ruin or the country. It was not with any surprise that he had heard the noble lord opposite disclaim a doctrine so unjust, so flagitious, and so pregnant with ruin and degradation to the country; but the noble lord must forgive him for saying, that he had heard part of his observations with great pain. The noble lord said, that he could never consent to such a measure, except in a case of overwhelming necessity. BY what process of reasoning could the noble lord couple the word
1082
consent with overwhelming necessity? When such a state of things as the noble lord contemplated, had thrown down all the barriers of restraint, and dissolved all the tics of morality, what room was there for consent? He protested against this mode of expression, because it was calculated to give too much countenance to the notion of that convenient sort of necessity, which might tempt gentlemen to give their consent to the spoliation of property which belonged as justly to the public creditor, as the lands of the house of Bedford did to the noble lord's family. He considered the right of the public creditor to the interest of the debt as sacred as that of the duke of Bedford to the manors to which he was legally entitled. He hoped the word "consent" would never again be mixed up with a transaction, which could only be one of pure violence; and he doubted not, that whenever he again introduced it, he would discuss the question in the same, temperate and enlightened manner; that the language of this petition would operate as a caution to parliamentary reformers, and induce them to pause before they attempted to break down the existing forms of the representation of the country, and place it in a state in which meetings like that of the county of Kent, might send mandates to that House, so inconsistent with all the principle of justice and sound policy.
Lord J. Russellsaid, he had studiously qualified his expressions, by stating that he meant not a gratuitous necessity, but such a necessity, as would be felt alike by all parties in that House. He meant to put the strongest possible case of necessity; such a case, for instance, as when we were utterly unable to pay the interest of the debt, or when the presence of a foreign enemy at our gates rendered the independence and safety of the country paramount to every other consideration.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, he was happy to hear the anxiety of the noble lord to explain his expressions, but the case put by the noble lord could only justify the nation in postponing the performance of its engagements, and not in consenting to the violation of them. He exceedingly lamented, that the leaders of that meeting, for the sake of their station and character in the country, had not rescued themselves froth the disgrace of having such a proposition carried.
Lord J. Russellsaid, he was ready to retract the word "consent" if the noble marquis wished it, but he really was not aware that the noble marquis was such a critic in language. He thought that the Whigs had been carried away by the feeling of the whole meeting, which feeling had been mainly produced by the measures of the noble lord opposite.
Mr. Calcraftsaid, that if the two representatives of the county had made the statements to the meeting which they had made this evening, there would not have been fifty voices for the amendment. He lamented that they had not made known their indignation against such a proposition. The meeting had agreed to it from utter ignorance on the part of many, and many, from not having heard it at all. Those who called the meeting ought to have stood till this time, combating the amendment, rather than have allowed it to be attached to their petition. If they had acted so, the person who had proposed it, and who was not known as a freeholder, would soon have been obliged to take his horse and ride away. He disclaimed the amendment as not expressing the sentiments of the meeting, and had he not been engaged in duties which he conceived to be more important in that House, he could have successfully exposed the weakness and fallacy of the proposition. It was said I that gentlemen were taken by surprise; but when men undertook to manage public meetings, they ought to be prepared for emergencies of this sort. He had reason to know that the individual who proposed this rider had not the slightest expectation of seeing it adopted.
Sir E. Knatchbullsaid, that if his hon. colleague had joined him in opposing the proposition, or met him half way, Cobbett and his amendment would have been consigned to merited disgrace.
Mr. J. Smithwas convinced, that the great body of the freeholders of the county were incapable of supporting so flagitious a proposition. It was a severe mortification to him to find that the county of Kent was the first to come forward to petition parliament to break faith with the public creditor.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that two objects seemed to be in the view of the noble lord opposite, and the worthy baronet, one to cast blame on the leaders of the Whig aristocracy; the other, to attack all public county meetings through the sides of the Kent meeting. And well they might
1084
come to this conclusion, if there were any foundation for their premises; for, if the freeholders of Kent were not to be trusted, either as to the purity of their motives, or the sagacity of their, views, he knew not where in all England, a county was to be found in whose probity or intelligence they could rely. He rose, therefore, for the purpose of vindicating both these parties, on the showing of the assailants themselves. If the meeting were to blame, then the Whig leaders must be exculpated; if the Whig leaders were to blame, then it was impossible to cast any imputation on the meeting. The hon. baronet had asked, why the Whig leaders had not come forward to open the eyes of the meeting, and resist the proposition? Why then, it followed of course, according to this view of the case, that if the Whig leaders had come forward, they would have been successful, and it was their own fault that they had not enlightened, the meeting. They might have resisted the proposition—it was their non-resistance to which the proposition owed its success. But what followed from this branch of the dilemma? If the Whig leaders were in fault, the meeting must escape from all blame; for it was to be presumed, that the real sense of the meeting was not in favour of this odious proposition, and that it would not have been agreed to if the Whig leaders had done their duty. The worthy baronet had, however, exculpated the Whig leaders, when he had stated, that one noble lord (Darnley) did come forward and oppose it. The worthy baronet did not deny that many of the Whig leaders gave their votes against the proposition—[Sir E. Knatchbull said, "some few of them."] And he (Mr. B.) had the assurance of those noble persons themselves, that they did vote against the obnoxious proposition. Yet the worthy baronet had most inconsistently blamed the Whig aristocracy for not opposing what, upon his own showing, it appeared they had opposed, and he had blamed the meeting for having been the dupes of that proposition. He was really at a loss to conceive what the worthy baronet of his hon. friend (Mr. Calcraft) would have wished the Whig leaders to do more than it was admitted they had done. He could assure the House, that it was the fixed and clear opinion of many gentlemen who were present, that the meeting were decidedly in favour of the proposal, and that all resistance on their part would have

1085
been unavailing. He was inclined to think that if a farther explanation of the nature and consequences of the proposition had been given, it might have been rejected. He protested, however, against the doctrine, that this addition to the petition, ought to diminish the weight and authority which belonged to the rest of it. The meeting was emphatically a meeting of the county of Kent: it was crowded with men of all parties, many of whom were friends of the worthy baronet. No man could deny, that with respect to their complaint of grievances, and the question of parliamentary reform, the petition spoke the deliberate sense of the meeting; and it was too much to contend that the addition of an obnoxious paragraph, which had been embodied into it from accidental circumstances, ought to diminish the weight to which the petition was entitled. He trusted the people of England would never be deterred from exercising the right which they had in this instance exercised, and that they would continue to show their clear and deliberate sense of the distresses under which they were labouring, and the causes of those distresses, in petitions to parliament while the session lasted, and to the Throne during the recess. The less such representations were attempted to be stifled—the more fully and freely they were discussed—the more securely would public credit be placed on a basis which nothing could shake but that overwhelming necessity which was paramount to all argument, and which, as the noble marquis had justly observed, put all consent entirely out of the question. Such a proposition ought never to be entertained but in circumstances of the greatest extremity; least of all ought it to be brought forward in the crude, hasty, ill-considered, and not at all digested form in which the last paragraph of the petition embodied a sentiment which would never have been adopted by the meeting, had it been thoroughly canvassed, and which he hoped never to see introduced into a petition again.
Mr. Honywoodsaid, that a noble friend of his would also have explained to the meeting the fatal consequence of the proposition, had it not been that he was fatigued by being squeezed up waggon.
The Marquis of Londonderrydenied having said a word against county meetings generally. All he had said was this,
1086
that as these petitioners had consigned to a reformed parliament the task of committing a spoliation upon the public creditor, he thought that the country should guard itself against any system of representation which might be likely to entertain such crude and sweeping suggestions.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that however objectionable or unjust the proposition of the petitioners might be, it was not more so than the conduct of the noble marquis respecting the restriction, and the subsequent resumption of cash payments.
Lord Cliftonsaid, it might seem odd for a man to accuse himself; but he did think that the Whig leaders had wanted spirit at the meeting. How Mr. Cobbett had got possession of the meeting he could hardly conceive, unless from the circumstance of his having spoken towards the close of the meeting, and amidst that confusion which generally attended the breaking up of such bodies. But, notwithstanding the objectionable character of the rider, he believed the sentiments expressed in the petition to be the sentiments of a great proportion of the freeholders of Kent; and he hoped that future meetings would take warning how they annexed to their petitions sentiments and. principles of a revolutionary nature.
Mr. Secretary Peelthought, that the manly and becoming confession of the noble lord had done ten times more towards setting his party right with the people of England, than the defence which had been made for them by the hon. and learned member. But, when the noble lord expressed his astonishment how Mr. Cobbett could have influenced the meeting, he put a query which, in fact, he himself had answered. Mr. Cobbett had succeeded in influencing the meeting, simply because he had not been manfully resisted. What was the charge against the meeting in question? Was it blamed for having met to petition parliament for retrenchment? No; it was blamed for having proposed an unjust and iniquitous measure. The more decided the opposition of the Whig leaders to Mr. Cobbett's proposition, the greater had been their blame that they had not stood forward, and explained to the men of Kent the impropriety of the course they were following. If the being squeezed in a waggon was an excuse for one individual, it could not be an excuse for all. After all, he preferred the manly proposal, for a downright reduction of the interest of the debt,

1087
to the mysterious insinuations of the learned member for Winchelsea; nor could he think that that learned member had much palliated the iniquity of the present suggestion, by attempting to show that parliament had sanctioned measures still more iniquitous.
Mr. Bennetsaid, he was not surprised that the right hon. secretary was desirous to do away the disgrace which attached to the pillage in the first instance of the public creditor, and the pillage afterwards of the public debtor, which had been committed by the government. These profligate and abandoned examples had corrupted the moral, feelings of the country; though, after all, he did not believe that the objectionable proposal could be considered as the act of a discussing body.
Mr. Westernwas astonished at the consummate assurance [Hear, hear!] with which the right hon. gentleman had denounced the men of Kent, for an expression wrung from them in a moment of irritation. Why had not the friends of the right hon. secretary come forward to face and to instruct the meeting? If only one-tenth of the county was favourable to the rider, why had not the other nine-tenths come forward to oppose it? It was too much for gentlemen to suppose, that public justice was due to no one but to the public creditor. Why was it not equally to be measured to the public debtor?
Mr. Humecontended, that the words of the petition could, in fairness, be construed to mean no more than a similar reduction in the interest of the debt to that lately made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. gentleman had reduced the interest of the 5 per cents to 4 per cent, and had hinted that then per cents might ultimately be reduced to 3. Now, there was no reason to suppose that the petitioners did not mean such a reduction. When ministers had plunged the country into a state in which those who not long ago were in a state of comparative comfort, had no prospect before them but a gaol or a poor-house, they ought not to be over critical about the terms of a petition.
Sir F. Burdettthought it was hard that, his hon. friend, the member for Kent, should be fallen upon in the way the he had been by both sides of the House, inconsequence of his omission to do what few of the most experienced public men would have had presence of mind to do in his
1088
situation. It was plain that his hon. friend was overwhelmed by a sudden ebullition of popular feeling. But least of all, did he think hon. friend's colleague, had any right to censure him, when he, the Tory member for the county, and known to be hostile to the proposition altogether, did not manfully step forward to combat its adoption by the meeting. The scheme proposed in the rider, was, called, on the other side, a robbery; but difference of opinion might exist as to that fact. If any thing like an absolute fraud had been recommended, gentlemen would have been bound to resist it; but there were many who viewed the suggestion in a different light. The men of Kent did not say, that the public creditor should not have 20 s. to his pound; but it was the opinion of many most able men, that in consequence of the measures of the right hon, gentleman opposite, the public creditor was likely to get 30 s. in the pound. If that opinion, was well, founded, what man could be expected to submit, in the present condition of the country, to be stripped of his property in furtherance of such a system? And he (sir F. Burdett) did conscientiously believe, that not only the agricultural interest, but the whole productive labour and capital of the country, was at the present moment paying the public creditor 30 s. in the pound. After all, then, what was there so very objectionable in the scheme which had been proposed? He did not regret that it had been proposed. The proposition had brought the subject matter into discussion; and such discussion was absolutely necessary to the safety of the country. Let the right hon. secretary make that clear to the country which was so very clear to himself; namely, that the proposition was a dishonest proposition; and not apply abuse to every suggestion thrown out upon political economy. The right hon. secretary said, that he liked the plain dealing of Cobbett better than the mysterious insinuations of the learned member for Winchelsea. Now, he was glad that plain dealing was gratifying to him, because the right hon. secretary was in a fair way to have a great deal of it. Let not the noble lord opposite seek to engage the House in a warfare with the people. The noble lord would find the country disposed to make every necessary sacrifice, although not inclined to be the dupe of sophistry, which almost every idiot could see through, or of mock plans

1089
of retrenchment, which ended in the imposition of additional burthens upon the people. He was glad that the petition was not to be rejected, and thought there was no pretence for branding any individual concerned in it with dishonesty.
Mr. Monckwould go as far as any man for the payment of debts public or private, and would live on bread and water to discharge them; but the public faith had been first broken in the year 1797, when paper had been substituted for the metallic currency. The contracting of 800,000,000 l. of debt was a species of dishonesty, for ministers never could have hoped to discharge it. He thought there was a broad distinction betwixt the public creditor who lent his money in gold before the year 1797, and those who lent it since that time in a depreciated paper, convertible neither into gold, silver, nor copper. He thought it was their duty to do what the French had done with their assignats, treating all debts contracted in that species of money as in a depreciated currency, and legalizing their liquidation in the present currency with reference to that depreciation.
Mr. Wilsoncould not agree, that there was any analogy between the English Bank-note and the French assignats. Were they to attempt to treat contracts in the way proposed, they would plunge the country into inevitable ruin. He did not see how the gentlemen opposite could blame the resumption of cash payments. He was sure that until they had found that some of the consequences of that measure were ruinous, a great majority of them were in favour of it.
Mr. Philipsattributed all the evils which the country was suffering to the suspension of cash payments in 1797, and trusted that the country would never again be agitated by a return to that system.
Mr. Lockhartsaid, that whatever might be urged against a paper currency, this country would never have been able to carry on the war to the extent it had done, without its aid. Like Oliver Cromwell, who, finding that he could not purchase provisions for his forces, voted a general fast, the chancellor of the exchequer, finding that he had not a sufficient quantity of gold, voted that paper was equal to it in value; and it became so much so, as to answer his purpose. This, however, was no reason why the argument should be turned against those, who, feeling the evils brought upon them by the system,
1090
prayed for some reduction of the interest of the national debt. He did not justify such a measure, but we ought not to condemn those who called for it as dishonest; for he was satisfied that no portion of the British public would think of such a plan, unless they were driven to it by the most pressing necessity. He trusted that parliament, after the reduction of taxation, as far as possible, would in the next session inquire how for the different kinds of property might be brought to bear their fair portion of the public burthens.
Mr. J. Martinthought that nothing could be more insulting to parliament, than to call upon them to do that which those who made honest. As he believed that a great majority of the petitioners were ignorant of the effect of what they asked, he would consent that it should be received. Feeling, however, that the demand was in its nature unjust, he trusted that parliament would not separate without expressing their opinion upon it. They had, the other evening, declared that they would not debase the coin of the country: let them now agree to a declaration, that, they would not defraud the public creditor.
On the motion for printing the petition,
Mr. Broughamobserved, that when the men of Kent were blamed for calling for a reduction of the interest of the debt, we should recollect what had been done by parliament on former occasions. With respect to the prayer of the petition he could not agree to it. He thought that, in justice and good policy, we were bound not to touch the principal, and to pay the interest as long as we could; and he doubted not that if economy were practised, we should be able fully to satisfy the public creditor, without severely pressing upon the people. But if this economy and reduction did not take place, then would come that necessity which would prevent the possibility of his being paid. The right hon. secretary had praised the manner in which the petitioners had made the request, and had said, that it was more manly than any round-about and insidious attempts at the same object. If the right hon. gentleman meant to allude to the intentions of gentlemen on his (Mr. B's.) side, he must tell him that he was wholly mistaken; but if he wished to apply them where they were so well deserved, let him look around and he would there find the abettors and supporters of a fraud carried on by insidious,

1091
unmanly, base, treacherous, and violent measures—measures from the effects of which the country was not likely to recover, under the, present system of management.
Mr. Peelsaid, he never did deal in underhand insinuations. He had adverted to propositions made in that House, both by the learned gentleman, and by the hon. member for Shrewsbury, founded on a supposed necessity, when the public faith could not be preserved. Such anticipations were calculated to produce that necessity, which never should be contemplated in that House, any more than in private life it should be contemplated, that a case of highway robbery might be justifiable.
Mr. H. G. Bennetsaid, he would repeat, that the public had no right to pay more than they had borrowed, and that if they borrowed 20 s., they ought not to be called upon to pay 30 s. By the measures of government both the public creditor and debtor had been defrauded—the former in 1797, the latter in 1819. Ministers had acted upon a system, the ruinous effects of which uniformly would exist when their names should be buried in oblivion, or if remembered, only as the authors of incalculable mischief to their country.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, that if the hon. member chose to become the advocate of revolutionary measures, he must find some better pretext than the reasoning which be had put forth. His argument about not paying 30 s. where we had borrowed only 20 s., was just as reasonable as if he should object to paying at par that which we had borrowed at 60 s. The bargain was made upon clear and intelligible principles, and they ought honestly to perform their part of the contract.
Mr. Bennetsaid, that no vote of his had ever gone to defraud the public creditor or debtor. Let the noble marquis mark that!
Mr. Ricardowas clear, that if the public creditor had at one time received 30 s. in place of 20 s., he had at other times received 20 s. in place of 30 s. So that, in the whole of these transactions, be had great doubts whether the public creditor had been benefitted.
Mr. Humewas sorry that such opinions with respect to the payment of the public creditor should be held by his hon. friends; but, though he differed from them, he could not shut his eyes to the fact, that
1092
they were opinions held by some of the best informed persons in the country. The noble lord would do well to look to his own conduct in the sister country, before he charged his hon. friend with a disposition to favour revolutionary measures. These, however, were threats which the noble lord had held out on every occasion where economy and retrenchment were recommended; but, like the boy in the fable, the cry so often repeated, was, no longer attended to. He differed from his hon. friends in the opinion that any necessity could ever arise for reducing the interest to the public creditor. He thought no circumstance could arise in this country for any measure being enforced against the fundholder which was not also applicable to be landholder. The country was rich in resources. All that was wanted was, a just and economical administration of them.
Mr. Honywoodsaid, that there was not one person in the county who was aware of the intention to introduce the obnoxious clause into the petition.
Ordered to be printed.

ALIENS REGULATION BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,
Sir James Mackintoshsaid, that no man who consulted his own personal satisfaction would think of addressing the House at any length, with such a thin attendance of members, and particularly after its patience had been nearly exhausted by the alarming nature of the subject which had engaged its attention for the greater part of the evening. They had been occupied in considering one of those unhappy contests between different classes of the same community, some of whom were endeavouring to shift the burthen from their own shoulders, on those of their neighbours. Such attempts, how, ever unwise in their nature, nevertheless went to prove the extent of that misery, which could so far goad men's minds as to make them assent to propositions which a little calm consideration would induce them to reject. Such subjects were calculated to excite the anxious attention of parliament; but that upon which he now, rose to address them possessed no such attraction; particularly as it had been so frequently discussed within a few years. Still, however, Alien bills had never been brought to their present stage, and the grounds upon which they were

1093
introduced and defended were so new and so various, that several of the former principles on which they had been supported and opposed would no longer apply. We had had systems of biennial Alien bills since the peace. In 1814, we were told that we must not, upon a transition from war to peace, make too sudden a jump from vigilance to perfect security. In 1816, an Alien bill was defended on the ground that France, with 160,000 troops, was still in an unsettled state. In 1818, we were told that such a number of journalists and other emigrants were in the country, as made it dangerous unless government possessed the power of sending them off at pleasure. But it happened singularly enough, that the government of France within a few months of that period, as if to refute the statements made by their allies in that House, recalled all those emigrants to France, for the purpose it would seem, of allowing them to carry on their schemes of conspiracy in the very metropolis of that country. In 1820, the measure was again renewed on the very reasonable apprehension, that the Calabrians might assist in exciting dissatisfaction at Manchester, and the Parguinotes in disseminating sedition at Birmingham. But, after that year, the government of England determined to have done with these temporary pretexts—pretexts which were so frivolous that, on looking back at them with the retrospective eye of history, no one could help smiling at the willing simplicity of those who appeared to have been deceived by them. These pretexts had, however, one merit in them—they recognized the temporary nature of the bill, and acknowledged that it was a departure from the ancient policy of the country, which required to be justified by some statement of apparent danger. A new condition of things had now, however, arisen. The bill, though it was still enacted as a temporary, was now introduced as a permanent measure, and being so introduced, he would contend that it was now in its principle perpetual. The question, therefore, on which the House was called to decide, was this—whether they would allow that to be one grafted on the constitution as a principled which the folly of their ancestors had never deemed it necessary to enact, buts which the wisdom of the present age thought it prudent and expedient to adopt? Though he intended to say little upon the
1094
general objections to the bill, he should still take the opportunity of calmly and dispassionately recapitulating them. The first objection to the bill was, that it reduced to a complete state of slavery about 25,000 foreigners, now resident in the British dominions. In the second place, it accustomed the subjects of a free state to the spectacle of slavery, and by inuring them to the sight of rights infringed and injuries unredressed gave a dangerous example of slavish suffering, and lessened the habit and love of freedom. Thus it was one of the last powers which a wise minister could desire, or a free constitution ought to establish. The third objection was, that this bill went to legalize an arbitrary power which might be exercised in a manner ruinous to the individuals, and mischievous to the country, by driving away our artisans and merchants, who enriched and adorned it, to a foreign land. In the fourth place, he objected, because the measure was not aided or connected by any of the legal and instituted means of detecting malice and falsehood. The fifth objection was, that with respect to humble and obscure persons coming under the provisions of this bill, who had no representatives in the legislature, no protectors in any of the institutions of the country the abuse of the power was not only possible, buy inevitable. Under the operation of this measure, poor and friendless foreigners, who were ignorant of the language, and the usages of the country, might be silently withdrawn—might be seized and exiled—without producing any chasm in society, any alarm in public opinion. They might be swept away from our shore, while their friends, apprehensive of the same fate, would silence their tongues and hide their trembling heads. In short, there was no security against the commission of wrong, and no responsibility when it was committed. But the evil extended much farther. It did not merely confer but diffuse the principle of tyranny; it scattered an odious power over the whole of society: it gave not to one or two only, but to a multitude of persons in the state, a vexatious and tyrannous authority over the comfort and security of others. All this evil, besides, arose not from the abuse but the very existence of the power, which must in its nature be injurious to the security of individuals, the integrity of testimony, and the decisions of justice. This was not all. Whether the power was abused or not, the knowledge

1095
of its existence would deter many illustrious fugitives, whom the fiercest oppression drove from their native shores, from seeking an asylum in the hospitality of this land. Such persons would not trust to men but laws; not to will but principle; they could know little of the character of the persons who wielded the chief authority here; but, hearing of such a law as this, they could not confide in the humanity of the country: and if such persons did trust to our faith, and throw themselves on our protection they came with a brand on their forehead, the mark and distinction of a cruel and barbarous ingenuity to insult and degrade them. It was also to be taken into the account, that the bill, as now proposed to be renewed, arose out of the calamities which had befallen the fairest portion of Europe—the oppression, domestic and foreign, which, had desolated Italy, and driven her patriotic youth, notwithstanding the existence of the Alien bill, to seek a hospitable asylum on our shore, relying on the former character of England—trusting to her ancient fame, and the very reputation of her soil, which offered of old, emancipation to the slave and security to the fugitive. But, instead of this generous policy, we were now planting menacing sentinels at the gates of this country, to deter the victims of foreign oppression, and drive them back from our land of freedom upon the mercy of their tyrants. It had been said with exultation, that the Alice bill was a popular bill. He did not believe it to be so; but if it were a popular measure, and founded upon any popular prejudice—such, for instance, as a cry of "No Popery," or "Down with foreigners," he would struggle against it with all his ability. Even if the mighty master of moral eloquence had said, that foreigners were not entitled to that protection which the law extended to those burn within its immediate jurisdiction, he would deny the doctrine; but no such monstrous principle had ever obtained a dwelling his capacious mind. On the contrary, he had said in his own nervous and energetic language, "Qui autem civium rationem habendam esse dicunt, externorum negant, hi dirimunt humani generis societatem; qua sublata bonitas, liberalitas, humanitas, justitia, funditas tollitur." It was said, that it was necessary to pass the Alien bill, because the age we lived in was an age of revolution. He could scarcely have expected that
1096
such a reason would be urged for the continuance of so abominable a measure: he should rather have expected to have heard the argument pressed the other way. He should have thought advisable to leave one country at least open to the vanquished party, as a place of refuge from injury and oppression: he: should have thought it expedient to establish such an asylum, if not to prevent them from being driven to despair, at least to give time to the victor to sooth his rage and soften his animosity. He should have thought that to enclose the victor and the vanquished in the same country was a measure so abhorrent from every principle of humanity, that no civilized nation would sanction it. To permit the victorious party to wreak the whole force of his vengeance upon, the defeated party, was sure to lead to the most disgusting scenes of rapine and bloodshed—to deprive the vanquished party of every place in which they could be protected from the severity of their opponents, was to compel them to look for safety in interminable warfare to tell them, that their only chance of safety was despair—"Una salus victis, nullam sperare salutem." The hon. and learned member then alluded to the provisions of Magna Charta in behalf of foreigners, and said, that from the earliest times down to the present they had been the subject, of many a proud eulogy on this country in the volumes of foreign jurists. It was no recommendation of the modern policy of this country, to find that the tendency of one of its principal measures had been, to deprive the policy of our ancestors of that praise which foreign nations had so universally conceded to it. It was no recommendation of our present ministers to discover that they, the enemies of innovation as they styled themselves, had been reduced to the necessity of stripping their country, of its ancient privilege of giving emancipation to every slave, and protection to every fugitive, that came within its shores; and that they had desecrated that soil which had bean consecrated by the foot-steps of so many martyrs in the cause of faith and freedom. The whole policy, of our antient laws tended to encourage aliens to settle among us; and the restoration of the law, giving them in all cases a jury de medietate linguœ, after it had been abrogated more than a century, proved how anxious our ancestors were that their interests should suffer no detriment. That

1097
bill, however, instead of providing that in all trials they should have a fair and partial jury, sent them out of the country without a trial by jury, and indeed without any trial at all. From the state of our ancient laws, he argued that our ancestors, barbarians as some persons thought proper to style them, had nothing barbarous in their legislation on this subject. Those who wished to alter what they had enacted, at the same time that they were not improving the system of our laws, were depriving themselves of the power of raising the cry of innovation against others by becoming the greatest of all innovators themselves. Stare super vias antiquas, which had been their motto and their maxim, was now abandoned; and they who had so long declaimed upon the wisdom of our ancestors, were now among the first to abjure and abandon it.—He would now proceed to consider this bill in relation to the present circumstances of Europe, and the policy of the English cabinet. He took the ground of the bill to be this—the minister says, that unless a power be vested in the Crown to remove foreigners at pleasure, conspiracies will be entered into against the peace and happiness of foreign kingdoms. No facts, however, had been offered in support of this allegation, which rested solely on the responsibility of the minister who made it. Now, there were several things assumed in it which required explanation. He wished to ask gentlemen on the other side of the House, whether the prevention of conspiracy, against foreign governments was a duty which, according to the law of nations, one friendly country was obliged to perform to another, and whether the neglect of that duty was a legitimate cause or complaint? If they replied, that it was our duty to prevent such conspiracies, then the maintained that it was likewise our duty to use means to detect them; or, in other words, to have a regular establishment silent of spies for that purpose. We must have a department of spies for the French government, another for the Russian, a third for the Austrian, a fourth for the Prussian, and a fifth for any other arbitrary and despotic government that might exist—indeed, we must have for the Turkish department more than for any other—for that most sacred and legitimate government seemed more endangered at present than all the rest—a battalion of spies regularly arrayed, organized, pensioned, and rewarded. No man would
1098
deny that if we were bound to accomplish the end, we were also bound to use the necessary means. But he denied that we were bound to accomplish this end: he defied the gentlemen on the other side to find a single word in any writer on the law of nations warranting such a conclusion. If we were bound to be thus subservient to the government of foreign nations, we were bound also to go much farther: we were bound to expel from our shores any foreigner whom they thought proper to designate as a person dangerous to the tranquillity of their states. But, in 1803, when Buonaparte made such a demand of us, and made it because we had then an Alien bill in existence, we manfully resisted it and would not consent to banish the Bourbons from England, though their residence in it was, no doubt, a just cause of alarm to that extraordinary character. Indeed, if such a principle were once adopted, a power of proscription would be given to every foreign government over its subjects resident in this country, which, if ever denied, would afford just grounds of hostility to the party refused. In the foreign enlistment bill, we had given the minister authority to prevent any armaments being publickly arrayed in this nation against any foreign power; by the present bill we gave him to still further powers, and authorized him to prevent any secret consultations against them. He had three objections to the practice which it was now attempted to establish; first that it had no foundation in the law of nations: secondly, that it was not warranted by ancient practice; and thirdly, that it was a surrender of the sovereignty of the nation. But it was said, that this law was directed against conspiracies. Conspiracies against what, and by whom? And first, what was the nature of the law itself? It was a law entirely in favour of the party that was powerful, and entirely fatal to the patty that was weak. It was law framed for the use of all governments, however despotic and absolute, and against all nations, however injured and oppressed. It was a law for the support of all who were prepared to carry the monarchical principle of government with fire and sword, and sword, and dungeon, against the groans and struggles of every suffering people. It was a law to uphold those who would remorselessly lay waste the world, and against the extension of either sympathy or pity to generous and innocent subjects. What, too, were to be the

1099
qualifications of the parties who were to be exposed to its penalties? Were they those against whom the heaviest engine of arbitrary law ought to be pointed? No: they were the expelled, the fallen, the miserable. The strong could not feel it, for, if successful, they defied its power; the triumphant laughed at the edict: it could only, then, fall upon those whose fate it was to fly from a tyranny which they were unable to resist, and who were then to be thrown back, hopeless and helpless, upon the shores of the barbarous tyrants from whose fangs they vainly thought they had escaped. And by what country were they to be so cast away? By England, a nation once famed for its generous hospitality, and always renowned for its noble spirit of liberty. This law was not only adverse to the whole spirit of British jurisprudence, but contrary to the whole tenour and spirit of their legislation. Under what circumstances was it called for? Look at the merits and demerits of the parties for and against whom, it was to be made. Let them weigh the value of the neutrality of those powers who wanted an Alien bill, with the sufferings which its enactment would inflict upon an oppressed and degraded people. Let the momentous question of the public honour of the Allies be estimated by their neutral faith: by that test let us try the merits of the whole Holy Alliance; let it be tried by an invaluable document published last year, and which ought never to be forgotten—he meant the first general epistle of the noble marquis opposite to the faithful. That epistle threw a light upon those suffering members of the Holy Alliance who now claimed the aid of a British act of parliament. To the demand then made of co-operation and participation on the part of England, the noble marquis replied—"If we accede to your request, it will be a fundamental breach of the laws of the land." That was telling the Holy Alliance—"We cannot let you pour foreign armies into England under the pretence of arresting foreign enemies: we cannot permit Siberian and Croatian hordes to infest this land, in order to exterminate the victims of your rapacity. [Cheers.] Non meus hic sermo; the language was the noble lord's. Was not the very proposition enough to startle any man imbued with the spirit of freedom? The mere offer to introduce armies of foreign barbarians upon the shores of his native land, independent of their direful purpose, was enough to melee the blood
1100
of every Englishman boil in his veins. This Holy Alliance thought it quite legitimate to propose a new code of laws to the nations of Europe—to remodels and unsettle at pleasure all the long established international usages, all the rules of right and wrong prescriptively acknowledged and acquiesced in by independent states. The noble marquis, in his memorable letter, also said, that the principles propounded by the Holy Alliance in their specific application to England at the time, would destroy the independence of all nations, and, the right of all subjects; and yet, after such a declaration if views, he called for this bill to enable them the better to execute their detestable purpose. Against which of theirs own subjects do these despots want protection—against the unhappy and oppressed people of Italy, he most afflicted specimen, now in Europe, of relentless cruelty and suffering? These unhappy men were seized by the their oppressors, and, as if no prisons in Italy were severe enough for their entombment, they were sent to Hungarian fortresses, sunk in the midst of surrounding marshes, to linger out, amid incidental disease, a wretched existence—"to die so slowly that none can call it murder." He knew the fact of a Roman nobleman, residing within the ecclesiastical states, who was seized and dragged from that neutral territory by Austrian troops: he was hurried to Venice, there tried by a secret tribunal, and condemned to death by their award. This sentence, by a pretended mercy, was commuted—commuted did he say?—to 20 years imprisonment in a Venetian dungeon, covered with water: the imprisonment was to be solitary: only half an hour a day was to be allowed for exercise, stand death in pity should come to the rescue of the sufferer! Ask any English gentleman who had lately travelled in Italy, whether he had not seen men of education and talents, working in chains on the highways and public works of Lombardy and Piedmont, for alleged political offences. He could name the cases, and particularize his sources of information, were it not dangerous to expose the yet unimmolated parties to that system of espionage, which reigned through out Europe. He used a foreign word with repugnance in an English speech; but on this occasion, he rejoiced that the ancient language of freemen contained no Word to express that odious system: its

1101
plain and manly structure required not the use of a phrase, which the habits of its people scorned to employ. He had promised to show how far the faith of neutrality was recognized by these high contracting powers. He would show it by a reference to their most solemn acts Let the House refer to the allied treaties signed on the 20th November, 1815. At that date several acts were executed in Paris, in pursuance of other great treaties which had been framed and adopted in the course of that year, and among them was a remarkable declaration respecting the integrity and neutrality of Switzerland, which was framed and executed by the powers engaged in the previous congress at Vienna. He would quote this declaration to skew the good faith which marked the conduct of these great league breakers—these shameless violators of their most formal and deliberate pledges. The powers who signed the declaration recognized, in the most full and solemn manner, the perpetual neutrality of Switzerland, and guaranteed the integrity and inviolability of its territory. This was signed by the ministers of Russia, France, Prussia, England, and subsequently ratified and confirmed by prince Metternich on the part of Austria, in a sentence of barbarous Latin, written in the true style of the German chancery. How had that solemnly acknowledged neutrality been permitted to rest? The Cantons of Switzerland had been, by prescriptive usage, the admitted asylum of the persecuted. Those who fled on the revocation of the edict of Nantes were not disturbed in their retreat by the tyrant from whom they fled, and who was at that moment upon the most intoxicated elevation of his power. Not so was the fate of those who sought refuge from the flings of the Holy Alliance—not so was the forbearance of those who had signed the treaty of the Holy Alliance. Austria, the same Austria for which prince Metternich had signed the integrity and inviolability of Switzerland, called for the extra-tradition (that was the phrase) from Switzerland of some Italians who had sought an asylum there from the persecution of the Austrian authorities. Upon that requisition, some of the states of Switzerland behaved with pusillanimity towards these unfortunate refugees. But let justice be done these smaller states. Which more deserved indignation for the act—the feeble government acted on by fear, and doomed from necessity to consent;
1102
or the powerful state who compelled thence by the threat of overawing force? Amid this compulsory yielding to power, the canton of Geneva set an honourable exception. They rejected this demand to sacrifice their honour. What was the consequence? Three Austrian commissaries returned to Geneva and informed the magistracy, that if they did not expel these Italian refugees at a moment's notice, they must prepare to incur the responsibility of refusing the demand of Austria, and risk the consequences. This was the threat of war from the treat power bound to respect the smaller. Was not this a daring infraction of the sacred faith of treaties? Where, then, was the remonstrance of Great Britain, a party to that treaty what did her minister, who now called for this Alien bill, say to the Austrian maker and breaker of guarantee? Where was the indication of dissent from so faithless an infraction of a treaty binding upon all? Was it to be found in the passing of this Alien bill, which in effect went to pass one undistinguishing censure upon the struggles of the oppressed, to shake off the grinding chain of their oppressors, and to record one approving and assenting voice to the acts of the Holy Alliance? Geneva had saved its honour; but the Italian refugees were compelled to fly to Mount Jura. Whither they turned their steps afterwards he could not says: towards Italy they dared not look, for Austria was their persecutor! If they turned towards France, a warning voice might meet them, exclaiming, in a hollow sepulchral tone, "fuge crudeles terras." [Hear, hear.]—He felt he was exhausting the patience of the House. He could see, from the smiles and contemptuous expressions of the gentlemen opposite, that he was improperly detaining them from enacting a bill which they were determined must pass. He felt he was discharging a very painful duty. [Cheers from both sides of the House.] He did not wish to misinterpret the feelings of those gentlemen, but he thought himself entitled to express his astonishment at the course they had pursued. They had challenged those who concurred with him in hostility to this bill to argue against the propriety of its enactment—as if such a bill required no apology for its introduction, no justification of its necessity, as a departure from the laws and usages of this country and the world—as if the burthen of negative proof lay upon the opposers

1103
of a measure at once violating established law and uniform policy, and as if no previous ground-work ought to be laid for the admission of such a principle as this law involved into the jurisprudence of such a country as England. Ought not, in fair sense and reasoning, the introducers of such a measure to explain its necessity? Was it because despotic principles were suffered to scourge mankind in other parts of Europe, that in England they should be introduced as a matter of course? Suppose, for instance, the great emperor of all the Russias, whose mouth was always full of pious ejaculations, and whose ear was always open to the liberalization of mankind, was to suspect the allegiance and fidelity of Poland; and to imagine that the Poles, unmindful of the good faith, the humanity and justice which attached to every act of their conquest, were even to go so far as to question the liberality, and to doubt the performance of the promise of his humane and pious grandmother of glorious and blessed memory, [A laugh,] were even to go so far as ungratefully to become refugees, and traitorously to conspire for the restoration of their ancient monarchy—a monarchy recognized by the civilized world before Muscovy had emerged from the lowest barbarism, whose Czar was tributary to the Polish monarchy in other times—suppose such a struggle were made by these Poles against their oppressors and betrayers—was there a single Englishman, who, whatever might be his political attachments, would not exclaim—"May God bless the Poles, and give them success in their struggle to regain their station in the world—may justice, though late, overtake their murderous and atrocious spoliators!" The passing of this bill was, however, not only a denunciation against the struggles of the oppressed upon the continent, but a general declaration of war against the principle of revolution all over the world—a declaration which went to stigmatize, not only the laws of their country, but the memory of their ancestors. Were they to arraign their forefathers as traitors and rebels for extorting Magna Charta, by resistance to a tyrannical king? What established the British constitution but open resistance? Not only was its establishment founded upon resistance, but to that principle it owed its successive improvement. What established the last revolution which England had achieved?
1104
Resistance to tyrannical power. What enthroned the present reigning family? Resistance to a despot. What else arrayed the people in every revolution however just, against every government however tyrannical? There was a consolation in this description of their efforts of which no tyrant could deprive the sufferer. A modern poet of great celebrity had so indulged his fancy, when speaking of the Holy Alliance of his time, and the inroads made upon national liberty—
"while European freedom still withstands
The encroaching flood which drowns her lessening lauds,
She sees fir off, with an indignant groan,
Her native plains and empires once her own."
He had only one subject more to glance at, namely, the treatment of the Ionian Islands, and the connexion of that topic with the present question. The only justifiable motive for England assuming the protectorship of those states must have been to separate them from Russia, and to exercise over them an influence useful to the Ionians and honourable to Great Britain. Had that only legitimate motive been preserved, or was not the policy pursued towards those states the reverse of justice, and in open violation of the feelings of those who ought to have been the objects of British protection? It was impossible to prevent the people of the Ionian Islands from assisting their fellow countrymen, unless by the adoption of tyrannical measures; and therefore he was of opinion that the lord high commissioner must have acted tyrannically, if he had endeavoured to carry into effect the neutrality which had been spoken of. He did not mean to say that this country ought to involve itself in war on account of the Greeks; but he opposed the because it rendered us liable to complaints on the part of foreign powers which might lead to hostilities at a future time. He knew nothing of the plans or expectations of the Greeks. Whether Russia, who during the last twelve months had, by a very practical demonstration, encouraged the revolt of the Greeks, would, for the second time, desert them, and expose that unhappy people to the massacres and horrors to which her cruel perfidy had subjected them in 1770—whether Russia would be persuaded by the Holy Alliance thus to abandon the Christian Greeks for the Mohammedan Turks; and whether the Greeks possessed any means of making a stand against their barbarous oppressors—as he trusted in God they did—these were questions upon which his feelings were

1105
strong, but his information was imperfect. He trusted that the generous people of this country would not allow their government to join in the oppression of a renowned race, though now "fallen from their high estate," who called upon them for compassion in the language of Socrates, and implored their assistance by the sign of the Cross. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded with moving as an amendment, "that the bill be read a second time on this day six months."
Mr. Plunkettsaid, it was impossible for his hon. and learned friend to address any assembly without deeply riveting its attention. His hon. and learned friend possessed powers which enabled him to give an interest to any circumstance which he thought was connected with the subject of debate, and to press into his service arguments and matters, which, in the hand of any other person, would be deemed foolish and irrelevant. The truth of this had perhaps, never been more strikingly exemplified, than by the uninterrupted attention with which the speech of his hon. and learned friend had been listened to on the present occasion. It would be his (Mr. P's) task to draw back the attention of the House to the question before them, from the consideration of which they had been diverted by the speech just delivered. The House would excuse him if he did not attempt to follow his hon. and learned friend, supposing he had the ability to do so, through the unexpected range which he had taken. The question was not with respect to the actual relations of this country with Russia, Austria, Italy, Turkey or Greece, or the relations which we might hereafter have with Russia, in the event of a revolution taking place in Poland; the question was not what was or what might be the state of Europe, but whether the Alien bill should be allowed to continue in force for two years longer. He felt that a considerable difficulty was imposed on him in presuming to offer his opinion upon a subject involving so many constitutional questions. The difficulty of his situation was not a little augmented, by the tone which had prevailed in the debate of a former night, as well as upon the present occasion, which was of such a nature as almost to render it necessary for any person who proposed to sustain the measure, to enter on a defence of himself. [Much cheering from the Opposition.] And he was compelled to do this, too, the House would give him leave to say, under
1106
circumstances very discouraging [Cheers from the Opposition] since they warranted him in supposing that he would not receive an impartial hearing. If the hon. members opposite thought they were adding to the strength of their side of the question, or that they could put him off his guard by their unmeasured cheering, they were much mistaken. He would not be put down by applause;—he would proceed with an unruffled temper, equally indifferent to the applauses or the censure which might be more directly applied to his observations. He should feel a little apprehensive in measuring his strength with that of his hon. and learned friend, if he were not backed by authority far greater than any weight which could attach to him individually. The Alien bill had been passed in four successive parliaments, and had received the approbation of some of the wisest men this country could boast. During the whole progress of the measure, not one complaint against it had proceeded from the people of England, except a solitary petition from Westminster. When he considered these things, some of the apprehensions which he felt at having his hon. and learned friend for an antagonist were removed, and, with the parliament and the people of England at his back, he was no longer afraid to meet him. It had been said, that the people of England exhibited apathy upon every question in which their own interests were not concerned. If his hon. and learned friend was no better acquainted with the affairs of foreign countries than he appeared to be with the temper and genius of the people of England, he (Mr. P.) could not attach much credit to his authority. It was not the character of the people of England to display apathy upon any question which concerned the liberties of mankind. If the bill before the House were a measure the object of which was, as his hon. and learned friend stated, to put out of the pale of the law 25,000 British subjects or even one of that number, the country, from one end to the other would ring with complaints against it. The acquiescence of the people of England in the propriety of the bill did not originate in any selfish or vulgar prejudice; it did not proceed from a "No popery" feeling, from any hostility towards religion or country; but it was the result of the solid good sense by which the English nation were characterized. He

1107
would attempt to set the bill right in the judgment of the House, by stating, not what it had done, but, what it had not done. His hon. and learned friend had talked of the bill putting out of the pale of the law 25,000 British subjects. He had described it as being unfit for any civilized society, and as constituting the trifling difference between liberty and slavery—between Middlesex and Morocco. Now, he would contend, that the bill did not touch on any one of the rights to which aliens at any period of our history had been entitled; but it left them, whilst they remained in. the country, in the full possession of all, the privileges to which they at any time bed been entitled. One would imagine from the terms which had been applied to the bill, that it proposed, to take away the trial by jury, the writ habeas corpus, in short to have the country in a state if complete slavery. But was this the fact? Certainly not, Notwithstanding the provision of the bill, aliens possession of every privilege given by the constitution to the subjects of Great Britain. If his hon. and learned friend, in the variety of the information which he appeared to possess with respect to foreign countries, gild which he was he was in the habit of stating for the benefit of the House, could declare, that the people of Morocco were in possession of similar privileges, then he (Mr. P.) would confess, that the bill only made the difference between Middlesex and Morocco. The power of removing aliens from the country had been known to the constitution as far back as any as any traces of the constitution as far back as any traces of the civil history could be founds. The right of removing aliens from the soil was possessed by every nation Europe. It formed a part of the law of nations. It was a right exercised by every government of Europe, whether free or despotic—whether free or monarchy or a republic. Under these circumstances, it was rather hard to say, that the measure was now for the first time introduced into this country. The measure was not one of novelty but was founded on ancient practice, and was intended to regulate, that practice according to the circumstances of the present times. Of the existence of a power to send aliens out if the country there could be no doubt. The next question then was, in what part of the state did this power reside? If the existence of the power were admitted, he thought it must be admitted that its exercise rest-
1108
ed with the executive part of the government. The powers of the Crown, in analogous cases, were so distinct and, clear, that they could not fail to satisfy any person who directed his mind to an investigation of the subject. The allegiance which an alien proffered to the supreme power in this country was conditional and temporary; and in this respect it differed, from that of the native born, which was permanent. The allegiance of the alien might be withdrawn when he himself pleased to quit the country, or when his sovereign should compel him to do so. Exactly, therefore, in proportion as the allegiance of the alien was limited, was the protection afforded him by the Crown circumscribed. The terms were reciprocal. If the alien thought our government was a hard, task-master, he might withdraw himself from its power; and if, on the other hand, the government considered the, alien a dangerous subject, it might compel him to depart from the country. It was the undoubted prerogative of the Crown to prevent its subjects from leaving the country, which was done by a writ of ne exeat regno. The Crown could also compel subjects resident abroad to return hither; and it was also the prerogative of the Crown to prevent foreigners from entering the country without a safe conduct. From the existence of these prerogatives, it might reasonably be inferred, that the power of sending foreigners out of the country was also vested, in the Crown. The exercise of the power of sending aliens out of the country properly belonged to the Crown, on many accounts. The Crown was the only representative of the country with foreign powers. If a subject of this country gave offence to a foreign court, complaint would be made to the Crown. If the offence should ultimately lead to hostilities, the Crown would have to declare war. His hon. and learned friend had declared himself unsatisfied with the existence of the prerogative. He would not allow it to have existed unless it could be proved by ancient, uninterrupted usage, or by legislative enactments, or by decisions in Westminster-hall. He thought that some answer had been given to the hon. and learned gentleman upon this point on a former evening, when it was shown that five instances of the exercise of this prerogative had occurred in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. His hon. and learned friend, however, said that those instances

1109
were too remote, and he required a modern example. It was not fair in the hon. and learned gentleman thus to take sanctuary in antiquity when it served his purpose, and to turn it away from him when he could no longer profit by adhering to it. He did not think it was probable that any decision could be found in Westminster-hall applicable to the question; for if, as he contended, the prerogative were clear, it was not likely that it would have been made the subject of a contest in Westminster-hall. He had never met with any such decision, and none such had been cited during the debate. He was convinced that if the same test were applied to try the prerogative of the Crown in dealing with alien enemies; as was applied to try that which concerned alien friends, it would be found equally vulnerable. He would admit that the prerogative was liable to be controlled by the legislature, and he did not mean to assert that it was not of a nature which rendered it necessary that it should be very cautiously exercised. It had been asked, how the power which was now contended for, if it were so essential, had been allowed to lie dormant, from the period of the revolution, until almost the present time? He would answer that from the revolution down to the years 1793, when the Alien bill was first passed, the danger which the country had to deal with did not arise from alien enemies. A new succession was on the throne, and its enemies were chiefly its own subjects residing abroad. This country, then, had to contend with foreign armies, foreign treasuries, and foreign councils; and it opposed them with armies in the field, and not with Alien laws. This was a war, not against the constitution, but the throne. It was not a war of principles, but of passions. But in 1793, a recurrence to the old prerogative became necessary, because at that time a war of principles was raging. Attempts were made to sap the foundations of the government, and foreign emissaries were employed in corrupting the morals of the people of this country. [Cheers.] Was this not the case? He knew that in 1793 it was declared, that it was not, in the same high tone which had been assumed during the present debate; but the bitter fruit of experience, which had been chewed by every person in this country, showed that it was. He asked whether the measures resorted to in 1793 were not necessary? He heard no loud
1110
cheering from gentlemen opposite when he referred to that period. It was then that a revolutionary devil had taken possession of the throne and the public mind of France. The people of that country had been freed from slavery; but they were not yet prepared for liberty; and their governers had formed a scheme for spreading the poison which was engendered on their own soil over the rest of the world. The measures adopted in 1793 had been scouted and ridiculed by some persons at that time; but he believed there was not one of those individuals now alive who would not acknowledge that he had acted unwisely. To the measures adopted at that period, the country was indebted for its existence. [Hear, hear, from the Opposition.] If those measures had not been resorted to, the House would not now have been debating. Could any man doubt, that if the government had not acted as it did in 1793, this country would have fallen a victim to the spirit of domination which was then abroad?—With respect to the present bill, did it close the door against aliens? Did it prevent their arrival in this country. He would desire to be shown the part of the bill that would go that extent. He would inform the House how the bill dealt with foreigners coming to this country. Let members hear it with Christian ears, and refrain from tears if they could! Aliens, upon arriving in this country, were placed under the hard, the iron necessity of giving ill their names and receiving a certificate; and then they were at liberty to go to any part of the kingdom they liked best. He admitted that this regulation might be inconvenient to foreigners, but it was not that grievance which his hon. and learned friend had represented it. In his opinion, the bill was the kindest and mildest measure that could be resorted to. It left the people of this country at liberty to exercise that hospitality for which they had always been celebrated; and England, under its operation, might still be an asylum for the oppressed and persecuted of all nations. If the act had not been resorted to, a system of police more severe than had every yet been known in England must have been adopted, and the treatment of individuals would have been much more rigorous than at present. His hon. and learned friend had argued upon the hardship of denying the accused the benefit of counsel, and of refusing to suffer him to meet his accusers

1111
face to face. Now, he appealed to the candour, to the good sense of the House, whether, in the nature of things, those privileges could be conceded? The Alien act did not require that a person should be accused of a precise and definite crime. Its object and policy was, to provide, that the government of the country, if it found that the residence of foreigners was dangerous to the peace and tranquility of the country, might be empowered to removed them, although they might not be charged with the commission of any specific crime. The prerogative of the Crown in this country, and in every other, had, he apprehended always exercised that power.—But he now came to that part of the subject upon which discussion might be exercised with most advantage; namely, whether it was now expedient to continue those measure, which, from the conclusion of the peace in 1814, it had been found necessary to resort to? That question was liable to be considered in one or two points of view. It might be viewed in the first place, with reference to the condition of British subjects; and in the second, with reference to the relations existing between this and other powers. On the first part of the question he felt that he was more fitted to received information than to receive information than to offer it to the House. He would, however, state his opinions on the subject, and leave it to the House to judge of their correctness. If he were now asked whether he thought that the same revolutionary spirit existed in this country which existed when the act was first resorted to in 1793, he was perfectly ready to answer that he did not. The higher classes had taken a lesson from bitter experience, and were now free from the revolutionary mania. The lower classes, also, were in a great measure cured of the folly which once possessed them, partly by wise and salutary laws which it had been found necessary to enact, and still more by the freedom and vigour of the institutions of the country. It was chiefly owing to the unparalleled freedom which prevailed in this country, that the idol flag of France revolution had been put down. The hollow phantoms which had been dressed up by the anarchists of France in the semblance of liberty, had been rebuked by the free and noble spirit of the people of this country, and for the most part put down; and if any still existed, they were only to be found flitting and hovering in obscurity. He did not be-
1112
lieve that any prospect of a rebellion existed in this country; and he thought that the adoption of a proper system of police would be adequate to put down any improper spirit in Ireland. But it would be allowed, that though no rebellion was to be feared, yet all classes of the community had a right to except protection from an indiscriminate influx of foreigners. With respect to our domestic arrangements, therefore, no further observations were necessary. He would hasten to the more material point of observation; namely, the relation between this and other countries. He believed that about 25,000 foreigners were now in the country. It was known, that in the countries from whence many of them came revolution was at work. Of the 25,000 foreigners to whom he had alluded, the greatest part purpose; he considered many of them as useful acquisitions to any country, and others as flying here as to a place of refuge and security. But on the other hand, he believed that many of those foreigners entertained dangerous and revolutionary principles; and against this class the people of England had a right to be protected.—His hon. and learned friend had dwelt at some length on the question how far persons flying to this country from the punishment due to crimes committed in another country had a claim to our protection. But let that question be decided as it might, he thought it would be conceded that the government of this country had a right to secure itself from being involved by those persons in transaction which might break in upon our engagements with other nations. This was not giving up the constitution, or giving up freedom, for the same constitution that had given us liberty had given us the power of preserving it. The more free our constitution was, the more unrivalled were our privileges, so much the more necessary it was to guard and protect them. It was true that the moment a foreign slave landed in England, from that moment he was free; he was under the protection of British laws and entitled to the security of a British subject. But he would say, that if those privileges were unalienable, they ought to be preserved from being shared with persons cast out of other nations by their crimes, and resorting to this country not merely to avoid the punishment due to those crimes, but to make it the theatre of their future operations. Such a power had been ex-

1113
ercised by every country in the world. If it were shewn to be inconsistent with the British constitution, then he was prepared to give it up; but he contended, that no such inconsistency could be found, and that the hon. and learned member who had assumed it had done so without argument, and without authority.—If he had not already fatigued the House he would advert to another point which had been much dwelt on in the course of the hon. and learned gentleman's speech, and that was, how far one country had a right to punish the subject of another country when residing in the former, and there committing crimes against the latter? His right hon. friend had, on a former evening, laid down the distinction which ought to exist between persons flying to this country as a refuge to avoid punishment for former crimes, and those who resorted hither merely for the purpose of committing new crimes against their own country. He would not say that cases might not be found in which persons flying to this country for refuge had not been refused; but he locked upon those cases as exceptions rather than interferences with the rule; and he was disposed, in the present argument, to take the case as though a distinct line had been drawn between the two situations to which he had alluded. For his own part, he was not aware it had been decided that the subject of a foreign country could be punished here for crimes committed against that country. The case of Peltier had been cited as a case in point: but that was a case of libel against a single individual, in which the individual libelled sought personal redress. The case, therefore, was different from that of an individual committing crimes against his own government. The case of the emperor of Russia, was also a case of libel, and therefore not applicable to the present of the subject. But whether that were or were not, the law, would it be politic to enforce such a law if it existed? In his own opinion it would be exceedingly unwise, because, in the first place, those crimes which amounted to treason against the other states would only be punished as misdemeanors in this, and the punishment here would be unsuitable and inadequate to the crime, while the trial of the individual in this country might operate to his prejudice, if brought to trial in that country against which the crime had been committed. But it was chiefly objectionable
1114
in his opinion, because it compelled us to become parties to the politics of other states. What then was the alternative if no such law existed, or if existing, it was impolitic to act under it? How were our relations with other nations to be tabled? What alternative could exist, but that of sending out of the country the persons likely to interrupt those relations? The government of England said to those persons, "we are not your judges, we know nothing of your disputes with your own government; but this country shall not become the theatre of conspiracy, and you shall not abuse the privilege which our constitution give you." He might be told that extreme cases might arise out of this system, and that individual might be sent from this to other countries to endure the severest tortures. He knew no cases which were not liable to abuse; but the hon. and learned member had argued the entire case. He had first argued as if this country were intended for the convenience of aliens alone without once recollecting that there were such persons as British subjects in existence. That was one trifling mistake. Another mistake into which he had fallen was that he had stated imaginable mischiefs, which might arise from extreme cases, and had argued upon these imaginable mischiefs as though they had been the end and object of the act. He must say, that he knew no responsibility more delicate than that cast upon government in regulating the intercourse between this and foreign nations. A case had been put of giving up persons residing in this country to every demand of the country to which they belonged. Now, he would say, that if no other motive existed, it would be impossible for the government to be so dead to a sense of its own interest as to act so anomalously. It was what had never been done, and what he never could suspect ministers to be capable of doing. He should place confidence in government until their measures demonstrated that that confidence was misplaced. In a state of affairs of great delicacy and difficulty they had for a period of seven years preserved this country at peace with the continent; and he had yet to learn, that in the preservation of that peace they had compromised one particle of British honour, or sacrificed one particle of British freedom. The hon. and learned member would excuse him if he did, that he had felt more admiration while listening

1115
to him, for the brilliancy of his eloquence, and the intenseness of his zeal than for the accuracy of his information or the soundness of his judgment. He had not yet seen any thing to prove to him that the government of this country would not abandon the interests of the country if they departed from the line of policy that they were now pursuing.—The hon. and learned member had imagined that the government of this country had contradicted its own circular in not resisting the interference of Austria with Italy. He wished to set the hon. and learned member right on that point. This country had never expressed an opinion that Austria had no right to interfere with Italy. We felt that our interests were not involved, In the same manner Austria had had no right as long as Italy confined itself to its internal management alone. But when the proceedings of Italy became of such a character as to affect the interest of Austria, then Austria had a right to interfere. That was the principle on which this country had continually acted with reference to the continent, and by adhering to it the revolutionary war had been gloriously terminated by the battle, of Waterloor. For the same argument had been used throughout that war. It had then been argued, "What right have you to interfere with Bonaparte?" True; we had no right to interfere with him until his proceedings had invaded our own relations with the continent. That was the principle upon which they had acted, and he rejoiced that it had been preferred to the refined abstractions of the hon. and learned gentleman. Respecting Switzerland, he claimed the right of saying, that if that country had given up any refugees who had fled thither, as a matter of favour, to the state requiring them, it had not violated-the independence guaranteed to its own states, But he believed that no person had been given up. Whether it had arisen from the precaution of the refugees, or from the connivance of government, he knew not, but he believed that in every instance the persons required to be delivered up had made their escape.—He was sure the House would not excuse him if he attempted to follow his hon. and learned friend through the extensive range which he had taken, with the map of Europe before him, through the states of Turkey, Russia, and Greece. He thought, however, it would be easy to
1116
shew that some of his positions were not consistent with each other. If all the alliances which the hon. and learned gentleman had recommended were to be entered into, they would not be found to be greatly in unison with each other. Did the hon. and learned gentleman mean that this country would be justified in going to war with the countries he had mentioned, in case its remonstrances were neglected? If there were no grounds for going to war, then how were our remonstrances to be followed up? Did he wish the matter to end in a general scolding match between the countries. This country held, a station Europe higher than she had ever held before. That station she had owed, in the first place, to the part she had acted in rallying Europe round the standards of justice and freedom. [Cheers from the Opposition.] What! should he have said—against the patriotism of Buonaparte and to counteract his benevolent measures? He would repeat, that then high station of this country was owing to her conduct in rallying Europe round the standards of justice and freedom, against the unprincipled aggression of military despotism. Still more was this station obtained by the disinterested part she had acted since the conclusion of the war. Her station was, in the third place, indebted to the vigour and liberality of her free institutions. Those three causes had raised this country higher than all other countries, and higher than she had ever been herself before. As freedom, truth, and the interests of mankind were promoted by that preeminence, it was important to Europe and the world, that it should be maintained. He anticipated infinite good from the free discussions which now took place in every part of the world, and from the light which had been thrown on all countries. But nothing contributed more to this result than perfect neutrality on the part of this country. There was not at the bottom of this law any favouritism for any one country. It was directed against revolutionary movements in this country, whether directed against France, Austria, Russia or the more favoured governments of Spain or Portugal. Our object was, to afford protection to every man when he did not endanger the safety of the country: but England ought not to be made the theatre of every revolutionary project.
Mr. Scarlettwas surprised, that his right hon. and learned friend should have ar-

1117
gued, that they who were opposed to the measure were bound to prove the non-existence of the prerogative. He differed toto cœlo from his right hon. friend, in his assertion, that the law of nations gave power to a particular nation to exclude aliens. If a particular nation passed a law of against aliens, the law of nations did not interfere with that nation; but if no such law was enacted by that nation, the law of nations said nothing on the subject. The law of nations was thus entirely out of the question. The next position of his right hon. and learned friend was, that the king of England must possess the power of sending aliens out of the country, for that he could prevent his subjects from leaving the kingdom. He would venture to deny the position. There was no example of a writ of ne exeat regno but by a court of justice. Where was the instance of a secretary of state issuing such a writ? Where of a privy council? It might as well be said that the king possessed the power of sending whom he pleased to prison, because the writ of capias ran in his name. The king had, indeed, a right to call back his subjects in time of war, but this was a belligerent right. If his right hon. friend contended only for the power of detaining subjects in the kingdom, or recalling them from other countries when their aid was required in time of war, then he went along with him; but such an argument had no application to the present question. From his right hon. friend he should have expected authorities since the revolution, and not references to the acts of the Edwards and the Henries of our history. Examples could be traced down for several centuries of the most absurd and cruel practices. He could cite cases of particular persons holding the exclusive privilege of measuring the cloth which aliens sold. The practice was continued down to the reign of Henry 4th, when a court of justice declared that the king had no right to give such it privilege. Lord Coke, whew a member of that House, had contended for the right of the king to send to prison on the sign manual, without allowing the benefit of the habeas corpus. Examples innumerable had then been quoted, in support of such a doctrine. But if the king had a right to send aliens out of the country, this act was unnecessary. If the right existed, it might be expedient to regulate its exercise; but it would be unnecessary to give it by an act of this
1118
sort. The hon. and learned gentleman here referred to the 3rd of Henry 5th, and read passages of it to show that such a power had been then granted by the parliament, If the king had a right to prevent aliens coming to this kingdom, he had a right to direct them to come to a, particular part of the kingdom. But such a right was denied by a court of justice. Southampton had been appointed as the only place where foreign wines could be landed. In the rein of Philip and Mary this privilege was contested in the court of Exchequer, and it was found that the Crown had no such right. What occasion could there be for the statute which provides that half the jury on an alien should be foreigners, if the king could send him away at once? His right hon. friend ought to have found a solemn, regular, judicial decision, in support of his doctrine. Instead of that, he called on his opponents to produce a decision against him. This bill was not, therefore, designed for what was professed to be its object. If it were for such purposes as had been stated, why were not those purposes specified in the bill? He could conceive a measure or that kind which would call forth no objections. The present bill, which gave the secretary of state the absolute power, without responsibility, of sending aliens where he pleased, was a measure destitute of every character and feature of justice; and founded upon a spirit of despotism unknown to the law and constitution of the country. The power given by thin bill was the purest tyranny that could possibly be placed in the hands of a minister of the Crown, and as an Englishman he naturally felt the strongest objection to enabling any minister to exercise such a power over the meanest or most unfortunate of mankind; for the power which he could not exercise over the greatest, he ought not to exercise over the humblest of human beings. This bill had already too long deformed, the Statute book in time of peace, and he should therefore most cordially support the amendment.
Mr. Hume now moved "that the debate be adjourned till Monday." Upon this the House divided: Ayes, 16; Noes, 166. The question that the bill be now read a second time, being then put, the House again divided: When there appeared: Ayes, 108; Noes, 72: Majority for the second reading, 36.

List of the Minority.

Abercromby, J.

Lambton. J. G.

Allen, J. H.

Lennard, J. B.

Anson, hon. G.

Mackintosh, sir J.

Baring, H.

Martin, J.

Barrett, S. M.

Milbank, M.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Monck, J. B.

Brougham, H.

Moore, P.

Browne, D.

Newport, sir J.

Byng, G.

Nugent, lord

Calcraft, J.

Normanby, visc.

Calcraft, J. H.

Ord, W.

Cavendish, C.

Osborne, lord F.

Clifton, lord

Palmer, col.

Coffin, sir I.

Palmer, C. F.

Colbourne, N. R.

Pares, T.

Crompton, S.

Philips, G. jun.

Creevey, T.

Power, R.

Denison, W. J.

Powell, hon. W.

Dundas, hon. T.

Robinson, sir G.

Duncannon, visc.

Rice, T. S.

Ebrington, visc.

Robarts, A.

Fergusson, sir R. C.

Robarts, G.

Fitzroy, lord C.

Rumbold, C.

Folkestone, visc.

Scarlett, J.

Forbes, C.

Smith, W.

Graham, S.

Stanley, lord

Grattan, J.

Stewart, W. (Ty.)

Griffiths, J. W.

Tavistock, marq.

Guise, sir W.

Tierney, rt. hon. G.

Gurney, R.

Warre, J. A.

Gaskell, B.

Western, C. C.

Haldimand, W.

Williams, W.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Williams, John

Hollywood, W. P.

Wilson, sir R.

Hume, J.

Wood, alderman

Hutchinson, C. H.

TELLERS.

Jervoise, J. P.

Althorp, visc.

Kennedy, T. F.

Denman, T.

STATE OF IRELAND.
The Marquis of Lansdownrose, in pursuance of notice, to call their lordships' attention to the state of Ireland. In doing this he was conscious that he could not be accused of precipitation. After all that had occurred since the meeting of Parliament relative to Ireland—after the promises which had been made that the state of that country should be brought under the attention of Parliament—after the change which had been made in the government of Ireland, without producing those advantages which had been expected from it—after the period to which the present session had
1046
arrived without anything being offered, to the consideration of parliament, he should be acquitted of any thing like rashness in bringing forward the motion he was about to submit to their lordships. In the view which he would take of the situation of that country, he would avoid dwelling on those topics of distress which were the subject of complaint throughout the United Kingdom in general. He would, however, take the liberty of reminding their lordships, that such unhappily was the situation of Ireland, that all the distress arising from the change in the currency, and the depressed value of agricultural produce, had necessarily affected that country in a far greater degree than this. In this country there was a powerful manufacturing interest, which had, by its resistance, broken the weight of the agricultural distress; but Ireland being nearly altogether agricultural, had suffered from the depressed state of that interest in a much greater proportion than the other parts of the kingdom. If it were necessary, in b call in, their lordships attention to the state of Ireland, to show that the situation of that country was one of peculiarity, he need only refer to the statutes by which had for a period back been governed; to the laws which had been passed the view of preserving these last few years; to the laws, even, which had been enacted during the present session; to the language which had invariably been used by the proposers and supporters of those measures; and admissions made by the opponents of all severe laws. When it had been proposed, that in a part of the United Kingdom trig by jury should be suspended, that arbitrary power should be given to the magistrates, that the public money should be voted to find food and employment for the poor, surely be need not occupy time of their lordships in proving the situation of that part of the empire in which such measures had been thought necessary was peculiar. It was admitted on all hands, that trial by jury was one of the most valuable privileges of the constitution; yet, for the enjoyment of this excellent institution, Ireland, it was said not fit. That it was dangerous to the liberty of the subject to invest magistrates with arbitrary power was generally acknowledged; yet it was maintained, that there was something in the state of Ireland which rendered the exercise of aribitrary power indispensable. That it was

1047
was mischievous to interfere with the regular course of supply and demand in the market was a principle no less generally recognized; but, so singular was the situation of Ireland, that this great principle of political economy must be violated. If this was true—if what produced good in all other parts of the world only produced evil in Ireland—if the cup which conveyed to others a salutary draught—no sooner touched the lips of that country, than its contents were converted to a deadly poison, was he not entitled after twenty years of union between the two countries, to call for an inquiry into the state of Ireland? To what was the condition of Ireland to be attributed? Was it because she possessed a most fertile soil? Was it because her insular situation was most favourable to commerce? Was it because she was blest with a temperate and genial climate? Was it because Providence had bestowed on her every thing calculated to ensure riches and prosperity? Unfortunately, in spite of all her national advantages, Ireland continued poor in the midst of wealth, barbarous in the midst of civilization. That constitution which was said to confer happiness on this country, was to Ireland only a source of evil. Their lordships must, then, look farther for the origin of the mischiefs: they must look for them in the institutions and system by which that country had long been governed. The object of their inquiry ought to be, to ascertain what connexion subsisted between the system of government and the state of society. In undertaking such an inquiry, it would be wrong to describe the conduct of individuals as the cause of the evil, or to throw a stigma on any particular class of persons. The state of Ireland was not to be attributed to the misconduct of the landlords, or of the clergy. These classes in Ireland consisted of men who had received the same kind of education as the like classes in England. Their conduct was, therefore, to be ascribed to the state of society, and the institutions under which they were called upon to act. In this view of the subject, their lordships must necessarily look to the general state of the population, and to the nature and effect of the burthens which that population, had to bear. By a paper which he held in his hand, it appeared that the population of Ireland was estimated in 1695, at 1,034,000 souls: in 1731, at 2,010,000: in 1791 at 4,200,000: in
1048
1811, at 5,400,000: and that in 1821, it had risen to 6,846,000. It had been calculated that whilst to the population of England the land bore the proportion of 3 1–9 acres to each individual; to that of Ireland the land bore only the proportion of 25–6 acres to each individual. It appeared also that of this population in Ireland the proportions were 1–14th of the established church, 1–14th Presbyterians, and 12–14th, Catholics. It was not for the purpose of calling their lordships' attention to the great importance of this population as forming part of the physical strength of the empire that he had thus particularly noticed it; but to remove a very prevalent error, that an increase of population necessarily indicated a corresponding increase in wealth and prosperity. On the contrary; the peculiar condition of Ireland proved that there might be a state of society in which the population rapidly increased, while the true sign of wealth and prosperity, the facility with which each individual found for himself a comfortable subsistence, was considerably diminished. This was a consequence of that system of gradual degradation by which the great mass of the population had been reduced to subsist entirely on the lowest kind of human food, and that which the slightest labour could supply—he meant potatoes. The effect of this habit was, to produce an indifference to comfort, and to incline individuals of the labouring class to look forward only to a bare existence. In such a situation the peasant considered himself justified in marrying, though he had no other means of maintaining a family but the potatoes he might raise in a small garden. It was on account of the state of degradation into which the peasantry of Ireland had fallen, that scenes had been witnessed which had been so faithfully anticipated by the Poet:—
"When scourged by famine, from the smiling, land,
The mournful peasant leads his humble band;
And while he sinks, without one arm to save,
The country bloom:—a garden and a grave."
The increase of population was not, therefore, an index of happiness. When degraded in the manner he had, described, that increase was accompanied with the most serious evils. The unfortunate state of society had given an artificial spring to the population, and along with its increase the most salutary principles of the constitution had been perverted. He would here state one of the political evils which afflicted that country, by which the right

1049
of election, instead of being an advantage, was made an engine of degradation to the people. The circumstance to which he alluded was, the practice of letting land in common. This was carried to an extent which noble lords could hardly conceive. To enable a number of persons to vote at an election, it was usual to let is farm in common. He knew an instance of one farm for which no less than ninety persons were registered as freeholders. The farm would scarcely afford a subsistence to each individual, living in the state of degradation he had described. This, then, was a practice most likely to create a pauper population. To have so large a number of individuals as 90 registered for one farm, was, perhaps, an uncommon case; but instances of farms let to 20, 30, and 40 persons for election, purposes, were very common. Whatever respect he entertained for the elective franchise, he thought there could be no objection to limit the right of voting for one farm to one individual. This narrowing of the right would not be inconsistent with the principles of the constitution, and would be of great service to the country.
He came now to a very important part of the subject; namely, the nature of the burthens which the population of Ireland had been made to bear. And here he had to point out one of the most extraordinary misapplications of the principles of taxation that had ever been made in any country—a misapplication which, while it robbed the people of their comforts, diminished the public resources. No such instance of pernicious absurdity be believed could be found in die whole history of fiscal mal-administration. The revenue of Ireland in the year 1807, amounted to 4,378,241 l. Between that year and 1815, additional taxes had been laid to the estimated amount of 3,376,000 l. From these were to be deducted 400,000 l. remitted at the end of the last war. Now, the whole revenue of Ireland in 1821, was 3,844,889 l.; so that the effect of adding three millions of taxes had been, to produce a revenue less by several hundred thousand pounds than that of 1807. Thus while the poor were deprived of their comforts, less was extracted from them, and the revenue of the country was diminished. If there were any articles which might be regarded as the luxuries of the poor, they were those bf tea and sugar. They were articles of consumption first resorted to beyond the mere necessaries of life, and announced
1050
the first approach to case and comfort. The increased duty on sugar had produced a small augmentation of revenue for whereas the produce of the duty was only, 379,000 l. in 1807, it had been 404,000 l. on an average of the last five years. But the consumption of the article itself had diminished from 338,000 to 267,000.cwts. In the article of tea the revenue itself had diminished since the duty had been raised. The average produce of the Irish duty on tea, between 1807 and 1809, had been 527,603 l. whilst in 1819 and 1820 it had been only 451,300 l. These were really taxes on civilization. He remembered to have heard it observed by an attorney-general for Ireland, that every additional house which was built in that country was a pledge of security and attachment for England. He wished, their lordships to apply this principle to all other comforts. Every thing which tended to urge men to extend their ideas, to habituate them to the enjoyments connected with social ties, had the certain effect of insuring tranquillity. He should, however he taking a very imperfect view of the subject, were he to limit his condemnation of the imprudent increase of public burthens to its effect in diminishing comfort. Their lordships must not fail to look also at its influence on morality. He had now before him a statement, which would shown the effects of the increased duties on distillation in Ireland. Such was the state of the revenue laws, that the coatraband distiller, upon the outlay of 9l. could realize 27 l. Such was the extent of the temptation to the violation of, the laws, that every illicit still became a school for resistance to the government— a nucleus round which the spirit of disaffection gathered. Thus was a bounty held out to the peasant for violating the law, and the prisons of the country filled with persons to be educated for still greater offences. In the course of the last six years, 5,350 persons had been committed for offences connected with illicit distillation; and out of that number 3,963 had been convicted. When their lordships considered the imperfect condition and discipline of the Irish prisons, they would be able to form some estimate of the addition which these commitments on account of illicit distillation were likely to make to the general mass of crime in that country. The man who was driven into prison for a comparatively slight offence, would most, probably come out a hardened depredator.

1051
He came now to the administration of justice in Ireland. But, before he entered, on that important subject, he wished to refer their lordships to a character given of the population of Ireland in the excellent work of sir John Davis. "There is no nation under the sun," said that able writer, "that does love equal and indifferent justice better than the Irish, or will rest more satisfied with its decisions, although against themselves, provided they have the protection of the laws when they do deserve it." Now, if with such a disposition to obey and respect the laws there unfortunately existed at the present period so great an hostility to the execution of them, the fact imposed upon their lordships the necessity of inquiring how far the administration of those laws was calculated to create that hostility. In making a few observations on that system of administration, he would say nothing of the practice of the courts, nor throw any reflection on the conduct of the judges. He would confine himself to the state of the magistracy, which was forced upon their lordships' attention by recent circumstances. Most of those who had attended to the state of Ireland, admitted that defects existed in the system of the magistracy, and that, from the class of persons sometimes put in the commission of the peace, and their conduct while in office, it required revision. Instead of being men of education, rank, or property, instances had occurred, in which persons were nominated to the magistracy who had no respectability in society, and who, independent of their office, did not even possess the means of subsistence. Though, as a body, they included men of high rank and consideration, yet it could not be denied, that many unworthy individuals were mixed up with them. He could speak on this subject with some degree of certainty. He had been applied to, not many weeks ago, for a loan of money by a person who called himself an Irish magistrate's son. This person turned out to be an impostor. It was true, that he was a magistrate's son; but that magistrate was himself a bankrupt. He mentioned this case because it showed what sort of persons were put into the commission in Ireland. The state of the magistracy, therefore, required speedy and effectual revision. But it was not to the selection of them as regulated by fortune, education, or respectability, that attention should exclusively be paid. He did not mean to
1052
enter at present into any observations on the policy of a farther admission of the Catholics into the enjoyment of the benefits of the constitution: that question would shortly be brought forward by abler hands; but, he might state, as a point in which all were agreed, that the existing laws should be impartially administered, and that the concessions already made to the Catholics should be enjoyed to their full extent. Catholics were admitted, by the existing laws, to a share in the magistracy. Now, he would ask, why the number of Catholic magistrates did not bear the same proportion to the Catholic property of Ireland as the Protestant magistrates to the Protestant property? Why, in some counties, where persons of the Catholic persuasion were qualified, were there no Catholic magistrates? Why, especially, were they not called to serve on grand juries where assessments were laid on Catholic property? By not being so admitted, a suspicion could not fail to be infused into the minds of the lower classes, that impartial justice was not dealt out to them—a suspicion than which nothing could be more fatal to contentment and tranquillity. If it were necessary to bring any authority in support of this sentiment, he might appeal to the opinion of one of the greatest and wisest of men. He meant lord Bacon. That great man concluded his instructions to sir John Osborn, who was setting out on an important mission, with the following remarkable words:—"My last advice is, that you attend to impartiality in religious matters, lest Ireland civil become more dangerous to us than Ireland savage!" So important did lord Bacon consider it to keep down religious animosities by an equal administration of the laws.—But though this partiality in respect to the appointment of magistrates, was calculated to excite suspicion among the lower orders; there was another obstruction to the due execution of the laws, not less important—he meant the immense taxation on law proceedings, which shut out from the protection of the law two-thirds of the population of the country. He did not now allude to that system of spoliation and in justice which was practised on the suitors of the courts under the name of fees, and which had happily been exposed and put an end to, but to that obstruction of justice, which the state Lad to answer for by imposing heavy stamp duties. Since the Union the stamp duties on legal pro-

1053
ceedings had increased three-fold. To a rich country like England, this system was injurious and oppressive; but, when applied to a poor country, like Ireland, it amounted almost to a denial of justice. The consequence was, that while the stamp duties were increased in nominal, amount, the revenue arising from them was reduced. This did not proceed from an abatement of the spirit of litigation, nor from any diminution of the necessity of claiming disputed rights by legal process, but from an absolute inability to pay for, justice under the heavy duties imposed upon legal proceedings. As an illustration of this statement, he might refer to the singular ingenuity with which the lower classes in the west of Ireland contrived to obtain a legal decision on disputed claims, without giving the revenue the benefit of their litigation—a mode of proceeding which, adopted under the circumstances, confirmed the opinion expressed by sir J. Davis, of the disposition of the people to rely upon the award of law. In the west part of Ireland, when two parties, as was often the case, disputed upon a piece of ground, their singular mode of settling the claim was, to create a riot, to appear on the field, and fight it out. Afterwards each indicted the other before the magistrate, and the person to whom the assistant barrister awarded damages rested in the possession of the land—with a broken head into the bargain. The decrease of the amount of law proceedings, taken in connexion with the increase of the stamp duties, sufficiently proved that taxation among the lower classes in Ireland had become a bar to justice. Another subject connected with magistracy and the administration of law in the country, deserved some notice, he alluded to absenteeship. He was free to confess, that he did not rate so high as some others, its effect on the wealth and resources of the country. In a moral point of view, however, it was to be viewed with regret. But in this, government could do much. Inducements should be held out to reside in the country, by diminishing taxation, facilitating the means of education, and giving to those who remain the full protection of law and government. If honours were to be conferred, they should be bestowed on those who resided in the country, and performed the duties which their situation in Society required.
He now came to that impost which had existed so long under the name of tithes.
1054
The Irish population, burthened with taxation, enjoying so imperfect an administration of justice, and suffering from the absence of the proprietors of the soil were also subject to an impost most vexatious in its principle, most repugnant to the persons who paid it, least consonant with the interests of those by whom it was received, enforced by laws more revolting than the impost itself, and forming a burthen which pressed more heavily in proportion as the distress of the times was greater. Cases had arisen in which persons had been obliged to pay tithes, although they had derived no profit from the produce of their farms. Before he proceeded farther he wished to guard against being thought to throw any imputation on the body of the church. He did not complain of the church in Ireland, but of the situation in which the clergy were placed, and of the powers with which they were armed, whether necessary or not. He did not wish to see them forced into a situation in which their sacred office was calculated to irritate the people; and, whilst he professed the highest respect for the church of Ireland, he must say, that he considered that church as intended for the benefit of Ireland, and not Ireland for the benefit of that church The conduct of most of the members of, that church was entitled to the highest praise. He knew of clergymen who had renounced their vested rights for the present year. In many instances, in the county of Cork, they had declared that, they would not receive any tithes from flax. This conduct was most exemplary, but it was unjust towards themselves; and he would not have them so situated as to be reduced to the necessity of depriving themselves of their just rights, whilst litigious clergymen were able to extort the full amount from the poor. It appeared from the returns laid before the other. House, that, during the last six years, there had been tried before the ecclesiastical courts in Ireland, 2,178 tithe causes; and in the civil courts in six counties 7,149. In the county of Kerry alone, the numbers of tithe causes had amounted to 2,195. Assuming the same proportion to have taken place in the counties from which no returns, had yet been received, the number for all Ireland in the period of six years, and exclusive of those tried in the ecclesiastical courts, must have amounted to 17,327. Their lordships would also recollect, that by a recent act of parliament,

1055
all cases for the recovery of tithe, under the sum of 5l. might be brought before, and decided by a magistrate. Trials under that act, in some instances, amounted to not less than 100 a week. He had heard from a highly respectable magistrate, that on the average of 100 cases, the sum in question varied from 4d. to 5s. whilst the lowest costs amounted to 3s. He would shortly state the mode in which the tithe was collected. It was the custom in Ireland to send out, at a very early period of the year, two valuators on the part of the clergyman, to estimate the amount of the tithe. These persons made the valuation behind the back of the peasant or the occupier. No communication was made to him fort months after. He therefore remained ignorant of the demand to be made upon him. It might be made at an early season, when the produce of the land coming into the market for the first time, carried a high price, or it might be made several months after, when the crop was found insufficient, and the price, of course, became greatly enhanced. In either case, the unfortunate peasant, was at the mercy of his oppressors. Some of their lordships were, perhaps, happily ignorant of an act of parliament, which stood upon the Statute-book; and which stated, in express words, that if any three farmers in the same parish should set out their tithes on the same day, such an act should be deemed a conspiracy. He did not say that this law was often executed, but this he would say; that if not executed it was unnecessary, and that if necessary, that system must be detestable which was supported by so iniquitous and tyrannical an enactment. He might remind their lordships, that in a country like some parts of Ireland, where the animosities between the clergy and the people ran high, it was not improbable that it might sometimes be put in force. Though the clergy in general were too liberal, and loved justice too much, to avail themselves of the oppressive power placed at their disposal. In a climate so variable as Ireland, it might happen that not only three, but a considerable portion of the parish might be obliged to give notice on the same day. Evil consequences might, therefore, arise, if the clergyman and his parish were in a previous state of hostility. Another objection to the system was, that it was most unequally raised, in some instances potatoes were charged with tithes; in
1056
others they were free. It was therefore impossible to say when the peasant might be called upon for them. He was left in a state of uncertainty, with respect to a tax on an article raised, not for speculation or enterprise, but for the very existence of his family.
Having said thus much on the evils of the present system, he would state that a commutation, to winch he could see no objection, would in his opinion be the best cure. He was sure that he should not, in making this proposition, have to encounter, either from their lordships, or from any of the right rev, prelates, the doctrine that tithes were founded upon divine right, because against such an opinion he had the declaration of the church, in the time of Queen Elizabeth, that to say that.—tithes were of divine right, was one, of the greatest errors into which the church of Rome had fallen. But while he maintained this opinion, he would allow that they were entitled to the same protection, and if dealt with, should be as guardedly touched as any other species of property, not only for the sake of the church itself, but for the advantage of the country. Before he could recommend a commutation, therefore, he should be obliged to show, that by it the interests of the church would not be deteriorated. He would keep in view three points. First, he would not recommend any principle of commutation, which, as a lay impropriator, he would not himself gladly accept. Secondly, he would not do any thing which would not leave the church in the same relative state of wealth and respectability which it now enjoyed. Thirdly, he would adopt no plan by which the church would be rendered more dependent on the state than it was at present; and he could assure the right rev, prelates, that if they could devise any measure which could by possibility make it less dependent on the government, he would, in charity to the church, most willingly adopt it. Having thus guarded himself from any suspicion of trenching upon the interests of the church, he would suggest, whether means might not be devised similar to those employed in Scotland, by a sworn jury fixing the price of grain, not for one year, but for five or six years, and thus levying the tithe upon the landlord, and not upon the tenant. With regard to Ireland, he should think it an improvement if the money which was the price of the tithe, and not

1057
the corn, were given to the clergy by the proprietor instead of the occupier of the land. The clergy would then come in contact, not with the Catholic population, but with the Protestant landlords, who might be enabled, by raising money equivalent, to the value of the tithe, to buy land and settle it on the church, relieving themselves from all future burthens. He recommended this, not as what he would wish to see carried into effect in England, for he thought nothing could be more objectionable than to render the clergyman a landed proprietor; but he stated it as applicable to the church of Ireland, and as in principle not unknown to the law of England. This species of commutation had been established in the parish of Clifton, where, in the division of a common, there was not only set aside a portion of it for the clergyman in lieu of tithes, but where the sum of 9,000 l. had been raised by the landed proprietors to buy land in lieu of the existing tithe, and thus exonerate for ever their own estates from that burthen. A bill to this effect had passed the legislature, and had met with no opposition from the right rev. prelates. Though he would object to the general adoption of such a plan in England, there were peculiar circumstances in the state of Ireland which rendered it advisable. The clergy in many parts of that country were looked upon rather as magistrates than as clergymen, and were engaged rather in executing civil than religious duties. These duties they would be able to perform with more respectability, if they were looked upon as landed proprietors, instead of individuals who depended on the levying of tithes for their support from a hostile population. There was another burthen to which he would allude, and which was not the least odious; he meant the tax levied upon the Catholic peasantry, for repairing and rebuilding Protestant churches. It had been stated, that a new valuation of the first fruits was about to be made. From the best information, he was inclined to believe, that if such a valuation were completed, the result would be, that the funds would be found quite sufficient for the repairing of churches, without placing that odious burthen upon the shoulders of the Catholic peasant. It was a curious fact, that the amount of the first fruits at the present day was smaller than when it was established in the reign of queen Anne. Their lordships, he was convinced, were anxious, if pos-
1058
sible, to correct the frightful abuses which it was his painful duty to allude to. If they had any doubt of the existence of those abuses—if they had any doubt of the causes of those evils—he would entreat of them to transport themselves in imagination from the metropolis of this wealthy country, to some remote and desolated parish of that unfortunate land to which he had directed their attention. They would find, that gentlemen who were anxious to reside there, were driven by the distractions of the times, to seek an asylum in another country; while others were deprived, their ordinary means being removed, of those sources of legitimate influence, the exercise of which would be most valuable to those around them. They would see the population, bereaved of their natural protectors, deriving a precarious subsistence, and paying rent, not by the exertion of honest industry, but by a systematic violation of the laws. They would find, a population cut off from the fair administration of justice, and deprived of the right, when accused, of going before a jury of the country. He would show them a population deprived of the fostering superintendance of an upright and impartial magistracy, and suffering under the grinding oppression of the tithe system; and then he would ask their lordships whether, in a state of society so degraded, and almost realizing the words of lord Bacon, "that Ireland civilized, would be more dangerous than Ireland savage," they could oppose the proposition he had to make for the removal of those manifest evils? He hoped the expectation so justly raised last year by the royal visit to that country would be realized; and that the bright splendour of that happy day when his majesty's foot first touched the soil of Ireland would not be lost in a succeeding period of gloom. All minor interests would, he hoped, be sacrificed to the public good, and such wise and persevering efforts be made, as would effectually remedy the evils which afflicted that part of the empire. He would conclude with moving, "That it is the opinion of this House, that the State of Ireland requires the immediate attention of Parliament, with a view to improve the condition of the people, and more effectually to secure its permanent tranquillity.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, he felt the full force of all that had fallen from the

1059
noble marquis; and he must in the outset admit, that a subject of greater importance could not be brought under the consideration of the House. The interest he felt in it was augmented by the fair, candid, and temperate manner in which it had been introduced by the noble Marquis; and in discussing the several topics to which the noble marquis had called their attention, he should do so without any disposition, either to introduce extraneous matter, or to aggravate any of those evils in the state of Ireland, or of any other part of the empire, the existence of which they must all admit. In looking at the question, he would adhere closely to the points noticed by the noble marquis; and if he felt any peculiar objection to voting for this resolution, it was, because, under the peculiar circumstances which now existed, he could not see any powerful necessity for, its adoption. He felt, that it would imply a censure on the government, and especially on the noble lord at the head of the government of Ireland, whose duty it was, to devise measures for restoring the tranquillity of that country. It was necessary, in considering this subject, to look, in the first instance, to the real state of Ireland; before they applied the remedy, they ought to endeavour to find out the cause of the evil. It was, in his opinion, owing to the source of the evil having been mistaken, that an effectual remedy had not yet been applied. The real question had not been considered. And why? Because it was always the interest of faction—(he certainly did not apply the observation to any thing that had fallen from the noble marquis)—to give a direction to grievances, entirely different from that which actually caused them—to represent evils as growing out of the measures of government—to trace disturbance and discontent to the conduct of this or that administration. Now, instead of adopting that principle, they ought, in considering the state of a country labouring under such difficulties as Ireland confessedly did, to proceed to the origin of those difficulties. In considering the state of Ireland, or of any other country, there was always a distinction to be borne in mind—first, whether the evils of the state arose out of the situation in which the governors stood to the governed; or, secondly, whether they grew out of the relative state in which the great body of the people, those who laboured for their daily sub-
1060
sistence, stood to those who possessed property? On those principles did the situation of every state in the history of the world, from the beginning of time to the present day, depend. If they looked to ancient times—to those studies which employed their youth, w here the contest was about liberty—whether it was between patricians or plebeians, what was the state of the great body of the people? It was that of interminable slavery. If they looked to modern states—to the United States of America, for instance, where the theory of liberty was carried to a degree never before known in the world, it would be found, that in several of the provinces, the great mass of the labouring population was in a state of absolute slavery; and they would find this principle applying, in a greater or less degree, to many countries in Europe, whether it was slavery or bondage to the land, as in the case of serfs, or was recognized under some other form. It might exist under a free as well as under an absolute government, though, in one sense, it might not form a part of the constitution of the state. But the fact showed, that, in considering the state of a country, one question should be particularly inquired into; namely, "What is the relation of those who labour to those who have property; and what is the relation between those who govern, and those who are governed?'' He did not mean to say, that this was directly applicable to the case of Ireland, but he stated it as illustrative of the principle he had down; and in this particular view, he would undertake to show, if the case of Ireland were considered fairly, that nine-tenths of the evils which afflicted. Ireland were not to be ascribed to the measures directed by government, but to the state of society in that country, and the relation of those who laboured, to those who possessed property. He could adduce the whole history of Ireland in support of this position. With the exception of the year 1798, when a conspiracy was set on foot to mature a rebellion, and a French force landed in Ireland for the purpose of overturning the government—all the insurrections in Ireland had been directed against the property, not against the government of the country. What occurred last year might be adduced in proof of this assertion. The noble marquis had alluded to his majesty's visit to Ireland. Their lordships knew the enthusiasm with which

1061
his majesty had been received; they were acquainted with the feelings to which his visit gave rise; and yet it was notorious, that the king had scarcely quitted the country before those dreadful disturbances began. He had alluded, on a former occasion, to a letter, the contents of which he was sure, could not be contradicted, in which the writer said, "that if his majesty landed that moment at Limerick (the head-quarters of insurrection), he would be received with the same enthusiasm as had been manifested in Dublin." If their lordships looked at the different proclamations, hand-bills, notices, which had been sent forth in the disturbed parts of Ireland, though they would sometimes find religious difference mentioned (and that in a slight degree), they would hardly perceive any notice taken of the government. This fortified his argument, that it was an insurrection against property, and not against the government of the country. He stated this, because it was necessary to a due consideration of the state of Ireland, and not as matter of gratification; because, if the disturbances were caused by any evils occasioned by the measures of government, it would be much more easy to arrive at, and correct the cause, than to devise a remedy for mischiefs, the source of which was so difficult of approach. If they looked to the constitution of this country, and the manner in which it was enjoyed in the three portions of the empire, they would find that Ireland had her full share of its benefits. In point of prosperity, Scotland was superior to Ireland. Yet, with respect to the popular part of a government, Scotland possessed it in the least, and Ireland in the highest degree. Scotland possessed very little of what could be called popular representation. Now, what was the state of Ireland in that respect? The situation of Ireland as to popular representation, very far exceeded that of England. A noble lord of the soil of high connexions and great ability, had in another place, brought under consideration a plan for a reform of the representation. That measure, he was glad to say, had not proved successful; but if that noble lord had succeeded in attaining his object, even under this new plan, the popular representation of England would not have been so great as the popular representation of Ireland was at the present moment. Out of 100 members that represented Ireland, 64 were returned
1062
the counties. They were elected on a principle very nearly approaching to that of universal suffrage; and with respect to the remainder, a very large portion were elected for populous places. Not less than between 80 and 90 of those 100 members were returned, in the strictest sense of the word, by popular election. So that not only had Ireland, in that respect nothing to complain of, but she had as extensive a system of popular representation, as the most ardent reformer could desire. With respect to the laws, Ireland enjoyed what Scotland did not enjoy—at least in its fullest extent. Ireland enjoyed the trial by jury, to the same extent that England did. She had the advantage of able and independent judges; and the correct way in which justice was administered there, might be inferred from the very small number of appeals from that country which were introduced to their lordships' notice. Whether, then, he looked to the general state of the law of the country—whether he looked at what appeared to be the feelings of the people of Ireland—he had a right to contend, that it was not hostility to the British government, that it was not a desire of reform in parliament, that it was not a wish for those changes, which, in moments of distress, they saw agitating large bodies of men in this country, that actuated the people of Ireland, and produced the evils which they all deplored. No. Those evils arose from the internal state of society in Ireland, and the relation in which the great body of the people stood with respect to that portion who possessed property.—The noble marquis had attributed much of the misery of Ireland to the taxation imposed on it, and to the mode adopted for the collection of the revenue. On this part of the subject, he desired the attention of their lordships to a few facts, and he called on them not to forget what the noble marquis had himself admitted, as to the fertility of the soil of Ireland, and the solid wealth of that country. When they considered, that England, with a population of fourteen millions, paid annually 50,000,000 l. of taxes, and that Ireland did not pay more than 4,000,000 l. of taxes, could it be fairly asserted, that the burthern imposed on the sister-country was excessive or intolerable? The noble marquis had alluded to the diminution of the revenue in Ireland since the war. He admitted the fact; because he admitted that Ire-

1063
land had suffered from the excessive diminution of expenditures, in consequence of the peace. The south of Ireland had suffered greatly. During the war, an immense supply for our navy, and for the colonies, was drawn from that quarter. The cause of the failure of the revenue was plain and simple. It arose from the reduction of the expenditure, consequent on peace. The reduction of the expenditure had produced reduction of rents—reduction of rents operated against the demand for commodities—and thus revenue had suffered. But, could it be said, that this country had acted unfairly towards Ireland, with respect to revenue, when it was recollected, that England had taken the debt of Ireland on her own shoulders, and that the interest of that debt was now paid out of the burthens laid on the people of this country? With respect to the laws relating to distillation, a former secretary for Ireland had repealed all the acts that were complained of, and adopted a new system. The effect of this was, such an increase of inebriety in every part of Ireland, that the re-enactment of these very laws was anxiously desired by almost the whole representation of that country, for the purpose of securing its tranquillity. It was, however, a subject of great importance, and one which had been particularly investigated by the commission which was appointed Dist year. It was not, he thought, desirable to meddle with the question, until something permanent could be effected, and with that view it would be necessary to wait for the report of the commissioners.—With respect to the question of absentees, it was one of very great delicacy. As to the question, whether it was the same thing for a country that such large masses of money should be drawn from it, instead of being spent in it, on that question he would not enter, because there was a paramount question which greatly transcended that of political economy—he meant the moral effect of the absentee system. There was no calculating the effect it must produce. In this country, circumstances sometimes prevented the residence of a family on a particular estate for a generation; but what must be the effect, when, from generation to generation, the tenant only knew landlord by name?—As to the state of the magistracy in Ireland, he believed no just complaint was ever made to the lord chancellor or the lord, lieutenant of the conduct of a
1064
magistrate, which did not call forth animadversion and punishment. But where there was so much party and faction.—where magistrates were liable, from various causes, to so much misrepresentation—it required the exercise of great prudence and caution, before the strong measure oft striking men out of the commission of the peace was resorted to. The noble marquis had stated, that in the administration of justice, a distinction was made between Catholics and Protestants. As far as he (lord L) was acquainted with the state of the country, he believed that no distinction, disadvantageous to the Catholics, was ever made; and he was sure, if such a circumstance were proved, the offending party would be severely punished. The noble marquis had forgotten to state, that within very few years, measures had been taken, to place the shrievalty in Ireland on the same footing as in England. He had also forgotten to, mention, that, measures had been taken, for, reforming the whole system of grand juries Ireland. Every desire existed on the part of government, to assimilate the law of Ireland to that of England. Let, them look to Scotland before the abolition of heritable jurisdictions, and say, whether her condition was not more unfortunates than that of Ireland now was. If the measures now in progress for the relief of Ireland were aided and assisted by the nobility and gentry in that country, he could not suppose but that they would; effect a progressive improvement in the situation of the people.—He now came to the important question of tithes: and in arguing this question there was one point from which he and the noble marquis must start together. He would not touch one any divine right the clergyman had to tithes, but he would maintain that it was as sacred a right of property as any other. He would say, that the proprietor who had bought an estate, inherited an estate, or had the devise of an estate, had bought or inherited nine parts only. The tenth part was the property of the church or of the lay impropriator, as much as the nine other parts were the property of the purchaser, the inheritor, or the devisee. It stood on the same principle as every other species of property, and they had no right it whatever to touch it. He had no hesitation in saying, that the resident clergy of Ireland were as valuable set of men to Ireland as any other class. He spoke of them not merely as clergymen,

1065
but as resident proprietors. The greater proportion were resident in their parishes, and they spent the income raised: upon their flocks amongst their flocks. They did not, he believed, on the whole, receive half their dues; and it was notorious that, where the proprietor of the land paid the tithes, the peasant or farmer to whom the land was let, paid more in addition to his rent, than would have been demanded if he himself paid the tithes. Those who recommended this plan professed to have the interest of Ireland at heart. And what did they mean to do? They wished to adopt a system that would still farther impoverish that country, and make the people pay double what they paid at present; and which, instead of a body of resident clergy, would give them a body of nonresident landlords. Could any thing more unjust be done? The moment the question came to be considered, no honourable mind could entertain the project. He argued, then, that the right was the right of property; and that it was as well exercised as it would be in any other hands. The noble marquis had pointed out the hardship arising from the collection of tithes in Ireland; but the distinction between the two countries in this respect was easily accounted for. A tithe income of 400 l. a-year in England would probably be collected from 30 or 40 persons; but the same amount of income in Ireland would be collected, perhaps from 1,400 or 1,500 individuals, of the poorest class. Let noble lords consider the burthen which this threw on the clergyman, the derangement of his affairs which it occasioned, and the endless litigation to which it gave rise. The obvious, just, and natural remedy was this: let the proprietor pay the lithe, and let him make an arrangement with the farmer out of the rent. By adopting a measure that would enable the clergyman to lease his tithes for a certain number of years to the proprietor, the evil would be removed. If the proprietors were willing to be parties to this measure, where was the difficulty? The clergy, he was sure, would consent to the plan; and if there were any obstruction, it must come from the proprietors. Should both agree to it, they might safely come to parliament for its aid and assistance. It was a fact not to be denied, that the subdivisions of property in Ireland arrested the progress of civilization: in this country it was found that civilization was in proportion
1066
to the magnitude of estates. In Ireland there were an immense number of forty shilling freeholders; and while this state of things continued, the evils that had been the subject of complaint must be aggravated. Several measures to ameliorate the condition of Ireland would shortly come under the consideration of their lordships. One of them had been last night introduced into the House of Commons, and its object was to make improvements in the present system of leasing tithes. It was not the only plan ministers had in contemplation, but they had thought it advisable to introduce that bill in the course of the present session, leaving the other important branches of the subject to future deliberation. The police bill was another endeavour to improve the condition, and promote the tranquillity of Ireland. Grave objections had been stated to it; but he believed that they were founded upon an erroneous view of its provisions. He could not allow the question to go to a vote without saying a few words upon the delay of which the noble marquis had spoken on the part of the present lord lieutenant of Ireland. The appointment of the distinguished individual who filled the office of viceroy, had received the praise of the noble marquis. Since his appointment, he had been subject to indisposition. There never was an individual who more completely put the whole energies of his soul into a system which he might be disposed to try; but at the same time her would never put his hand and give his sanction to a hasty measure. It was not, therefore to be expected that he would, without due consideration, authorize the introduction of any measure. In addition to his great qualifications to govern Ireland, he was rendered the more fit for the duty by his particular attachment to it. In that country he had first drawn breath—in that country he had first distinguished himself—and he had returned to it with am, anxious desire that the latest acts of his political life should be devoted to the happiness of his native country. Without intending the slightest disrespect to the noble marquis, he should meet his resolution by moving the previous question.
The Ear of Limericksupported the resolution, and said, that the crisis had arrived; when, if the attention of parliament was not called to the state of Ireland, the most lamentable consequences would ensue. Generally speaking, no

1067
better landlords were to be found in the world than in Ireland. The evils of that country were not to be attributed to them, but to the odious system of Excise laws, which barbarized the country. He objected also to the mode in which popular elections were conducted. They excited the ambition of the middling classes, and diverted their attention from the objects to which it ought to be devoted. The noble earl had said, that tithes were as sacred as private property. Admitting the fact, could not parliament, for the general good, deal with it as it had done with other species of private property? He did not, of course, advocate the spoliation of the church; for, in so doing, he should be advocating the spoliation of his own property at no distant day. A just commutation of tithes, would, in his opinion, be most serviceable to the Protestant church in Ireland. He did not see why, the clergy should be less inclined to reside on their livings after the commutation than before it. He could by no means agree, that the property of the country should be made responsible to the clergy for their tithes. At present the landlords got but little, and in that case they would get nothing.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the small, number of appeals from Ireland did not lead him to suppose that the people were dissatisfied with the decisions of the judges. He had made a calculation of the number of days that would probably be occupied in hearing and deciding the appeal causes now on the list, and he found that the English, Irish, and Welsh appeals might be dismissed in 50 days, while 400 days would most likely be insufficient for those from Scotland only. Why the Scotch were so dissatisfied with the determinations of their judges, he did not pretend to decide; but certain it was, that the Irish did not appear to have the same grounds of complaint. On the subject of tithes, he could not avoid expressing his deep regret that a noble marquis had never spoken of them but under the terms of tax and impost. With the utmost deference, he would tell that noble marquis, that the nine-tenths of the estates belonging to him might be just as fairly so characterised, as the one-tenth that was the property of the clergy. To the noble earl who had last spoken, he would also say, that he had just as much right to interfere with the receipts of the noble earl's estates, as the noble earl had to interfere
1068
with the tithes of the clergy. One-tenth of the estates which the noble earl called his own, was no more his property than it was the property of any other man.
The Marquis of Downshireexpressed his disappointment at the manner in which the resolution had been met by ministers. The great objection to tithes in Ireland was, that they were a tax upon all improvements, and therefore retarded the progress of civilization. The noble earl had spoken of the advantages of a resident clergy, but in many instances, parishes were united: consequently the livings were very extensive, and in proportion to the extent, the advantages of residence would be diminished. In one diocese of Ireland, consisting of 210,000 acres, one clergyman held a living of 34,000 acres. Part of this land was waste; but the wide surface of the living of course prevented the clergyman from fully discharging the duties of his office. Ought not this defect to be remedied? He had no doubt that the noble marquis at the head of the government of Ireland was well inclined to turn his attention to the numerous evils which existed in that country; but he was persuaded that the noble marquis would find it difficult to arrive at the truth; for; there was no country in which the truth was elicited with more difficulty than in Ireland. The, Police bill, he was persuaded, would have the effect of disgusting many respectable magistrates, whose attendance at the petty sessions was most salutary. He admitted, that the absence of the great landed proprietors was a serious evil. Much might be accomplished if they would devote a small portion of their time and incomes to the improvement of the condition of their country. If they could not reside, they might appoint agents of education and respectability, who would not be content with being heard of merely at those periods of the year when rents became due.
The Earl of Donoughmoredeclared, that he had never heard a speech more devoid of party feeling than that of his noble friend, who originated the present discussion. The noble earl, however had answered that speech as a minister of the Crown, and as if it had been an attack on the government of Ireland. He as highly respected the character of the illustrious person at the head of that government as any man could do. He had witnessed the manner in which that noble lord conducted

1069
the affairs of the country which he had so properly been sent to govern; and he had never seen greater talent, more perseverance, so total an absence of any feeling, but of anxiety to do right. Almost the whole weight of the government of Ireland had been thrown on the noble lord's shoulders. He had not, however, flinched from his duty; but had performed it like an honest and enlightened man. Of this he was persuaded, that the noble marquis was not so silly a politician as to begin to act until he knew his ground. He would make himself acquainted with all that it was necessary to do before he did any thing. His character was too high to allow of his risking any indiscreet or prey mature measure, to gratify the impatience of the public, or perhaps some individuals in parliament, who wished to jump at once to a conclusion. The bill that had been recently introduced, so far from being favourable to a commutation of tithes was meant to be an extinguisher upon the very principle. Their lordships had heard a great deal about the magistracy of Ireland. That magistracy was in a bad state, no doubt. The appointment of the magistrates rested principally with the chancellor of Ireland; and if any were recommended by a privy counsellor the chancellor was obliged to pay deference to that recommendation. For any such appointments, therefore, it would be very invidious to blame a chancellor thus situated. But why did not ministers take measures for the revision of the whole commission? God knew that Ireland was already sufficiently unfortunate; but when the bill in question should have passed, she would be, indeed, degraded. For what did it do? It went to give to the government the appointment of constables throughout Ireland; and by this means, it placed the whole population of Ireland under the excessive powers of local magistrates. Granting that in the disturbed districts, this measure was to be palliated as one of necessity, why should it be applied to Ulster and Connaught, for instance? Was the whole country to be needlessly placed under the operation of one and the same measure? He was constrained to say, that the measure would be altogether inefficient.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that the noble earl opposite had told their lordships, that the present distressed state of Ireland was owing, not to the laws of the country, but to the state of society there. Now, he
1070
would observe upon this, that he traced the state of society to the statute book of Ireland. Although many of the most objectionable penal statutes had been expunged or repealed, the grievance still existed in the effects which they had produced; and noble lords well knew that, in many cases after the cause had been removed the effects would still continue to manifest themselves. How different would the state of Ireland have been had a motion similar to the one now moved been discussed in parliament at the period of the Union, when they would have been treating with the interests, not of a starving population of seven millions, but of a population of five millions, in a state of comparative prosperity! It would be matter of great regret to him, if anything which might fall from him should have the effect of altering the tone of the debate. But he must declare it to be his opinion that there could be no reasonable hope of permanent improvement in Ireland, under a government constituted as the present government of Ireland was. No such hope could be cherished until all persons resident in Ireland were placed in the same position, in the eve of the law. But, while a majority of the Irish people were placed in a suspicious point of view, as regarded the law—while several of his majesty's ministers were found to concur in the same suspicion which was entertained by the law, it was not in human nature that equal justice should be done between Catholics and Protestants. The noble earl had said, that the state of society in Ireland, and not misgovernment, had led to the misfortunes of the people. He had also said, that Ireland was not taxed in her full proportion, and that she had received all the benefit arising from a participation in the English laws; and he called upon the House to compare the condition of Ireland with that of Scotland. But, in the first place, had Scotland tithes? Had Scotland a hierarchy, professing principles of religion in direct opposition to those of the great majority of the people, by whom they were paid? Did not Scotland enjoy the execution of strict justice? Now, what was the state of Scotland before strict justice did exist in that country? Let their lordships look back to the period when Scotland was first conquered by the parliament. After that event a commission, headed by two of the ablest men in the kingdom, lord chief justice St. John, and sir H.

1071
Vane, was sent by the parliament into Scotland, "to inquire what was proper to be done in respect of the existing laws of the realm of Scotland." The defective condition of those laws was notorious. They improved the law, and remodelled its administration accordingly throughout that country. Infinite opposition and discontent were at first excited. The Scots of that day—the Camerons and the Gordons and the Græmes—denounced the members of the commission and those who sent them, as "clanless rascals;" but, happily, with a perfect indifference to the denunciations, the commission pursued its labours; and, in the course of a few years, Scotland enjoyed such strict justice, that the conquering nation could venture to quit it, leaving scarcely a single soldier to enforce the authority of the laws. The learned lord on the woolsack had observed, that, to judge from the few appeals which came up from Ireland, no great evil could exist in the administration of justice in that kingdom. But, unhappily, the question was not as to the administration of justice there between rich and rich, but between the rich and the poor. The evil complained of arose not out of the administration of the law by the judges, but by the magistrates. Did the learned lord really suppose, that it was possible for the poor peasant who happened to be wronged, his possessions consisting of two barren acres of land, to bring his appeal before their lordships, incumbered as it must necessarily be with all the expensive accompaniments of lawyers and solicitors bills, and parliament fees? But the noble earl at the head of the government appeared to think, that tithes possessed one advantage of a public and political nature; namely, that they brought the clergy into contact with the tenant of the soil. But, what sort of contact was it—a forced or a voluntary one? To him it appeared to be much the same species of contact as that between a person beating another with a stick, and the person beaten. His own opinion as to tithes was this that the clergyman, in future, ought to have all that he has at any time had, in the way of tithe; all that he could, in short, possibly have. Whatever the clergyman might have taken, on an average of the last 10 years, he ought to take now: and his future tithes ought to bear the same proportion to the increasing produce of the soil, as the tithe he now took bore
1072
to its present produce. Whoever went further than this principle, put a limit to the possibility of effecting a commutation of tithes. It would not be possible to give a sum adequate to the demands of the clergyman, though they might give him a sum equal to what he now received. Unless this commutation, in any bill to be adopted, should be made compulsory on the parties, it would be perfectly ineffectual. The noble earl had thought it necessary to make n laboured apology for the noble marquis at the head of the government of Ireland; and another noble earl (Donoughmore), with no great advantage to the cause which he advocated, had followed in the same strain. But in order to do so, that noble lord had been obliged to throw overboard the two bills which had been lately introduced into the other House, contending that it was impossible they could have originated with the noble marquis who presided over the Irish government. The spirit of departmental government had actuated some noble lords so much, that the government of Ireland was considered precisely in the light of an independent country. The noble earl opposite talked of it as if it was a separate and distinct government; as if the mandate of his majesty's ministers, collectively, did not run to every part of the United Kingdom. He must protest against the doctrine of separate, individual, and exclusive responsibility; as if the ministers altogether were not bound by the act of one of their body; or as if the whole and undivided responsibility insured by it remained singly with the lord lieutenant of Ireland.
The Earl of Darnleysaid, that a revision of the magistracy of Ireland might be attended with much benefit, but that the measure now pending could only have the effect of disgusting those who were in the commission. He was a decided advocate for the commutation of tithes in Ireland.
Lord Hollandsaid, that the motion of his noble friend was, to take into immediate consideration the state of Ireland, with a view to bettering the condition of the people, and the establishment of tranquillity on a firm basis. On that motion the noble earl opposite, in one of the most extraordinary speeches be had ever heard, had alluded to the different states of society, ancient and modern, and had moved the previous question; meaning thereby, as he presumed, that the motion was a

1073
proper motion, but that the present was not the proper time for agreeing to it. In fact, however, the moving of the previous question was susceptible of two meanings. Either it might mean, that the original proposition was good, but that the time was not a proper time for acceding to it or it might mean, in the mouth of minister, that it was proper to do what was proposed, but that the House ought to place sufficient confidence in his majesty's government to believe that they would originate some measure to the same effect. If the latter were the noble earl's meaning, he had proceeded very strangely. He had declared that this was no party question; but, having made that declaration, he concluded with a motion, which set the question immediately on a party footing, by placing it on the broad ground of confidence in his majesty's government. As to the other interpretation, namely, that although the proposition was a good one, the present was not the fit time for its adoption, he really thought that parliament had already manifested sufficient patience on the subject. Let their lordships look at what had passed even in the present session. His majesty had hardly retired from the coast of Ireland, and parliament had scarcely met, when, by a message from the throne, the attention of parliament was drawn to what was taking place in Ireland, and strong coercive measures were proposed in aid of the authority of government. Their lordships' consent to those measures was reluctantly wrung from them. They had been told, that the causes of the evils in Ireland lay in the state of society; and that government contemplated measures of relief. Contemplated! A pretty contemplative government it was! It had been contemplating for two and twenty years, during the whole of which period the unhappy people of Ireland had been subject to every species of distress and calamity. What followed the adoption of the measures introduced by his majesty's government? A noble duke (Devonshire) took the opportunity afforded him on presenting a petition praying for the commutation of tithes in Ireland, of addressing their lordships, with all the unassuming modesty belonging to his age and character, but with the consideration and goodness apparently hereditary in his family, and of expressing his entire concurrence in the prayer of the petitioners. The noble earl opposite paid the noble duke many compliments on
1074
the occasion, and held out hopes that the subject would be taken into consideration by his majesty's government. With that declaration, his noble friend had been highly satisfied. With respect to himself he hoped he was not very liable to entertain unjust suspicion, but he had told his noble friend that very day that be had some doubts as to the dependence to be placed on the noble earl's statement. He had had much more experience of the noble earl than his noble friend had had. Whenever a question of great magnitude was proposed on the opposition side of the House, the noble earl always dealt with it in one of two ways. He either cried wolf! and exclaimed that the church was in danger—that the constitution was in danger—that, the best interests of the country were in danger; or, on the other hand, he mildly said, "really there is a great deal of truth in what you advance. It is impossible to deny the justice of your principle. The subject is certainly one of considerable difficulty, and may admit of many advantageous modifications. However, you may depend upon it, that I will address my mind to the consideration of the best means by which your object may be carried into effect." Whenever he (lord H.) set his heart on carrying any measure, he greatly preferred the lofty tone of the noble earl to his more placid and gentle strain. A great poet of antiquity, who was said to have understood the female character extremely well—but he would not name the book, because he was sure the right reverend prelates could know nothing about it—had observed, that he never objected to a little scolding, and a little scratching and a little pulling of his hair at the hands of his mistress, because he knew that softer moments were, about to follow. So he (lord H.) felt well satisfied with the excited animation of the noble earl, but be dreaded the opposite tone. He perfectly recollected when the noble earl, on the dissolution of another ministry, some years ago, protested most vehemently against the proposition of that ministry, for what the noble earl called, putting the sword into the hands of the Roman Catholic. He had lived, however, to see that noble earl support an exactly similar proposition. When an hon. and lamented friend of his, he meant Mr. Homer, agitated the bullion question, no one was more decided in his opposition to his friend's principles than the noble earl; yet now the noble earl

1075
actually plumed himself upon maintaining the identical principles, which on that occasion, he had unequivocally condemned. It was the same with the sinking fund. The noble earl had declared, that by the integrity of the proposed sinking fund of five millions, he would stand or fall. That sinking fund had been diminished; but the noble earl was immoveable. It was the same with the repeal of taxation. No man could more positively deny at the commencement of the session, that any farther repeal of taxes was incompatible with the safety of the state; and yet his majesty's government had since spontaneously proposed the remission of taxation to a large amount. When, therefore, the noble earl manfully and obstinately resisted any proposition, he (lord H.) felt like a man perched on a rock in the midst of the ocean, who, beholding the billows breaking and foaming around him, was justified in entertaining a hope that the tide might recede, and allow him to reach the main land; but who, when he saw that all was smooth and deep and stagnant, was aware that the level would never alter, and that he must submit to inevitable destruction. It was with this feeling that he had listened to the noble earl's assent to the noble duke's propositions; and the advice which the noble earl had that night given their lordships to postpone acquiescing in the present motion, proved the accuracy of his presentiment. He (lord Holland) deprecated all postponement of the subject. From long experience, he knew, that on most subjects, and especially on the fatal subject of the miseries of Ireland, whenever administration had been trusted to act, nothing useful had been accomplished. The simple question for their lordships to decide was, whether they would proceed at the present moment or not? The noble earl's argument was, that the whole subject with respect to Ireland had been mistaken; that there had been a complete misapprehension, not as to the effects (for they were too evident even for the noble earl to deny), but of their causes. The noble earl denied that the cause of the present discontents was disloyalty; be denied that it was misgovernment. He maintained that it grew altogether out of the state of society, and the conduct of the great proprietors of Ireland. A whimsical doctrine this for one who had so warmly supported the Union! In fact, the speech of the noble earl had been directed rather against reform generally,
1076
than against his noble friend's proposition. His noble friend's proposition had no connexion with what was called reform. The topics which his noble friend selected for observation, were the amount of taxation, the administration of justice by the magistracy, and the tithe system. The noble earl had made the question much more general in its character; he had extended it to the state of society, to the cultivation of the lands, to the conduct of the absentees. If, however, the evil was more general than his noble friend had anticipated, surely that was a very odd reason for postponing an inquiry into it! With respect to the question as it respected absentees, he would first observe, that he had no connexion with Ireland of a nature at all affecting his interest. His only sentiment with regard to that country, was a feeling of esteem and admiration for the generous and noble character of its people. But he must say, that even if all were true that was said of the conduct of the absentees, it was most unjust and ungrateful for any Englishman, and above all for any member of an English parliament, who had supported the Union with Ireland, to add insult to injury by such observations. Was it possible, when the local parliament of Ireland was removed and fixed in the heart of the English metropolis, not to anticipate the evil which had ensued? As to the argument which had been deduced from the small amount of the taxation derived from Ireland, it really astonished him. The noble earl said that we only got four millions of revenue from Ireland. But the noble earl ought to know, that the very smallness of the revenue collected frequently proved the extreme oppression under which it was levied. With respect to the argument of the learned lord on the woolsack, that, judging from the small number of appeals from Ireland, there did not appear to be any complaint of the mal-administration of justice in that country, that argument had been so well answered by the noble baron, that it was not worth while to add a single word, except to observe, that the evils complained of by the Irish were not the erroneous decisions of a court of equity, but the ruinous expences of the common law, and the corruption of the subordinate agents of the law, both of which were so excessive as to amount almost to a denial of justice. The contrast which the noble earl had endeavoured to exhibit between Scotland and Ireland had also been most

1077
successfully exposed by the noble baron. He was in hopes that the noble Earl would have gone on to speak of the forcing of the tithe system on the Presbyterians of Scotland by Charles 2nd—certainly one of the most disgusting instances of tyranny the world ever witnessed. The noble earl might also have gone on to what followed. From the abolition of episcopacy in Scotland, the tranquillity of that country had gradually improved. With respect to tithes in Ireland, no one wished to abolish them. All that was required was, that they should be commuted. But the noble earl had declared that it was his intention to clog the proprietors with the payment of the tithes. Did the noble earl mean that the measure by which that was to be effected should be compulsory on the proprietors?—[Lord Liverpool replied in the negative]—Then it would not be worth a halfpenny. For, without compulsion, any such proposition would be entirely fruitless. The noble earl called tithes the property of the church. Certainly, they were the property of the church; but, like all other property, they were subject to the regulation of the legislature. Nor had the legislature of former days hesitated in interfering on the subject. The tithe on flax in England had been limited to five shillings an acre. Was that done because the clergy agreed to its being done? By no means. It was done simply because the legislature were determined to encourage the growth of flax. Such was also the case with tithes of minor value. They had been commuted because the commutation would be advantageous to the community. Whenever the advantage of the community, and the advantage of the church came in conflict with each other, he was always prepared to give the whole of the benefit to the community. He knew no power in the ecclesiastical branch of the state, as be knew of no power in the state itself, but that, which existed for the good of the people. Although it might not be expressed in words, such was the true spirit of the constitution England. The time had arrived at which these principles must be acted upon as they respected Ireland. If the ingenuity of man had been exercised in devising a way of paying a church, calculated more than any other to produce at once the instability of that church and the discontent of the people, it would be the mode by which tithes
1078
were exacted from the great mass of the population of Ireland, for the purpose of supporting the clergy of a persuasion that did not amount to a fourteenth part of that population. The true way of supporting the Protestant Church in Ireland was, to make it cease to be the interest of the great majority of the people to subvert it. The Irish were a people very susceptible of wrong. Nay, he himself, although warmly attached to the constitution of his country, was by no means sure that he should remain a good subject, if he were compelled to pay a large portion of his substance for the maintenance of a religion which he might think heretical. As to the bill on the subject now in progress it seemed intended to throw obstacles in the way of any satisfactory adjustment. As to the bill for regulating the police, all that we had to do was, to assimilate the provisions in Ireland respecting the magistracy to our own. In fact, we were no longer entitled to decide on that subject. We had made our election. At the time of the Union we had agreed to admit Ireland to the benefit of all our laws. Justice and faith towards the people of Ireland, combined to enforce that principle. If a stipendary magistracy were established in Ireland, in what a state might the British House of Commons be placed, with a hundred members in its bosom, chosen under the influence of such a paid, magistracy! To this alternative, therefore parliament, must make up their minds; either to admit the Irish people to a full participation of all the advantages of the British constitution; or to repeal the act of Union, and restore them to the situation in which they were antecedently placed. If parliament should be compelled to render the act of Union a dead letter—if they should be reduced to the necessity of repealing it—he might recur to the lines which he had quoted when that Union was originally proposed—
"Mortua quin etiam jungebat corpora vivis,
Componensmanibusque manus atque oribus ora,
Tormenti genus! et sanie taboque fluentes
Complexu in misero, longa sic morte necabat."
The House divided: Contents, present, 35. Proxies, 25–60. Not Contents, present 66. Proxies, 42–108. Majority against the motion, 48.