Sitting of 16 April 1832

MINUTES.
Return ordered. On the Motion of Mr. PRINGLE, Copy of the last Appointment to the Office of Clerk to the admission of Notaries in Scotland.
Petitions presented. By Mr. DAVIES GILBERT, from the Gravesend Steam Boat Company, to be allowed to carry an additional Number of Passengers in proportion to their Tonnage:—By the Sheriffs of the City of London, from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council, for the Abolition of unnecessary Oaths:—By Mr. GRANBY CALCRAFT, from the Inhabitants of Wareham in favour of the New Plan of Education for Ireland. By Mr. JAMES BROWNLOW, from the Clergy, Gentry, and Inhabitants of Manchester, the Inhabitants of Cheltenham, Rochester, Chatham, Stroud, and Canterbury:—By Mr. J. WYNNE, from the Inhabitants of Crossmoline, Adrigoole, Glenlough, and other Places, against the said Plan:—By Mr. BAYNTUN, from the Managers of the York Savings Bank, for the Repeal of so much of the Act 9 George 4th as limited the Amount of Investments by depositors:—By Colonel TORRENS, from the Proprietors of The Bolton chronicle, for the Repeal of all Taxes on Knowledge.

EDUCATION (IRELAND) PETITIONS.
The Sheriffs of the City of London presented a Petition from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council, approving of the new plan of Education proposed to be introduced into Ireland, and praying that the House would sanction the same.
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, as one of the Representatives for the metropolis, he felt himself called upon to support the prayer of the petition. The petitioners found it necessary to lay their sentiments before the House in consequence of the remarks made by hon. Members on presenting petitions containing a contrary prayer, in doing which they assumed that the opinion of the country was with them. He begged leave to move, that it be printed.
Mr. Henry Grattanthought the prayer of this petition was highly honourable to the petitioners. He lamented the difference exhibited on this subject between the independent Corporation of London and the once independent Corporation of Dublin; he must further observe, that the latter would never recover its respectability until it followed the example of the former.
Mr. Alderman Venablessaid, his constituents had requested him to support the
538
prayer of the petition, which he did with great pleasure, for he entirely approved of the new plan of education proposed for Ireland.
Petition to be printed.
Sir George Murraypresented three petitions from three Presbyteries of Scotland, against the new system of education in Ireland. The petitioners stated, that they felt a deep interest in everything relating to the education of youth in Ireland. The people of Ireland had a right to a religious education of which the proposed plan would deprive them; and they, therefore, prayed that the House would not pass any legislative enactment with a view to force it upon the people of that country. He hoped, that it would not be for one moment supposed that he had swerved from the principles of toleration he had always professed; but, notwithstanding, he continued stedfast in those principles, he concurred with the petitioners in thinking that it was the principle of the Protestants throughout the empire, to have the sacred volume in their possession, and to be instructed from it. The plan proposed by Ministers was erroneous and blameable, in as much as it separated the moral and literary from the religious education of children. It was a great error to suppose that education could thus be divided into two parts; one of which, the State, by this plan, attempted to take under its own protection, while it left the other entirely to itself. This system could not fail to weaken the religious impressions which prevailed at present amongst the humbler classes of society. The Government sought to reconcile principles to each other which were wholly irreconcileable. The Protestant thought that the whole volume should be thrown open to the public, while, on the other hand, the Catholics thought, that the sacred volume should be placed in the hands of their priesthood, and that only as much of it as they chose ought to be given to the public, with such comments as they chose to give with it. It was impossible to reconcile such a wide difference as this. He would not discuss which principle was preferable, for both were liable to abuse. The Catholics might turn the one principle to the injury of the Protestant religion, while the Protestant principle, if carried too far, might tend to weaken amongst the lower classes the respect and regard with which they viewed the Holy Scriptures by teach-

539
ing them to look upon it as if it were merely a common book. The Catholic principle, on the other hand, even if it did no harm, yet would give to the priesthood of that persuasion a tool to turn to their own advantage. Upon the whole the plan of Ministers appeared to him to be very unlikely to be attended with success and it could not fail to weaken the religious feelings of the community. He was decidedly of opinion that the public money should not be employed in such a scheme. The right hon. Baronet concluded by moving that the petitions be brought up.
Colonel Conollysupported the prayer of the petitions. He would call upon that House to prove to him, if they could by any possibility, that the new system was in the smallest degree calculated to act as an improvement upon its predecessor, and that its admission was not likely to produce the most dangerous results and effects in that country. Surely, if that sacred volume were to be put into the hands of the lower classes, with the idea impressed strongly upon their minds that one part of it was proper for them to read and that another part of it was improper for their perusal and for their belief; surely if this were so, he would ask, could a doubt exist in the mind of any man of the evil tendency of such a system. When the question should come before the House, he should take the liberty of urging to the utmost of his abilities the various objections—the almost insurmountable objections he would term them—he had to the plan. He should feel himself called upon to press those opinions upon the House as strongly as his powers would enable him, with a view of inducing either the abolition of such a system, or with the hope that some amelioration might take place in the proposition of the Government. He did consider that no sanction ought to be given to any plan which had for its object the creation of a discussion on religious subjects.
Mr. James E. Gordonsaid, that the Presbyterians were now all alive to this subject, and without a single exception, he believed, were opposed to it. This was the sixth petition which had been presented to that House, and he expected that all of them would follow the example. The heads of the Presbyterian Church were, he had no hesitation in asserting, the best and most proper judges of the effect which
540
the new plan was likely to produce. It was well known that the Scottish system of education was the best in the world, and it was, therefore, that he contended that the Scotch people were the best judges of that plan which was likely to be productive of the most advantage to the people. This was, to a certain extent, a proposition which would show a disposition to follow in the steps of the Roman Catholics, for the individuals of that religious persuasion were restricted by their priests from the free use of the Bible. He would contend that the more the Scriptures were used the greater the degree of reverence in which they would be held by the lower as well as the higher classes.
Mr. Pringlecould assure the House the general opinion in Scotland respecting the Ministerial plan was anything but favourable. For his own part he must express his entire concurrence in the opinions contained in the petition.
Petition to be laid on the Table.
Sir George Murray, in moving that the petition he printed, merely wished to say that he did not object to the sacred volume being thrown open.
Mr. Ruthvensaid, that the colouring which was given to this new system of religious education, was, in his opinion, very different from that the proposers of the measure gave to it. He denied that the Roman Catholic priests were against the use of the Bible, and he condemned this marshalling of parties against each other on the subject of religion. There ought not to be any objection to a measure which was pregnant with benefits to the people, and calculated to produce the most desirable results.
Mr. Henry Grattanwas prepared to say, of his own knowledge, that the assertion that the Catholic children were not allowed to read the Bible, whether made in that House, in Exeter Hall, in Scotland, or elsewhere, was false and unfounded. He could take upon himself to say, that most of the Catholics had not only access to the Bible, but were in the habit of reading it. He was surprised that any Member should have the hardihood to make such an assertion.
Sir George Murraybegged to quote, as his authority for the assertion he had made, and which he requested the hon. Member would peruse—not of course the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, but the hon. member for Downpatrick—a passage

541
contained in a letter written by the right hon. Gentleman, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in which the allegation was made. As to the observations of the hon. Member who spoke last, he should take no notice of them.
Mr. James E. Gordonwould follow the example of the gallant Officer, and take no notice of the observations of the hon. member for Meath; but whatever statement he made in that House, he should, at the same time, be prepared to substantiate it.
Petition to be printed.
Sir Robert Inglispresented a Petition from the clergy, gentry, and inhabitants of Manchester, signed by upwards of 4,000 persons, against the new plan of religious education in Ireland. The petitioners said, they did not so much object to a selection from the Bible, as to a selection which was to exclude the use of the whole volume of the Scriptures. The essence of Protestantism was the Bible, and the whole Bible. Protestantism, therefore, could gain nothing, but might lose much by the substitution of selections from the whole Bible. There was a growing feeling throughout the country on the subject. These petitions, like the others, were signed by several clergymen, not of one, but of numerous denominations of Christians; and, differing as they did, on political subjects, and also on theological points, they were still unanimous in their desire to make the Bible the foundation of education, which they considered essential, and in no instance was it more necessary to disseminate Gospel truths than amongst the common people. It was a subject which became the more important, as by the new system all the support which had formerly been given to the Protestant establishment for education in Ireland had been withdrawn, while the Roman Catholic institutions of a similar description were left untouched. The objections to the new plan were greatly increased by the circumstance that the Roman Catholic was thus to be the only national education in Ireland supported by Government.
Mr. Sheilsaid, he would thank the hon. Baronet who dwelt so much on the use of the entire Bible as the essence of Protestantism for some information on the subject. He begged to ask, whether at the public schools of Westminster and Rugby, the Scriptures were read with so much care and so exclusively as his arguments
542
went to prove? He wished the hon. Baronet would extend his sympathy in this respect to the Aristocracy of England, for he did not believe that at the Universities the Scriptures were greatly attended to. He would ask whether, if a volume were made containing extracts of the Statute-laws now used, the hon. Baronet would say that the use of such a volume amounted to a disuse of the Statutes; besides the hon. Baronet was not quite correct when he asserted that the Roman Catholic was the only system of national education supported by Government in Ireland. The University of Dublin received 40,000 l. a-year.
Sir Robert Inglis, in reply to the question of the hon. and learned Member, said, he could assert that the Scriptures were now duly attended to in the Universities, and the public schools; with respect to the sum of 40,000 l. a-year received by the University of Dublin, that was altogether distinct from anything the State gave. It was absolute property, in nowise connected with a parliamentary grant, and was as much the property of the University as any property the hon. and learned Member could call his own.
Petition to be printed.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—SUNDERLAND HARBOUR.
Lord Stormontsaid, that agreeably to the notice which he gave on Friday last, he now rose for the purpose of bringing forward what he conceived to be one of the grossest violations of the privileges of that House of which he had ever heard. In the first place, he wished to correct a statement which had gone abroad, and which seemed to have gained credence, that it was his intention, in bringing this subject forward, to move the Standing Order for the exclusion of strangers. He begged to state, that it never was his intention to take such a course. On the contrary, he had always conceived it to be most desirable that the greatest publicity should be given to those proceedings of the House in which matters of privilege were concerned. The breach of privilege of which he was about to complain arose out of the publication of a letter and of a placard at Sunderland, upon the subject of the proceedings of a Committee of that House which had lately sat up stairs upon a private bill relating to the harbour at Sunderland. After a careful and patient investigation of sixteen days

543
that bill was thrown out by the Committee. The solicitors to the bill, Messrs. John P. Kidson and Joseph John Wright, then wrote a letter to the Harbour Committee at Sunderland, and that letter was printed in a provincial newspaper, and also in placards, and stuck about in different parts of the town. It was of the terms of that letter, and of the manner of its publication, that, in the first place, he complained. He would read it to the House, and then leave hon. Members to decide whether it did not amount to a gross breach of their privileges. It was addressed to the Committee of the Wet Dock, Sunderland. The expressions of the letter, and the statement which it set forth of the divisions of the Committee, constituted, in his opinion, one of the grossest violations of the privileges of that House of which he had ever heard. Could anything be more insulting to the House than for persons to talk of a Bill having been thrown out in consequence of the selfish interests, private wishes, or family connections of any of its Members? But the breach of privilege of which he complained was not confined only to the letter which he had read; there was also another placard published by the same parties, to which he now begged to call the attention of the House. It was exhibited in the streets of Sunderland. The noble Lord then moved that these placards be laid on the Table, and read at length by the Clerk.
They were read accordingly.
Lord Stormont: I now beg leave to move that these placards be taken into further consideration on Monday, the 7th of May next.
Mr. John Hodgsonsaid, that he had been directed by the solicitors to the bill to state that they had given no direction for the publication of the letter which they sent down to Sunderland, and of the publication of which the noble Lord now complained. While he by no means concurred in the sentiments expressed in that letter, he did not think that it furnished any grounds for proceedings on the part of that House against the writers of it. With respect to that part of the breach of privilege to which the noble Lord had directed the attention of the House, which was comprised in the publication of the divisions of the Committee, he felt that he was himself a party, because it was he who had furnished the information. In justice to himself, however, he must state
544
that he did so in perfect ignorance of its being a breach of privilege. Indeed, if it were thought expedient to publish the divisions of the House itself, it was daily done, he could not conceive why it was not equally as expedient to publish the divisions of its Select Committees.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the publication to which the noble Lord had directed their attention was undoubtedly a gross breach of the privileges of the House, as was also the conduct of his hon. friend behind him, if his own statement were correct. It certainly was not strictly according to the privileges of the House that such information as his hon. friend had furnished should be given for the purposes of publication.
Mr. Warburtonthought, that if the words of the publications complained of were a little more narrowly, a little more critically observed, it would be seen that they did not apply to the Members of the Committee up-stairs. It was undoubtedly stated that the bill had been thrown out from selfish and private interests, and from family connections; but it did not state that it was owing to the selfish and private interests, or the private connections, of the Members of the Committee.
Mr. Beaumontthought that when the whole of the responsibility of publishing the letter was shown to rest with the Wet Dock Committee, the noble Lord ought not to persist in any further proceeding against the printers or the solicitors.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, the hon. member for Bridport had entirely overlooked one part of the letter which alluded to a Gentleman who was returned by a constituency interested in the bill, and which held out a threat that his conduct in the Committee would be attended with the loss of his seat. In his opinion, therefore, a grosser breach of privilege never was committed, and he called upon the House not to attend to the extraordinary species of criticism which the hon. member for Bridport had recommended to them.
Ordered that the matter be taken into further consideration on Monday, May 7.
The printers ordered to attend at the Bar of the House on that day.
Lord Stormontsaid, that, as the letter of which he complained was expressly stated to be an official letter, he thought he should be justified in moving that its authors should be brought to the Bar also.
Mr. Hodgsonrepeated his statement, that the letter had been published without the authority of the solicitors by whom it was written.
Sir George Cockburnthought, that great blame rested with the solicitors. If, on the throwing out of any private bill, solicitors were to be at liberty so to libel the House, there must be an end to all privilege.
The solicitors ordered to attend at the Bar on May 7th.

CASE OF MR. CURTIN.
Lord Althorpmoved that the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into a Committee of Supply be read,
Mr. Duncomberose, for the purpose of directing the attention of the House to the case of the rev. James Curtin, which he conceived to be one of considerable hardship. In the year 1799, this gentleman, a clergyman of the Church of England, was sent out to the island of Antigua by the Society for the Instruction of Negro Slaves in the Christian Religion, and with the approbation of Dr. Porteous, then Bishop of London. The rev. gentleman proceeded to that island, and succeeded to a benefice there, that of St. Mary's, in 1817, to which he was promoted by the Archbishop of Canterbury, who was then Bishop of London. He continued to do his duty as a minister, and as a member of the Society for the Conversion of the Slave Population, down to the autumn of the year 1830, when, in consequence of ill-health, and by virtue of a leave of absence procured from the Bishop of Barbadoes, he came to this country. During the thirty-three years of his residence in Antigua, and down to the hour of his quitting it, he had received many flattering testimonials from the Archbishop of Canterbury and other persons of distinction, of the high estimation in which the zeal and energy with which he discharged the sacred duties of his office was held. During his stay in this country circumstances arose to prevent his return within the period to which his leave of absence was limited. In January, 1832, a correspondence took place between him and the Colonial Office on his petitioning for some temporary employment in Great Britain, the answer to which was, an order to return immediately to the colonies, notwithstanding he had the implied consent of his diocesan for a longer period of leave
546
Shortly after this, however, Mr. Curtin received another letter from the Colonial Office, telling him, he must proceed forthwith to the colony, to which he replied, on the 7th of February, that he was prevented by bad health from doing so. In the interval of his remaining in this country it happened that an action at law was commenced by a publication called the Anti-Slavery Reporter, against Blackwood's Magazine, for an alleged libel, in which Mr. Curtin was subpœnaed as a witness. That being the case it seemed that steps had been taken to retain him in England, and on the solicitor to the defendant applying to Lord Goderich for Mr. Curtin's leave to be prolonged until after the trial, a letter was written by direction of that nobleman to the solicitors, informing them they might retain Mr. Curtin in England on condition of making good the loss which he would necessarily incur by being absent from his benefice in Antigua. Notwithstanding that letter, extraordinary as it must appear to the House, Mr. Curtin himself received a notice, bearing date the very same day as the letter received by the solicitors, that he must either return at once to Antigua or resign his situation there. He thought that this was a very hard case. Mr. Curtin was now sixty-eight years of age, thirty-three of which he had spent in unwearied exertions to fulfil the duties of his office in a climate little congenial to the health of Englishmen. He was also in a state of uncertainty, in consequence of the extended period of his absence, as to whether his benefice now remained open to him, for such a doubt was implied in one of the communications he had received from the Colonial Office. Therefore, to insist upon his immediate return, while it would deprive Mr. Blackwood of an essential witness, would also, in his (Mr. Duncombe's) opinion, create a bad impression on the public mind, as it would imply a desire to smother all inquiry into the state of the colonies, for Mr. Curtin, from his long residence in the colonies, would be a most important witness, not only in the action now pending, but in an inquiry going forward before that House. All that he asked for, then, was six months additional leave of absence for this gentleman, after which time, if his health permitted, although at so advanced an age, he would not shrink from returning to the discharge of his clerical duties in Antigua. To obtain

547
his object he (Mr. Duncombe) should submit a resolution which, if the noble Lord did not concede, he should certainly take the sense of the House upon. His Resolution was in these terms—"that this House having taken into consideration the case of the rev. James Curtin, Missionary of the Negro Conversion Society, is of opinion that, in consideration of his long and meritorious services in the island of Antigua, and of his services being required in a Court of Justice, his leave of absence be extended six months from this day, without prejudice to his salary."
Lord Howicksaid, that he had heard with extreme astonishment the statement of the hon. Member. The Resolution moved by the hon. Member implied that the House had considered this case; but the House had just as much considered it as the hon. Member appeared to have done, who had not given the shadow of a reason to support such an extraordinary resolution. The defence for the conduct of Lord Goderich which he had to offer was, that he could not act by the existing law otherwise than he had done in this instance. This reverend gentleman came to this country on a leave of absence for six months in the autumn a 1830. According to the existing law, the Bishop of Barbadoes, who had granted this leave, could not give a leave of absence for a longer period than six months, and any extension of that leave could be obtained only by an application to the Colonial Office. Yet, though this gentleman came home in September, 1830, he gave no notice to the Colonial Office of his being in this country until January, 1832, which was more than twelve months after his leave of absence had expired, when he first applied for permission to change his living for one in this country. It was impossible for the Colonial Secretary to comply with such an application, for the Colonial Secretary had no benefices in his disposal except in the colonies. Taking twelve months additional beyond the period of his leave of absence amounted in fact to a resignation of his office, and if any other person but a clergyman was concerned, it would most assuredly be looked upon in that light. This gentleman first applied for an exchange for a living in this country, which was repeatedly refused. His next application was on account of ill-health, but it was not particular or temporary ill-health, and that
548
application was also necessarily refused. He then applied for an additional leave of absence, and at the very same moment that that application reached him (Lord Howick), came a letter from the Solicitor for the periodical publication, against which an action for libel had been brought, applying for permission for the reverend gentleman to remain some additional time in this country. It was not unreasonable under such circumstances, to conclude that there was some collusion between the parties. He had, therefore, written an answer stating, that provided the parties who required Mr. Curtin's evidence, paid his salary during his continuance in this country he might continue, but they declined doing this. He had also written to Mr. Curtin informing him that the grounds which he had stated for a further extension of leave were not sufficient, and that, therefore, he must prepare to return. He again had received on the 13th of February, a letter from Mr. Foss, urging additional leave of absence, on the same ground that he had previously stated. In reply to this, a letter was written, stating, that, by the provisions of an Act of Parliament, the evidence of Mr. Curtin might be taken by interrogatories before the trial; and if this was produced in a Court of Justice, it would be equivalent to his vivâ voce evidence. A number of other communications passed between Mr. Curtin and the Colonial Office, in which he continued to urge leave of absence on some ground or another, until at last Lord Goderich wrote to him to say, that, if he intended to retain his living, he must return without delay, as it was impossible to allow a longer leave of absence. The hon. Gentleman said, that Mr. Curtin was treated in a cruel manner; but he forgot that it was in the power of the Bishop to have filled up Mr. Curtin's living on his not returning to his duties. Again, on the 4th of April, Mr. Curtin wrote to ask for a passage out in a King's ship. The answer returned was, that it was the invariable custom for public officers to go out at their own expense. The Colonial Office might, perhaps, be mistaken, but from the way in which these applications were made, and from the manner in which the excuses were given, there certainly was some reason to suspect that they were only excuses given for this gentleman's neglect of the usual mode of obtaining extended leave of absence.
Mr. Patrick M. Stewartthought the hon. member for Hertford had made out a very strong case. From what he knew of the circumstances he must contend that there had been no collusion whatever between the party charged with a libel in the magazine and Mr. Curtin, for Mr. Curtin's evidence was of the utmost importance in the case—indeed it would be sufficient to rebut the charge. It happened that the reverend Gentleman was the person who had baptized the woman referred to in the article in question, and could, therefore, give the best evidence on the subject. For the sake of justice, he hoped that the leave of absence of the reverend gentleman would be extended in the manner required. He had been hardly dealt with already, and Government, he thought, ought to grant this request.
Mr. Burgesaid, the regulation adverted to by the noble Lord with respect to the extension of leave of absence must be one of a late date. There were many quite ignorant of it till very recently, and Mr. Curtin might be one of these. If any one was entitled to special indulgence, this gentleman was, for his long and meritorious services. His character in the West Indies stood very high, and under the peculiar circumstances of these colonies, as well as from the importance of the evidence which Mr. Curtin would give to the Committee, it was a matter of importance to the Government itself that he should remain in this country for some time longer, for no man had more deeply studied or was better acquainted with the capabilities of the negro intellect. He, therefore, hoped, that his leave of absence would be extended six months longer.
Sir Matthew White Ridleysaid, that, though, as a private individual, he should wish that a lengthened leave of absence might be given to the reverend gentleman, he could not as a Member of the Legislature, consent that that House should interfere with the Government, in order to grant a leave of absence in direct contradiction to the terms of an Act of Parliament.
Mr. Duncombe, in answer to what had fallen from the noble Lord opposite, begged to observe, that if the Bishop had not the power to grant and to renew leave of absence, that right reverend person was in a mistake as to the extent of his power, for it was clear that he imagined he possessed the right winch was now denied
550
him. In the first letter he wrote to Mr. Curtin he promised to prolong the leave of absence from time to time; again in a letter of a subsequent date which the reverend gentleman received from the Archdeacon, he expressly stated, that the Bishop hoped that the reverend Gentleman might be able speedily to return to his duties, and of his willingness, in case of actual necessity, to extend the leave of absence to a further period. Besides, an extension of leave in this case could do no injury, for there was a curate doing the duty of the parish, to whom Mr. Curtin paid 50 l. a year, and who was residing in the parson-age-house. As to what had been stated about the reverend gentleman not having reported himself to the Colonial Office, he believed, that if the noble Lord would take the trouble of looking over the books of the office, he would find that the report had been made, and that Sir George Murray the then Secretary of the Colonies, had done him the honour to enter it in his (Sir G. Murray's) own hand-writing.
Lord Althorpwas opposed to the Motion. It was quite contrary to the practice of that House to interfere with the Government in granting leave of absence, the proceedings relating to which were governed by the express words of an Act of Parliament. He thought that the residence of clergymen in the colonies was a matter of great importance, and that the rules relating to it ought not to be lightly violated. He was sure that the public opinion was not what the hon. Gentleman opposite imagined; and on the statement of facts which they had heard, there was no one who could say that the conduct of the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department had not been strictly warranted by law, or that it was not justified by the necessity of adhering to those rules which had been established with regard to such matters. It was true that Mr. Curtin obtained leave of absence from the Bishop of Barbadoes; that leave was subsequently renewed for six months; but it would be too much to ask for additional leave of absence without any solid reasons. He could easily understand that Mr. Curtin preferred a living in this country to one in the West Indies; but he was equally satisfied that nothing was more requisite upon the part of clergymen than a residence amongst their parishioners. Mr. Curtin was a worthy and a zealous clergyman, and it was that alone which induced

551
his noble friend to overlook his absence from his duty for such a length of time.
Mr. Robert Gordonwas of opinion, that, under existing circumstances the great age of the reverend gentleman, his length of service, and the importance of his evidence in the case referred to, the Government would not be justified in refusing him a further leave of absence, merely on the ground that, when he first came over to this country, he had not complied with the forms which the Colonial Office required.
Lord Howickassured his hon. friend that it was not merely from a want of compliance with the forms of office that caused the suspension of the reverend gentleman, but for staying a whole year in this country without giving notice.
Mr. Fanethought the noble Lord had not acted quite candidly when, in the same day he wrote to the reverend gentleman to say he must depart, and to the solicitor for Mr. Blackwood, to say he might stay provided the solicitor was prepared to pay the reverend Gentleman's salary.
The Motion negatived.

CAPTURES BY THE BRAZILIANS.
Mr. Dixonbegged to call the attention of the House to a subject of great importance, it was connected with the capture of many British vessels by foreign powers, whom the Government had not restrained from such lawless proceedings by resorting to the energetic measures which the circumstances of the case required. In the year 1826, a war existed between the Brazilians and the people of Buenos Ayres, the former blockaded the month of the Rio de la Plata, and, under pretence of a breach of the blockade, captured a number of English vessels. The first case to which he begged to call the attention of the House was that of the ship Caledonia, on a voyage to Valparaiso. This vessel, when on the coast of Patagonia, was chased and taken possession of by a Buenos-Ayrean privateer. A prize-master and a number of men were put on board and ordered to take the vessel to Buenos Ayres. When the ship came within sight of the Brazilian squadron, the prize-master and his men escaped on shore, leaving the vessel in the possession of the commander. The ship was taken possession of by the Brazilian squadron, carried into Monte Video, and there adjudged to be a prize. It was objected by the Captain that she was a neu-
552
tral vessel, and had not committed any breach of maritime law which made her liable to seizure; but the capture was held good, on the ground that she had been in the possession of the Buenos-Ayrean privateer. The circumstances of this case were so gross a breach of national faith, that a British ship of war on that station received orders to re-capture the Caledonia wherever she might be found. This was done, and, on the Brazilian government's complaining, the Admiralty censured the conduct of the British officer. At the same time, however, notwithstanding the cargo was plundered, and although it had been admitted that according to no principle of international law, could the Brazilian government retain possession of the vessel—no redress had been obtained. The next case was that of the Unicorn, which had excited considerable attention: this vessel was captured without the least ground for her seizure. In the Brazils no vessel could be condemned unless on the judgment of the Court of Admiralty at Rio. Now, on the appeal from the Admiralty Court at Monte Video to the Court at Rio, the condemnation of this ship was reversed. He understood the British Consul was told by the Judge of the Admiralty Court at Monte Video that he would not have given the judgment which he did, had he not been under fear of his life. Another vessel, with West India produce on board, was seized by the Brazilian squadron, though there was not the least pretence for saying that she had been guilty of the violation of any orders of blockade. Another vessel, the George, was captured in the same manner—with respect to which there had been a decision in one of the Courts of Justice in this country. The case was brought under the consideration of the Court by an action against the insurers, and the Court of Common Pleas decided that the assured was entitled to recover, as the capture had not been occasioned by any misconduct on the part of the Captain. Under these circumstances, how was it that the Government of this country had not interferred to compel the Brazilian government to make some compensation to those British subjects whose property had been thus unjustly seized by the Brazilian squadron? France and the United States of America had compelled the Brazilian government to attend to the claims of their citizens, and had obtained compensation.

553
The matter had been the subject of negotiation between the government of Brazil and this country; but we had suffered the Brazilians to evade giving proper satisfaction up to that moment for the injuries they had inflicted on British subjects. According to the articles which Lord Ponsonby induced the Brazilian government to assent to, Commissioners were appointed to settle these claims, and the manner in which this was to be done was agreed on. The articles were sufficiently specific, if they had been acted upon; but the truth was, that nothing had been done, and no steps taken to ensure redress. The Government had allowed the Brazilians to evade just demands in a most shameful manner. It would appear as if this country had not the power to protect its subjects from the aggressions of a government like the Brazilian. He understood, that just before the dissolution of the late Government, Lord Aberdeen sent a dispatch to Rio, in which he gave notice, that, if the British claims were not settled without delay, reprisals would be resorted to. That despatch was followed by another, the first of those sent out by the noble Lord, the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in which the same tone appeared to be adopted; but in a very short time afterwards the noble Lord sent out a very different despatch, in consequence of which the threatened reprisals were prevented. He believed it would be said, that this second despatch was sent out because the Brazilian government promised redress, and the Brazilian agent undertook to procure the dismissal of Lisboa. But these promises had not yet been executed, and the noble Lord had suffered British subjects to be denied redress. If what he had stated was correct, as he believed it to be—if the noble Lord really had countermanded the order to make reprisals—the Government was, he must say, much to blame. But there was another subject, on which, in his opinion, the Government had not acted with that strict attention to British interests which was to be expected from them. The mode of paying that sum which the Brazilian government had admitted to be due, was settled to be by forming a sort of debt, the value of which was to be taken in the paper of that government, at sixty-two and half per cent, although the last loan made to that very Government was only valued, in the market at forty-five per cent.
554
In this way, therefore, the British merchant, even when his claims were allowed, would find himself still a considerable loser by the means taken to liquidate them. Of course, the persons having claims made them, on the presumption that they should be paid the full amount of the judgments they obtained. But, instead of their receiving the full value for every hundred pounds sterling, they were ordered to receive only at the rate of 750 milrees for 1,000. But, in consequence of the depreciation of the currency, occasioned by a large issue of paper, the 750 milrees were equivalent, in metallic currency, to only 540, or was equal to about 63 l., which they were to receive for 100 l. But, even at that depreciation of thirty-seven per cent, the parties had been unable to obtain a settlement, after a delay of six or seven years. He asked, then, whether the British Government was not prepared to vindicate the national honour, and obtain redress for the merchants who had already lost so much? He was sure, if the Government had acted with the least appearance of energy, that the Brazilian government would have set aside sufficient money for the payment of all these claims. He thought he had made out a strong case, and he hoped that the papers which he was about to move for would be granted, and that the House and the country would be made acquainted with all the circumstances of the case. At the same time, he felt some degree of anxiety as to the explanation which must now be given by the noble Lord, which, he trusted, would be of such a nature as to give satisfaction, and to hold out the prospect of a speedy settlement. He begged leave to move, as an amendment to the Motion for the Speaker leaving the Chair, "that an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, 'extracts or copies of all correspondence or despatches that had passed between the Foreign Office and the British Legation at Rio de Janeiro, regarding the seizure and capture of British ships and property by the Brazilian squadron, in the river Plata, in the years 1826–7; also between his Majesty's Consul at Monte Video and the Foreign Office, also, of the correspondence between his Majesty's Consul at Monte Video, and the British Legation at Rio Janeiro; also, extracts or copies of the correspondence that may have passed be-

555
tween the Foreign Office and the Brazilian Legation at this court, on the same subject; together with a copy of the memorandum, dated 5th May, 1829, entered into between Lord Ponsonby and the Brazilian minister for foreign affairs on the same subject."
Mr. Alderman Thompsonrose to second the Motion of his hon. friend, and to express his feelings of indignation at the conduct which the Brazilian government had pursued towards British subjects. Its proceedings were utterly unwarranted by the laws of nations, or the commonest rules of justice. Several of the British vessels that had been captured had sailed from this country three months before the declaration of war between Brazil and the Buenos-Ayrean government, and yet they had been taken to Rio Janeiro, condemned, and the ships and cargoes sold, for breaking a blockade of which their captains knew nothing till the ships were seized for violating it. There were also some instances of vessels being captured which were not even bound to any port within the territories of Buenos Ayres, much less to the Rio de la Plata. But without going into details it was sufficient for him to refer to the acts of the Brazilian Government itself to expose in its true light the principles of its conduct. The Brazilian legislature had provided for the compensation of British subjects, a decree of the emperor had repealed the condemnation of the vessels seized, and a convention, after a lapse of two years spent in negotiations, was finally obtained, settling the manner in which compensation should be awarded, and providing for the appointment of a mixed commission to carry the convention into effect. Three years had passed since the convention was agreed to, but no decision whatever had been come to by the Commission with respect to the claims referred to it. Was it fit and proper, that the Government of Great Britain should be thus trifled with, and insulted, by such a government as that of the Brazils? What had been the conduct pursued by France and the United States under similar acts of aggression? They had insisted upon reparation under the threat of reprisals, and their claims were immediately allowed. For what purpose had this country a navy which cost 5,000,000 l. a-year, if such acts of outrage were not to be redressed. He assured the noble Lord, the Secretary for
556
Foreign Affairs, that this feeling of indignation was general among the mercantile body, and particularly among the merchants of the metropolis, some of whose claims, varying from 5,000 l. to 25,000 l., they had been kept out of for several years, and there even now appeared but little prospect of recovering the money. The Brazilian government had evaded making reparation by every means in its power, and, among the rest, had changed its agent in the course of the discussion, so that much time was wasted in again going over the subject with the new agent. The British Government ought to insist on the agent coming to London, so that he might not be changed at every changing caprice of the government he represented. The government of Buenos Ayres, on which there were similar claims, had done so, and their Commissioners in London had already adjudicated upon a number of cases. Indeed, such was their despatch, that they frequently decided cases in a fortnight. He knew, that the financial state of Brazil might render it difficult for her government at once to satisfy these claims; but it should, at all events, acknowledge their justice. There could be no pretence for withholding this right, for some of the vessels were seized in barefaced violation of every principle of justice. As one instance of this, he must mention, that there was a vessel insured at 8,000 l., at Lloyd's, which had been captured by the Brazilian squadron, news of which arrived in this country. The insurers here directed their agent at Brazil to purchase the ship, if it was sold under a certain sum. It was accordingly purchased by him at 2,500 l. The Brazilian government, however, forced the agent to give up the ship; and he believed that, at this moment, the ship was employed in the transport service of Brazil. He charged the Brazilian government with misconducting itself purely for the purposes of plunder. He was sure that, if the noble Lord would follow the excellent example set him by his predecessor, the Earl of Aberdeen, in the matter of the British claims on the Spanish government, this affair with the Brazils would soon be satisfactorily terminated. It fell to his lot to take an active part in the settlement of the claims he had alluded to, and he should not do the noble Earl justice, if he did not take this opportunity of saying, that he manifested the utmost anxiety and

557
zeal in obtaining redress for the British merchants who had claims upon Spain, for which conduct he had obtained the gratitude of the commercial world. There was another point connected with this subject which he must briefly notice. In 1823, a loan was contracted for by the government of Portugal, with the House of Goldsmid, for a million and a half sterling. By a convention entered into between Portugal and Don Pedro as emperor of the Brazils, the latter took upon himself the payment of this loan; and, in consideration of so doing, Portugal was to surrender certain ports, ships, and warlike stores. In pursuance of this agreement, the Brazilian government paid the interest of the loan to the bondholders for two years. Remittances were sent to pay a dividend due in May, 1828. These were received by the Portuguese minister in London; but when applied to for them on behalf of the bondholders, he said, "No; Don Miguel is now on the throne of Portugal, and the bondholders must look to him for their money." In fact, the Minister wanted this money to apply to the fitting out of his expedition to Terceira; and, from that hour to this, no redress whatever had been afforded the British bondholders. In order to show the feeling which prevailed among, British merchants upon this subject, he would take the liberty of reading to the House an extract from a letter written by Mr. Eyre, one of the Committee of the bondholders, on their behalf, to his excellency, the Marquis of St. Amaro, the Brazilian ambassador. Mr. Eyre writes thus:—
"London, March 9, 1831.
"Sir—The public papers, I find, have announced, that you have presented your credentials at the Court of London, under which circumstance I now enclose, for your information and that of the government you represent, a copy of a letter which I had the honour to address, on the 21st of February last, to the Chevalier de Mattos, on the subject of the unpaid dividends due on the Portuguese loan, which was assumed by Brazil, by the Treaty of Separation of August, 1825, and, subsequently, inscribed in the Great Book of the Brazils, as a national debt of their own.
"I also now officially transmit you a printed copy of an appeal and protest made on behalf of myself and fellow-sufferers, against the glaring injustice committed towards us; and as the most effectual means of making this known to all concerned, I have caused it to be posted in the Royal Exchange of this city for some days past. Policy and expedi-
558
ency, apart from common honour and honesty, equally call aloud for the most expeditious redress of our grievances, and having now suffered tamely under them for more than three years, it is quite impossible to attribute to us any want of patience or forbearance.
"The attempt to raise a loan for the regency of Terceira, and ostensibly on the security of funds to be received from the Brazils on account of our debt, has, from its very nature, proved abortive; it has been scouted from the British Stock Exchange."
This sufficiently showed the opinion of British merchants with regard to the justice dealt out to there by the Brazilians government. In conclusion, he would express his hope, that the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would speedily take effectual means to obtain for them that redress to which they were entitled and which the interest of the country at large, as well as their individual advantage, required should be obtained.
Viscount Palmerstonbegged to assure the hon. Gentleman who had brought forward the question, that the postponement of his Motion, from time to time, had not been sought, on his part, with any intention of evading it, but simply on account of his being most busily occupied elsewhere. With respect to the Motion itself, it must be obvious that, pending transactions of this sort, to produce every thing stated on one side for the information of another, could not be advantageous to the interests of the parties concerned. He did not stand up in that House to undertake the defence of the Brazilian government in respect of these transactions, for he felt himself bound to say, he considered these captures as made against every principle of national law. It was on that ground that redress had been demanded from the Brazilian government. He was sorry to be obliged to add, that, in the execution of the memorandum which had been referred to as laying down the principles on which redress should be granted, the Brazilian government had not shown that sincere desire to carry that agreement into effect which this country had a right to expect. It was true, as stated by the hon. Member, that the original admission obtained by the late Government from that of the Brazils towards the end of the year 1828—that compensation was due—was obtained by a threat of reprisals in case it were not made, and some proposition laid down to carry it into effect. In consequence of this the memorandum alluded

559
to was drawn up between Lord Ponsonby and the Brazilian government, in the early part of 1829. The hon. Gentleman had truly stated, that when that memorandum came to be carried into execution, and the Commissioners appointed under it came to apply the articles of that memorandum to the cases brought before them, the representatives of this country had reason to complain of delays of all kinds being thrown in the way, and that these delays were not occasioned by a desire to forward the ends of justice, but for the sake of procrastination. The result was, that his predecessor, Lord Aberdeen wrote, towards the end of 1830, to our Chargé d'Affaires at Rio, instructing him to inform the Brazilian government, that the British Government expected a faithful and prompt execution of that agreement; and that, if we had reason to believe the Brazilians acted with bad faith, we should be obliged to have recourse to the measures originally hinted at. When he came into office, in November, he had grounds for considering, that a second communication to the same effect was necessary, in order to advance the progress of the arrangement; and, accordingly, some time in December, he wrote to Mr. Aston in stronger terms than those employed by his predecessor, instructing him to communicate to the Brazilian government, that, if we had cause for supposing that any vexatious delays merely for the purpose of gaining time, and evading the fulfilment of the agreement, were resorted to by the Brazilian Commissioners, Great Britain would have recourse to those reprisals, by which alone justice could be obtained for her subjects. Subsequently to sending off that despatch, he had had a communication with the Marquis of St. Amaro, in which he assured him of the good disposition of the Brazilian government to do what was proper. In consequence of these representations, and the proceedings taken by him, he was induced, towards the end of January, to send Mr. Aston another despatch, instructing him, if he had not already acted upon the instructions contained in his last, to suspend the doing so till he heard again from him. The hon. Member said, that this despatch was the cause of great prejudice to British merchants; but how it could have been so, when, before its arrival, Mr. Aston had already acted upon the contents of its precursor, he was at a loss to imagine. It
560
was clear, that that first communication must have had its full effect before the arrival of the second. The hon. Member talked of the negotiations having been carried on for so long a period; but the fact was, that there were no negotiations at all, after the signature of the memorandum. All that had to be done was, for both sides to appoint Commissioners, as therein agreed upon, in order to apply the principles of the memorandum to the cases brought before them. But then came the revolution of the month of April, by which Don Pedro ceased to be emperor. The change of government which then took place might create delay to a certain unavoidable extent; but he was sorry to say, that greater delay took place than was explicable upon that ground alone. He had, therefore, felt it his duty, towards the close of last year, to repeat the communication he had before made to Mr. Aston, in stronger and more positive terms. Mr. Aston received that communication on or about the 18th of December. It authorized him to state to the Brazilian government, that it was impossible for England to avoid resorting to those measures which her naval superiority placed in her hands, unless the Brazilian government proceeded faithfully in the execution of the memorandum. But, in the meantime, a considerable step had been taken by the Brazilian government to do that which, up to that moment, they had not done, but which was necessary to enable it to pay to British claimants the indemnity that might be awarded there. Towards the end of October, they, for the first time, made a communication to the Brazilian chambers of what had taken place, and the Brazilian chambers passed the vote of credit which the hon. Member had alluded to, placing 300,000 l. at the disposal of the government, for the satisfaction of these claims, and some unsettled claims of French and American subjects. He was aware that, large as was the amount of this sum, it was not equal to the amount claimed by British merchants; but the principle being thus once admitted, there could be no doubt that, whatever sums might be necessary to satisfy all these claims, would be forthcoming; and, at the date of the last accounts from Mr. Aston, the Commission was proceeding to the investigation of some of the cases before it, the objections which had previously been taken by the Brazilian Commissioners

561
being given up; and there being every reason to suppose, that no improper delay would be again opposed to the settlement of the subject. He was sure the House would feel, that forbearance was especially due from a strong empire like Great Britain, towards a weak power, like the Brazils. There was nothing like equality of maritime strength between them; and Great Britain had it in her power, at any time, to have recourse to force to obtain redress. In such a case more forbearance was due than might be, were the forces of the two parties approaching nearer to an equality. It had not been from any feeling of indifference to these claims that our greater power had not been asserted; but from a desire to abstain from having recourse to forcible means, so long as there appeared a possibility of obtaining redress by any others. He was not sorry, that this Motion had been made; nor could he have the slightest wish to prevent its being brought forward for it could not be useless that the Brazilian government should understand, that if our communications to them had borne a character which made them, in their address to their chambers describe us as "the most imperative of friendly nations"—it could not be useless that they should know, that, if we had been urgent in our demands, it was not because the Executive Government preferred that mode of communication, but that the House of Commons, even if the Government should be neglectful of its duty, would interpose, to see, that justice was finally done. In the present state of these transactions, then, having no reason to believe, that the Brazilian government was not now disposed to take the right steps to have these claims properly investigated, and feeling that the correspondence moved for by the hon. Gentleman would not be useful for his purpose; but, on the contrary, inconvenient to be produced, he must request the House not to consent to this motion. The hon. Gentleman had expressed a hope, that the Government would not consent to any modification or change of the terms of the memorandum. He might state, that application was made to him, to reconsider that memorandum; but it was impossible to do so—it was a binding engagement between the two countries, and that, whilst we, on the one hand, could not ask for more than that memorandum gave us, so, on the other, we were entitled to every thing it did give
562
us. He was aware, that with respect to the question of the exchanges, time had produced an alteration in the working of the article which regarded them; but, he still thought, upon the whole, that memorandum contained just and equitable principles for the settlement of these claims, and he should certainly conceive it to be his duty to require it to be executed as it now stood.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that his noble friend (Lord Palmerston) had observed, with some semblance of justice, that, in disputes between a strong and a weaker nation, forbearance ought to be shown towards the latter. That did not, however, appear to be the principle which the House was willing to recognise in the case of Portugal, for there appeared to be on the part of the majority which upon a late occasion had refused papers explanatory of our relations with Portugal, a disposition to censure Lord Aberdeen, because he had allowed thirty or forty days to elapse before he proceeded to exact justice by force for wrongs alleged to have been done to British subjects. Admitting, however, this principle of forbearance to be just, as it was generous, he thought the time had long expired, during which forbearance could with either prudence or justice be extended towards the Brazils. if the true history of the transactions in which British property had not merely been mistakenly seized and confiscated, but in h is conscience he believed designedly plundered, were laid before the House of Commons, they would not hesitate to declare, that the period had arrived when the Government ought no longer to delay exacting reparation for the injuries and insolence which had so long remained unredressed. He must say, that those injuries had been much underrated by the two hon. Members who had brought forward and supported the Motion. The true history was this:—There was a war between the governments of Brazil and of Buenos Ayres, and a blockade of the ports of Buenos Ayres was proclaimed. It was, however, but a paper blockade, there being obviously no adequate power to enforce it. Under these circumstances, the principle laid down by the government of Brazil was this, that no vessel should be held responsible for breach of the blockade to which previous notice of the blockade had not been regularly given. In utter disregard of this principle established by Brazil itself, and without an adequate force to maintain

563
a real blockade, several British vessels were seized upon by Brazilian cruisers, and confiscated, to the value, he believed, of 500,000 l. An attempt had been actually made, on the part of the Brazilian government to draw a distinction between the French and Americans and the English, and to act upon the absurd doctrine that the British had no right to that warning which it was admitted was due to the vessels of those other Powers. Seizures took place in 1826 and 1827, founded on this unjust and ridiculous distinction, before his noble friend, the Duke of Wellington, came into office. Shortly after that event, his noble friend, Lord Aberdeen, wrote to the British minister at Rio, stating, that the injuries thus sustained by England were so monstrous, their injustice so glaring, the partiality attempted to be shown to the governments of other countries so indefensible, that, unless the government of the Brazils promised immediate reparation for the injustice which had been done in the cases of four particular vessels (which were named), the British Admiral on that station would, within the lapse of thirty days, proceed to immediate reprisals. The names of these four vessels were, the John, the George, the Henry and Isabella, and the Coquette. These vessels were seized against all law and all justice, and law and justice were prostituted by their condemnation by the Vice-Admiralty Courts of Rio. The British Minister thought the reparation so incomplete, that that minister, Lord Ponsonby, a nobleman who enjoyed the full confidence of the present Government, did not confine his claim for compensation to these four particular vessels; but threatened reprisals, unless the whole sum of 474,000 l. was immediately paid down by the government of the Brazils. The hon. Member who brought forward the present Motion blamed the Government for its conduct in the case of a vessel called the Nestor, which had been seized by British ships from the Brazilians, but was afterwards restored. If a person was not acquainted with the facts, it was very natural for him to think that the British Government was wrong in directing that vessel to be restored, until the compensation claimed on account of losses sustained by other British subjects was paid. But if the Nestor was seized by a British cruizer, contrary to the law of nations, the British Government, in his opinion, acted justly in directing res-
564
titution to be made. The case had been submitted to the King's Advocate, and his opinion was, that it was not competent for the British squadron consistently with the law of nations, to take forcible possession of the Nestor, while she was under the jurisdiction of a Vice Admiralty Court. The British Government in effect said—whatever injury our merchants have sustained, we will not obtain redress by unauthorized and illegal means—we will not consent to be unjust ourselves as a set off against previous injustice. If the King's Advocate was right in his law, of which he (Sir Robert Peel) entertained no doubt, our claims for redress were fortified, by setting an example of strict obedience to the laws of nations. The hon. Alderman who had seconded the Motion seemed to imagine, that the French and Americans had demanded immediate reparation, while this country had postponed the enforcement of her claims until after an inquiry had been made by a mixed commission—but the fact was, that the course taken by the three Governments was precisely the same. If the new government established in the Brazils had been ignorant of the principles of the law of nations, if these injuries had been inflicted through inadvertence, the novitas regni, the newness of their authority might have been pleaded as some excuse, but that was not the case. From what he knew of the transaction, he must say, that it was anything but creditable to the Emperor. There was ground for grave suspicion that these vessels were wilfully seized, against the advice of the Emperor's ministers, by the Brazilian Admiral, who happened to have more influence with the Emperor than they had. With regard to the Hellespont, a vessel seized and detained for adjudication, it was plundered, before the period of adjudication had arrived, to such an extent that it was no longer possible to restore it to its owner, possessing the same value. His noble friend had told them that at length there was some prospect of a settlement. He was happy to hear that they were at least to derive some advantage from the recent revolution in the government of Brazil, and that the existing government had a greater disposition to afford redress than the government of him under whom these atrocities against British property had been committed. And this Don Pedro, under whose sanction and by whose contrivance it was gravely sus-

565
pected these enormities had been perpetrated, this was the man whom his Majesty's Government had permitted to trample upon the municipal laws of England—to recruit British soldiers upon the British territory—who was even now, as it was ostentatiously reported, at the head of a British battalion at Terceira, and under whose banners an officer holding the King's commission was allowed to lead on a British force against Portugal. He should like to know what injustice Portugal had been guilty of, what injuries she had inflicted on us, which could be compared with those he had described? What insults had we experienced from Don Miguel equal to those offered to British subjects, and through them to the British nation, by Don Pedro? What infatuation was it that led his Majesty's Ministers to lend their countenance to that individual in his project upon Portugal? If the people of Portugal decided in favour of the claims of Don Miguel to the crown, nay, if they acquiesced in his rule, preferring it to that of Don Pedro or Donna Maria, he could not see upon what principles, consistently with the independence and integrity of nations, this country or its Ministers could lend their names to the contest. He did not stand there to defend Don Miguel, but his belief was, that Portugal preferred Don Miguel to Don Pedro, and in that case he could not but entertain a deep sense of the injury done to Portugal by the conduct of his Majesty's Ministers. If Miguel was the choice of the Portuguese nation, what better claim, he wished to know, had Louis Phillippe to the throne of France than Miguel to the throne of Portugal? Was it that the people in the latter country shewed symptoms of dissatisfaction in occasional commotions? Was not that the case in France also? And upon what pretence, then, did the Government allow British officers to join the hostile expedition of Don Pedro? Why not issue an order of rectal for all British officers engaged in such an enterprise? The truth was, that this expedition was an attack upon the independence of Portugal on the part of France and England, for it never could have been prepared without their countenance and assistance. It might succeed through the agency of British valour, and in consequence of the permitted violation of our municipal laws; but by what policy the British Government was actuated in allowing British officers to
566
enlist under the banners of either party he could not understand. To complete the folly of our conduct, this enterprise, by which civil war was to be introduced into the Peninsula, was fitted out by the money due in the form of dividends to the British creditors of the Brazilian state. He knew that his Majesty's Ministers would answer that it was not in their power to interfere. But he denied the validity of that excuse. Suppose that Charles 10th, or a party attached to Charles 10th, had hired armed ships and levied men for an expedition against France, did his Majesty's Ministers mean to say, that they would not have exercised their power to prevent such proceedings? If neutrality was a duty in the one case, it was in the other, and it was no answer to allege, that France was a powerful country and that Portugal was not. It was not Portugal alone, he feared, that was concerned in this question. The peace of Spain was endangered. He must say, that, of all foreign countries, he had seen none more disposed of late years to draw closely the bonds of amity with this country than Spain. He believed that she was well aware that her true interests would be promoted by a strict union upon honourable terms with this country. For the last seven years she had shown a disposition to listen to the reasonable proposals of this country; and if the late Government had continued in office, he had little doubt that, by this time, she would have consented to recognise the independence of the South American states. In her pecuniary dealings with this country Spain had been conspicuously honourable. She had paid money, the hope of the payment of which Mr. Canning had treated as little better than a dream of insanity. And yet we were to be the parties by whose agency Spain was to be convulsed by the renewal of civil dissections. We were about to endanger her internal peace, by lending our sanction to a foreign expedition, in contradiction to our professions of neutrality and our boast of non-intervention.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, he had heard the statement of the noble. Lord with much regret, for he believed, from what had fallen from the noble Lord that Government did not entertain any idea of following the matter up with more vigour than it had hitherto displayed, for the purpose of showing the Brazilian government that Great Britain would no longer submit to evasion and procrastination. He must remind the

567
House that a different plan had been pursued with regard to Portugal; a squadron was sent to the Tagus, and immediate reparation demanded and enforced, while in the case of the Brazils, the noble Lord had satisfied himself with making ineffectual remonstrances. The noble Lord said, that, on coming into office, he was so convinced that there had been improper delay in settling these claims, that he sent to Mr. Aston, at Rio, enforcing the orders of his predecessor, but that he was afterwards induced, in consequence of the remonstrances of the Brazilian ambassador, to desire him not to act upon that letter. The noble Lord further said, that the first letter was communicated to the Brazilian government before the arrival of the second, but he took it for granted, that, in consequence of the arrival of the latter, the tone of the former was not followed up. He recollected, on a former occasion, that the noble Lord had taken great credit to himself because Lord Aberdeen had held out a threat to Portugal, which was not followed up, whilst he sent a squadron to the Tagus and obtained satisfaction; but how was it that he had not pursued the same course with regard to the Brazils? There was a want of firmness of purpose about the foreign policy of Government, according to the received opinion amongst British merchants, which placed them under a great disadvantage in foreign countries. He disliked any thing in the shape of tortuous policy, and he hoped, therefore, that Government would fix a period, after which reprisals would be made, unless satisfaction were given within the time. It was within our reach to do so, for the Brazils was a commercial country, so that at any time we might have recourse to reprisals. He thought it most nefarious that money sent to this country from the Brazils, to pay the interest of the loan, should be appropriated to another purpose by the Brazilian authorities in London. As the noble Lord had taken no notice of this part of the subject, as propounded by the hon. Member who introduced the Motion, and the worthy Alderman who had seconded it, he trusted the debate would not close without the noble Lord giving some reply, calculated to satisfy those persons who had suffered from so scandalous a proceeding.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, that he had become acquainted with the papers relating to this case, and his opinion was, that it ought to have been settled long since. He
568
could not see any reason why the claims of Great Britain should be postponed to those of France and the United States, who had both successfully urged their respective claims. It was with much regret and surprise that he heard of any relaxation of the just demand of Great Britain, for no man could doubt that such relaxation would lead to consequences most injurious to our commercial and maritime interests. He was at a loss to know why the British flag, with all its rights and all its attributes, should be treated in the South American seas with less respect than the flag of any other nation. The only mode, however, of getting reparation front states was, by representation to the government, not by resorting to similar piratical acts, and therefore, he approved of the restoration of the ship Nestor. If Great Britain had the magnanimity to release the vessels which had been seized, she ought still to insist upon retribution and compensation. He wished to ask the noble Lord whether he had fixed a period for the adjustment of these claims, beyond which other means would be called into action to vindicate the honour of the British flag. The merchants of London had had abundant reason already to complain of the delay, and unless the noble Lord stated some period when justice was to be done, he should recommend an address to his Majesty, praying him to take measures for insisting on retribution.
Lord Althorpwas perfectly willing to admit that the acts complained of were most grossly unjust, and wholly unjustifiable on the part of the Brazilian government. The late Administration had two courses to pursue, namely, to send a squadron and make reprisals, or, (which was the course they did take) to call on the Brazilian government for redress, and threaten reprisals if it was refused. He considered that the late Administration was wise in what they did, in giving the Brazilian government an opportunity to make reparation. The case was not one of absolute refusal, but unnecessary delays had been interposed; and, as his noble friend had stated, instructions had been sent to our Minister in the Brazils, to communicate to the government that, unless those delays were put an end to, reprisals would be resorted to; and, in consequence, the cases were in a course of adjustment. He did not see how we could act otherwise than to declare that, if we

569
saw any unnecessary delays interposed, we should resort to reprisals, and this was the course Government were determined to adopt.
Mr. Ewarthoped that the noble Lord would act up to his declaration, and not suffer these claims to stand over indefinitely, but exact all he could from the Brazilian government, and vindicate the national honour. He could assure the Ministers that there was a very strong feeling in the mercantile classes that a great deal too much forbearance had already taken place in entering into prolonged negotiations upon such manifest acts of injustice.
Sir Frederick Trenchsaid, that the French and the North Americans had very speedily obtained redress; even the Swedes, who had a claim for a few thousand dollars, had sent a vessel of war to enforce their demand, and had thereby received satisfaction, but British claimants were ridiculed in their attempts to enforce it, and British diplomacy was the jest of the South American States. He did hope that one effect of this discussion would be, to induce Government to adopt a more decided tone.
Lord Morpethsaid, that he had a petition to present from merchants at Leeds, who stated, that they suffered great distress through the indefinite delay of the adjustment of their claims. He admired the promptitude with which his noble friend, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, had acted in reference to Portugal, and hoped he would exercise in the new world a little of that energy which he displayed in the old.
Lord Sandonsaid, that a great portion of the claims were made by his constituents, and he did hope that his Majesty's Government would give them the protection and support to which they were entitled. He should like to hear that the noble Lord was prepared to assign a specific time for the adjustment of the claims, beyond which frivolous and vexatious delays should no longer be tolerated. Other states of the new world were imitating the conduct of the Brazilian and Buenos-Ayrean, and preying upon British commerce; and the only way to put a stop to such outrages was, to repress them at the outset with a firm hand.
Mr. Humecalled upon the Government to act upon the memorandum which had been suffered to lie unheeded by the Brazilian government for three years. As
570
far as his information went, the noble Lord was not correctly instructed, for not one case had yet been adjudicated. He regretted that English merchants should be so treated. The British flag, which was once respected in all parts of the world, was now mocked every where. He, therefore, considered the question was of much greater importance than the noble Lord seemed to consider it, and to allow such unjust acts to be committed with impunity was a disgrace to the Government.
Sir Henry Hardingereally thought it time that his Majesty's Government should make some answer to the charges brought against them. It had been stated in that House that the country had been disgraced, that it had been made a subject of ridicule, and that it had become a laughing stock to the whole of Europe; and these statements had all come from Members usually supporting the Government: and it was not only in the failure of his Majesty's Government to protect the rights of British subjects that they had rendered themselves thus obnoxious to complaint, for, while this had been done, others of his Majesty's subjects had been allowed to join an army for the purpose of making war upon a friendly power and ally of this country. He wished to ask the noble Lord, whether any steps had been taken to recal those officers of the army and navy who had joined the armament for the invasion of' Portugal?
Colonel Evanssaid, that, if the interference of officers on one side was a matter for interference, he should like to know whether the Government ought not also to take notice of the well-known fact that a noble Lord in his Majesty's service was now directing the operations of Don Miguel? He should like to know whether the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, meant, that the Government ought to send out an expedition to prevent the expedition of Don Pedro from attacking Portugal.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, he did not state to the House any thing which he thought the House would not have clearly understood. He had not spoken upon vague newspaper reports: he had seen the names of British officers affixed to proclamations issued under the authority of Don Pedro, and, as such conduct was in direct violation of the statute, he thought the Government ought at once to interfere, and to remove all such officers.
Viscount Palmerstonhad not expected

571
this sort of discussion on the merits of the contest between Don Miguel and Don Pedro. In reply to the question of the right hon. and gallant member, he could only say, that there was a person in Don Pedro's service who was formerly an officer in the British navy, but he no longer held a commission in the service. If there were any military officers in Don Pedro's service the same rule applied to them. It certainly was against the statute for British officers to serve in foreign fleets or armies. It might not be right for any Englishman to do so, but, how was it to be prevented? Admiral Brown and others who were in the South-American service prior to the recognition of the New States, had not been recalled, and could not be, for they had no commissions, and the Government had no power over them. But it was said, that the Government behaved different in the case of France—that King Phillippe received different treatment; but in that they had only followed the example of their predecessors. Did not King Phillippe receive different treatment from the late Government? Was not he acknowledged, and Don Miguel treated as an usurper? He thought the course pursued was the only fair one. His Majesty's Government had observed a strict neutrality. With respect to the alleged insults and mockery of the British flag, he had no knowledge of the grounds on which the statements had been made. His noble friend had correctly stated, that the cases were in a course of investigation. The case of the Henry and Isabella was under adjudication when the last advices came away. He only asked the House to have so much confidence in the Government as to believe it would use the best means it could, and would not shrink from the discharge of its acknowlodged duty, either to obtain adequate remuneration for property unjustly seized, or to repress outrage by whomsoever practised.
Sir Robert Peelwas satisfied, from the statement, that the production of the papers would be injurious to the claims of the parties, and he thought the noble Lord ought not to be called upon to state at what period the payments were to commence. After the declarations of the two noble Lords connected with the Government, it would be well to leave the matter in their hands, and he suggested to the hon. Member that the best course he could pursue would be, to withdraw the Motion.
Sir John M. Doyleremarked, that, were it not that he conceived it would be derogatory to a British Member of Parliament to become an informer, he should have much pleasure in answering the question pat by his much-respected friend, the right hon. General opposite, to his gallant friend at this side of the House. As to British officers serving in the army of the usurper, Miguel, he could hardly conceive it possible that his right hon. friend, and some of those hon. Members who sat near him, could be in ignorance of the fact; he also begged leave to state that a British officer on half-pay, and who served on the staff in Portugal, and now in the military service of Miguel, was, at this moment, a diplomatic agent in London, and had been so employed for months past: of course, he forgot the name of this respectable individual.
Motion withdrawn.
House went into Committee of Supply.
Ordnance estimates postponed.
House resumed.

ARREAR OF TITHES (IRELAND.)
Mr. Stanleymoved the third reading of the Tithe Bill.
Mr. Ruthvensaid, he hoped to hear some better arguments in favour of this Bill, on the third reading, than had yet been urged in its behalf. From all he had seen and heard, he was convinced that a cessation from agitation and excitement would be most desirable and beneficial for Ireland; that cessation, however, it would never obtain if this Bill passed into a law. Every account only tended to show that the people were opposed to this impost as being most unjust, unequal, and oppressive; and, if hon. Gentlemen thought, that, by severity and harshness, they could put down the opposition to the payment of tithes, they would find themselves much mistaken. The people considered themselves insulted by the introduction of such a Bill as this during the progress of the great measure of Parliamentary Reform. They felt and knew that this Bill was inefficient. It excited the of the country at present, and held out no hope whatever for the future. He did trust, therefore, that Ministers would reconsider the question, and pause before they endeavoured to carry into effect enactments that could not be sustained by any established law, but which had been merely brought forward to meet the passing necessity of

573
the moment. His main objections to the Bill were, that it left the general question untouched, and merely provided for one year; and that it was most obnoxious to the people of Ireland. Some Gentlemen might be induced, by the necessity of the case, to vote for the measure; and he had no doubt that, in doing so, they were acting conscientiously. Had it been proposed to extend general relief to the people of Ireland, he was sure there was no one in the House who would object to supplying Government with the means. But, could any one conceive that the disgusting and insulting provisions of this Bill, which were to be followed up by half-martial law, would be productive of peace or harmony in Ireland? He trusted hon. Gentlemen would not, for the sake of their own credit, and for the sake of the credit of this Parliament, consent to pass such a law as this; if they did, he told them it would not work well. Some advocated the adoption of rigorous measures—some were in favour of conciliation—but both parties joined in opposing this measure; which, instead of uniting and dispelling hostile feelings, would only give rise to new sources of discontent. The present system of tithes was universally admitted to require some amendment; and when the people first heard of extinction, they eagerly grasped at it, because they were ignorant of the wide distinction between extinction and abolition. The people of Ireland were not in a state to be easily satisfied. There was no common feeling between the governors and the governed; the people were dissatisfied with a system which drove them to desperation; and could it be supposed that they would be tranquillized by such a measure as this? There was no man more anxious to preserve the union between the two countries than be was, but he knew that many who were formerly decidedly opposed to a repeal of the Union, now looked at the question in a different point of view. He believed those who were the best friends to the two countries were opposed to keeping Ireland in the invidious situation in which she was now placed. There was a growing feeling in Ireland that was hopeless unless some change took place in their domestic Legislature. The people of Ireland would be tranquillized if some prospect of relief were held out to them, and yet they could have no kind, soothing, word from
574
Parliament. Under this ungracious mode of treatment, they never could be satisfied. Rigorous measures and martial law could only tend to increase their discontent, and, therefore, he gave his determined opposition to this measure.
Mr. Maurice O'Connellhad already stated his opinions on this question, and did not think it necessary at any length to reiterate his objections to the principle of the Bill. He was free to admit, that, as a coercive measure, the Bill was as lenient as could be expected; but what he objected to was, that any coercive measure should be forced upon the people, unless, at the same time, that measure were accompanied by a measure of relief. He gave the right hon. Gentleman credit for the very best intentions in introducing this measure; but he certainly was bound to say, that the right hon. Gentleman was acting under a very gross delusion. That Bill would be found inefficient. It would not be in the power of the right hon. Gentleman to enforce that law, because it was a bad law, and because it was a law which was condemned by the public voice, and repudiated by the public feeling of the country. Unjust laws were mere waste parchment. They could not operate, and, if it was attempted to enforce them by penalties, it could not be done unless by constant collision with the people. He again admitted that, as a measure of coercion, the Bill was as lenient as it possibly could be; but it was just cause of complaint, that a measure of coercion should be forced upon the public, despite of every pledge that there should be no coercive measure unattended by the removal of the grievance complained of. Having said thus much, he did not intend to trespass further upon the attention of the House. He had opposed the Bill all through, but he did not conceive it necessary to offer any further fruitless opposition.
Mr. Petresaid, that he could not but condemn the course which had been taken in opposition to this Bill, which he thought so fair and reasonable as to be entitled to every fair and proper support. He denied that the members of the Catholic religion were actuated by a wish to overthrow the Church Establishment in Ireland. He was a Catholic, and he felt bound by the oath he took, when coming into that House, to support the Protestant Establishment. He considered the Establish-

575
ment of the Protestant Church as part and parcel of the Government of the country; and, as a Catholic, he felt himself bound, by the oath he had taken when coming into that House, not to do anything calculated to overthrow the Protestant Church. He was returned to that House by an almost exclusively Protestant constituency, and he considered that he should be guilty of the greatest ingratitude to them if he could be capable of joining in the unjust and unreasonable resistance given to this Bill. Looking to the oath taken by Catholic Members in coming into the House, he must contend that the conditions of that solemn obligation bound them to resist any attempt to overthrow the temporalities of the Established Church. So far as he could, understand the question, the present Bill appeared to him a mild and lenient Bill. A combination existed against the rights of property in Ireland, and was it to be told to the Government that they were not to interfere and vindicate the law. It was not now a question as to the merit of any existing law; if the law was bad, that House was the proper place to have it amended. But he did not think that the people had a right to take the law into their own hands, and say they would not obey the law? He thought that it was the duty of every Member of that House to support his Majesty's Government in upholding the authority of the law, and vindicating its power. He had felt it to be his duty to use these words for the purpose of repelling the imputations as unjust, that the Catholic Members of that House felt inimical to the Established Church. If he had acted otherwise, he should be ungrateful to a Protestant constituency, who returned him to that House—and, more than that, he should be ungrateful to the Protestant Legislature, which relieved him from his civil disabilities, and rendered him eligible to a seat in that House. He had felt bound to say thus much, and he certainly was surprised at the unreasonable perseverance with which hon. Members continued to oppose this measure.
Mr. Sheilsaid, that the hon. member for Ilchester (Mr. Petre) was an English, and that he was an Irish, Catholic. They were animals of a different genus, though they had been in the same cage. The member for Ilchester confided in the Government—he confided in the power and
576
determination of his countrymen. The hon. Gentleman was grateful to English Protestants for his enfranchisement—he might have extended his gratitude, and felt that he owed some thanks to the virtue and the energy of the Irish millions who knew and who proved that—"Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." Ireland, for her freedom, had to thank herself; and from what he had observed, he felt convinced, that it would be to herself that she would owe the removal of her remaining grievances. He had risen to protest against this Bill, and against the construction of the Catholic oath given by an English Catholic, who had applied his political habits to his interpretation. First, as to the Bill, it was a piece of preposterous legislation, while Reform would give a giant's strength to Ireland, the Tithe Bill would prompt her to use it in a gigantic fashion—it was like striking a man a blow in the face, while you put a club into his hands. At the next election, the people would seek for candidates for Parliament among martyrs to tithes. Newgate would be the avenue to St. Stephen's Chapel, and Government would, by irritating the people, reverse the saying of Mirabeau, and prove that there was but a single bound to be made from the foot of the Tarpeian rock to the summit of the capitol. They must grant Reform to Ireland—they would not presume to withhold it—talk, indeed, of abolishing fifty-six close boroughs in England, and of leaving the pay of twenty boroughs in the sordid hands of the provincial oligarchy of Ireland! It might be incommodious for Government to hear, at this moment, a reference made to their former pledges on the Church; but they had, themselves, forced these topics into discussion, by bringing forward their tithe Bill, pending Reform in the Lords, while they were embarrassed, and their virtue was bound to the ground by those small Lilliputian ligatures and constraints which prevented them from standing up. The Catholic oath had been referred to. That oath bound a Catholic not to subvert (that was the word) the Church, nor weaken the Protestant religion. Was the reduction of the revenues of the Church equivalent to its subversion? The meaning of the oath, perhaps, should be collected from the rejection of Mr. Wilmot Horton's motion to prevent Catholics from voting in ecclesiastical matters. There was in

577
Scotland an Established Church—a cheap and useful institution, agreeable to the feelings, and not burthensome to the resources of the people. Will you lay the Irish Church in ruins by bringing, it on a level with that Establishment, whose simple front and plain fabric is built on the principles of apostolic architecture? As to weakening the Protestant religion, he trusted that it consisted in something better than vast episcopal territories, numerous sinecurism, bloated pluralities, offensive rates, insulting cesses, pulpits occupied with cobwebs, altars encompassed with loneliness, and churches with clerks for a congregation. The creed of Irish Protestantism was to him matter of indifference; but the coffers of Irish Protestantism were a public and political concern; and so far from the religion being impaired by the diminution of its revenues, it would, on the contrary, be relieved from those obstacles which were opposed to its progress by its pecuniary abuses causing national detestation. These sentiments might be unpalatable to a Reforming Parliament; but a Reformed Parliament was at hand, and it would have a different relish. It was of little consequence how these opinions were received in that assembly. It had given itself a suicidal stab—it had declared itself unworthy of the Offices of Legislation, and it was to its successor that he should look for that great work of ecclesiastical regeneration, which was indispensable to the peace, tranquillity, and ultimate safety, of Ireland.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that the course which the debate had taken was so entirely foreign from the matter under discussion, that he would not have troubled the House at present, were it not that he felt bound to offer a few remarks on that most extraordinary piece of most extraordinary declamation with which the House had been favoured by the hon. Member who had just sat down. He did not think it necessary to vindicate his hon. friend, the member for Ilchester, from the imputations indirectly cast upon him; any one who witnessed his plain and straightforward, and manly and unequivocal manner, must feel convinced how infinitely superior the course his hon. friend took was, to what he should not hesitate to call the flimsy and hollow casuistry—the quibbling sophistry—which had, under cover, no doubt of elegant language and brilliant imagination,
578
been used to attack his hon. friend, by the hon. member for Louth. His hon. friend, the member for Ilchester, had pursued an honest, manly, straightforward course—he unequivocally declared, that he felt bound by the ties of duty and honour—by the sense of gratitude to Government—by his duty to his country and by his duty to his God, not to use, to the injury or the destruction of the Protestant establishment, powers vested in him by an exclusively Protestant Legislature. How different was this from the casuistry which had been resorted to by the hon. and learned member for Louth, who denied that the obligation of this oath was so felt or understood by the Catholic Members of that House. What, said the hon. and learned Member, "You must permit us to be the auditors of our own accounts." Did the hon. and learned Member, then, mean to make good the charge that had been urged against that oath by the opponents of Catholic emancipation, and which he and others of its advocates indignantly denied? Did he then admit that the oath was taken, in the solemn presence of his God, with a mental reservation, and not according to the meaning of those by whom that oath was administered? In the terms of that oath, he who takes it is supposed to do so without mental reservation or equivocation; and, when the hon. and learned Member talked of being the auditors of their own accounts, he would be glad to ask, what did the hon. and learned Gentleman mean by that expression, unless it was, that this oath was taken with mental reservation, and not in the meaning of those by whom it was administered? What else than this was the meaning "that they were the auditors of their own accounts?" Did the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say, that those who took the oath were to be the judges of its meaning, and not those who administered it?
Mr. Sheilbegged to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, as he was arguing upon an expression which he had never used. What he said was directly the reverse of what was stated by the right hon. Gentleman. He had contended that the oath was taken in the exact meaning of those who administered it; but that so taken, it did not bear the interpretation put upon it by the hon. member for Ilchester. His reference to the motion of Mr. Wilmot Horton had been adopted merely for the

579
purpose of illustrating the argument he was urging.
Mr. Stanleyresumed—He should be the last person that should wish to interrupt any hon. Gentleman from setting him right, whenever there could be a possibility of his mistaking any expression of such hon. Gentleman. However, in the present instance, he had taken down the exact words made use of by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He certainly thought that they bore the construction which he affixed to them. An oath was not a matter of honour; it was a solemn obligation between two contracting parties; and either party had the full right to claim the fulfilment of that oath. The hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to a motion made by an hon. friend of his (Mr. Stanley's) at the time of the Catholic question. At that time he condemned that motion as unjust, unreasonable, and unnecessary; but, certainly, the explanations and assertions indulged in by the hon. and learned member for Louth, had gone far to shake his confidence in the opinions he then entertained. The hon. and learned Member had argued the question with a great deal of casuistry; but what was the meaning of the terms of the oath?—that he would defend, to the utmost of his power, the rights of the Protestant Church, as by law established; and the oath goes on—"And I hereby abjure any intention to subvert the Protestant religion."—No; to subvert the Protestant Church.—No; but "to subvert the Protestant Church-establishment, as settled by law." The hon. and learned Member, with all his eloquence and all his casuistry, must not tell him that the Protestant religion or the Protestant Church were synonymous with the Protestant Church-establishment as settled by law. The hon. and learned Gentleman's construction of that oath ran counter to the intentions of those by whom that oath was framed, and who admitted the hon. Member and his friends to a seat in that House. The whole of the hon. and learned Gentleman's casuistry amounted to this: "I may destroy three-fourths of the property of the Established Church in Ireland; my oath binds me not to destroy the property of the Protestant Church; but, as long as there is a fractional part left remaining—as long as I don't destroy the entire property of the, Established Church, so long I do not violate my oath." He would not now stop to argue whether
580
any gratitude was due to the people of England for their support of that measure which gave to the hon. and learned Gentleman a seat in that House. He would not ask, whether any share of gratitude was due to those who, for struggling in that cause, had endured the fatigue of that strife, and who, night after night, had perseveringly continued in that House, and assisted in giving the crowning stroke to that great measure. He did not mean to deny, whatever portion of the merit was due to those who, by the persevering agitation of this question, had at length succeeded in forcing it on the attention of an unwilling Government; but, whatever share of advantage might have resulted from that measure, it was not to be reaped without the intermixture of some of those noxious weeds which shoot up amidst the most luxuriant soils, and of which they were now reaping the bitter fruits in the fulness of that factious opposition with which the well-meant measures of the Government were resisted. He would have the hon. and learned Gentleman beware how he taught a bitter lesson to the people of England. He would implore him to be think himself in time, and not to do irreparable injury to the cause of Irish Reform. The arguments and the tone adopted by the hon. and learned Member would go far to strike a deep and fatal blow against the cause of Irish Reform. The hon. and learned Member had said, that Irish Reform would follow English Reform, and that then the Irish people would have additional power to resist the Government and thwart their measures. He begged to remind the hon. Member that nothing could be more dangerous than to assert that passing the Reform Bill would be a mere transfer of agitation from Ireland to this House. He begged to tell the hon. Member, that he mistook the principle on which his Majesty's Government had introduced the present measure of Reform. They had not introduced that measure upon the principle of Universal Suffrage, but upon the principle of extending the franchise as widely, and amongst such persons, as might safely exercise it with advantage to themselves, and to the existing institutions of the country. That was the principle on which they proceeded to extend the franchise to as large a class of the community as they could with safety; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman asserted that doing so would be but a transfer of

581
agitation from Ireland to this House, he could not inflict a heavier blow on the cause of Irish Reform. The hon. and learned Gentleman, vindicating the resistance of the people, had quoted the words,
"Hereditary bondsmen, know ye not Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow."
Did the hon. and learned Member pretend to be ignorant of the meaning which was attached to that language in Ireland? Did the hon. and learned Member pretend not to know for what purposes that language was employed in Ireland? It was but two days since that he (Mr. Stanley) had received from Ireland one of the most inflammatory placards that could be written. It commenced with the words which the hon. and learned Member had quoted, and the placard proceeded:—"These are the words of O'Connell; and let us follow up these words, and deal with no person, or hold intercourse with no person, who will continue to pay the unjust and oppressive exactions of tithes." This was the effect of this placard; and it was for purposes such as this that this language was used in Ireland. He thought the hon. Member should feel that he spoke in that House as a Member of the Imperial Parliament, and as the Representative of the county of Louth; and it was more befitting for a Member of that House to infuse into the people obedience to the laws, than to inflame them into a resistance to the laws. He begged to tell the hon. Gentleman that, if he felt anxious for the extension of the franchise, he could not injure what he had at heart more than by using such declarations. But he would rescue the people of Ireland from the implied imputation. He would not believe that the people of Ireland were so lost to all sense of justice; and when he should, in his place in that House, have to move the reading of the Irish Reform Bill, he should, he trusted, be able to show that the people of Ireland, despite the slanders cast on them, were in every way entitled to a share in the general advantages of Reform. The hon. member for Clare had given him credit for believing that this measure would afford relief. Now, he did not believe any such thing. He did not bring forward this measure as a measure of relief, and that which would be introduced as a measure of relief would be one in every way calculated to afford relief. He did not want that the present measure
582
should do more than enforce the law; but did they think that it was the poor wretched peasant that would be selected for its operation? He did not wish that this law should be brought into operation against those who were poor and unable to pay, and whose arrears had accumulated from distress; but against the rich, who having the means had refused, and against the wealthy comfortable farmers, almost in the class of country gentlemen; these were the persons who would be selected; and when these persons were compelled to pay, he was sure that the resistance to the law amongst those who were influenced by their example would soon be at an end. This was not a sectarian question—this was not, as already had been well said by the hon. member for Ilchester, a question between Catholic and Protestant, but it was a question of right and property—it was a question, whether individual rights should be prostrated—whether the just claims of individuals should be set at nought, or what, perhaps, was of still more importance, whether the law should be overborne with impunity. It would, in his opinion, be contemptible in any government to allow the laws to be overborne, and its authority trampled under foot. The present measure, then, preceding as it did the measure of relief, was a measure to vindicate the law. The hon. member for Clare had that night admitted, that, if it were necessary to vindicate the law, and introduce a measure of coercion, that a more lenient measure than the present could not possibly be resorted to. The cost of these prosecutions would not fall upon the people, but upon the clergy. The object, as he said before, was, not to wage war against the poor, but to compel the rich to comply with the existing law. Great clamour had been used against this measure, but it did no more than merely transfer from the hands of the clergy, which were weak, into the hands of the Government, which were strong, the duty of asserting the rights of those individuals. It was to make the rich bow to the law—to compel those who had it in their power to pay the claims which they asserted. The hon. and learned member for Louth had talked of the consequences of Reform in Ireland; he had said that agitation would be the price of a seat in Parliament—that none but those who resisted the payment of tithes, and cheered on that resistance, could expect to be distinguished by public

583
favour. The hon. and learned Member, with great beauty of language and happiness of quotation, had said, that there would be but a step from the Tarpeian rock to the summit of the Capitol. Now, he did think, that, if these were to be the consequences that were to result from Reform in Ireland, Reform would be an injury to that country. He begged to deny the inference of the hon. and learned Member, whose conclusions, he felt satisfied, were erroneous, and he was quite convinced that those persons who were crouching at the base of the Tarpeian rock, felt very little disposition to play the part of Marcus Curtius. He relied upon the good sense of the people of Ireland to influence them to give up the resistance to the law, when they saw that those who were setting the example of that resistance were compelled to acquiesce—when they found that, instead of having to deal with a clergy who were weak and feeble, and could not enforce their rights, that they would have to deal with a Government which was strong, and able to enforce and vindicate the laws. It was his conviction, that, as soon as the leaders of this resistance were reduced to obedience, the people, who were deluded into the following of their example, would return to their obedience also. He trusted that the Government, in the execution of this measure, would have the support of the gentry of the country, who would find that in obedience to the laws consists the best title and security of their own rights. He hoped that the predictions of those who foreboded evil from this measure would be falsified, and that the state of the country would be such as would enable them to silence the clamours of those who would resist that measure of relief which it was the intention of his Majesty's Government to afford. He would not longer occupy the time of the House. He did not intend to have trespassed on it, but for the manner in which the debate had wandered from the subject of discussion, and thanking the House for its indulgence, he would merely add, that he felt it due to his own feelings not to allow what had fallen from the hon. and learned member for Louth to pass unnoticed.
Mr. Henry Grattansaid, that the attack of the right hon. Secretary was very ungrateful, after the zealous support which the Irish Members had invariably given to the English Reform Bill, notwithstanding
584
the numerous rumours that had been spread abroad relative to the intended alterations in the Irish Reform Bill. It was said, the present question that had been raised upon the tithes was caused by agitation; and it was asked why their payment was not disputed before the settling of the Catholic question? He would tell the Gentlemen why. It was because the Irish people knew that till that point was carried, it was useless to agitate any other; but now that that point was gained, there were many other points that must be agitated. There was the Poor Law Question—the Absentee Question—the Jury Cess Question—and the Vestry Act Question—all of which must be agitated until they were satisfactorily settled. What the people of Ireland wanted was, not to destroy the Church Establishment, but to make a more equal distribution of its revenues. They did not like to pay men who did no duty. The right hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding his great talents, would find it difficult to carry this act into execution, whatever the hon. and learned member for Dublin might say about maintaining the rights of the Church. The very man against whom the troops were brought out was sued in the hon. and learned Gentleman's own Court, for the tithes in question, and what was stated by the party? Why, that the clergyman had no right to the tithes at all. That was what he complained of with regard to this Bill. They were putting the Attorney General into a situation of bringing actions against parties where no tithe at all was due. There was a case in which, after some vexatious proceedings, the man who was sued denied the right of the party who claimed the tithe, but said he was quite willing to pay the legal claimant. That settled the case; but then there were the costs to pay. They were giving a summary power to the Attorney General, which, for want of the necessary knowledge of the circumstances of each case, would be most oppressively and vexatiously used against the people of Ireland, who refused to pay the tithe, not contumaciously, but upon the ground, in many instances, of the want of legal right on the part of the claimant. He said to the right hon. Gentleman, "You wilt not succeed by this measure, but you may by the subsequent measure; if you will tell us what that is, and, if it appears to be a fair measure, all the difficulties of the case will be over. But now you have

585
no power at all, because you must have a sale and a decree." They had heard arguments, recriminations, and speeches—and about what? About the sale of a cow. Would the Government suffer things to go on in this way—would they suffer a system to continue which required them to employ 4,000 men to sell an old cow? If they could not govern that country without a police, they had better give it up at once. To be controlled by force was what the people would not submit to longer than the Government could make them; and for this reason—if the laws were first of all bad, and you attempted to enforce them by arms, that was tyranny: and the people had a right to rise up against tyranny, whether practised by one or by many. He entreated them not to declare war against the people of Ireland, especially for the sake of maintaining the Established Church—because, though it might be established by the law, it was not established by the people: they derived no benefit from it. The Government talked of vindicating the law: this had been the dogma of Statesmen at all times—but what was the result of attempting to vindicate the law, in the case of America? They were compelled to give up the Stamp Act, and then they would vindicate the tax on tea; but they were resisted, and they finally lost the colonies. Be assured that such would ever be the result of any attempt to enforce a law which was repudiated by the whole people. He repeated the words of Mr. Burke as applied to America—if you can only govern Ireland by coercion, she is not worth governing; but adopt a conciliatory course, and Ireland will not only be easily governed, but she will be a source of strength to this country. What was the consequence of those Acts of Parliament which were passed in favour of her commerce? Was there, then, any revolution apprehended? Did not the Irish legislature vote 30,000 seamen at once, and did they not declare they would stand or fall by Great Britain—and why? Because they were governed well. But if they went on in the course they were now pursuing, Ireland would be lost; for it was idle to say that they could govern 8,000,000 of people just as they could govern a parish. The Attorney General might send one man to gaol, but what could he do with 5,000,000 of people? If the Secretary for Ireland stood upon a point of honour, the peasantry of Ireland
586
would stand upon their point of honour; and nothing could be so foolish as to go to war with a whole people upon such an imaginary ground. There was no necessity for vindicating the law; the people had declared they would not pay the tithes for the benefit of a few, which ought to be paid, and which they were willing to pay, for the benefit of all: and it was in vain that they talked of the vindication of the law. He understood some alterations had been made in the Bill, but he had not been able to get a copy of those alterations; and yet they were now called upon to consent to the third reading. Time ought to be allowed to consider these alterations. But should the Bill be passed, he hoped it would have a peaceful issue, and not only conduce to the strength of his Majesty's Government, but to the satisfaction and stability of the country. The opposition to the Bill was not dictated by a factious hostility to the Government, but by a sincere desire to promote the general welfare. He knew men who were now sitting in that House, and had opposed this Bill, recommended the people of Ireland to pay their tithes, though, at the same time, the landlords, who were also Members of this House, had not received their rents. The Irish Members had hitherto supported his Majesty's Government; and the opposition, in this instance, was founded upon principle. He begged to assure the right hon. Gentleman, that a Government was never so secure and respectable as when it received the votes of unpaid men. If the Ministers attempted to carry on the Government in opposition to the independent Members of this House, they would most signally and most deservedly fail.
Mr. Humeregretted to have heard the sentiments which fell from the right hon. Secretary, because they were uncalled for by the observations of the hon. and learned member for Louth. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman what interpretation he put upon the words, which he seemed to deliver with so much emphasis—whether he thought that a Roman Catholic Member was bound, by the oath he took, never to support any alteration of the laws that regarded the property of the Church? He understood the hon. and learned member for Louth to say, that an alteration in the Church Establishment was necessary: and was an interpretation to be put upon that oath similar to that

587
which was put upon the Coronation Oath in the late reign? He thought the speech of the right hon. Gentleman amounted very nearly to a declaration of war against Ireland. He had to-night shown the House what were the consequences of possessing power. Such doctrines as he had broached to-night might have been expected from former Administrations; but that they should come from a Member of the present did, indeed, surprise him. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to say, that no alteration was to be made in the Church Establishment of Ireland? He understood the hon. and learned member for Louth to say, that there ought to be, and that there must be, a change, before Ireland could be quiet: and was there any man in that House, except the right hon. Gentleman himself, who would say, that the Church of Ireland was to go on without alteration? To make the Establishment congenial with the feelings of the people, an alteration to a great extent must be made. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that it was in vain to attempt to force this measure against the feelings of the people; and that the present effort to vindicate the law, as it was called, was in exactly the same spirit in which the law was endeavoured to be vindicated in our American colonies, but which failed then, and would fail now; for, when laws were made, whether they applied to England, Scotland, or Ireland, which were inimical to the feelings of the whole people, it was impossible to carry them into effect. In the present case, Government had not redeemed their pledge to this House—they had not followed up the spirit of the Resolutions which they, by that pledge, prevailed upon the House to adopt. He, for one, concurred originally in those Resolutions, because he believed that Ministers would not propose a measure of coercion without bringing forward the remedial measure: but the House was now about to separate, and no Bill for remedying the existing evils had been brought in; so that his Majesty's Government had neither kept good faith with the country, nor had they acted in consistency with their own Resolutions. Was it possible that the right hon. Gentleman was so utterly ignorant as to fancy that such language as he had used would tend to the peace of Ireland, by prevailing on the people to acquiesce in a system which they had for ever de-
588
nounced? The right hon. Gentleman said, that when the people saw, that Government could and would enforce the law, they would immediately comply with that law—but 50,000 men would not enable him to enforce the law. Was it possible that the right hon. Secretary could be uninformed of what was now passing around him? He should remember that the present Government did not stand in the same situation as the former Government. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues came into power upon the principle of conciliation, and they, therefore, had no moral force to sustain them in their efforts to carry a measure in opposition to the feelings of the people. Let them but pass the English Reform Bill, and then refuse the claims now made by the hon. and learned member for Louth on behalf of Ireland, if they dared. The idea was absurd. Why, the Government stood committed upon the principle of Reform, and to an equal extent to Ireland as well as to England. If, then, the Church of Ireland was not to be reformed, what kind of pledges had they from Ministers, or what were those pledges worth? He confessed he had heard with regret the whole of this debate, because it held out, as regarded Ireland, nothing but hostility and irritation. The system of rule which the speech of the right hon. Gentleman indicated, could only be maintained by an enormous military establishment. No other means could carry into effect such measures as that speech contemplated. It was a speech which they ought not to have heard; it was contrary to every thing the right hon. Gentleman stated a few nights ago. Then he condemned the system pursued towards Ireland, and told the House that it was the anxious desire of his Majesty's Government to retrace the steps of former Governments, and to conciliate, by every measure in their power, the feelings of the people of that country. Good God! could he believe that, after hearing such a speech, which was so explicit, and which gave the highest gratification to all who heard it, and which had since diffused such real satisfaction throughout Ireland—could he expect that from the same lips would proceed a speech so opposite in spirit, and so irreconcileable in principle, as the speech which had just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman? Talk of agitation—who was the agitator here? But it was in vain; the people—the millions—would not be so put

589
down. If he could read what was passing in that country, the matter would not rest there. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that his policy of coercion had done more to unsettle Ireland than any other circumstance that had occurred for a long time past. And yet he complained of the conduct of the Irish Members. Did he expect that they were not to agitate within these walls for the sake of that country which had sent them there? If they did not, of what use were they? Were they to come here each to sit as the "silent Member?" Their duty was to agitate, and to persevere in that agitation until they had obtained a redress of those wrongs under which their country laboured. Let them be called delegates—they were such—a Representative was a delegate, and a delegate was a Representative. Was he there, for instance, to act for himself, and to hold himself irresponsible to the electors of Middlesex, and to disregard their feelings and interests, or what they were desirous to effect? If he was, then he had nothing to do with the county, but was his own Member. They were delegates to this House; but they might call them delegates or Representatives, it mattered not: it was not the name, but the duties they had to perform that concerned the people. He would repeat his regret that the Government should have persevered in this measure, instead of waiting until the other had been introduced. He feared that they would discover that they had proceeded too fast; and, by not fulfilling their pledge, they would ultimately drive the people of Ireland to desperation.
Mr. Long Wellesleysaid, he did not think the property of the Church ought to be converted to any purposes but those of the Church, and he apprehended the great majority of the people of England held the same sentiments; they might desire as he did, to see the principle of commutation generally acted upon; but the attempt to overcome the law by violence must be put down, and, therefore, he approved of the present Bill. When the remedial measure for Ireland was brought forward he should be prepared to give it his best attention.
Mr. Lambertopposed the Bill now as he had done from its first introduction into the House, because he thought it a weak irritating measure, and he believed would be inefficient. Indeed he was convinced
590
that not 100 l. would be recovered under it, unless it was accompanied by a remedial measure. This Bill proceeded on the bad principles of bad times, when the Church handed over its refractory members to the secular arm. He feared the tone and temper of the speech of the right hon. Secretary would not tend to allay the agitation in Ireland. It seemed to imply a threat that Ireland might be deprived of her part in the great measure of Parliamentary Reform.
Mr. Stanleybegged to be allowed to interrupt the hon. Member, and to add a few words in explanation. What he said was, that the line of argument adopted by the hon. and learned member for Louth was calculated to alarm many persons in this country, and thereby impede the progress of the Irish Reform Bill; and that if he anticipated the same consequences from its passing, as was anticipated by the hon. and learned Member, he would even now withdraw it.
Mr. Lambertwas happy to hear the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman, but he feared he could not give such a satisfactory one of the manner in which he had spoken of the oath to be taken by Catholic Members. He had taken it in its plain direct sense, and did not like to have the doctrine of double dealing thrown in his teeth. To return, however, to the Bill, the people of Ireland had decided the question; the tithe system must be abolished; but it was not yet too late for the Government by the adoption of proper measures to lead the people, and protect the interests of the Protestant clergy, by introducing measures of conciliation.
Mr. Ralph Howardmust also join in regretting the tone and temper of the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland. If the construction put by that right hon. Gentleman on the oath taken by Catholic Members was correct, it would have been better that the proposition of Mr. Wilmot Horton should have been carried, which prohibited them from voting upon all questions connected with the Church, than to have left them at liberty to do so. As he understood the oath he considered himself bound to abide by the existing law, but a difference of opinion might fairly exist as to the best mode of enforcing that law. He saw that on the present question a decided breach had been committed in it;

591
and, therefore, he had voted in support of the measure before the House, but there was a great distinction between maintaining the property of the Established Church and supporting the present unequal distribution of that property.
Mr. Huntmust express his abhorrence of the measure, and he must condemn the tone and the speech of the right hon. Secretary.
Sir John Milley Doylesaid, he did not approve of the whole Bill, but, as it had proceeded so far, he would not oppose the third reading.
The House divided—Ayes 52; Noes 7—Majority 45.
Bill read a third time.
On the question that the Bill do pass,
Mr. Sheil: The Secretary for Ireland has assailed me. I could not reply to him, according to the rules of the House, until the motion that this Bill do now pass. I rise to answer him, but without resentment; for I make allowance for his feelings with respect to the Church. It is not that his early reputation is associated with it by his debut—there is something more substantial than mere oratory to bind him to it. He is chained to the Church by a golden link, which it would be preposterous to require of him to break. The magnanimity which is requisite to sacrifice his interests is not to be expected from such specimens of the hon. Gentlemen's feelings, habits and character, as have been witnessed in this House. Yet I do not accuse him of any impurity of motive. It is just possible that his judgment may be obscured, and that he may find it difficult to arrive at a sound conclusion, when there are so many impediments to unbiassed reasoning in his way. Then why should I resent his giving me a lesson? Why should I complain of his taunts, and his harshness, and his rebuffs, and his lack of common courtesy, when he uses Ireland in the same fashion? Can I hope to escape from the fate which is destined for my country? Yet the hon. Gentleman may be ultimately treated by his 7,000,000 of pupils after the manner in which the Roman schoolmaster was used for having betrayed his country to Camillus. The hon. Gentleman says, I have given, by my menaces, a blow to the Irish Reform Bill. He is himself the man who has forced these topics into discussion, and by rashly and obstinately pressing his measures forward, pending the Reform question, has
592
exasperated Ireland, and those by whom Ireland is represented. The right hon. Gentleman has arrayed an entire nation against him, by his demeanour and his proceedings, and he then complains of indiscretion. Now what has been the hon. Gentleman's conduct? What has he done? To what act of wisdom can he refer as evidence of his genius for legislation? He commenced with the Arms Bill, and according to the rules of political unity, faithful to his character, he was about to make his exit from Ireland with the Tithe Bill—a bill in every way worthy of him—a bill of a precipitate, rash, domineering kind, on which the right hon. Gentleman has stamped an image of himself, and impressed it with the proofs of his parliamentary parentage. What has been his conduct this very night? Although so many of the men who are associated with him in office are pledged to reduce the wealth of the Irish Church, yet he stands up in the front of the Government, and declares that no change in the establishment shall be made. But there is a spirit abroad—the spirit which carried emancipation for one country, and is carrying Reform for both—which will strike down the pile of consecrated abuse, and, instead of being able to uphold that mass of sacred enormities which already totters beneath the shocks of public opinion, he will fall beneath, and be crushed under its ruins.
Mr. Stanley: In the course of the observations which have fallen from the hon. Gentleman, he stated that he was not influenced in the attacks which he has thought proper to make upon me by any feeling of irritation or vindictiveness, but I put it to the House whether the speech of the hon. Gentleman indicated that total abstinence from personal feeling for which he appeared to claim so much credit. The hon. and learned Gentleman appears to be in full possession of the secrets of the Cabinet, and professes to know what is passing in the councils of the Government, although he must be aware that the Members of the Cabinet are sworn not to divulge what passes at their meetings. The hon. Gentleman stated, that I brought forward the Arms' Bill, without consulting my colleagues in the Government. I will tell the hon. Gentleman, and I speak in the presence of some of those who are my associates in office, that I did submit that bill to the

593
other Members of the Government. It was not, however, at the time completed, and on consideration, a difference of opinion, I admit, did prevail respecting some of the clauses, which were conceived too strong, and although I was convinced of the propriety of that measure, and have since heard no reason which would justify me in changing that opinion. I have, however, abandoned the measure, not because I was convinced of its impolicy, but on account of the dissatisfaction expressed against it by the Irish Members. The hon. Gentleman has, therefore, no right to taunt me with having, upon that occasion, surrendered my own judgment and deferred to the opinion of the Irish Members, contrary to the convictions of my own mind. The hon. and learned Gentleman has thought proper to insinuate that I have been actuated by other than constitutional motives in bringing forward this measure. [The hon. and learned member for Louth shook his head, in token of dissent.] The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but will he deny that he used the words? In the course of his former speech the hon. and learned Member made obervations which I took down at the moment, yet notwithstanding that the hon. and learned Member afterwards disclaimed them.
Mr. Sheilbegged to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, for the purpose of explanation. He did not throw any imputation upon his motives; but he did say, that there were certain ties, a golden link, which bound him to the Church, and which might possibly have the effect of prejudicing his mind and obscuring his vision against the abuse of the establishment.
Mr. Stanley: "I make the hon. and learned Member a present of his explanation. I will pass by this topic—it is unworthy of notice." The hon. Gentleman (continued Mr. Stanley) sought to be informed what the present Government had done for Ireland. Why, he appeared to think that men who came into office after years of exclusion, should be at once prepared with antidotes against all the evils which a system pursued by former Governments had engrafted in the Constitution of that country—that all their plans of improvement should be prepared and matured at once—that what would require years to complete, should be executed in a single day, and Ireland should
594
spring up a new country simultaneously with the change of Administration. Did not the hon. Gentleman know that before he set his foot in Ireland, he had been made the object of the most foul and slanderous attack; that every effort that could possibly be devised had been resorted to to counteract every attempt of his to better the condition of that country? He would certainly acquit the hon. Gentleman of any participation in these acts; he must do him the justice to say, that he never abused him behind his back, or gave utterance to an expression which he would not use to his face—he never joined that faction which heaped vilification upon Government, because they would not go the lengths which those demagogues demanded. But was it true that the present Government had done nothing for Ireland? Had they not carried through that House a Bill for the Regulation of Juries? Would the hon. and learned Gentleman say, that that measure was of no benefit to Ireland? Had the Ministers not, in despite of a violent opposition from a most powerful party, established a national system of education? Was that doing nothing? and had they not, within the last few days, pledged both Houses of Parliament to the abolition of tithes? Would that have been done if the present Government had not come into office? Would Ireland have had her Jury Bill, her Board of Education? would tithes ever be extinguished if a Tory Administration were in power? and yet they were to be told that they had done nothing for Ireland. The hon. Gentleman had taunted him with his Arms Bill. He had attributed to him a disposition to coerce the people. Did not the hon. Gentleman know that applications had been made by Magistrates in certain counties in Ireland, for an increase of power, for an augmentation of the military force? did he not know, that in some instances the Insurrection Act had been demanded, and yet Government refused these applications, and relied on the ordinary power of the law to restore subordination? Did this look like a disposition on his part to coerce the people? But this very night had not attacks been made upon them in another place, for not granting powers to put down the people. So much for the attack of the hon. Gentleman. In the remarks which he had made, and which appeared to have given so much offence to the hon. Gentleman, he did not

595
intend anything disrespectful towards him or any other hon. Member for Ireland, who acted in connexion with him upon this occasion. He came there to support the measure before the House, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman thought proper to introduce a topic foreign from that question—if he undertook to discuss the meaning of the oath taken by Roman Catholics upon entering that House, he felt that he was but discharging his duty, in replying to the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and expressing in the strongest terms, his reprobation of the doctrines which he had heard that night with astonishment, put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Much had been said about the support which Government had received from the Irish Members. He was not disposed to undervalue that support; but he must say that the general support which they gave to the Government, by no means precluded him from expressing his dissent from them on any public question upon which he might entertain a different opinion. This was a principle upon which he would always act, and he begged of hon. Members not to deceive themselves by supposing that he could be induced to abandon a course which he conscientiously believed to be correct.
Bill passed.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of WELLINGTON, from the Protestants of the Wardenship of Galway, praying to be heard by Counsel against the Indemnity Bill:—By Lord CLONCURRY, from the Corporation of the City of London, for an Alteration in the existing Laws relating to the Oaths of Supremacy and Abjuration:—By the Earl of DARNLEY, from the Inhabitants of Rochester; and by Lord DURBAN, from South Shields, to take the case of that Town into consideration on the Question of Reform; from the Inhabitants of Stockton-on-Tees, and from the Operative Cotton Spinners of Glasgow, in favour of the Bill for Limiting the Hours of Employment of Children in Factories:—By the Earl of FINGAL, from the Inhabitants of Cruizetown:—By Viscount CLIFDEN, from the Inhabitants of Kiltinell and Clonegoose, Graig, Ullard, and Powerstown; and by Lord CLONCURRY, from the Inhabitants of Celbridge and Dromiken, for the Abolition of Tithes and Church Rates in Ireland:—By Lord TEMPLEMORE, from the Inhabitants of Enniscorthy, and Temple Shannon, for the Repeal of the Vestry Act; and from the Inhabitants of Killag and Kilmannon for a similar measure of Reform to be given to Ireland as that intended for England:—By Lord DURHAM, from the Members of the Council of the Political Union of Bethnal Green; and by the Earl of RADNOR, from the Pressis of the Bannockburn Political Union, in favour of Reform:—By Lord CLONCURRY, from the Corporation of London, in favour of the New System of Education intended for Ireland:—By the Duke of GORDON, from the Provincial Synod of Aberdeen. By the Bishop of LINCOLN, from the Clergy and Laity of Louth, Horncastle, Spilsby, and Alford. By the Earl of MANSFIELD, from the Inhabitants of Torquay; and from the Minister, Elders, and Inhabitants of Tillicoultry. By the Bishop of EXETER, from 9,000 Inhabitants of the County of Devon. By the Bishop of BATH and WELLS, from the Inhabitants of Taunton; and by the
496
Duke of BUCCLEUGH, from the Presbytery of Lochmaben, against the proposed System of Education for Ireland:—By Viscount STRANGFORD, from the Inhabitants of Gravesend and Milton; and by the Marquis of SALISBURY, from the Shipowners, Masters, and Pilots of Greenwich, Blackwall, Limehouse, and the Pool, against the Gravesend Pier Bill:—By the Earl of DARNLEY, from the Inhabitants of Gravesend and Milton, Chatham and Rochester; of Persons in the Metropolis engaged in Mercantile and Shipping Concerns, and of Operatives of the Metropolis, in favour of the Bill.

EDUCATION (IRELAND).
Lord Kenyonpresented a Petition against the new system of Education, from the clergy, gentry, merchants, and inhabitants, of Manchester. It was signed, his Lordship said, by the borough-reeve and municipal Magistrates, by all the clergymen of the town with only two or three exceptions, and by all the Dissenting ministers, and, in a very short space of time, by 4,000 of the most respectable inhabitants, and it would, there was no doubt, have received the signatures of a much greater number had the usual means been resorted to. The petitioners condemned the conduct of Government in attempting to overthrow an established system of education, which had produced consequences the most beneficial and satisfactory on no other grounds than that the Catholic priests objected to it. They expressed also an opinion, that, to appropriate the revenues of the State to the establishment of a system of education from which the Holy Scriptures were to be withdrawn, was inconsistent in the Government of a Protestant King. In this sentiment he entirely concurred. He had always been a great advocate for education, but he considered it essential that it should be founded on the Word of God. He hoped Ministers would not persevere in their plan.
Lord Suffieldsaid, the object of his rising was, to explain to their Lordships the character of the meeting from which this petition emanated. He by no means wished to complain of meetings being held on this subject; but he objected to this petition being received as the petition of the gentry, clergy, merchants, and inhabitants of Manchester, when the meeting at which it was agreed to was a packed meeting, to which admission could only be had by a ticket previously obtained. He had received information from a highly respectable individual who attended it, that, soon after the business began, he proceeded to address the meeting, when he was stopped by the Chairman, who called upon him to state whether he agreed in opinion with those who had called the meeting, because, if he did not, he could not be per-

497
mitted to be heard. Their Lordships were told of the unanimity which prevailed at the meetings where these petitions against the proposed system of education were agreed to. That unanimity was sufficiently accounted for, if no person was permitted to offer his sentiments in opposition to the opinions of those who had called the meeting. He was informed, that there were not more than 200 persons present at the meeting, and that out of that number 120 were females. He did not wish to detract from the merits of the ladies, who no doubt were always busy in the performance of good works; they had been exceedingly active in obtaining signatures to the petition. His noble friend said, that this petition was signed by more than 4,000 persons. The wonder was, not that it was signed by so many, but that it was not signed by 14,000, or even 40,000 persons; for he would say, that, if the petition had been sent to him with such an invitation as that which was put forth at Manchester, he should have signed it directly, and, connected as he was with the town of Manchester, he really was surprised that the petition had not been sent to him for that purpose. There was not a noble Lord on that side of the House who would have refused to sign it on the invitation put forth which commmenced thus:—'All who regard the Holy Scriptures as the birth right of every Christian; all who believe them designed to make men wise unto salvation; all who conscientiously deny the right of man to interfere be twixt his fellow-man and a full and perfect knowledge of the will of God; all who are earnest in contending for these great Protestant principles, on behalf of themselves and their children; all who desire them to be applied and extended for the benefit of their brethren in Ireland, are invited to come forward and sign this petition.' Who could hesitate to subscribe to such a declaration as that? But then came that which, he scrupled not to say, was a false assumption. It prayed Government to revise or relinquish a measure, by which the whole and individual Word of God is to be excluded from the schools of national education in that country. The Government system of education for Ireland was calculated, according to the assertion, to exclude the use of the Holy Scriptures. How any persons, pretending to be in possession of common sense could make such an assertion, appeared to him wholly incomprehensible. He had
498
had too much experience of public life, even within his limited sphere of observation, not to know that party feeling frequently led men, under its influence, into the greatest imaginable absurdities, and that they were now and then induced to make assertions, which their calmer judgments altogether repudiated; but of all the gross and outrageous assertions that ever party spirit betrayed men into uttering, this assertion stood out in unequalled absurdity. The more he reflected upon the system of education proposed to be established in Ireland, the more did he become convinced that it was not only the best suited to that country, but that it was, at the same time, the system of education best calculated to secure to the pupils for whose use it had been devised, a sound acquaintance with the Holy Scriptures. He was quite sure that his noble friend, in making the statement which the House had just heard, did so with perfect good faith, and he was anxious merely to rebut his statement, because he imagined that his noble friend might not know what sort of meeting it was at which the petition originated.
Lord Kenyonsaid, his noble friend had told their Lordships that he was never surprised at the length to which party spirit carried those who were under its influence. He trusted that he was not one of its votaries. He considered himself as free as most people from the influence of party feeling, and he hoped he had never been carried away by any other cause than the cause of his country, truth, and religion. He acknowledged his warm attachment to all that could promote truth and justice, and he, therefore, hoped, that his noble friend did not mean to impute to him any influence arising from considerations of party. He must be allowed to say, with respect to this petition, that it had been rather hardly dealt with by the noble Lord. It was a petition not hawked about with bands of music, or any display of colours as some others were, but it was an address from a Protestant population, and its object was, to display a Christian and Protestant feeling, and to procure for the people of Ireland, the use of the Holy Scriptures unmutilated. He should, certainly, have been happy if the petition had been signed by more persons, but it was with much satisfaction he found the signatures as numerous us they actually were. It had been objected to the meeting that it was in some degree a private

499
assembly, it never professed to be any other, n d he much commended the prudence of hose who, upon such an occasion, avoided public disputation. They were in a town which contained many thousand Catholics, and if they had not adopted precautions, a disturbance might have ensued, and the petitioners been exposed to outrage and insult. Whatever was the character of the meeting, the petition must be considered as that of those who had signed it, among whom was the great body of the clergy of Manchester.
Petition to lie on the Table.

AFFRAY AT NEWTOWNBARRY—CAPTAIN GRAHAM.
The Earl of Wicklowrose to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice, with great regret, as he might be supposed to stand in the situation of a public accuser. He did not mean to place himself in that situation, but the imputation of doing so might attach to him, and there was also other imputations against which he felt it necessary to guard himself at the outset. It might be supposed that he intended, upon the present occasion, to make a general attack upon the policy of the Irish Government, and to take this opportunity of venting his hostility against the Administration to which he was opposed. Both these intentions he disclaimed, and, with respect to the first, he would show that it was unfounded, by avoiding all topics that were not immediately connected with the subject before them; and, as to the government of the noble Marquis, he begged to assure their Lordships that he entertained for him feelings of high respect, and was convinced that he entered upon the Irish Government with a deep anxiety to promote the welfare of that country, and that he had never been actuated by any other motive: at the same time, there was much that he disapproved—much of what appeared to him bad policy in the conduct of the Irish Government. The noble Lords opposite, had pursued the system while in office which, when out of office, they had always recommended to all former Governments, and held out as the most favourable to the welfare of the country. But now, after so long an experience of the evils which arose from their system of conciliation, it might have been expected that their eyes would have been opened, and that they would have corrected their policy. While attempting to avoid the errors of former Governments they had gone to the opposite extreme, verifying the remark of the poet, Dumvitant stul-
500
ti vitia in contraria currunt. It would be recollected that it had been attempted by himself and others to draw the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, whose absence upon the present occasion he regretted, into explanations of the transactions relating to Captain Graham. It was true, the noble and learned Lord said, that he would withhold his explanation, as a notice of a motion on the subject had been given by a noble friend of his; and then, when his noble friend had set him right, and said that he had withdrawn his notice, the noble and learned Lord said, "Oh! in that case, as there is no motion intended, there is no occasion for me to say any thing about it." On one occasion the noble and learned Lord had risen apparently for the purpose of giving an explanation of the proceedings of Government, when, unfortunately, a noble Marquis called him to order. The noble Marquis, however, immediately withdrew his objection, and all the noble Lords on that side of the House loudly called upon the noble and learned Lord to proceed, but, notwithstanding this, the noble and learned Lord had thought better of it, and positively refused to proceed. This was the course pursued by the noble and learned Lord when it was attempted to get out of him an explanation for which all the country panted. It had been truly said, on a former discussion of the affairs of Ireland, that it was not so much a great military force which that country required as an efficient Magistracy. This sentiment was expressed by the noble Duke (Wellington), and he was glad to hear it loudly re-echoed by the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government. But when he said it was the duty of Government to support the Magistracy, he did not mean to contend that they ought. to be supported in illegal or arbitrary acts, but only that the Government should show them some degree of favour; that they should not, at least, judge of their conduct with severity, and manifest a disposition to condemn it; that they should not sacrifice them for little faults, to which it must be expected that country gentlemen should be liable; that, above all, they should not sacrifice them for the sake of obtaining a transitory, unworthy, and degrading popularity. If the character or interests only of an individual Magistrate were at stake, the case would then have a strong claim to the attention and to the justice of that House; but this sunk into nothing, in comparison with a case in which the interests of the whole of

501
Ireland were concerned. The case of Captain Graham had had a powerful influence upon all the Magistrates of the country. He knew that the Magistracy were paralyzed he knew that they were alarmed, and that they felt they were now liable, upon any slight occasion, to be thrown over by the Government to the power and mercy of the democratic party in that country. In order to show that this was the fact, he would read an extract from the evidence given by the Archbishop of Dublin before the Tithe Committee. It would be recollected that the Archbishop of Dublin had received his appointment from the present Government. He was asked if he knew of any instance in which the Magistrates had been deterred from doing their duty from fear of popular clamour? He replied, "Many. One Magistrate had said, upon one occasion, that he would not put his head into the fire." And he mentioned others who had been deterred, by the apprehension of clamour, from doing their duty efficiently. In allusion to the affair of Knocktopher, he said it was not that the force was insufficient, but that the troops had been deterred from firing till the rioters had seized their muskets, and wrested them from their hands. This evidence with respect to the massacre of Knocktopher, was enough to show that this unfortunate occurrence had been produced by the conduct of Government towards Captain Graham in the affair of Newtownbarry. The first case he should come to was that of Newtownbarry, and, having disposed of that, he should next endeavour to ascertain what were the causes which made the Government angry with the persons who took an active part in suppressing the riots there; but, in the first instance, he should briefly point out to their Lordships the state of the country previous to those riots, The accounts which had reached the Government from various quarters were so alarming as to induce the Lord Lieutenant to issue instructions to the whole of the Magistracy, pointing out to them how they were to act, and promising them countenance and support. He well remembered the circular issued in the autumn of 1830, and one, he must say, which, at the time, afforded him great pleasure, because, whilst it intimated to the Magistrates that, as they would incur the displeasure of the Government for any neglect of duty, so, on the other hand, the Government pledged itself to do its duty in protecting the civil authority. That circular afforded great consolation to him and to all
502
well-disposed persons, and was shortly after followed by another, in which the Magistrates were called upon, not only to disperse rioters, but to take steps to prevent riots, and in which minute instructions were given as to the manner in which the Riot Act was to be read and enforced. It was clear, then, that the Government at that time felt that the peace of the country was endangered, nay, absolutely outraged. He would not trouble their Lordships with the whole of that circular, but he must call their attention to its concluding paragraph. The letter was signed by Mr. Stanley, and was directed "to the Magistrates assembled in petty sessions"—it concluded in these words:—'I am directed, in conclusion, to assure you, that, while his Excellency will not fail to visit with his severest displeasure any Magistrate who may shrink from the due performance of functions so vitally important, so, on the other hand, your efforts for the suppression of acts of outrage or illegality will be duly appreciated and acknowledged. The Government will perform their part, affording you the fullest protection in the responsible exercise of your authority, and in supporting the civil force whenever it may be necessary for the preservation of the public peace.' This paragraph was very consolatory to the Magistrates. But this was not enough; another circular was sent, encouraging and directing the Magistrates, in which he found the following passage:—'You will further observe, that the Magistrates are authorized to prevent, as well as suppress, tumultuous meetings, and, therefore, when a riot, or breach of the peace, is likely to be caused by such a meeting, they are authorized, and it is their duty, to desire the parties to disperse or desist, and, in case of their refusal to arrest them, in order to prevent such breach of the peace. The letter then went on to say, that the authority which gave the Magistrates these powers did not take away from them those powers which they previously possessed; and the passage concluded by saying that,—'If the persons so assembled, or any of them, shall happen to be killed, maimed, or hurt, in the dispersing, seizing, or apprehending, or endeavouring to disperse, seize, or apprehend them, then every such Magistrate, and all persons aiding or assisting, shall be indemnified.' Having now called their Lordships' attention to the state of the country and the instructions issued to the Magistrates, he would

503
proceed to refer to the affray at Newtownbarry. Captain Graham, who was the senior Magistrate of the place, and three or four of his brother Magistrates, received information, on the 16th June that a distress for tithes was to be levied on the 18th of the same month upon the goods of a wealthy farmer of the name of Doyle, and they also ascertained that the people were determined to resist the distress, and that a large concourse of people would be assembled for the occasion. They immediately took the best precautions in their power, and collected as many as they could of the police, whom they placed under the command of Captain King, an officer of the police, who had also considerable experience as a military man, and who was known to be competent and trustworthy. In addition to information which the Magistrates had previously received, they, on the evening of the 17th, heard, from a gentleman who had just arrived from Dublin that the adjoining parishes were placarded with notices of the intended meeting, and that crowds were likely to come from a distance for the purpose of being present at the riot, for such was certainly contemplated. Some of the placards were stuck up in the parish of Baltinglass, a distance of fourteen miles from Newtownbarry, as well as on the road the whole way from Baltinglass to Blessington. It then became necessary for the Magistrates to decide upon the best course to be pursued. The nearest military force was at Wexford, a distance of thirty miles; and if an application could have been made in that quarter, it was well known to the Magistrates that the officer there had no greater disposable force than about thirty or forty men, even if there had been time for them to arrive at the scene of the contemplated riots. No resource was then left but the Yeomanry, as it was well known that the police were insufficient. The Yeomanry were sent for, but the notice was so short that only 110 could be collected, and, having marched into the town, they were, in order to prevent all excitement, placed by Captain Graham in a close yard. About twelve o'clock on the 18th a person called upon Captain Graham and informed him that the cattle had been driven away. He, with the police force at his disposal, immediately followed them, retook the cattle, and had them driven back, during which proceeding he was frequently insulted, though not absolutely attacked. Captain King called upon Captain Graham for additional aid, and the latter gentleman
504
seeing that the party under Captain King could not execute their duty, went back to the town for the Yeomanry force, which he had in readiness there, and returned with it to the scene of the disturbance. The attack then commenced on the part of the peasantry. From the evidence given at the trial it appeared that the Yeomanry were not only insulted by the grossest language but were assailed by vollies of stones, and fired at, in consequence of which, some of the party were wounded. Captain Graham seeing the situation in which his men were placed, and being a military man, took up what he considered the most favourable position under the circumstances, by placing the cattle in front, under the protection of the Police, and bringing up the rear with the Yeomanry. In the course of their march, the Yeomanry were constantly exposed to the attacks of the peasantry, and were at length obliged to fire (which they did without orders) in their own defence: the consequence was, an unfortunate loss of life. The cattle were finally taken into the town, and thus ended the unfortunate affair of Newtownbarry. This affair caused a great sensation in that part of the country, and the Radical party in Wexford made strong remonstrances to the Government against the conduct of the Magistrates and Yeomanry. The Government acted with the utmost propriety on the occasion. They admitted the affair was most lamentable, but they said, it would ill become them to adopt measures against the supposed guilty parties, who were amenable to the laws of their country. The Government further stated, that the persons concerned in the transactions should be put upon their trials at the next Assizes: consequently, at the ensuing Assizes eighteen bills of indictment were preferred, which the Grand Jury ignored, and, by their verdict, pronounced that the Magistrates and Yeomanry had only done their duty. Thus stood the case up to that moment, and he would ask, what was there in all this to excite the anger of the Government? Its cause of displeasure must have been founded upon one of three grounds; first, that the calling out of the Yeomanry was wrong, they being an improper force to employ on such occasions; or next, that if the Magistrates had a right to call out the Yeomanry, that was not an occasion in which it was necessary; or thirdly, that the Magistrates had not acted with judgment, prudence, and discretion in their official capacities. With respect to the first of these points,

505
namely, the propriety of calling out the Yeomanry under any circumstances, He could refer their Lordships to the high authority of the Judge who presided at the trial, which arose out of the affair of Newtownbarry, at the last Assizes at Wexford. The learned Judge said—
"I have not the least hesitation in saying that the Magistrates did nothing more than their duty in calling out the police under these circumstances, and that they were further justified in calling also on the Yeomanry to be ready in case their services should be required."
He said, in his address to the Grand Jury—
"When Yeomanry are called upon to assist the Magistrates in preserving the peace, the circumstance of their being Yeomanry imposes upon them no peculiar obligation, neither does it clothe them with any peculiar protection. In such a case, they act not as Yeomanry, but as citizens, who are called upon to lend their assistance to maintain the authority of the laws. Persons who are called upon to suppress a riot, may take with them such arms as may appear necessary to enable them to suppress it."
This was the law as laid down by a most able Judge; and, if the Magistrates of that country, acting under such authority, had erred in the execution of their duty, their fault should surely be attributed to an error of judgment, for which no punishment ought to be inflicted on them; or, at all events, that punishment should be very lenient. He could show, however, that Government, so far from condemning the employment of Yeomanry, authorized Magistrates to avail themselves of the services of that force. It so happened, that a similar occurrence to that which occurred at Newtownbarry, had taken place, a short time before, at a place situated in an adjoining county. He alluded to the case of Captain Feltus, in the county of Carlow, who had actually received the thanks of the Government for an act precisely similar to that for which Captain Graham was dismissed; for dismissal he would call it, though the noble Lord, the Chancellor for Ireland, said, that Captain Graham was not dismissed, but that he was not reinstated. The Magistrates, upon that occasion, called out the Yeomanry, and succeeded, by means of that force, in preventing a riot. He would not trouble the House with reading the instructions from the Secretary of Ireland on that subject; but
506
he would refer to another occasion still prior to the affair of Newtownbarry, in which resistance to the payment of tithes was displayed; for, unfortunately, resistance to the law was, at that time, spreading over the whole of the country, embarrassing the Magistrates, and terrifying the loyal and peaceable portion of the community. The circumstance to which be alluded took place at Ardmire in the same county. The Magistrates, on that occasion, had time to consider what measures they should adopt, and they, therefore, deputed one of their body, Captain Owen, to ascertain from Mr. Stanley whether, in case of necessity, the Magistrates might call out the Yeomanry? The extract which he would now read, would put their Lordships in possession of the result of the conversation which took place between this Gentleman and Mr. Stanley, as detailed in a letter from Captain Owen to Captain Graham:—
"Dear Sir—In reply to your letter, I can only give you the purport of the conversation I had with Mr. Stanley, in February last, in the presence of Captain Gossett, when I went up, on the part of my brother Magistrates in this neighbourhood, to apply for military aid, to put a stop to an illegal meeting which was about to be held near Gorey. There not being any soldiers quartered near enough to reach us in time, Mr. Stanley asked me, were there not Yeomanry, and why were they not called out? A good deal of conversation ensued, but my impression was, and still is, that at that time if we had, as Magistrates, thought fit to call out the Yeomanry, we should have been acting with the complete sanction of Government."
The date of that letter was September the 4th, 1831. He would next read a letter written by the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, in answer to one addressed to him by the rev. Henry Moore, of Carnew, near Newtownbarry, with the view of ascertaining whether, in the event of riot arising from resistance to the payment of tithe, the Magistrates would be justified in calling out the Yeomanry? The letter was as follows:—
"Dublin Castle, January 10, 1831.
"Sir—I have to acknowledge your letter of the 7th instant, but cannot take upon me to do more than recommend to your attention the line laid down in the circular which I had the honour to address, some days ago, to the magistracy of Ireland. It is for them to decide upon the peculiar circumstances of each individual case, as it occurs. No Government can do more than point out the general principles upon which their decision should be

507
formed. As, however, you state that 'there is a sufficient body of loyal Yeomanry in your part of the county to prevent aggression, and preserve the public peace, if the Magistrates should be empowered to call upon them,' you are certainly empowered by law to call on all persons to aid and assist in preserving the public peace; but, perhaps, the safest course to pursue would be, to swear, as special constables, such of the Yeomanry as you can confidently rely upon, and call upon them for their exertions in that capacity, should the ordinary civil force be insufficient to prevent outrage and disturbance, or to disperse any meeting clearly illegal, upon the requisition of the Magistrates. I have the honour to be, your obedient servant,
"E. G STANLEY,
"Rev. Mr. Moore, Carnew."
He thought he heard a cheer when he read that part of the letter which stated, that the Magistrates might swear in the Yeomanry as special constables. If the noble Lords opposite wished to take advantage of that expression, he would give them all the benefit which they could derive from it. Those noble Lords, probably, would be ingenious enough to show the difference between employing Yeomanry in the ranks of the police and as a separate body. His understanding, however, was not astute enough to see that this circumstance made the slightest difference. He thought he had now proved that the Magistrates were sanctioned by the law, and by the wishes of Government, in employing the Yeomanry if necessary. The next point was, to ascertain whether the Magistrates acted wisely in having recourse to this force upon that occasion. It must be recollected, that there was no military force within reach; that, on two previous occasions of a similar nature, the Yeomanry had been called out; and that, on one of these occasions, the persons calling them out had received the thanks of the Government—further, the circumstances attending this particular case must be recollected. The Magistrates had received information that vast multitudes were to assemble to resist the law, and preparations for this purpose were observed going on at fourteen miles' distance from the scene of action. If any man would say that, under these circumstances, the Magistrates were not justified in putting into requisition all the force which they had at their disposal, he must form a widely different opinion of the manner of dealing with riots in Ireland from that which he, and most Irish Magistrates, entertained. He thought he might venture
508
to assume, that he had established two points; first, that it was legal for Magistrates to call out the Yeomanry; and, secondly, that this was an occasion which justified them in having recourse to that force. He would next proceed to show, that the Magistrates acted wisely and prudently in this transaction, and ought to have received the same degree of approbation which Government extended to others under similar circumstances. Though he was unwilling to trouble their Lordships with extracts, he felt that it was absolutely necessary, upon this point, to call their attention to circumstances which transpired at the trial that took place at the last Assizes at Wexford. The evidence of Mr. Ralph, (Mr. M'Clintock's agent), was very important. That gentleman deposed that Captain Graham and his party were pelted with stones of a very large size—that the mob made use of the most insulting and irritating language towards the Yeomanry—and that Captain Graham warned the people that the muskets of the Yeomanry were loaded with ball-cartridges. He would next refer to the evidence of Dr. Hyde, to which he particularly requested the attention of their Lordships, on account of circumstances to which he would allude presently. Dr. Hyde deposed, that the Police and the Yeomanry were exposed to a fierce attack from the people. He described the stones which the mob threw, as forming from their numbers in descending, a perfect arch. Many of the police were hurt by them. He stated that three shots were fired by the crowd, and that he attended one of the Yeomanry who was wounded in the heel. This evidence completely disproved the assertion that the people had no fire-arms. It appeared that two of the Yeomanry were actually wounded, before they commenced firing in their own defence. It was sworn by one or two witnesses, who were brought forward by the prosecution, that Captain Graham gave orders to the Yeomanry to fire, but this evidence was most decidedly contradicted by other witnesses. In the first place it was shown, that the witnesses who deposed to the fact of Captain Graham having ordered his men to fire, were persons of infamous characters. But further than this, men who were in the ranks, deposed, that the words used by Captain Graham were "fie fie," which were addressed to the men to make them cease firing, instead of "fire, fire." The result of the evidence adduced

509
at the trial, went most fully to prove, that Captain Graham, in the execution of the difficult duty he was called upon to perform, acted with sound judgment and discretion, and in a manner which, in his (the Earl of Wicklow's) opinion, did him infinite credit. He would, however, read the opinion of a person whose authority on this point was much higher than his own, that of the learned Judge before whom the trial took place, who said, "You are not now trying Captain Graham, but, after it has been his fortune to have been indicted for the same alleged murder before two successive Grand Juries, and his name called so much in question, it may not be improper to declare to you that, if you believe the witnesses brought forward for the defence, he appears to have conducted himself throughout not merely with a high sense of magisterial duty, but with prudence, moderation, and humanity." When he reflected that Captain Graham had obtained the sympathy of his countrymen—that he had received an approving address from fifty-five Magistrates of the county of which he was himself a Magistrate—that he had been twice instantaneously acquitted by grand juries, and that his conduct had called forth from a Judge of the land the expressions of approbation which he had just read, that Gentleman notwithstanding, the anger of Government had reason to be proud of his situation. In the first instance, the Government certainly acted correctly in refusing to yield to the clamour which was raised against Captain Graham; but subsequently to the trial, and when it was supposed that the affair was at an end, the factious demagogues of Ireland had goaded on the Government to adopt some measures against the magistrates of Wexford. The Government was no longer able to resist the force which burst upon them in August; the Secretary for Ireland, by the desire of the Lord Lieutenant, wrote a letter of censure to the Magistrates of Wexford for their conduct in the Newtownbarry affair. The Magistrates replied, as became them, by sending in their immediate resignation; upon which the following letter was instantly addressed to Mr. Davenzy, one of their body:—
"Dublin, August 19,1831.
"Sir—I have had the honour to lay before the Lord Lieutenant the letter of the 12th instant, desiring, in consequence of the censure, as you are pleased to express it, which his Excellency conveyed by my letter of the 7th instant, to be relieved from the Commissions
510
of the peace for the counties of Carlow and Wexford. His Excellency, in giving effect to your wishes, cannot refrain from expressing his surprise that you should have considered an intimation of his opinion on the impolicy of the measure adverted to in that letter as amounting to so severe an animadversion as to justify, in your opinion, so strong a declaration of feeling as the resignation of your commissions. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your roost obedient and humble servant,
"J. Davenzy, Esq. W. GOSSETT."
He was astonished that the Lord Lieutenant should express any surprise that Magistrates who had been twice virtually acquitted in the face of their country, should feel indignant at receiving a letter of censure from the Irish government. So far from taking the same view of this subject as his Excellency did, he should have considered these gentlemen unworthy of sitting on the bench, if they had not acted precisely as they did. There were reasons which prevented Captain Graham from resigning at the same time as his brother Magistrates. Captain Graham was the agent in several counties, for a most respectable nobleman, whose absence, on the present occasion, no one had so much reason to regret as himself, because he would have performed the duty which he had undertaken much more ably than he could pretend to do. Captain Graham, feeling that he could not effectually perform his duties as agent to Lord Farnham, did not feel himself justified in resigning his commission; but, shortly afterwards, his Excellency, the Lord Lieutenant, withdrew Captain Graham's name from the commission of the peace. Their Lordships must recollect that the Lord Lieutenant expressed his surprise that the other Magistrates should have felt it necessary to send in their resignations, and yet he had deprived Captain Graham of his commission. Why he made any distinction between their case and that of Captain Graham he had yet to learn. The Magistrates were all engaged in the same transaction—they co-operated together in the discharge of their duty; and no difference of opinion prevailed amongst them. When he proposed a question to time Lord Chancellor of Ireland upon this subject, he seemed to draw a distinction between the dismissal of a Magistrate and the omitting to insert his name in the commission. He gave the noble and learned Lords all the benefit which he could derive from the distinction. It might be said, perhaps, that the omission of Captain Graham's name was the

511
act of the Lord Lieutenant of the county, who, under the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland's Act, was called upon to revise the Magistracy—and not the act of the Government. This, though not stated, was in some degree implied in what fell from the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. In order to remove all doubt upon that point, however, and to show how the matter really stood, he would trouble the House with some further correspondence. Captain Graham wrote a letter to Mr. Carew, the Lord Lieutenant of the county of Wexford, to the following effect:
"Newtownbarry, December 31, 1831.
"Sir—Finding that circular letters have been addressed by you to the Magistrates of the county, and not having myself been honoured with one, I am in doubt whether or not I am authorised in continuing to act as a Magistrate for the county of Wexford. May I, therefore, beg you will be so good as to favour me with the necessary information on this point. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient servant,
"R. S. Carew. W. GRAHAM."
This was the answer which was re-turned—
"Castleborough, January 4, 1832.
"Sir—I have this day had the honour of receiving your letter, and beg to inform you that the new Commission of the Peace for this county will be very shortly issued, by which the functions of the Magistrates under the former Commissions will cease, and any act done by them before they qualify under the new Commission would be illegal. I regret that I cannot, at present, give you any further information on the subject of your letter, which I have laid before his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant. When I am enabled to do so, I shall have the honour of communicating it. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient servant,
"W. Graham, Esq. R. S. CAREW."
Subsequently, Captain Graham received the following letter;—
"Castleborough, January 10, 1832.
"Sir—I have the honour to inform you, that the new Commission for the county of Wexford will be immediately issued, and with reference to my former letter, in which I mentioned that I had laid your letter before his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, I beg to say, that it is not deemed expedient that your name should be replaced in the new Commission. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient servant,
"Captain Graham." "R. S. CAREW."
This relieved the Lord Lieutenant of the county from all responsibility on this point. The matter, however, did not end there. Although Captain Graham had been once acquitted, his enemies were still
512
urging on the Government the necessity of putting him and his companions once more on trial for murder. Captain Graham naturally felt anxious on the subject, knowing the bitter hatred of those enemies, and the little support which he was likely to receive from the Government; and, therefore, his Solicitor by his direction, wrote to the Attorney General a month before the last Assizes, to know whether the Government intended to institute a prosecution against him? The answer of the Attorney General was, that it was not the intention of the Government to do so. Notwithstanding that answer, Captain Graham was again put upon his trial! So sudden was the determination of the Government on this point—so little regard did they show for the feelings of individuals—that, actually, they had not made up their own minds as to the course they should pursue on the morning the Assizes commenced; for the Judge observed, in his charge to the Grand Jury, that he was in a state of uncertainty as to the course which the Crown would pursue with respect to the events at Newtownbarry. A bill of indictment was, however, preferred against Captain Graham, and immediately ignored. He must now mention one circumstance, though not immediately connected with the case of Captain Graham, to show the inexplicable manner in which the Government acted, and the little regard they exhibited for the feelings and interests of the persons implicated in the affair of Newtownbarry. The individual, from the report of whose trial he had been quoting (Mr. Kilfoy, one of the police), was put upon his trial for manslaughter. Dr. Hyde, who was a material witness in his favour, was then in Scotland. It had been the invariable practice of Government, whenever any of its functionaries had been put upon their trial, under circumstances similar to those in which Kilfoy stood, to grant funds to defray the expenses of bringing witnesses from a distance. An application was made to the Government for funds to defray the expense of bringing Dr. Hyde from Scotland. Kilfoy's friends were told that the application would be laid before the Attorney General, and his opinion taken upon it. They continued to call day after day, but no answer was given to their application. Kilfoy's trial was fixed for the 2nd of March, and at length, on the 25th of February, his solicitor was informed, too late for the post, that, on his client lodging an affidavit that

513
the evidence of Dr. Hyde was absolutely necessary, the requisite funds for defraying the expense of that gentleman's journey would be provided. Was this proper conduct? Government was already in possession of an affidavit, stating that Dr. Hyde was a material witness; and yet no answer was given to Kilfoy's application until two or three days before the time fixed for the trial, when it was physically impossible that he could derive advantage from the proffered liberality of the Government. The life of this man might have been sacrificed, had it not been for the generosity of an individual, who gave 30 l. to defray the expenses of Dr. Hyde's journey. The Doctor arrived in time to give evidence, which was materially instrumental in obtaining the acquittal of the prisoner. He could not refrain from contrasting the conduct of Government towards Captain Graham with their conduct towards another Magistrate in the same neighbourhood, to whose case he had before adverted. An affidavit was forwarded to the Government, stating that this individual was in the habit of proceeding from chapel to chapel, urging the people to resist the payment of tithes. No notice, however, was taken of this representation of the Magistrates. He by no means asserted, that the information which was sworn to was correct—and he admitted that the gentleman in question felt much hurt at the charge which had been brought against him, and asserted, most solemnly, that it was false. For his argument, however, it mattered not whether the charge was true or false. What he complained of was, that the Magistrates were not informed by the Government whether the transactions reported by them had been investigated or not. All they knew was, that their representations were disregarded, whilst they saw, at this moment, the individual whom they accused, and whom they still believed to be guilty, supported by the Government, and made a Deputy Lord Lieutenant! On the other hand, they observed, that Captain Graham, who, to the best of his ability, exerted himself to preserve the peace of the country—was degraded, and struck out of the Commission of the Peace! He knew not whether the noble Duke, who, on a former evening, said that he had afforded a singular example of Irish justice, was now in his place—but, if he was, he would refer him to this transaction, as a specimen of what the Irish government considered to be even-handed
514
justice. Could the Government expect that gentlemen in Ireland would exert themselves to preserve the peace of the country, when they were liable to be treated as Captain Graham had been? Government could not expect to receive the cordial co-operation of the Magistracy; and without that, they would be obliged to overrun Ireland with military in order to maintain tranquillity. He had now brought the whole case before the House, and had stated sufficient he hoped, to induce the House to agree to the motion for papers to elucidate the case. He begged leave to move "that there be laid before the House a copy of Mr. Stanley's circular letter to the Magistrates of Ireland, dated December 30, 1830."
The Marquis of Anglesey: My Lords, in the absence of my noble and learned friend, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, I rise to give a full explanation of the Motion which led to the decision of not replacing Captain Graham in the Commission of the Peace for the several counties where he has hitherto acted. I do this the more readily, because I entirely identify myself with my noble and learned friend in this case. I fully concur with him in the view he has taken of it, and am even quite ready to take the whole responsibility upon myself. I shall very much confine myself to that particular case, because I really am unequal to follow the noble Earl, who has made the Motion now before you, through all the variety of topics upon which he has descanted—of some of which I have no knowledge whatever—of others, but an imperfect recollection; and, as they are foreign to the case immediately in question, I think I may dispense with noticing them in detail. I will merely observe, that, if in the course of what I have to say, I should omit any material point which might require explanation, I would intreat the noble Lord to interrupt, and to put any question he may think fit; or, if he should be inclined to lay any stress upon the points on which I may not touch, if he will give me notice of it, I will take care to come prepared to meet him in explanation. I proceed now to the case before us:—Your Lordships are all aware that it is entirely in the province of the Chancellor to appoint Magistrates. So much inconvenience had been felt by former Chancellors, and more particularly by the late Chancellor Hart, who felt that he had made many improvident appointments, that in 1828 I determined upon recommending

515
to his Majesty's Government, of which the noble and gallant Duke opposite was then at the head, to put the administration of county affairs in Ireland upon the same footing as those of England and Wales. I recommended that Lords Lieutenants of counties should be appointed. The measure was approved, but it was not acted upon. After my dismissal, upon my return to resume the Government of Ireland, in 1830, it was one of my first Acts to recommend its adoption. His Majesty's present servants entirely concurred in this view, and, by bringing in a Bill, they immediately effected the object. Upon the appointment of the Lieutenants of counties, a circular letter was addressed to them by the Chief. Secretary, pointing out the required qualifications, explaining that certain specified offices would render those holding them ineligible; and particularly stating, that, although there might be persons then upon the Bench, whom, if this were an original appointment, it might not be desirable to place there, still, that being already there, if there was no very material objection to them as to character, they should bere-appointed. Now, my Lords, there is a great difference between erasing a name from the list, and merely declining to re-appoint the person, when, by the demise of the Crown, his Commission would cease. Captain Graham stood precisely in the predicament to be dealt with upon this rule. Captain Graham was not dismissed. He was merely not re-appointed. I mention this to show that there was not the least disposition to deal harshly by Captain Graham—but I do not wish to lay any stress upon it. I rest my vindication of the conduct of the Chancellor upon much firmer ground. My Lords, I assert that the Magistrates, of whom Captain Graham was one, in calling out the yeomanry, acted illegally. They had not the power to do so. The Lord Lieutenant of the county had not that power—even the Chief Governor is not authorised to call out the yeomanry except in cases of invasion, or of actual and well defined insurrection. The Magistrates have the full power to call upon the Members of these corps, separately and individually, to turn out and to support the civil authorities. They have even the power to compel them to act as special constables, and to fine and imprison them if they disobey; but they have not any authority to call them out as an armed organised body. I say, then, that, in doing this, they acted
516
illegally; and that they acted most indiscreetly, it will be equally easy to show. My Lords, in considering this, your Lordships must bear in mind the actual state of the country. Owing to the indiscretion of that part of the people called Orangemen, and amongst whom there is a vast number of the yeomanry, this force has become particularly obnoxious. They had attended large meetings called together by a class of the highest order in the country, and who had lately assumed the title of Conservators. There the yeomen had frequently appeared in party colours, some in uniform, some armed, some even carrying the King's arms—here they had heard the most inflammatory harangues, they were brought to believe that the Catholics were to assume the ascendancy, that the Government was unfriendly to the Protestants, and no pains were omitted to inflame them against the Government, and against their fellow subjects. Is it to be wondered at, then, my Lords, that these people, thus goaded to mischief, should frequently have effected it? My Lords, it rarely happened that these pernicious meetings did not terminate in some collision. Now, my Lords, let me not be misunderstood or misinterpreted in regard to what I have said, or think, of this body of the people. My Lords, I consider the yeomanry of Ireland to be brave, honest, independent, and loyal. I have no hesitation in saying, that, if I were in the unfortunate predicament to have to repel invasion and foreign aggression, I should feel proud and happy to place myself at their head—and I should feel the utmost confidence in leading them—but I must, at the same time, say (and I wish that all I have said were heard by them as well as your Lordships), I do think them the very last description of force that ought to be employed in cases of domestic disturbance. It ever did, and it will never fail, to lead to mischievous results. Let me also say, my Lords, that, although I cannot but highly deplore and condemn the conduct of those of the highest influence in the country, who are perpetually inflaming the minds of the Protestants, and encouraging, or rather forcing, them to believe that the Government is not favourable to their interests (than which a fouler calumny cannot be put forth), let me, I say, observe, that, in deploring the line of conduct they have pursued, I do not deny that they have met with great provocation. My Lords, there exists in Dublin a Society(indeed Societies)

517
whose ramifications extend to every county, and whose sole object is, to vilify and calumniate every party in the State that does not partake of their revolutionary principles. These have assuredly been the first aggressors; but does even their misconduct justify the violence of the other party in vilifying and misrepresenting his Majesty's Government, and using every exertion to weaken it? My Lords, the Government of Ireland is taxed with condescending to rule upon the principles of conciliation—most assuredly that is the principle upon which it has been my ambition to act, but most lamentable has been my failure, for I find every act of the Government systematically misrepresented and calumniated. Each party, or rather the extremes of each party, being bitter and unforgiving, because each discovers that there is not the slightest chance of its being permitted to assume the ascendancy and to dictate to the Government. This is the miserable state of the public mind in Ireland. Is it, then, under such a state of things, that the yeomanry ought to have been called out? In addition to all that I have already said, I must add, that the county of Wexford was only at that moment recovering from the agitation and excitement of two county elections, where party spirit had run unusually high. I say, then, my Lords, that the calling upon the yeomanry was an act of the greatest indiscretion. It was illegal. It was indiscreet, and I will show that it was unnecessary. The noble Earl has stated, that there was no troops within thirty miles, therefore he conceives Captain Graham acted judiciously in calling out the yeomanry. Now, my Lords, the fact is not so. Regular troops were within reach. There was ample time to draw them to Newtownbarry. There was a small garrison at Wexford, only twenty-one miles distant. There was also troops at Carlow, distant fourteen miles; and I believe that there was also a small detachment still nearer. Be that as it may, there was ample time to move even from the most distant station, and I will answer for it, that, had these troops been employed, not a drop of blood would have been spilt. I will now come to the conduct of Captain Graham during the affray. Upon this there is a most conflicting and contradictory evidence; many witnesses swore positively that they heard the word "fire" given by that officer; others swore as positively that he did not give that order. Now, here I must remark, without, how-
518
ever, meaning to bear hard upon Captain Graham, that the evidence of the former witnesses is positive; they say they heard the word, whilst the others can only prove that they did not hear—not that the word was not given, for it might have been given when they were out of hearing; others, one I am sure, and I believe two, swore that the Captain did not give the word "fire," but that, in order to prevent them, he said "fie, fie." Now, my Lords, if this be the case, is it not lamentable that the lives of men should be contingent on the accurate distinction between the words "fire," and "fie?" Most assuredly that officer could not, in the whole vocabulary, have fixed upon a word of more equivocal sound than of "fie," when it was used to prevent the effect which the word "fire" would have produced. Upon this subject I find it difficult to come to a satisfactory result; I rather lean to the opinion, that Captain Graham did not give the word "fire," and, certainly, he did exert himself to prevent the continuance of the firing. The consequence of this lamentable affair was truly distressing! No one who was not in the county, or who did not receive accurate and daily intelligence, can form a notion of the agitation, the irritability, and the frightful excitement, it occasioned. Many of the yeomanry absconded—some, I am assured, left the country; of those who remained, and from whom bail was taken to answer the charges against them at the next Assizes, it became necessary to escort them to their residences under a guard, in order that they might not fall a prey to the fury of the people, or come again into collision with them. It was also necessary to place safe-guards in some of the houses. The friends of Captain Graham prevailed upon him to quit the country; he judiciously and humanely consented to do so. I say humanely, because the character of that gentleman as an officer stands too high to imagine he would do so from personal consideration, and I am quite certain that he took this step from motives of humanity, and to avoid any increased irritation by his presence. Here, my Lords, I feel that I may close this case. I imagine that your Lordships will concur with me in thinking that the employment of the yeomanry was—even if not illegal—at least indiscreet, and that it was unnecessary; and that, under these circumstances, coupled, too, with the fact, that Captain Graham was not possessed of any landed property in Wexford, a sound discretion

519
has been exercised in not naming him on the Commission. The noble Marquis then alluded in pointed terms to an attack made on him in his absence by the noble Marquis (the Marquis of Westmeath). What could be the noble Marquis's motive? He could not fear to answer me as a debater. He knew that I had no practice—no experience—and that in the way of argument I was incapable of taking any advantage. The noble Marquis must have felt, that upon that score he had the superiority. What, then, could have actuated him? My Lords, the noble Marquis did not like to encounter the plain facts, which he knew I should, at all events, be able to bring forward, and which he must have been conscious would have blown his Address (for I maintain that it is his Address, and not the Address of the Magistrates of Westmeath, his writing is legible in every line of it), his speech and arguments to the winds. With respect to the motives of the noble Earl for bringing forward the Motion now before us, and at this particular time, I should more easily have accounted, if he had not been a practised and a finished speaker. Although the noble Earl may not himself, have suffered under the desperate inflictions of my noble and learned friend, yet, as he must have occasionally witnessed the painful writhings of some of his noble friends, under my noble and learned friend's powerful lash, I might have been tempted to believe that the noble Earl would feel some relief from knowing that the moment he was speaking there was a wide channel, and 300 miles of land between him and the person he was calling to account. No such motive, however, could actuate the noble Earl, and, therefore, I am wholly at a loss to account for his conduct. My Lords, if I was not afraid of trespassing too severely upon your Lordships' patience I would gladly be permitted, if the rule of the House do not preclude me from doing so, to make some observations upon the papers now lying upon your Lordships' Table upon the motion of the noble Marquis, the Lieutenant of Westmeath. I allude to the address of that noble Lord and the Magistrates of that county. To save your Lordships' time as much as possible, I will, without circumlocution, proceed to make a few remarks upon the most prominent paragraphs of that address. The first I would notice runs thus:—' We beg leave to represent that the state of the laws do not afford that sort of dis-
520
couragement to that crime, that would amount to an adequate protection for those who would rally to them, if they saw they dare assist in bringing the offenders to justice.' Now I should be glad to ask what sort of further discouragement than that which the law gives, the noble Marquis would propose? Fine—imprisonment—transportation—Death. These are the discouragements which the law already affords, and I should wish to learn what can be added to these? My ingenuity presents nothing beyond these but torture, and I hardly imagine that, in this enlightened age, this could be seriously thought of. The next paragraph to which I would refer is as follows:—'We humbly beg leave to observe to your Excellency that a leading feature of this system is, that it involves the forfeiture of human life as the penalty for any breach committed against its various impositions, although the presumed offences are undefined, and vary from one moment to another; indeed solely arising out of the caprices of savage men, broke loose from restraint, in a country, the laws of which command the respect of all other parts of the United Kingdom subject to them.' It would seem by this sentence that the actual law does command the respect of all other parts of the United Kingdom. How comes it, then, that there only it fails? Is it shown that any extraordinary exertion has been made by the authorities to meet the licentiousness of the turbulent? Have there been meetings of the gentry to combine, and unite, and organise a system to resist outrage? Has there been any previous representation to the Government? Has application been made to proclaim the county, or at least the most disturbed Baronies? Has an additional constabulary force been applied for? Is there a single instance in which a military force has been required, that it has not been sent? Have the tenantry been encouraged to support their landlords in any vigorous exertions to support the law? Have special constables been sworn in? Has the noble Marquis himself set a laudable example? Has he collected his servants, his tenants, his dependants—all those over whom he must have influence? Has he asked them to turn out and protect his neighbourhood from outrage? And if he has not, must he not upon reflection acknowledge that such a course would be more likely to effect tranquillity, than writing, within a

521
a well barricaded house, angry letters to violent and ungrateful agitators, and denouncing the population of a whole country? My Lords, I know, and I say it confidently, there is a vast number of the people who if properly called on and encouraged, would willingly combine with the gentry in the suppression of crime. I will simply relate one striking occurrence in exemplification of this. At the late Assizes of the Queen's County, held at Maryborough, several persons were upon trial for Whiteboy offences. A witness of the name of Dunne was under examination. A Magistrate, known to be of very high party feeling, and not a very constant resident, asked him, in a somewhat imperious tone—"And pray, Sir, do the farmers in your neighbourhood look on at these proceedings, and take no pains to check them?" The farmer replied in a sturdy tone—"No, Sir, they do not; but if you and those who call themselves gentlemen, and the Magistrates (instead of skulking out of the country when the danger comes on), were to help the farmers as they ought, these disturbances would have been put down long ago." The farmer was a Catholic. "We come next (says the address) to the case of Thomas Grotley, a man of notoriously desperate character, who was taken in his progress from the county of Meath, to which he belonged, through a part of the country with a carriage and money in his possession, for the purpose of swearing in and organizing the people, with seditious papers and in their nature treasonable, found upon him, one of them exulting in the confusion of Britain, as the triumph of the system he was organizing. This miscreant was enlarged from the prison he never ought to have left, upon the avowed opinion of the Attorney General, that although the papers were found upon him no tangible case could be made out to convict him as the law now stands." This is a very plain story: a bad character was travelling through the county, papers were found upon him he was taken up and sent to jail. The noble Lord pronounces that these papers were treasonable and of a seditious nature, and that he had been enlarged from a prison he ought never to have left. This is the noble Lord's opinion: that of the Attorney General is different. He says, that, upon these papers no tangible case could be made out, and he was accordingly enlarged. I think the House will go along with me in thinking,
522
that upon a point of law, the Attorney General was the better judge. We then meet with this passage:—"Upon these facts thus selected, and upon the mass of crime which, if enumerated here, would swell a folio, we mainly rest our assertion." Why, my Lords, here is a folio filled already, and closely filled with assertions which cannot be proved. It goes on to say—"The laws at present are utterly powerless to check the progress of a system so destructive to society, or to reach the known abettors of its blood-thirsty organization; a state of things to which open rebellion would be preferable as that might be dealt with by a corresponding power adequate to the evil." To this conclusion, my Lords, I cannot come. I totally dissent from it. Open rebellion would evidently entail a frightful loss of life. The present state of the country is, I admit, extremely deplorable—but, inasmuch as I feel certain that it may by union and proper exertions be tranquillized, I greatly prefer it to the other alternative. The Address goes on to say—"We have assembled to prepare a respectful Address to your Excellency, and petitions to Parliament, but we cannot, in the utmost stretch of respect, acknowledge to your Excellency or the Legislature that system to be sound which subjects the peaceable and industrious members of the community to the ravages of the depraved; or that, although one offence, in a given mass of enormity, may meet a tardy retribution, still leaves exposed all that is valuable in a trading and agricultural country to the tyranny of savage caprice." Here, my Lords, is a direct libel upon the whole system of law and jurisprudence of the United Kingdom, applicable, not merely to the present moment, or to any particular spot, but to every place; and to meet the views of the noble Marquis, it would be absolutely necessary for your Lordships to go into a revision and alteration of all those laws under which the empire has been enjoying more freedom, more happiness, and more prosperity, than any other portion of the known world; and to prove these calumniated laws are not asleep, but in actual operation, I beg leave to lay upon the Table, a catalogue of punishments which have been the results of the last Spring Assizes, and which it is truly painful to contemplate. The Address concludes with this remarkable paragraph; "With great respect, we conceive it to be nothing less than an absurdity to leave the

523
enjoyment of the privileges of free Government unsuspended among a peasantry who know not its value, or are so far corrupted as not to appreciate its advantages." Upon the whole, my Lords, this Address deals only in general abuse of the existing laws and institutions, without specifying defects, or suggesting a single remedy, and it concludes with a sweeping anathema against a whole population, denouncing it as utterly unworthy of enjoying the privileges of a free Government. I need not trouble your Lordships with my answer to it. It is on your Lordships' Table. I will merely say, that upon the fullest reflection, I cannot retract one word of its sentiments. I utterly deny that there is anything offensive in a single sentence, and I do assure your Lordships that it was written in a spirit of the most perfect good feeling towards the Magistrates of Westmeath.
The Marquis of Westmeathsaid, that, as allusion had been made to him, he felt it necessary to repeat what he had distinctly declared on a former evening—namely, that he was actuated by no feeling of hostility to the noble Marquis in the Motion which he had then brought forward. As to the address which had been referred to, he had no hesitation in avowing that he had written it, but it had been approved of generally by the Magistracy of Westmeath. He could assure their Lordships that he had no intention of taking advantage of the absence of the noble Marquis the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when he brought forward his Motion, and, if he had thought that such an idea could have been entertained, he should not have brought the subject forward. But he had brought it before their Lordships as an act of the Irish Government of which he disapproved. He considered such acts to be fair and open subjects of discussion, and that, in the present state of the country, consideration for individuals ought to give way to the interests of the public. He was quite ready to avow that, whenever a military force was demanded, the noble Marquis was most willing to give it; but he felt some regard for the King's troops, and he did not wish to see them harassed by encounters with a population who made a mockery of them, and could disperse like flies whenever occasion required. The Magistrates only asked for protection for life and property. It was said that they ought to stay at home and do their duty. For his own part, he wished to God he was
524
at home now; but he was here—and could not be in two places at once. He must say that the Irish Government, in not taking vigorous means for the restoration of tranquillity and the protection of property, was in his opinion very much to blame.
The Earl of Rodensaid, that after hearing the several statements made by the noble Earl who brought the matter before the House, and the noble Marquis's reply thereto, he must maintain that the charges which the noble Earl had brought against Government for their conduct respecting Captain Graham had been fully substantiated, and he could not help thinking that that individual had been the object of great and unmerited persecution and hardship. The noble Marquis (Anglesey) said that the reason which induced the Government of Ireland to omit the name of Captain Graham from the commission of the peace for the counties of Wexford Carlow, and Meath, was his having called out the Yeomanry without being sufficiently authorised to do so. The noble Marquis said, there was no intention on the part of Government to act with harshness towards that gentleman, but he (the Earl of Roden) could not conceive any more harsh act than putting a gentleman on his trial twice for the same offence, and causing him an expense of upwards of 400 l., for the vindication of his character. The result, indeed, was highly honourable to Captain Graham. It was fully proved that he was a most honourable and upright man. As to its being illegal to call out the Yeomanry, he would beg to refer their Lordships to a letter addressed by Mr. Stanley to a gentleman of the name of Moore, residing in the same county in which Captain Graham lived, in which he alluded to the disturbed state in which the country then was, and recommended the Magistrates generally to act with resolution, and if necessary (in the event of a decided manifestation of resistance to the laws) to call for the assistance of the Yeomanry corps. Yet because he had done this very act was the chief reason assigned for the dismissal of Captain Graham, he, therefore, left the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and the Secretary for Ireland, to reconcile that difference. Further the noble Marquis said, that Captain Graham had acted indiscreetly; but there again he was contradicted by the Judge who tried the cause; and he, (the Earl of Roden) also trusted many of their Lordships fully agreed with

525
the learned Judge. It was then said in extenuation of the dismissal that Captain Graham had little or no property in the county of Wexford, and consequently ought not to be on its commission. This he had no hesitation in stating openly was a mere quibble and pretext for injustice. Did such a circumstance exclude other individuals from being retained on the commission? There was Mr. Challoner, the agent of the estates of the Earl Fitzwilliam in the county of Wicklow, who, although possessed of little property in that county, was invested with the duties of a Magistrate. He really could not but regret that such idle and absurd excuses should be tendered in explanation of an act of injustice. It might be fairly asked, if the allegations of the Irish Government were unfounded, to what was the dismissal attributable? He would tell their Lordships; Captain Graham was dismissed in obedience to the directions of demagogues, a class unfortunately too prevalent in Ireland, and to whose influence still more unfortunately the Government of that country seemed inclined on all occasions to bow. These demagogues were individually pledged to the destruction of Protestantism in Ireland, and naturally every man who had the hardihood to offer his support to that religion became the object of their hate and persecution. One of that class was Captain Graham. He was known in Ireland to be an individual who made it his object and endeavour to support the Church whose religion he professed, against the open and daring attacks which were being made against it; and by his honest and open avowal of his principles he became obnoxious to the feelings of all those whom he had just described as pledged to the annihilation of the Protestant religion in Ireland. The neglect and want of countenance which the Government of Ireland had shown to the Protestant gentry of that country was productive of the worst consequences. Those individuals had for some time past looked upon themselves as badly treated: and he could assure the House that the manner in which Captain Graham had suffered had not contributed to improve that feeling. There was not a Protestant who did not regard the dismissal of that individual as demonstrative of what might be expected from a resistance to the efforts of insidious agitators, having for their object the expatriation of the Protestant gentry. Indeed since the present Government had entered upon
526
their office they had been guilty of a total disregard, nay, more than that, of a studied and avowed scheme to destroy Protestant influence, if not the Protestant Church, in Ireland. And what was the motive which influenced Government in this respect? Why, the weak and vain desire of conciliating mob demagogues. In the first place Government had introduced a measure relating to education. They withdrew the grant from that society which afforded the children of the Protestant poor the sole means of being brought up in the full knowledge of the Scriptures, and bestowed the grant thus withdrawn upon a Board which put into the hands of the people the Bible in a mutilated form, and which separated a moral from a religious course of education. Then again in the Reform Bill, what was the avowed object of one of its clauses? If their Lordships would look into that Bill they would see the little care that was taken of the Protestant portion of the constituency. In the English Bill, as their Lordships might be aware, the existing rights of freemen, under certain restrictions, were vested in their children, but in the Irish Bill no such provision was made. Now, when speaking of that clause on the occasion of the introduction of the Bill, what was the language used by the right hon. Secretary for Ireland? After stating that it was determined by Ministers that the rights of freemen should cease on their demise, Mr. Stanley said, that this determination was occasioned by the circumstance that in Ireland the freemen of corporations were for the most part Protestants, whence if their rights were to be continued to their children a set of Protestant constituents would be formed and perpetuated; a state of things which he openly avowed it was far from the wish of Ministers should take place. He begged to ask their Lordships if such a statement was not enough to induce an apprehension in the minds of the Protestant gentry that their religion was in danger of being sacrificed to the wishes and dictates of the demagogue portion of the Irish people? In addition to this there were many other acts of the present Government in which the Protestants of Ireland felt themselves much aggrieved. They perceived that in several instances persons were chosen for public situations in consequence of the dictation of a certain knot of demagogues, who held their periodical parliaments in Dublin, and who of late were in the habit of issuing their

527
orders in council, as it were, directing who were and who were not to be appointed to official situations. Noble Lords on the opposite side of the House might dissent from his statement, but he still would maintain it; and, what was of more importance, could prove it. In one instance an individual was named as Deputy Lieutenant for the county of Sligo, although possessed of little property, and less influence, in that county, merely because he was brought into notice, having been nominated as a fit and proper person about a week before the date of his appointment by Mr. O'Connell, at one of his demagogue and mob-agitating assemblies. Such was the state in which Ireland then was—a state into which she had been reduced by the weak, irresolute, and temporising system pursued by its Government—a system which, unless it was not only restrained but destroyed, would soon render its Government a mere farce. He spoke warmly on the subject but he assured their Lordships he but spoke as he felt. The speech of the noble Marquis seemed to imply, that there was no part of Ireland in a disturbed state except the county of Kilkenny, but if the noble Marquis had that belief, he was very ill served by his new allies in the county of Kildare; such was the state of society, that it was described by a noble friend of his (the Marquis of Ormond), to be worse than in a state of open warfare, that it would be better for a man to know his enemies and to meet them face to face than to be waylaid as at present in the roads and defiles, without the least power of defence. Look again to the state of Queen's County. At a meeting held the other day by the Magistracy, resolutions were passed stating that the laws were openly violated, that crime, intimidation, and outrage were increasing, that the civil power was unable to cope with the difficulties, and that more energetic measures were required to put an end to such terrible disorders; and it was agreed that a petition founded on these facts should be presented to Parliament. He would not go through the melancholy detail of crime by which these facts were fully borne out, but he would say that, if the present system falsely called conciliation was persevered in, these enormities which were at present confined to particular districts, would spread throughout the land. The noble Marquis had said, that the people of Ireland were divided into great parties, and that Government could obtain the support of neither of the extremes of
528
those parties; but so far as the one party the Protestants were concerned he believed there was no extremes, that they were united almost as one man in opposing the miserable policy of expediency. It was urged that they had united themselves in societies. They were united, and he thought they ought to be united. Government had in a measure withdrawn its countenance from them, and unless they formed a union among themselves for the security of their property, lives, and interests, their existence in Ireland would be precarious. They had likewise united with a determination of upholding their religion, and he was satisfied that to that union while life remained they would stand fast. Before he concluded, he desired to allude to one other topic in the noble Marquis's speech. The noble Marquis said, that if the Magistrates of Ireland did not timidly skulk out of the country there would be little or no disturbance. He begged to repel the imputation which the noble Marquis seemed desirous of fixing on the Magistrates. They were no skulkers. Nothing could be further from their intentions than to skulk out of the country. The Magistrates of Ireland were as brave and intrepid a set of men as ever existed in any country. If they, in some instances, did not act with the resolution with which they were in the habit of acting, it arose from no fear of personal consequences, but from a conviction that they could not rely on the support of Government in any measure they might deem necessary to adopt according to their own judgment.
The Marquis of Angleseybegged to remind the noble Earl that he had not charged the Magistrates with "skulking from danger;" quite the contrary: he had merely repeated those words as part of the evidence of a farmer, to show that the class of persons of whom the witness was one were not unwilling to assist the Magistrates, if called upon. The number of persons brought to punishment for crime at the last Spring Assizes was sufficient to show that the Magistrates were not remiss in their duty. The calendar of the convictions at the Assizes which had lately terminated, he regretted to say, was exceedingly frightful, but it was right the House should be put in possession of it:—38 persons were sentenced to be transported for life; 342 for seven years: 106 had sentence of death recorded against them; 64 had been left for execution; and 19 were actually executed.
The Marquis of Clanricardesaid, that he was decidedly of opinion, that the Government of Ireland had acted perfectly right in pursuing the course they had adopted in the case of Captain Graham. After the representations which were made to them respecting the feeling of the people of Ireland in regard to that individual's conduct, it would have been most impolitic to have retained him in the Commission of the peace. He did not mean, for his own part, to cast the slightest imputation on Captain Graham's character; indeed, from the representations which had been made to him, he believed him to be a highly honourable man; but still he was of opinion that if his conduct was such as to give general dissatisfaction, which he understood was the case, he ought not to be retained upon the Commission. He thought it should be also considered that the Catholic population of Wexford—and the population of that county was principally Catholic—entertained very strong feelings as to Captain Graham's conduct; consequently, if not on grounds of justice, which he was far from admitting, on the grounds of prudence alone his dismissal was proper. It was said, that the Government of Ireland ought to maintain the law, and that they ought not for trifling faults to act with severity against Magistrates. True, but how did that argument hold in the case of Captain Graham? What was the trifling act in which his name, justly or unjustly it was not then for him to say, had been implicated? Twenty-two individuals were known to have been shot by the Yeomanry under his command. Was this a trifling act, or one which the Government of the country would be justified in passing over? Unquestionably not. Indeed he was convinced such would have been the hatred of the people of Ireland to the laws of that country had not Captain Graham been dismissed, that in a short time both it and the Government of the country would have become a dead letter, totally disregarded and laughed at. Considerable stress was laid on the rejection of the bills against Captain Graham by the Grand Jury, and the language addressed by the Judge of Assize on that occasion. As to the address of Baron Foster, he thought it ought not to be regarded with too much consideration, for it was absolutely impossible that a man who had lived all his life in the midst of a party could divest himself of his private feelings, particularly when the decision of the Grand
530
Jury gave him a pretext for indulging in them. The noble Earl who had last spoken had been particularly vehement against the sufferance of assemblies composed of demagogues, as he termed them, whose sole object he stated to be the destruction of the Protestant Church and the Repeal of the Union. Did then the noble Earl think that the Orange party in Ireland, by their conduct and bearing towards their brethren, would further the maintenance of the Union? If the noble Earl cherished such an opinion it was not one in which he participated. On the contrary, it appeared to him that the line of policy pursued by the Orange party was inimical to the maintenance of that Union which they professed to advocate. To such an extent did he carry this opinion, that if called upon to make a comparison between the Irish demagogues and Irish Orange conservatives, he should give the preference to the former. The principles of the Orange party were in fact most unjustifiable and unprincipled, and calculated beyond any thing else to lead to the separation of the two countries. As a sample of the spirit in which persons belonging to those Associations conducted themselves, he need only refer to an address delivered lately at a great conservative meeting by a Mr. Archdale, a clergyman too, he believed. The Christian spirit of this address might be judged of when he informed the House that the speaker exhorted his hearers "to put their trust in God and keep their powder dry." That was a proper speech indeed for a Protestant clergyman, though it had not the merit of originality. If the present state of the law was not sufficient, he begged to know what the noble Marquis (Westmeath) and others wished for? Was it for martial law? If this was their desire let it be openly stated. He resided a good deal in Ireland, and for his own part, he knew of no instance in which the law had been put in force and in which it was not efficient; and he believed that what was wanted was, the vigorous exertion of the law, in all cases and towards all persons.
The Earl of Winchilseafelt himself bound to stand up in defence of a Magistrate who, he considered, had been harshly treated for the conscientious performance of a public duty. The noble Marquis (the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland), with that frankness and generosity which generally characterised him, had taken the blame of this transaction on himself, but he (the Earl of

531
Winchilsea) thought it ought more properly to fall on the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who had advised the proceeding now complained of. Captain Graham be it remembered, did not act on the occasion referred to by himself—he acted with two other Magistrates; and, though it had been repeatedly alleged that Captain Graham had acted indiscreetly, after reading over the evidence, he could not bring his mind to that conclusion. If any blame rested on Captain Graham, however, it rested equally on the other two Magistrates who acted with him. Whilst on this subject he was most anxious to ascertain whether the law really was as laid down by the noble Marquis (Anglesey); was it a fact that a Yeomanry corps could not legally be called out by the Magistrates unless in a case of invasion, or "well-defined insurrection?" those he believed, were the words of the noble Marquis. He was the more anxious on this point, as it happened only a few weeks ago that the Magistrates of the county with which he was connected called for the assistance of the Kentish Yeomanry for the protection of property. Now he wished to know if that was illegal? Had not Captain Graham and his brother Magistrates called out the Yeomanry, he believed that the lives of many more persons would have been lost; and how the Government could feel itself justified in censuring Captain Graham, by omitting his name from the Commission, he knew not, as that gentleman had been tried twice for the same offence, and not only honourably acquitted, but complimented by the Judge who presided for the discretion, humanity, and kindness with which he acted. The Orange Association of Ireland having been alluded to in terms of such severe censures by the noble Marquis (Clanricarde), he (Lord Winchilsea) felt bound to state that he had enrolled his name in that loyal Association; and he trusted the Protestants of England would follow the example set them in the sister country. Their objects were, to support the Protestant religion—to uphold the laws of the country—to maintain the just succession to the Crown, and to defend the true religious establishments of the empire. Such an association was a species of institution entitled to the respect and support of every sound-hearted Protestant. He would conclude by declaring his intention to support the motion, and he hoped the noble Earl would follow it up by an address to his Majesty to reinstate Captain Graham.
Lord Templemoreobserved, that the Lord Lieutenant of Wexford was adverse to the omission of the name of Captain Graham from the list of Magistrates, simply because he feared that such a proceeding might seem to prejudge the case which was about to be tried at the Assizes. Captain Graham had but a few fields in the neighbourhood. He believed they were situated in Carlow, not in Wexford, and it was not necessary to place him in the Commission of the Peace for that county, when a great number of resident gentlemen might be found to undertake the office.
The Earl of Eldonobserved, that he did not know whether the law of Ireland differed from that of England with respect to the calling out of the Yeomanry. But, at all events, were he in the Commission of the Peace in England he should not hesitate for one moment to call out either the Yeomanry or any other class of the King's subjects, to maintain the peace or preserve the property of the lieges. Every man in this realm, who was likely to be despoiled of his effects, had a right to call upon every other man to assist him in defending them.
Lord Cloncurrywished to call the attention of their Lordships to the law on this subject, which, with respect to Ireland, was explicit and direct. It pointed out distinctly when the Yeomanry might be called out. The Act of 4 Geo. 4th, cap. 15, said, "that in all cases of invasion, or insurrection, or apprehension of insurrection, in Ireland, it would be lawful for his Majesty's Justices of the Peace to call out the Yeomanry." Did that provision, he would ask, apply to the present case? He would assert, that there was no country the people of which were more disposed to respect the laws than Ireland, if they saw those laws administered with justice and impartiality. No matter with what severity they were administered, the people were disposed to respect them if they saw them administered equally to all classes. Though he was unwilling to trespass longer on the attention of their Lordships, he could not forbear to state what had been omitted by the noble Earl who opened this discussion, and the noble Marquis who followed him; he meant the circumstances out of which this fatal affair had arisen. The fact was, that it arose out of a dispute as to whether or not the tithes claimed were due. It appeared by the evidence on the Coroner's inquest, published by the House of Commons, that the tithe was not

533
strictly due. The people who lost their lives by the imprudence of Captain Graham, said, they would leave the question in dispute to two country gentlemen, the sons of clergymen. Mr. M'Clintock was ready to leave it to two lawyers. The clergyman was willing, also, to accept the Composition Act, if the people would make him an advance to pay his tithe-proctor. They did pay him in advance, and afterwards the clergyman wanted them to continue to pay in advance. This only part of them agreed to. The point in dispute was, whether what they had paid in advance should be set down to their credit or not. Then came a Magistrate, who issued his orders as a Magistrate to himself as a Yeoman, and he went forth as a tithe-proctor, driver, and Yeoman, to execute the orders he gave as a Magistrate. He admitted that the laws were not respected in Ireland, but the reason was, that the gentry were guilty of breaches of the law. They were the first to break them. It was the duty of Magistrates to call out the yeomanry and military in certain cases, but the Magistrates ought never to leave them to themselves. Much of the evil of Ireland arose from the destitution and want of employment of the people; only find them employment, and double the population, and the people of Ireland would be a blessing to the empire. But certainly there could be no peace in that country while a Magistrate could go out and shoot people for something like amusement. The people were naturally irritated at the whole proceeding, and it was found that in other parts of the country the affair of Newtownbarry had made a most unfavourable impression. Captain Graham ought, in his opinion, to have been removed the instant the act was committed which had given rise to the debate.
The Earl of Eldonmust beg leave to repeat that it was a mistake to suppose that the Yeomanry might not be called out to preserve the peace and protect property, as well as any other class of subjects. He had himself had occasion to call for their aid some time ago, not as yeomen, indeed, but as fellow-subjects, for the protection of property; and, if they had refused to come, they would have subjected themselves to an indictment. As to the dismissal of a man from the commission of the peace, he must say, for his own part, that he had never done so, during the time he had the honour to hold the Great Seal, without strict inquiry as to his conduct, and into
534
all the circumstances of the case alleged against him. He did not know that it was done so in this instance.
Viscount Melbournethought it was very natural that his noble friend (the Marquis of Anglesey) should have made a few observations on his own conduct, which had led to a general debate on the state of Ireland, which he did not mean to go into. Without noticing, therefore, the extraneous topics which had been introduced in the course of this discussion, he begged leave shortly to advert to the Motion really before the House. In the first place, he wished to call their Lordships' attention to the extreme inconvenience of the Motion itself, and of the extremely inconvenient precedent which would be established if such a Motion should be acceded to. The appointment, the re-nomination, or the dismissal of a Magistrate in Ireland, were prerogatives of the Crown, exercised by the Lord Chancellor—and certainly ought not to be interfered with by any vote of that House. He trusted, therefore, that their Lordships would consider seriously before they countenanced any Motion of such a nature as that then before them. The Lord Chancellor might not always be able to state the reasons why he had removed a Magistrate from the Commission; and, if their Lordships consented to such motions as this, it would lead to most inconvenient interference with the prerogative of the Crown. The noble Earl who brought forward the Motion, commenced his statement by reading certain letters which had been issued by a Member of the Government, exhorting the Irish Magistracy to an active, zealous, and energetic discharge of their duty. He supposed that the noble Earl read those letters in order to lead the House to conclude that the Government was not prepared to support those whom they had thus exhorted, if any unfortunate results should ensue. But he was sure their Lordships would remember that, in the same letters, the Irish Magistracy—at the same time that they were exhorted to act with vigour—were also exhorted to act with prudence, discretion, and temper. With respect to this particular case, Captain Graham had been wanting in all these qualities. In the first place, he called out the Yeomanry, being all Protestants, to act against a population of Catholics. Next, they were called out by the person who commanded them, and on a question of a doubtful and difficult nature—a question of Tithes. He might and ought to have

535
called out the military. He was imprudent also in ordering the sale on a fair-day. These were sufficient reasons for nut reinserting his name in the Commission of the Peace when it was renewed, which was very different from taking his name out of the Commission while the Commission was yet existing. As to the opinions of the Judge, quoted by the noble Earl (Wicklow), he thought they were of no authority, except on a point of law; and, in his political opinion, he did not concur with the Judge. At the same time the Judge had only stated, if the witnesses for the defendant spoke true, that the conduct of Captain Graham was praiseworthy. The other cases quoted by the noble Earl (Wicklow) did not bear on the point; because the noble Earl had not stated what were the circumstances of these other cases; and, unless these circumstances were stated, no correct opinion could be formed. He admitted that the description given of the affray at Newtownbarry, by the noble Earl, was correct; but he must say, that the whole of the evil at Newtownbarry was caused by the Yeomanry. The firing was begun by the Yeomanry, and continued much longer than it ought to have been, and would have been, if they had been military. He was apprehensive that there must be some mistake in the assertion that Captain Graham was informed, on an application to the Attorney General, that no further proceedings should be taken against him. The Attorney General could not have made such a statement, because he could not tell what additional evidence might be brought to light. A second prosecution might be the result of such evidence, and proved no particular asperity on the part of the prosecutor. With respect to the Motion, some of the papers moved for were already published; the Report made by Mr. Green was intended solely for the Lord Lieutenant, and he hoped that the noble Earl would not press for that document.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, he found it necessary to make a few observations on the various statements which had issued from the opposite side of the House. The noble Marquis, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, had insinuated that this case had been postponed till the period when the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, was absent. When his noble friend (the Marquis of Westmeath) brought forward the Motion some time since—to which reference had already been
536
made—the noble and learned Lord accused the noble Marquis of doing so, because the noble Marquis, the Lord Lieutenant, was absent in Ireland; and now he was accused of having introduced his Motion because the noble and learned Lord was absent. He was well aware of the great talents and sarcastic powers of that noble and learned Lord, yet he should have had no objection to meet him upon the present question; and certainly his absence had made no difference in his plans. The noble Marquis stated, as a reason for the dismissal of Captain Graham, that he had been guilty of an illegal act in calling out the Yeomanry. That law, as laid down by the noble Marquis, was directly contrary, not only to the usually received impressions on the subject, but to the circular letter of Mr. Stanley. For his part, he would not hesitate to say, that, having previously seen a precisely similar case in which the conduct pursued met with the approbation of the Government, he should have thought it his duty, under similar circumstances, to have acted exactly as Captain Graham did. The noble Marquis also cast some aspersions upon the Yeomanry concerned on that occasion, and stated that some of them had fled the country. He was not surprised that such should be the case; and the statement of the noble Marquis made it imperative on him to declare some further facts. Very shortly after that transaction, one of the Yeomanry engaged, who had received a shot in his knee which was with difficulty extracted, had his house burned to the ground. A letter was written by Lord Farnham to the Lord Lieutenant, mentioning this gross outrage, and requesting that a proclamation should be issued for the discovery of the perpetrators. He obtained an answer, in which the Lord Lieutenant stated that that should be done. No proclamation had, however, been issued up to that day. In the course of the debate it had again been intimated, that Captain Graham had given the orders to fire; but any noble Lord, who would take the trouble to read the evidence, must be convinced that could not be the fact—for, when the firing commenced, Captain Graham was not with the Yeomanry, but was heading a column of police. Again, the letter from the Lord Lieutenant, expressing disapprobation of the conduct of the Magistrates, was not addressed to Captain Graham, but to Mr. Brereton; from which it appeared, his Excellency thought both Magistrates in fault, although one of them only was

537
selected for punishment. Such a distinction made the case appear more invidious. After what had been stated by the noble Viscount (Melbourne), he would not press his Motion to a division.
Motion negatived.