Sitting of 23 July 1832

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time;—Russia-Dutch Loan; Assessed Taxes Composition; Charitable Institution (Ireland); Ecclesiastical Courts Contempt; Prisoners Removal (Ireland).—Read a third time:—Soldiers Families.
Petitions presented. By Mr. STANLEY, from Edinburgh, Dumfries, Cupar, Manchester, Dublin and other Places; and by Mr. EWART, from two Dissenting Congregations at Liverpool,—in favour of the Ministerial Plan of Education (Ireland).—By Mr. MAURCE O'CONNELL, from Cong, Youghall and six other Places, for the Abolition of Tithes.—By Mr. HUNT, from certain Artizans and Others, assembled on Kennington Common, for the Abolition of Military Flogging.

MR. STEPHEN AND GENERAL DARLING.
Mr. Maurice O'Connellpresented a petition from Mr. John Stephen, the younger, hate of New South Wales, complaining of his dismissal from office without just cause, by General Darling, and praying for inquiry. The petition set forth at length the circumstances under which Mr. Stephen's house had been searched upon suspicion of harbouring an escaped convict the petitioner's most positive denial of the justice of the charge, and the dismissal of Mr. Stephen from the office he held in the colony—thus unjustly declaring him guilty without a legal trial, or even a legal accusation.
Lord Howicksaid, that the petitioner had neither been declared guilty nor innocent of any act whatever. He had been dismissed as unfit longer to serve the Crown in that colony with advantage to the public. Every one must be aware that it was of the utmost importance, that no prisoner in the colony should be aided to escape from the punishment adjudged by the law. If hon. Members were aware how numerous and how ingenious were the arts employed to effect the escape of prisoners, or to enable them to evade the sentences that had been pronounced against them, there would be no complaint of the watchfulness of the Government on that point.

639
It was not, however, necessary, that an offence in law should be substantiated against an officer. Any deficiency of zeal in the discharge of his duty amply justified the Government in calling an officer of the Government to account. Now, it appeared, that there were, at least, circumstances of suspicion attached to Mr. Stephen as to there being in his house a woman who had been previously convicted and sentenced to punishment; and yet, when Mr. Stephen was called on to answer the charge which was made against him, he refused to do so, and the Governor was therefore obliged to suspend him from his office. Instead of protesting against his suspension, and bringing the matter to a legal decision at New South Wales in the regular way, Mr. Stephen quitted the colony, and came to England, when Sir George Murray was obliged to tell him, that he must go back and have the case investigated by the Council in the regular manner.
Mr. Henry Lytton Bulwerobserved, that the question now was not whether Mr. Stephen had or had not been guilty of favouring the escape of a prisoner, but whether he had been proceeded against in a proper and legal manner. He thought there could be no doubt, that the justice of the case demanded a further inquiry.
Mr. Humesaid, that Mr. Stephen had been the Registrar of the Port, and a Magistrate of the Colony, and part of what he had done might be shown to have been done in his public capacity, and upon full information. With a view to ascertain the character of Mr. Stephen, he had made inquiry of several gentlemen, and obtained certificates as to Mr. Stephen's public and private character, as to both of which there appeared to be the most perfect satisfaction. Under these circumstances, he put it to Lord Althorp, whether, if the Governor was to send police-officers to search the house of such a man, it was not an insult of a very unjustifiable kind? The Senior Judge, the Junior Judge, the Assistant Judge, and the Attorney General, had all signed a certificate, stating themselves to be satisfied with Mr. Stephen's conduct; and when he tendered his resignation as Registrar, they requested him to continue to hold his office. He did hope that a full inquiry would take place into this matter, and that justice would be done to the Petitioner.
Mr. Dixondiffered from the opinion which the noble Lord seemed to entertain of this case, and was surprised at some of
640
the doctrines he had laid down. Mr. Stephen's House was broken open in the dead of the night by a police-officer; and that was alone a strong ground for complaint against the Government. His office, too, had been abolished; so that it was an insult to tell him to go back; for, if he went back, it would be to find himself without employment. He (Mr. Dixon) believed, that the office had been abolished as a punishment for Mr. Stephen.
Mr. Huntagreed with other hon. Members, that this was a case of great oppression, and he thought a most rigid inquiry ought to be made into the conduct of the Governor.
Sir Charles Forbesalso supported the petition, and said he must express his disapprobation of so many military governors being appointed to the Colonies.
Petition to be printed.

FOUR-PER-CENTS REDUCED.
On the Motion of Lord Althorp, for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of Supply,
Mr. Goulburnsaid, he was anxious to put a question to the noble Lord, before the House went into Committee, relative to certain transactions which had taken place on account of parties not having complied with the option tendered them in relation to the reduction of the four per cents. It appeared, according to a financial account, that there was charged upon the Consolidated Fund a certain sum of money for persons holding four per cent annuities, who had not accepted the three and a half in lieu, when the four per cents were reduced. It appeared, that interest had been paid on a sum little short of 200,000 l., by which a considerable sum had been lost to the public. Now, according to the Act of Parliament passed in the Session of 1830, parties in England holding four per cent annuities were allowed to July of that year, and, parties living abroad, to October, to make their election whether they would accept of the new fund created, or have their principal paid off. He understood that persons had received interest for their money in the four per cents subsequently to the periods specified in the Act; and he was anxious to know by what authority a distinct provision of the Act had been disregarded? Upon what ground was it, that the noble Lord and his colleagues acted in this matter?
Lord Althorp, in reply, stated, that the parties to whom the item in the accounts referred, were, at the time of the altera-

641
tion, resident in the East Indies, and, in consequence, were not in a situation to make their option until the 5th of April, 1831, long after the time appointed by the Act. As soon as they possibly could, they had had an application made at the Bank, for their money, having decided not to receive the commuted rate of interest, but were informed, that the Treasury was the quarter by which alone their application could be entertained. They, in consequence, memorialised the Treasury, and the case was referred to the law officers of the Crown, as the Commissioners doubted whether they were empowered to depart from the letter of the Act authorizing the commutation. The opinion of the law officers of the Crown was, that the parties had a claim to be paid at the rate of four per cent up to the period that they received their money; and they so reported. The Commissioners of the Treasury, however, still felt disinclined to make the payment, as it was at variance with the letter of the law, and the law officers were requested to reconsider their decision. They did so, and, upon consultation, convinced him (Lord Althorp) that their former opinion was correct, and, consequently that the parties were in justice entitled to be paid their money, at the rate of four per cent, up to the period of the payment. Such were the circumstances of the case to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and he trusted they would be found satisfactory to the House. It might be truly urged that the money had been lying in the Bank of England, for a certain period, for the redemption of the non-commuted annuities. That was true, and the parties, provided they had been cognizant of the fact, would not have had a claim to the rate of four per cent on their money; but, from the distance at which they were placed, it was out of the question that they could have been apprised of the alteration which the Legislature had instituted; and, therefore, although, by the letter of the law, no payment at the full rate of interest, after July, 1830, could be demanded, he maintained it would be an act of great hardship to bind those parties to an engagement, of which it was wholly impossible they could be apprised. It would be quite as just, in the case of a mortgage, if the mortgager paid into the hands of a banker the amount, without the knowledge of the mortgagee, to say that the latter party was debarred from recovering interest, from the period when the money was so paid in, although
642
it was done without his knowledge or privacy.
Mr. Goulburnwould content himself with observing that, in his opinion, the law officers of the Crown had acted upon an erroneous view of the case, the effect of which would be, that the public would have to pay the interest on the annuities twice over. Several similar applications had been made to him while in office, all of which he had refused.
The Attorney Generalsaid, that he and his learned friends had given the subject every degree of consideration previous to giving the Treasury the advice upon which it had eventually acted.
Sir Robert Peelmaintained, that no payment by Treasury orders, in opposition to the letter of a law, ought to be made, without the intervention of Parliament. Nothing could be more dangerous as a precedent; and he was sorry to find his Majesty's present Administration attempting to establish it in two cases. In the present instance, it was to be recollected that there were no negotiations on foot, and, therefore, it was the more dangerous. He begged to ask, if the noble Lord would have any objection to lay upon the Table the Treasury minute under which the payments were made?
Lord Althorpwished to have a little time for consideration before he gave an answer to the right hon. Baronet, relative to the production of the Treasury minute.
Mr. Humehoped, that the opinion of the law officers, together with the case submitted, would be produced.
Mr. Robinsonconcurred in the view taken by Government, and said it was impossible for them to have acted otherwise.
The Attorney Generalconceived, that the conduct which Government had pursued was strictly in conformity to the law.
On the question "that the Speaker do leave the chair,"

GREEK LOAN.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, that the answer given by the noble Lord with respect to the Greek Loan on a former occasion might be very satisfactory as between Whig and Tory, but it was by no means satisfactory to the public, who were anxious to get rid of these foreign connections and liabilities.
Lord Althorpdid not think it desirable to go into the subject, but after what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman, he must say a few words. The hon. Gentleman must be aware, that some years ago, there was a strong feeling throughout the country in

643
favour of the Greeks, and the most urgent remonstrances were made, to induce the Government to interfere, to secure the liberty of that people. At that time, negotiations were entered into, for the purpose of settling the government of Greece. He was then one of a small minority who thought that the Government of this country should have nothing to do with the question. Negotiations were, however, entered into, jointly with France and Russia, for the purpose of settling the affairs of Greece. It was then found that a loan was necessary, and it was determined that the allied Powers should be the guarantees for its repayment. The Government of the Duke of Wellington, therefore, thought themselves called upon to give a guarantee on the subject. In addition to this, that Government also found it necessary to make an advance, out of the Army Extraordinaries, to be repaid from the loan. Such was the situation in which Ministers found matters on entering into office. It was utterly impossible that the affairs of Greece could be settled, without guaranteeing the loan. They might have withdrawn from any further proceedings in the matter, but no one would contend that such a line of conduct would have redounded to the credit of the country. The three Powers had, therefore, become guarantees for this loan, and he saw nothing which led him to expect that the present arrangement would not be carried into effect, in a satisfactory manner, or that England would ever be called upon to contribute a single shilling on account of the loan.
Sir Robert Peeldeprecated all discussion at that time. He would only express a hope that this Government had not guaranteed more than a third of the loan.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the guarantee extended only to one-third.
Mr. Humewished to know if any papers were to be laid before the House, to show that the people of Greece had been consulted on the government which they were to have, for, if not, he feared that what was termed the settlement of that country would prove to be any thing rather than a settlement.

SUPPLY—NATIONAL GALLERY.
House went into a Committee of Supply.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that for the first vote for which he had to move, the Committee had been prepared by the previous discussions upon the subject. He intended
644
to move for a grant of 15,000 l. as the first instalment towards the expense of building a National Gallery. This vote had not been originally included in the annual estimates; but so great a desire had been expressed on all sides, that such a vote should be submitted, that Ministers, after certain preliminary inquiries, had directed the estimate should be made of the expense of the building, The Commission of Inquiry had recommended that it should be erected partly of brick, and partly of stone; but, when it was found that the building it entirely of stone would add only 3,000 l. to the expense, it was determined to erect it entirely of that material. He conceived that such a structure ought to be expressive of the progress which architecture had made in this country, and it ought to correspond with the general encouragement that had been given to the arts. The Government would receive in exchange the rooms at present occupied by the Royal Academy in Somerset-place, and they could be most advantageously converted into public offices. The 50,000 l. for which Government meant, on the whole, to ask, would likewise include the expense of a place of deposit for the public records, and the whole sum would be spread over a period of three years, which was the shortest term in which it could be built with propriety, The present vote was for 15,000 l.
Sir Robert Peelfelt the greatest satisfaction in declaring that the vote in every respect met with his most cordial approbation. It had been prepared, most properly by his Majesty's Ministers, in deference to the unanimous sense which had been expressed by the House when the subject had been discussed. After his Majesty's Ministers had ascertained what were the strong and general sentiments upon the subject of encouraging the fine arts, in this country, they had taken the course best adapted to accomplish that most desirable object. He was happy to say, that they had entirely divested the question of all party feeling, and had consulted every class of persons most likely to promote the object in view. He conceived, that it would be very false and pernicious economy that prevented such a building being ornamental, and, of the whole sum demanded, 10,000 l. might be considered as spent for the security of the public records. It was impossible to reflect upon how the public records had been treated, without admitting the necessity of providing for their security; and no detached building could be erected for that purpose for anything like the sum

645
of 10,000 l. With reference to the Royal Academy, the value of the rooms which they would give up to the public upon receiving this accommodation would be at least 30,000 l., or 2,000 l. a-year; and the public would also gain very much in obtaining these rooms, as they would contribute greatly to the convenience of the Government business. When all these points were considered, together with the saving for the rooms which now contained his Majesty's pictures, he could not but say that in providing a National Gallery for 50,000 l. Ministers had made an arrangement most favourable and advantageous to the public. When he considered how great and important was the object of having a place in which to exhibit the works of the ancient masters, and the productions of modern artists, he could not but feel that both the Parliament and his Majesty's Ministers did themselves honour by voting this sum. In the present times of political excitement, the exacerbation of angry and unsocial feelings might be much softened by the effects which the fine arts had ever produced upon the minds of men. Of all expenditure, that like the present, was the most adequate to confer advantage on those classes which had but little leisure to enjoy the most refined species of pleasure. The rich might have their own pictures, but those who had to obtain their bread by their labour, could not hope for such an enjoyment. With respect to the situation of the building, it was as well selected as possible, close to Charing Cross, where, as Dr. Johnson said, "the great tide of human existence is fullest in its stream;" and, consequently, where all classes of the community would be equally accommodated. He therefore, trusted that the erection of the edifice would not only contribute to the cultivation of the arts, but also to the cementing of those bonds of union between the richer and the poorer orders of the State, which no man was more anxious to see joined in mutual intercourse and good understanding than he was.
Mr. Ridley Colbornesupported the vote most cordially. As soon as the building was complete, he was convinced that valuable works of art would be contributed to it from all quarters, and which had hitherto been withheld merely because there had not been any place to put them in, appropriated by the country. He wished once more to advert to the subject of the celebrated obelisk, called Cleopatra's Needle. He understood that there might be some
646
difficulty in bringing it over to this country; but Ali Pacha had offered for the same sum of money an obelisk equally beautiful, which was now at Grand Cairo. He wished to know what were the intentions of Ministers upon the subject?
Lord Althorpsaid, that he had been, at first, unwilling to incur the expense of erecting a new building for the purposes of the present grant. But the sense of the House had been so strongly expressed upon the subject, that he thought the Ministers would not have done their duty if they did not apply for the grant. In reply to the question of the hon. Member, he had to say, that the obelisk referred to was in such a state of decay, that it would not be worth the expense of removing it to England; nor did he think that, if a suitable place for its erection could be found, it would be any great ornament to the metropolis.
Mr. Humeconcurred in what had been said by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) respecting the propriety of the grant; but he thought that all the public records of this country ought to be brought together in one place, and that a separate building should be appropriated to their preservation. He would suggest, that accommodation should be provided for the Royal Society, as well as for the Royal Academy, in the same building with the new National Gallery. By such an arrangement, the Government would be enabled to remove to Somerset House those public offices which were at present held elsewhere; and he was sure that the value of the rooms, at present occupied by the societies, would, when applied to public purposes, go near to cover the expense of the new building. He trusted that, in providing accommodation at the public expense for the Royal Academy, the Government would take care that the bye-laws of that institution should undergo such a revision as would render the Academy really useful to the advancement of the fine arts in England, He had heard complaints from several artists, that, in many respects, the institution was managed more with a view to promote individual interests than for public purposes. Before he sat down, he would express a hope that the estimates would undergo a careful examination before the building was commenced, and that no deviation from the contract would be allowed.
Colonel Sibthorphoped, that he should hear no more of such nonsense, as the paying of 10,000 l. for Cleopatra's Needle. He hoped that the new building and the public records

647
would be accessible to the public, without such extortion of fees, as people were subjected to in visiting Westminster Abbey, or St. Paul's, or any other public building in this metropolis.
Sir Robert Inglis, in expressing his approbation of the grant, took occasion to complain of the disgraceful state in which Westminster Hall was suffered to remain. He contended that there were no just grounds of complaint against the members of the Royal Academy. He did not think that the present grant would be found sufficient for the completion of the projected building.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that great care had been taken to make the estimate rather beyond than within what it was anticipated would be required. The sum of 50,000 l. comprised every charge of any consequence. The hon. member for Middlesex might rest assured, that his Majesty's Government would not proceed one step in the undertaking until every possible care had been taken to ascertain that every charge was included.
Mr. Warburtonhoped that the site for the National Gallery would be so chosen as to leave ample room for pictures which might be contributed to the Gallery by the nobility and others, because it must be well known, that repeated donations, and those of a most munificent description, had already been made. He understood that the area near the proposed site was occupied by barracks; but he hoped that, if, at a future time, it should be requisite to enlarge the room for pictures, the barracks would be made to give way to the wants of a National Gallery. As to making a separate building with a view to the safe keeping of records, he would only state that the charter by which a title to a large portion of North America was established, had been recently found, by accident, in some dark corner of the present office.
Mr. Robert A. Dundashoped, that in theerection of a National Gallery, care would be taken to provide room for the exhibition of statues; as at present there were great difficulties in the way of youthful sculptors, from the want of some place where they might have ready access to the best works of art, as well as from the want of a place, where they might exhibit their own productions. In reference to the Royal Academy at Somerset House, he must say, that he saw no reason why their bye-laws should not be laid before the House, for he had known instances in
648
which persons possessing the greatest ability had not been able to obtain the rank of Royal Academician.
Sir Matthew White Ridleyobserved, that statues required to be so placed, that the shadows should fall upon them in a particular way, so that a difficulty would always exist on this head. In reference to the Royal Academy, he was aware that a strong feeling existed against that institution, from an idea that the Academicians did not act fairly; but he was quite sure that, looking to their proceedings, every one must allow that vacancies were filled up, in all cases, by men of superior and acknowledged talent. Having had conversations with many artists, he would say that those who had the task assigned them of receiving pictures, or hanging them, had to fill an office to which much odium attached. Again, for want of room, the Academy were obliged annually to return many hundred pictures sent for exhibition.
Mr. George Bankescondemned the idea of removing Cleopatra's Needle, and other ancient relics. He would, for instance, much rather that the temple of Sesostris remained in its present situation.
Mr. Huntsaid, he was so devoid of taste that he had much rather the French had the job of removing those specimens of ancient architecture.
The Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—COLONIAL ESTIMATES.
The next Question being put, that a sum of 4,973 l. 4s. be granted to defray the expenses of the Civil Establishment in the Bahama Islands,
Mr. Robinsonobjected to the sum of 2,635 l. being given as salary, &c., to the Governor.
Lord Howickdefended the grant. It was not too much for the responsible situation of the Governor, and to enable him to keep up that dignity and hospitality which were required of him.
Mr. Humeobjected to this vote, on the principle that our colonial establishments ought, as much as possible, to be made to defray their own expenses. With respect to the Governor of the Bahamas, who received a salary of 2,635 l., he thought that it would be a much better course to leave the colonists to find a Governor for themselves; the result of which would be, that they would, for their own sakes, appoint a respectable person; and he would answer for it, that they would find some one who would be willing diligently to discharge

649
the duties of the office, for a smaller remuneration than that now conferred on the present Governor of the Bahamas.
Mr. Goulburnwas of opinion, that the salary was hardly adequate, considering the expenses and inconveniences that were attached to the office.
Mr. Huntmoved, as an Amendment, that the salary he reduced from 2,635 l. to 2,000 l.
Sir Charles Wetherell: Does the hon. member for Middlesex think that his objection to-night is either fair or candid, after his speech on the Russian Dutch loan? Can he imagine, after that display, that his miserable, wretched cavils about economy, can be heard without utter scorn and contempt? Those who heard the manner in which he then argued and voted, that black was white, for the purpose of keeping Ministers in office, when the sum in question was 3,000,000 l., must hear with ineffable contempt his dirty squabbling on the question whether a man, who exposes his life for the service of his country, is to lose a few hundreds a-year of his income? I say that it is clear that this vote is not one penny more than it ought to be; and I trust, that the hon. member for Middlesex will in future abstain from insulting the House with his penny-farthing economy, and from daring to indulge in his contemptuous attempt to persuade us to adopt so paltry and miserable a policy.
Mr. Hume: If anything like what has just fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman had fallen from any other person, I certainly should have been surprised at it; but I am so accustomed to hear from him language which no other Member would use, that all surprise has long ago ceased. I will, however, take the liberty of telling him this—that before he finds fault, he should learn to speak the truth; for the vote to which he has alluded had nothing to do with economy whatever, the Motion having been made entirely from party feeling, to serve party purposes. The fact, however, is, that the hon. and learned Gentleman, and his friends, feel that their scheme has completely failed; and they are so sore under it, that now they are smarting, they are ready to take this or any other mode of lightening their sufferings. I beg to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman, that I shall dare to state to the House whatever I may think proper and right, and in so doing, I shall not be guided by his opinion as to whether I am insulting Parliament. If any one has insulted the House of Commons, it is the hon. and
650
learned Gentleman himself; nay, further, if any one has made himself absurd, inconsistent, and ridiculous in this House, it is the hon. and learned Gentleman; and as to treating the House in a contemptuous manner, I hope no one feels that any thing of that sort has ever proceeded from me. With respect to this being a miserable reduction, I do not believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman knows anything about it; he has come in in the middle of the discussion, and talked on a subject concerning which he knows nothing. My observations went to the colonies in general; and my argument was, that it was a bad example to be paying the officers high salaries, while the colonists themselves were suffering from distress. I, therefore, say, that the hon. and learned Gentleman's observations were unworthy of the House of Commons, and that he is continually attempting to state what is not the fact. In the debate on the Russian-Dutch loan, what I stated was, that I had frequently voted against my conviction in the progress of the Reform Bill, for the sake of carrying the whole of that measure; my aim was not to throw obstacles in the way; for God knows, there was enough of them from the other quarter. I further stated, that it appeared to me that the hon. and learned Gentleman and his friends, were calling on the House for its vote, under the plea of economy, and under the threat of an appeal to the hustings, though the real object was to place the Ministers in a minority, and so to force them to resign; and in proof of ray assertion, I called on the hon. member for Thetford, and the right hon. member for Tamworth to state whether, if they were in office to-morrow, they would refuse the money to Russia? That appeal was not answered: and I think that alone is quite sufficient to set aside all questions of economy. The manner in which the hon. and learned Gentleman continually brings up this topic only shows how he is smarting under his defeat; and, to speak honestly, I am very glad of it.
Mr. Goulburnadmitted the propriety of the last part of the hon. Member's remarks as to his right of expressing his sentiments, but concurred with his hon. and learned friend in censuring the inconsistent conduct of the hon. member for Middlesex upon a recent occasion. He deprecated any attempt to reduce the remuneration to persons serving as Governors in the colonies, who must make great sacrifices.
Sir Charles Wetherellcould assure the

651
House, that, in the annals of the House of Commons, nothing ever fell from any hon. Member which occasioned more disgust than the conduct of the hon. Gentleman. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, he observed, cheered the member for Middlesex when he rose, but that cheer was quite out of place. He did not expect to hear the member for Middlesex cheered by the Gentlemen opposite for the vote he gave upon the subject of the Dutch Loan. The hon. Member said, he would vote black white, and white black. There was a time in the history of that House when such expressions would be taken down at the Table. The hon. Member said, he never voted in favour of economy or any other useful object. Now he begged to remind him, that he (Sir Charles Wetherell) opposed the establishment of the New Bankruptcy Court, which the hon. Member supported, and which would entail a useless expense of some thousands of pounds on the country.
Mr. Huntsaid, he had more reason to complain than the hon. member for Middlesex, for it was to him the hon. and learned Gentleman alluded, when he used the words miserable, dirty, paltry, farthing economy. To minds constituted in a certain way it might be worth some thousands to be able to tyrannize as a Colonial Governor sometimes did. Six hundred a year was not so very paltry a sum.
Mr. Spring Riceappealed to the other votes, and especially to the next, as a proof that his Majesty's Government had shown every wish to make all practicable reductions.
Mr. Burgedefended the vote, and was prepared to maintain that the civil establishment of the colony could not be maintained at a less expense.
Amendment withdrawn and Vote agreed to.
On the question that 800 l. be granted for the Civil Establishments of Nova Scotia,
Mr. Robinsonwas very happy to receive this vote as evidence of the disposition on the part of his Majesty's Government to diminish the expenditure of that colony.
Lord Howickobserved, that at one time the expense of that colony amounted to 6,000 l., that it was now reduced to 800 l., and next year it would be nothing.
Vote agreed to.
5,624 l. was moved for the Civil Establishment of Bermuda.
Mr. Robinsonobjected to the payment of such a sum as 1,500 l. to the Colonial Secretary in Bermuda.
Lord Howicksaid, it was not a greater sum than had been paid to other Colonial Secretaries, and the duties of the Secretary in that colony were much enhanced by the circumstance of its being a convict colony. It was also to be recollected that the Secretary in that colony, on a small scale performed most of the functions exercised upon a larger scale in this country by the Secretary of State, and that much important correspondence devolved upon him.
Mr. Dixonagreed with the noble Lord, that the Secretary had important duties to perform, and would support the Motion.
Mr. Burge also supported the Motion.
Vote agreed to.
4,025 l. for Prince Edward's Island was voted.
On the Motion that 16,576 l. be granted for the Civil Establishment at Newfoundland,
Mr. Humehoped the Government would relieve the country from this charge before many months passed over.
Lord Howicksaid, that all practical reductions would be made, but that he feared they could scarcely be accomplished to the extent which the hon. member for Middlesex, on that, and on former occasions seemed to desire. There were scarcely any expenses connected with that establishment, which did not materially contribute to the general prosperity of the island—for example, the Admiralty Court there was an establishment of much importance.
Mr. Robinsonwould answer for it, that the colonists of Newfoundland would speedily be in a condition to defray the expenses of their own establishments; but as to the Admiralty Court, there could be no doubt that it was unnecessary, and there ought to be no new appointment when the judicial seat in that court became vacant; and for this reason, that all the decisions made there were afterwards reviewed by the Supreme Court. In his opinion the Admiralty Court was wholly unnecessary.
Vote agreed to.
The next Vote was, that 43,043 l. be granted for the Civil Establishments on the Western Coast of Africa.
Mr. Humereminded the Government that a Committee had recommended that these Establishments should be withdrawn. And he expressed his surprise, that such a large sum was yet demanded for them.
Lord Howickbelieved the hon. member for Middlesex was mistaken as to the recommendation of the Committee. If he understood rightly, the recommendation

653
was, to transfer the establishment at Sierra Leone to Fernando Po. The Spanish government, however, had refused to surrender its rights to Fernando Po, and he believed the suggestion of the Committee on that subject could not be acted upon. With respect to the establishment at Sierra Leone, a great improvement had taken place in the condition of the liberated Africans, and he feared that the progress of civilization would be considerably impeded, if our establishments in that colony were suddenly withdrawn.
Mr. Humedoubted whether any great improvement had taken place in the colony. Indeed the evidence of the two Judges who had returned from it, and who had given their evidence very fairly, satisfied him that no great improvement was to be expected in the colony of Sierra Leone.
Lord Howicksaid, one reason for retaining Sierra Leone was, that the Mixed Commission for deciding in cases of the capture of slave-ships, could not sit at Fernando Po, as it was not British territory. By the last accounts received in May from Sierra Leone, it appeared that it was greatly improved, and that the blacks settled there were greatly advancing in habits of industry, the adjacent country for a distance of twenty miles being cultivated to the very tops of the hills. It would not be good policy to relinquish these advantages for a small saving of money.
Sir George Murrayobserved, that the establishments on the western coast of Africa had arisen out of the desire which existed in this county to put down the slave-trade. Sierra Leone was the situation first adopted. But the principal scene for the operations of the slave-ships being in the Bight of Benin, great mortality occurred on board those ships, when captured, in the voyage between the Bight of Benin and Sierra Leone. It was, therefore, deemed advisable to remove the settlement to Fernando Po. This change was recommended before he came into office. His own opinion was, that by pursuing this course they created two evils instead of one. If France acted up to her own treaties, like this country, more would be done for putting down the slave-trade than had ever been effected, and there would be no necessity for retaining Fernando Po, a station which he looked upon to be quite as unhealthy as Sierra Leone. If they removed the slave trade from the Bight of Benin, they might give up Fernando Po, but he should be sorry to hear that Sierra Leone was to be given
654
up, if it were only on the ground stated by the noble Lord (Howick), that giving it up now would check the progress of civilisation. The spread of civilisation was the only effectual mode of abolishing slavery. Lamenting deeply as he did the mortality at Sierra Leone, and the expense which it occasioned, he should, at the same time, be averse to giving up that colony. He had before suggested that an improvement might be effected by altering it from a British colony into a native state, under the protection of Great Britain; and he had had an opportunity, while he held office, of appointing two persons of African blood to situations there. He thought that that principle might be followed up with advantage.
Mr. Dixonobjected to the establishment at Sierra Leone as a sacrifice of the lives of Europeans. If we were to keep up either station, we ought to keep Fernando Po as more healthy than Sierra Leone.
Lord Sandonthought, after so much expense and trouble had been taken, it would be proper to pause before they gave up the establishments on the coast of Africa.
Vote agreed to.
The next vote was for 27,438 l. to defray the charge of the Ecclesiastical Establishment in the North American Colonies, &c.
Mr. Humeknew that the North American Colonists did not wish to have one farthing of this grant. It was not for the support of religion, but for the exclusive support of a fraction of the people. It was like a vote for the Roman Catholics in England, under a pretence of providing for religion. It was extremely mischievous to continue this grant. He would not oppose this vote if the grant were to be wholly reduced in four years. It was a waste of money to vote it for a sect. The Government had undertaken to reduce the grant, and if he did not understand that something of that kind were to be done, he should oppose the vote.
Lord Howicksaid, that as the clergymen died off, or were otherwise provided for, their places were not to be filled up.
Mr. Humeasked, if Bishops and all were to go?
Lord Howicksaid, Bishops and all; and the salaries were to be withdrawn from the Ministers of the Established Church. It was resolved that the North American Colonies should pay their own clergymen.
Sir Robert Ingliswas surprised that the grant should be so small. He thought

655
adequate funds ought to be provided, for affording the fullest means of religious instruction to the people intrusted to their care. He protested against the language of the hon. member for Middlesex, in calling the followers of the established religion a sect. If the hon. Member would consult any legal authority in that House or out of it, he would find, that in every colony of England the Church of England was the Established Church. That principle was recognized by Mr. Locke, in the constitution which he drew up for South Carolina. He thought that adequate means should be provided for the purpose of affording religious instruction to the people in our colonies. The hon. Baronet concluded by repeating, that wherever the flag of England waved, the Church of England was there the Church established by law, and that he made not that statement on his own authority alone, but upon the high authority of Mr. Locke.
Mr. Dixonsaid that, as a Scotchman, he could not sit still and hear it declared, that wherever the flag of England was flying, the doctrines of the Church of England were the established religion of the land. He did not care who asserted the contrary; whether the authority was ancient or modern, he denied it; and to support his principle, he should move the reduction of the grant, even though that reduction only amounted to a sixpence. He should do it merely to assert a principle. The true way to alienate the feelings of Canada, as well as of Ireland, was to make the people of those countries pay for religious establishments to which they did not belong, and he was, therefore, glad that his Majesty's Ministers had adopted the course they were pursuing in this instance.
Lord Howicksaid, with respect to the hon. Baronet's observation as to the smallness of the grant, he was happy to say, that Canada was almost able to maintain her own Church Establishment: and he did not see why this country should be called upon to maintain a Church Establishment in Canada, any more than it was called upon to defray the expense of maintaining a police establishment in that colony.
Mr. Labouchereexpressed his satisfaction at the course pursued by the Government, and at the state of the colony which permitted them to pursue it; and he wished to remind the hon. Baronet opposite that, by the faith of the most solemn treaties, the Roman Catholic religion was the established religion of a great part of Canada.
Mr. Huntwas pleased to hear what the Government had done, and only wished they had gone further in reducing the amount of the grant.
Mr. Sheilreminded the hon. Baronet that in one part of Canada the Roman Catholic religion was the established religion, not only by the faith of treaties, but by the provisions of an Act of Parliament, the 14th Geo. 3rd, by which the Catholic inhabitant was obliged to pay tithes to his church, which was the Established Church, while the Protestant paid no tithes, for the Established Church was not his church. There was certainly some difference in this respect between Canada and a place a little nearer home; and perhaps the Catholics ought to call the system followed in Canada, with respect to the Protestants, a robbery of the Catholic Church.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that this country was bound to keep up the Established Church in the colony in the same state as heretofore. He, therefore, objected to the reduced amount of the grant.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that so far from Parliament having been hitherto cognizant of this grant, the greater portion of it had been generally supplied from a quarter which it would puzzle the most ingenious Gentleman in the House to conjecture—namely, from the sums voted for the army extraordinaries. It could not be said, then, that the principle on which this grant was made had annually come under the cognizance of Parliament. This colony was fully able to support its own religious establishments, and, under such circumstances, the best course obviously to pursue was, to throw them on the colony for their support.
Sir George Murraysaid, it had not yet been proved that Canada could afford to pay for the Church Establishment; and he considered it was the duty of that House to contribute to its support. This country was bound to maintain the establishment of religion in the colonies, and to provide for them instruction in the truths of Christianity. He was no bigot in religion, and he must confess, that he had always regretted the allotment of lands for the exclusive support of the Protestant Church. He wished that the clergymen of every Church should be adequately provided for, and that with a view to the support of the Protestant Church. The Catholic Clergymen were already provided for, as well as the Protestant, and so it should go on for the support of the Ministers of every large sect. Emigration had extended to a great extent;

657
he considered it advisable to encourage it, and, to make it useful, religious instruction should be provided for by every class of emigrants.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, he was as much opposed as any man to the setting up an exclusive system of religion in our colonies; but the question here was, was the present grant to be withdrawn from the Canadas, no matter from what source the money was obtained? He thought it should not be suddenly withdrawn, and the more so as it was calculated to support the Protestant Church in our colonies. The change now proposed was too hasty, and, therefore, he would oppose it.
Mr. Dixonwas convinced that one of the greatest mischiefs in our colonies was the want of spiritual instruction for all the different sects who resided there. The people of Canada could now support their Church Establishment, and, therefore, we ought not to pay for it.
Mr. Huntsaid, that the people of England ought not to be forced to pay large salaries for either Protestant or Catholic Bishops in the Canadas.
Sir George Murraybore his testimony to the high character of the Bishop of Quebec, than whom a more able or zealous clergyman did not exist.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—MINISTERIAL PLAN OF EDUCATION (IRELAND).
Mr. Spring Ricemoved that a sum of 37,500 l. be granted in aid of the funds to be appropriated to the new system of education in Ireland.
Mr. James E. Gordon, after eulogising the conduct pursued by those who hitherto had the direction of Irish education, contended that no plan could succeed which did not take the Scriptures as its basis. They might succeed in making the people more intellectual, but, without the Scriptures, they could not make them more moral. They might give the Irish such an extent of information as would enable them to pen Rock notices or Terry Alt letters, but they could not make them useful, moral, and respectable members of the community. Another objection which he had to the proposition was, that Government were introducing this new system of education, not where there was no system of education before (in which case it would have been meritorious), but where there was already a system of education which had flourished to an extent unprecedented in the history of any country. But it had been said, that the Protestant schools were obnoxious to the
658
great majority of the people of Ireland. That was not the case. To the Catholic priesthood they were certainly obnoxious; but he had yet to learn why Parliament was to consult the wishes or succumb to the will of the Catholic priesthood of any country. It was bad policy to interfere with these schools. Adverting to the application which had been made to the Board of Commissioners in Dublin for the new schools, he observed that twenty-nine of those applications were stated to be from persons professing to be Protestant clergymen of the Establishment. The moment that he read this statement, he knew it to be unfounded; and, accordingly, he ascertained on investigation, that of the twenty-nine, fourteen were indisputably Arians, Socinians, and other dissenters, wholly unconnected with the Church Establishment, and that there was every reason to believe, that of the remaining fifteen, not half were Protestant clergymen of the Establishment. It thus appeared, that of the 1,400 Protestant clergymen of the Established Church in Ireland, to the appeal which had been made to them (sanctioned too as that appeal had been by the Metropolitan Archbishop, who was a member of the Board of Commissioners), not fifteen had responded. The new schools were conducted in such a way as to make it very unlikely that they could be attended by Protestant children, although they received the assistance of a Protestant Government. The new plan was founded on the declaration that the preceding system had been exclusive in its character; but it was impossible that any system could be more exclusive than that introduced by his Majesty's Government. So exclusive was it, that of 10,000 Protestant children, not 100 attended. He held in his hand a sheet of the Commandments as prepared for these schools. Some of them were taken from the Roman Catholic Bible, some from the Protestant Bible, and some were compounded of the two. For the Protestant commandment, "Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image," was substituted the Catholic commandment, "Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven thing;" the word "thing" being substituted for the word "image," because the latter militated against the practice of the Catholics. Yet this was the commandment which the Protestant children were to have. Again, to one of the Scriptural texts a Catholic note was attached, declaring that it was the Virgin Mary who crushed the serpent's head, and thus ascribing to the Virgin that

659
power and authority which the Roman Catholics attributed to her, but which the Protestants denied her. And this, also, was to be put into the hands of Protestant children. If any one truth were more clear than another, it was that such concessions, and such a system would be the wreck of the Protestant Establishment. Adverting to the numerous petitions which had been presented on the subject, the hon. Gentleman contrasted those which proceeded from Roman Catholics, Unitarians, Political Unions, &c. with those which proceeded from well-educated members of the Establishment, and dwelt upon the superior weight which the latter ought to have with the House. For all these reasons, he must decidedly oppose the grant.
Mr. Andrew Johnstonhoped the prayer of the Petition of the General Assembly of Scotland—namely, "that full liberty should be secured to the Protestant children to read the whole of the Bible without note or comment"—would be attended to. If the right hon. Gentleman would state that such was the intention of his Majesty's Government, he would withdraw his opposition to the grant.
Mr. Stanleysaid, the scheme as originally laid down did not prohibit the establishment of a Bible class in every school, if it were desired by the Protestants in attendance. It would be the duty of Protestant ministers to attend to that; but if Government were to insist upon having a Bible class in every school, they would be insisting on a regulation that could not be complied with in many cases, and which would be evaded in others. This was precisely the case with the Kildare-street society. They insisted upon that which drove away the Catholics from the schools by the very name of it, at the same time that evasions were resorted to in many instances, which had the effect of leaving the Protestants without substantial religious instruction. In framing a system of education, it was necessary to look to the circumstances of the country for which it was designed, and a scheme which might perhaps be applicable to England or Scotland, would not succeed in Ireland. In England or Scotland we might possibly insist on the formation of Bible classes in the schools with advantage; but in Ireland such a proposition would drive away the poorest and most ignorant of the people. He denied that the framers of the Government plan of education were averse from, or indifferent to, Scriptural instruction; the schools were not intended
660
to do away with Scriptural education, but to give as much of it as it was possible to prevail upon the people to receive.
Mr. Macnamaraquestioned the accuracy of the information of the hon. member for Dundalk, and could state from his own knowledge that the return relative to a school in Clare was incorrect, the name of the party referred to being a forgery.
Mr. James E. Gordondefended the accuracy of his statement. It could not be expected that he should be acquainted with the handwriting of every schoolmaster in Ireland; nevertheless, he believed that the signature of the honest man in question was authentic.
Mr. Macnamarasaid, it was not the name of an honest man, but of an honest woman, and he repeated that the signature was a forgery.
Mr. O'Ferrallaccused the hon. member for Dundalk of misrepresenting the tenets of Roman Catholics in order to induce individuals to vote in a particular way. This was not the first time that the hon. Gentleman had misrepresented the Roman Catholics; he had followed a similar course in former speeches, and had unsuccessfully attempted to show that improper books were used in Catholic schools, under the sanction of the Roman Catholic clergy. In making that particular charge, the hon. Gentleman had merely followed the footsteps of the late member for Drogheda, and with precisely the same result. In each instance, the imputation was satisfactorily rebutted. He did not think it worth while to follow the hon. Member through his statements and opinions, with a view to refute that to which nobody attached the slightest importance. On a former occasion the hon. Gentleman made some assertions with respect to the College of Maynooth, which he (Mr. O'Ferrall) had been blamed for not answering; but if people in Ireland knew the degree of weight which attached to the hon. Member's observations in that House, they would scarcely find fault with any person for passing them by in silence.
Mr. Goulburndefended the conduct of his hon. friend, and said, that if a comparison was to be instituted between his hon. friend the member for Dundalk, and the hon. Member who had just sat down, his hon. friend the member for Dundalk, would not, in sincerity, in ability, or in conduct, be found inferior to the hon. member for Kildare. He objected to the vote because it went to the support of a system of education which was injurious to the welfare of

661
the community of that Protestant country, The question was, by this vote, to be put on a new footing. It was true that the Legislature had heretofore granted money to Ireland for the purposes of education, but of; that education religion had always been a fundamental principle. There had been a compromise both on the part of the Protestants and the Roman Catholics, and it had succeeded well. But, even if the old system were to be abandoned, that was no reason the proposed one should be adopted. It was a great and a most objectionable change. The Protestant was called upon to sacrifice what had been hitherto regarded as a most important and indeed fundamental principle, and the Roman Catholic was to surrender nothing. Parliament had laid it down that religion should be the basis of public education, and yet, in the plan now brought forward, that grand principle was abandoned. He contended that the plan proposed, instead of smoothing difficulties, and wearing out by degrees opposition, would mark still more distinctly the true professions of the two religions, and perpetuate their conflicting opinions. He was decidedly of opinion, therefore, that the present system was at variance with the original design of grants to Ireland for the purposes of education. Nor were these the only objections; the Protestants of Ireland could not avail themselves of the schools to be established. The ornamental was put before the essential, and such a structure must ever prove unstable. He apprehended the worst consequences from the measure; and he implored the Committee to consider well before it decided in favour of it. If public education was not based on religion, it might make good leaders of Political Unions, good agitators, but it would not make good subjects, or happy men. If the Word of God was to be neglected, there was an end of all the blessed effects which were generally attributed to education.
Mr. Spring Ricethought the right hon. Gentleman opposite had argued the question in a very temperate and proper tone. He admitted the principles which the right hon. Gentleman avowed; but, on those same principles, he came to a very different conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman contended for the propriety of founding all education on a religious basis; but the House must not, therefore, suffer itself to be deceived into a belief that this was the real question at issue before it, for the propriety of that was admitted by all parties.
662
He was very glad that the tone of the opponents of the system had so much changed, for on no question that had been brought before Parliament, had facts been more grossly perverted, or arguments more strangely exaggerated than on the present question. They heard nothing now of the mutilations of the Scriptures, which used to form so favourite and prominent a topic in the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite. It had been said, that the Protestants of Ireland had declared against the system; but he could not attach much weight to the opinions of the Protestants of Ireland, excited as they had been by the most wicked perversion of facts, and when Ireland had so recently been turned into a political arena, apparently for the purpose of raising bad blood between Protestants and Catholics, and fighting the battle of Reform over again. He then referred to a meeting which had lately taken place in Ireland, in the county of Down, at which a noble Lord, for whose private character he professed great respect [Lord Roden was, we believe, the nobleman alluded to] addressed the meeting, and told them that their children were to be bereft of the Word of God; that his Majesty's Ministers denied the Word of God to the people; and it was stated, that at that moment several persons in the multitude held their Bibles up in the air, and declared they would keep them in spite of the Ministers. Could there be a more flagrant imposition on the people of Ireland than such a statement? Here were the Ministers; let any Gentleman come forward and make such a charge if he could sustain it. The hon. member for Dundalk (Mr. James E. Gordon) had said, the old system worked well, and spoke of the numbers instructed at these schools. But it was proved in evidence before the Commissioners of Inquiry, that children were sent from one school to another at the time of inspection, and thus the numbers were materially magnified. He denied that it worked well; for it had produced much of the bad blood which existed in Ireland between Protestants and Catholics. The right hon. Gentleman then showed in detail that the extracts read in the schools during the four days allotted to literary instruction, and the time allotted exclusively to religious instruction, afforded to the pupils as much religious knowledge as could fairly be communicated by any system of education. The Government had thought proper to adopt some of the suggestions of Mr. Leslie Foster, which he thought would be pro-

663
ductive of great advantage. He understood attempts were making to revive the Kildare-street Society. If Gentlemen chose to do this from their private resources, there could be no objection; and he admitted that some good had resulted from the exertions of that Society, more particularly in the north of Ireland.
Colonel Percevaldenied, that in the schools of the Hibernian Society or the Baptist Society, of both of which he was a member, it was made a requisite in candidates for the office of master that they should belong to the Protestant religion. Cæteris paribus, individuals of the Roman Catholic persuasion were invariably preferred.
Sir Robert Ingliswould endeavour to follow the tone and temper of his right hon. friend, the Secretary of the Treasury, which best became the grave and momentous subject before the Committee; nor did he feel any inclination to deviate from it, except with reference to the attack made upon his hon. and gallant friend, the member for Dundalk, by the hon. member for the county of Kildare, whose cool and self-complacent assumption of superiority was unwarranted by any difference in their station, in their talents, or in their character, in or out of that house. Dismissing this subject, because the question ought to be discussed on higher than personal grounds, and without any feeling of personal hostility, he must express his dissent from his right hon. friend's doctrines even in the first principle which he laid down as the rule of debate on this subject. He said that quotations from Scripture ought not to be introduced. Now if it were admitted that on every subject of secular policy, the question ought to be decided by the spirit of the Gospel, he thought, that on a subject directly connected with the education of the people as a religious duty, the direct authority and very words of Scripture might fairly be quoted. He differed, however, from his right hon. friend still more in the practical view of the measure before them. He objected to the Government plan of education upon general grounds applicable alike to this and to any system of education. He thought that no comprehensive scheme of education could be framed for Protestants and for Roman Catholics together, which the nation ought to adopt. Independently of any reasoning on the subject, he had the testimony of several prelates of the Church of Rome, as well as of the Established Church. He
664
would begin with the greatest. Archbishop Magee said, "The one comprehensive scheme of education, I think, under the existing circumstances, to be quite impracticable. The principle upon which I go is this. I am of opinion that so much of what is vital to education is necessarily compromised, in order that there should be a common system, that I would hardly give the name of education to the result." Now, what say the Roman Catholic prelates? In their famous petition to the House of Commons in 1824, they say that schools whereof the master professes a different religion, cannot be resorted to by the children of Roman Catholics; thus requiring from Protestants universally the concession that the schoolmaster must be a Roman Catholic. Then, as to the use of the Scriptures, what says the Roman Catholic primate. Dr. Curtis, in the ninth report?" Any thing read before Catholic children, that is, any thing read to Protestants, in a mixed school, must be taken from the Catholic version." Again: "The conformity must be not only a conformity with the Vulgate, but a conformity with that translation which we have adopted." Dr. Kelly says, "the whole translation shall be in conformity to the Vulgate." Where was the concession here? What was the hope here of recommending a system of united education to the Protestant people of this country? Not only must the schoolmaster be Roman Catholic; not only must the version of Scriptures he Roman Catholic for their own children, but any thing read to other children in their presence must be from the same Roman Catholic version. The right hon. Secretary to the Treasury congratulated the Committee that he had heard no more about the mutilation of the Scriptures, or the exclusion of the Scriptures. Let him be assured that these charges, though in the multitude of objections not formerly repeated, were not abandoned, but were held now by him (Sir R. Inglis) as strongly as ever. His right hon. friend, however, produced in triumph his book of Bible extracts, in proof that the Scriptures formed a part of the general literary instruction under the new system. Now, in the first instance, the doctrines of the Gospel derive their authority from being found in the Word of God, and its moral precepts must not be extracted like maxims of Epictetus, and left to find their own way into the world, as a question whether they may or may not be binding. Children should be taught, in the first instance, the binding obligation of the Bible itself. In the next

665
place, the very principle of selection is one, all the advantage of which is necessarily on the side of the Roman Catholics. A Protestant can gain nothing by the substitution of a selection for the entire volume; a Roman Catholic may gain everything. The Bible and the Bible only, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, constitutes, in the memorable words of Chilling-worth, the religion of Protestants, as distinguished from that of the church of Rome. But it had been sometimes said, the present plan was no more than the adoption of a recommendation of the Commissioners of Irish Education in their famous report drawn up and published many years ago. The answer is, that, admitting the scheme to be the same, yet, in the one case, it was an experiment in addition to every existing institution; in the other, it is an experiment in substitution. Every existing institution of education for the poor is to be destroyed, so far as Government patronage is concerned, and instruction in Popery is now for the first time, since the time of Queen Mary, to be provided by the State. [Mr. Spring Rice said across the table, "Maynooth."] He, (Sir Robert Inglis,) was too well aware of this; and had often expressed his opinion on the subject. It was a direct, but it was an insulated act for instructing people in the doctrines of the Church of Rome. The present system is co-extensive with the realm of Ireland. But, on the subject of Maynooth, he felt, as he formerly said, that the opinion of the best and greatest Minister of latter times, Mr. Percival, was no longer applicable to the continuance of the grant. Mr. Percival held that Maynooth was a legacy bequeathed by the Irish Parliament to the Imperial Legislature, and that we could not alter it; but when it appeared, by a return now on the table, and in his hand, that almost every other institution bequeathed in like manner to the nation at the time of the Union, was curtailed or suppressed, there was no longer the ground alleged for maintaining Maynooth. This however, was not the immediate subject of debate. Believing that it was the duty of this country to give to the people the best religious education in their power, and believing that this object was not attained by the Government plan, he gave it his most decided opposition.
Sir Edmund Hayessaid, the conduct of Lord Roden, which had been alluded to, had been most patriotic, and the charges which had been made against the noble Lord, in the course of the debate, by per-
666
sons whom he was sure would not dare open their lips in accusation in his presence were most unfounded and illiberal. The language used by that noble Lord at the meeting in the north of Ireland he (Sir E. Hayes) had no hesitation in adopting; indeed he was sure that the noble Lord's words would, if necessary, be adopted by almost every respectable person in the district which he had the honour to represent, for they were words of a known well-wisher and supporter of the Protestant institutions of his country. With regard to the question before the House, he was sure the system must fail, for the Protestants of Ireland would never consent to have a book of extracts put into their hands when it was in their power to have the word of their God whole and unmutilated.
Mr. Wysesaid, the right hon. Gentleman had expressed his surprise at the different state of education in England and Ireland, and wondered why lavish grants should be made for education in the latter country whilst none were required for that purpose in England. Did he not know the history of Ireland? Was he not aware that, subsequent to the Reformation, papal laws were passed making it a crime to educate Roman Catholics? Did he not remember the statutes which forbad a Catholic to teach under the penalty of 12 l., and which prevented a Catholic father from educating his child at home? Was it surprising that the country should be driven into a state of barbarism under such laws? At length the Protestant Church, finding it necessary to cultivate the public mind, instituted a system of education, under the patronage of Government, which was chiefly intended for the purpose of proselytism. There would be no occasion for grants of money for the purpose of education in Ireland, if the clergy of that country would fulfil the sacred obligations of the oath they took on being inducted into their livings. The celebrated Statute of Henry 8th declared that every clergyman, on accepting a living, should establish and maintain a school for the teaching of English. If the incumbent should neglect to do so he was to be fined, for the first offence, 6s. 8d.; for the second, 20 s.; and, upon the commission of the third, his living was to be declared vacant. But how had the Protestant clergy fulfilled their duty in this respect? By the returns it appeared that, in 1788, the number of benefices in Ireland was 828, and the number of schools maintained by Protestant clergymen 361. Some hon. Members

667
seemed to think the plan of education proposed by Government to be hostile to the institutions of the country, and opposed to Christian feeling. If these Gentlemen would read history, they would find that the same system had been acted upon in other countries with eminent success: in the United States of America, for instance, where it could not be denied that the people were as anxious for the propagation of the Gospel as in any other nation of the world. It had also been tried in Silesia, in Wirtemburg, in Bavaria, and in some parts of Hesse, where, after some of the bickerings occasioned by its establishment had subsided, the two sects, who were before in a state of open hostility with each other, had become united in harmony, and exhibited an example to the rest of Europe. In 1788, a report was presented to the Irish Parliament by the then Secretary of State, in which he stated his opinion that the children of Roman Catholics and Protestants should be admitted indiscriminately into schools, and that the clergy of each persuasion should instruct them separately in the principles of religion: he added, that he was informed that this system had been practised with great success at St. Andrew's, Dublin. At that period Protestant ascendancy was in a most flourishing state; thus the system now proposed was not a new one. It appeared from the returns, that the number of Catholic children attending the schools in Ireland, under this system, was greater than that of the Protestants. This could not be a matter of surprise when it was recollected that the poorer class of people in Ireland were almost exclusively Catholics. A better mode of cultivating the intellectual powers of the Irish people could not be devised than the plan adopted by Government, and he hoped the time would soon arrive when Ireland would not only be distinguished for literary superiority among the nations of Europe, but would bear a comparison with any country for moral excellence, without which intellectual powers were an evil. The Catholics asked no increase of their power or numbers—no ascendancy. He would not suffer ascendancy of any kind, any more than he would the infliction of a wrong, and, least of all, would he suffer Catholic ascendancy; but every man who contributed to the maintaining the State should receive some benefit from it. The money levied by the State was not exclusively Protestant or Catholic money, but the money of both communities. When the hon. member for the University
668
of Oxford said, that a distinction ought to be made between Catholic and Protestant Establishments, the Catholics might, in return, say—"We will not consent that a shilling of the Irish revenue shall be devoted to Protestant purposes." But he did not concur in that sentiment; the public funds belonged to the nation at large, and ought to return to the nation at large; and whatever might be written in pamphlets—whatever might be said in speeches—Ireland would never be satisfied till all grants be made upon this general principle.
Mr. Lefroydenied, that the Kildare-street Society was ever at any time connected with any of the Societies which had been termed by more than one hon. Member as proselytising associations. The Kildare-street Society depended on the subscriptions of its own friends, and always refused to join any proselytising Society whatsoever The only foundation for the allegation was, that a certain number of schools in Ireland were aided by several Societies, of which in most cases the Kildare-street was one. The hon. and learned Member warmly eulogized the character of the Earl of Roden, who had been accused of endeavouring to delude the people of Ireland as to the objects and principles of the system of education in a speech at a public meeting in the north of Ireland. Every word of the address adopted on that occasion he (Mr. Lefroy) was ready, in the most deliberate manner, to repeat and disseminate as his own individual opinion. With regard to the question before the House, it was one on which his (Mr. Lefroy's) opinion had been often expressed. The system lately introduced was not based on the Scriptures, and, as a conscientious upholder of the Protestant religion, he felt bound to give it his utmost opposition. It was impossible to deny that there could be no true system of Protestant instruction which did not take as its groundwork the whole and unmutilated Book of God. He would refer the House to the Bible itself upon this point; but he begged their attention to the declaration of seventeen members of the Protestant Bench in Ireland, and the body of the Presbyterian Synod of Ulster, to that effect. It was said, that the principles of the Kildare-street Society drove from their schools the Roman Catholics. But what was the fact? At the period when the new system of education in Ireland was introduced it was notorious that the schools were for the most part filled with Roman Catholic children. But, supposing even the existence of such an abuse

669
had induced Government to alter the system, was it fair or just to transfer the abuse to the Protestant community? That was the fact. His Majesty's Government, while remedying an abuse, flew into the opposite extreme, and the new system was such that no Protestant could participate in its proceedings. The hon. and learned Member concluded, by repeating his determination to oppose the grant to the utmost.
Colonel Sibthorpopposed the grant.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 68; Noes 17—Majority 51.

List of the NOES.

Encombe, Lord

Perceval, Colonel

Gordon, J. E.

Rose, Sir G.

Goulburn, Rt. Hon. H.

Ross, H.

Hodgson, T.

Ryder, Hon. G.

Holmes, W.

Sandon, Lord

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Lefroy, Dr. Thos.

Young, J.

Lefroy, A.

TELLER.

Peel, W. Y.

Perceval, S.

Hayes, Sir E.

A sum of 11,161 l. was voted to defray the grant to Maynooth College, upon an understanding that the vote should be discussed upon the bringing up of the Report.
House resumed.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Sheriffs Expenses; Newfoundland; Appropriation of Duties.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of RADNOR, from Clahane and Ballyduff, and from Cong; and by the Earl of SEFTON, from Protestant Dissenters, Dublin,—against Tithes (Ireland).—By Lord PLUNKETT, from the Presbytery of Antrim; and by the Earl of RADNOR, from Cong,—in favour of the Ministerial Plan of Education (Ireland).—By the Duke of CUMBERLAND, from the Provost and Fellows; and by the Archbishop of ARMAGH, from the Under Graduates of Trinity College, Dublin,—for assimilating the Constituency of Dublin University to that of Oxford and Cambridge.—By the Earl of RADNOR, from Cong,—in favour of the Reform (Ireland) Bill.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR IRELAND—SECOND READING.
Lord Teynhampresented a Petition from a large and respectable body of the Freeholders of the County of Mayo, praying for a more effective Representation of the Irish Counties. The county of Mayo was a very important county, with 700,000 inhabitants, and a most numerous and respectable body of freeholders, and some important sea-port towns, and was, for all these reasons, well entitled to a Member, in addition to those which it already returned to Parliament. The great error in governing Ireland had been the not considering it as a component part of the British empire, but treating it as a conquered country. It was, however, absolutely necessary, in order to ensure the good government of Ireland, that it should be treated in every respect as a component part of the British empire, and, therefore, the counties, in respect of the Representation, ought to be put on the same footing as the English counties, and the same principle ought to be acted on in both cases. The petition was well worthy of their Lordships' attention.
Laid on the Table.
The Order of the Day for the Second Reading of the Reform of Parliament (Ireland) Bill read.
Viscount Melbournerose to move, that the Bill be then read a second time. This was the last in the series of those great and important measures of Reform which had so long and so anxiously occupied the attention of Parliament and of the public. But, if the attention bestowed on them had been laborious and painful, he fully expected, and confidently trusted, that the greatest advantages would result from them; and that the expectations of those would be disappointed and defeated, who thought that the consequences which would
624
result from these Bills would be anarchy and confusion, misfortune and calamity. In moving the second reading of this Bill, he thought himself entirely relieved from entering upon any discussion of the general question of Parliamentary Reform. He apprehended that it was unnecessary to do so on the present occasion; since, in all the discussions in the other House on this subject, it was never said, that the Reform ought not to be extended to Ireland. If the nomination boroughs were done away here, they ought to be done away in Ireland; and if the elective franchise was extended in England, it could hardly be contended that it ought not also to be extended in Ireland, in a manner suited to the circumstances of that country. He would only remark, as to the general question, that it had been sometimes urged against his Majesty's Ministers, that, in their measures of Reform, they had not only gone too far, but had gone much further than was expected of them by the Reformers themselves. To that he would only answer, that when it became absolutely necessary to adopt some measure of Reform, it was also necessary that the Reform should be carried to the extent to which these measures had carried it, as, otherwise. Ministers would have involved themselves in inconsistences and difficulties from which it would have been impossible to extricate themselves. In considering, for instance, the question of the disfranchisement of the nomination boroughs, it was utterly impossible for them to make any distinctions by abolishing some and preserving others; for then they might, with every appearance of truth, be accused of gross partiality and injustice; and if some had been done away, and others retained, they would have subjected themselves to a much stronger condemnation, even from their opponents, than they could possibly incur by abolishing these boroughs altogether. But if the making of any invidious distinction would have been bad here, it would have been still worse in Ireland. If they had retained some of the boroughs there in the hands of certain individuals, while they disfranchised others, the measure would have been productive of much greater scandal than the disfranchisement of the whole. In calling their Lordships' attention particularly to the Bill now before them, it would not be necessary for him to travel back into the history of the Parliament of Ireland. When his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack moved the second reading of the Scotch Reform

625
Bill, it was necessary for him to enter at some length into an exposition of the tenures of Scotland, and into its history and antiquities. But nothing of that kind was required here, as the Representation in Ireland had been much the same as that in England. It only remained for him, therefore, to state generally the provisions of the Bill, and to point out in what respects they differed from those in the English Reform Bill, and the reasons for that difference. In the first place, with respect to the numbers to which the petition presented by a noble Lord (Lord Teynham) referred, it was impossible that, in a measure of this kind, the question should not be thrown open as to the number of Representatives which it would be proper to assign to the various portions of the empire. The utmost care had been taken to settle that point in the fairest and most impartial manner, and with as little disturbance of the former system as possible. Their Lordships were aware that the county Representation in Ireland had been settled at the time of the Union. The amount of the Irish county Representation, as then settled, was, two Members for each of the thirty-two counties, making sixty-four; which, together with ten Members for counties of cities, twenty-five Members for towns or boroughs, and one Member for the University of Dublin, made up the whole amount of 100 Members now returned for Ireland. That scale of Representation was considered to be as fair as possible, when the relative situation of the two countries as to their respective property and population, was considered. The numbers of the county Representation were not decreased, but increased, on that occasion, by those who were drawn from other sources, by removing Members from such boroughs as at that time were not considered to be entitled to their then scale of Representation. That was the state of the Representation for Ireland, as settled at the Union; and though he was not very conversant with the proceedings of those times, he did not believe that that measure of Representation was much attacked. To this number of 100, there were, by this Bill, five more Members to be added, making the whole number 105. And as the same anomaly existed in Ireland to a small extent, which so long prevailed in this country, of large and populous towns, having great wealth and trade, and possessing all the elements that characterize a constituency deserving of a direct participation in political rights being yet altogether but imperfectly represented, it
626
was in this class of the Irish constituency that the principal addition was to take place, by giving an additional Member to each of the cities of Limerick and Waterford, the borough of Belfast, and the county town of Galway, which, with one additional Member for the University of Dublin, would complete the number of Irish Members to be returned on the present scale. As to the Representation of this University, and the petition presented by the illustrious Duke (the Duke of Cumberland), the matter to which it referred would come more properly to be considered in the Committee. Then, as to the counties, leaseholders had been admitted to the franchise to a considerable extent—leaseholders of sixty-years, at 20 l. rent; of twenty years, at 10. rent; of fourteen years, at 20 l. rent. The elective franchise would thus be brought into the hands of a very respectable constituency, and would restore that connection between the landowners and the most respectable part of the population which had been of late but two much interrupted. Then, in the cities which were counties of themselves, the votes of the 10 l. freeholders had been added, and in the boroughs the franchise had been given to the householders paying 10 l. rent, as had been done in England. The other principal provisions of the Bill related to the registration of votes, and the manner of taking the poll, into which it was unnecessary for him to enter minutely, but he hoped that they combined every facility for voting, with effectual means for preventing fraud and expense. These were the principles of the Bill, and he hoped that it would be considered as a fair and equitable enactment, suited to the situation and circumstances of that country, and likely to give general satisfaction. He submitted it, then, to their Lordships, as a fair and equitable arrangement, worthy of their Lordships' best attention and consideration. It was founded on the principle—first, that some Reform must take place; secondly, that the proposed Reform was in substance the same as that proposed for England; and, thirdly, that it was well adapted to the situation and circumstances of Ireland. He moved, that the Bill be now read a second time.
The Duke of Wellingtondid not consider that the most convenient opportunity to discuss this subject, as most of the noble Lords who wished to deliver their opinions upon the principle of the Bill were absent He, however, could not suffer the Bill to be read a second time without offering a few

627
observations upon it. He certainly did not intend to follow the noble Viscount through the details into which he had entered. His own opinion was, that it might be exceedingly expedient to Reform the system of Representation in this country, and even in Scotland, and yet not to touch the Representation of Ireland. What his noble friend who sat near him had said on a former occasion was true—the Representation of the people of Ireland was considered and settled thirty years ago. Then, again, in 1829, a very important measure was adopted, by which the Representation of the different interests of that country were considered, and, as they thought, finally settled. In truth, the measure that was then adopted was founded upon that other measure, which was adopted at the same time—namely, the abolition of the 40 s. freeholders. That measure was founded upon the necessity of putting an end to the improper influence of the Priests of the Roman Catholic religion. And he must say, even supposing that it was now, in consequence of what had lately passed upon the subject of the reformation of the Representation of the people in this part of the United Kingdom—supposing that it was now necessary to adopt a similar measure in Ireland, surely it was necessary to found that measure upon the principle of the measure of 1829, and not upon any newfangled notions of the present day. That was the ground upon which he rested the opposition which he intended to give to this measure. The noble Lord, who had just addressed the House, had stated, that this measure for Ireland was founded upon the same principle as that which had been passed for England. He (the Duke of Wellington) begged to remind their Lordships that there was a most important point raised in 1829, with respect to the voters in counties of towns. Those places had two descriptions of voters—freemen admitted by the Corporation, and 40 s. freeholders. A noble Lord had urged on him, when the measure of 1829 was under consideration, to adopt towards the freeholders of counties of towns the same principle that he had adopted in the counties at large—that was to say, to take away from the 40 s. freeholders in towns the right of voting for them. He, however, was not disposed to accede to the noble Lord's Representation, because he thought that the balance between the interests—the freemen and the freeholders—should be preserved; and as the Corporations had the power of extending to any amount the
628
number of freemen, he would not consent to disfranchise the 40 s. freeholders. But the first thing that the noble Lord now did, in the measure which he had proposed to be read a second time, was to put an end to the 40 s. freeholders and freemen by declaring that those rights should expire with the individuals who at present possessed them. But the noble Viscount did more than this. The freemen, unless they were resident, lost their votes immediately; not so the freeholders, and, therefore, he begged to ask, whether the preponderance would not be given to the 40 s. freeholders, or in other words, to the Roman Catholic interests? But what did the noble Lord do besides? He said, that the voters should be resident 10 l. householders, and 10 l. freeholders hereafter. What did that do? It gave, of course, a preponderance of power to the Roman Catholic inhabitants of those towns. In fact, the noble Lord extinguished the rights granted under the charter of the Corporations, which was a principle that had not been adopted in the English Bill. The Corporations were deprived of their rights, and the Roman Catholic population was placed in possession of them. He must, therefore, object to the Bill, because the noble Lord, with respect to these counties of towns, had departed from the principle and practice laid down in the Act of the year 1829. He would admit, that, when the principle was adopted in the Reform Act for England, of putting an end to what were called nomination boroughs, it was quite right that the same description of Representation should be put an end to in Ireland. He did not pretend to say that boroughs of that description should continue to exist. But, if such an alteration were to be introduced into Ireland, in addition to the alteration already made in respect to counties of towns, he (the Duke of Wellington) maintained, that it ought to be on the principle of the Act of 1829; and care ought to be taken to secure the Protestant interests, and those interests connected with property, with the Crown, and with the Established Church. This Bill effected directly the contrary—first of all, it abolished the rights of freemen and the rights of Corporations; it then gave the right of voting to 10 l. householders, and 10 l. freeholders, far the greater part of whom were Roman Catholics. Thus the power of the Roman Catholic priesthood would be established, instead of the interests of the great proprietor being protected, or the interests of the great monied

629
man, who paid for his seat. Such an arrangement was not consistent with the public interests, which required that property—not the priests of the Roman Catholic Church—should have influence in elections. It was also totally at variance with the principles followed at the period of the Union, and in the measure of 1829. Upon these grounds he should decidedly object to the present Bill. A plan of Reform might have been introduced, leaving the influence of Corporations in possession of persons of property; at all events there was no necessity whatever to hand it over to a class of persons who must be under the influence of the Roman Catholic priests. The noble Viscount justified the introduction of this measure upon the notion that it was founded upon the same principles as the English Act. But he (the Duke of Wellington) begged their Lordships to observe, that the noble Viscount had abandoned the example of the English Bill, wherever it suited his purpose. In doing that the noble Viscount had sacrificed, he thought, the interests of the Crown, the interests of the Protestant Church, and the interests of property. On these grounds he should give the Motion of the noble Viscount a decided negative.
The Marquess of Clanricardecould not concur with the noble Duke in his objections to this Bill, and he was rather surprised that the noble Duke should now turn round on his own measure, and that, too, the measure which he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) thought the proudest of the noble Duke's Administration. He wondered how the advocate of that great measure of justice and toleration could now endeavour to trip up and inflame religious distinctions which he had hoped were destroyed for ever. The noble Duke, by his Act of 1829, had advanced the freehold qualification to 10 l., as a security against the influence of the Catholics; but he thought at that time, and he thought so now, that it was taking away the proper influence from the landowners. The noble Duke admitted, that it was proper to abolish the rotten boroughs in Ireland, as well as in England; but he objected to giving an extensive franchise to the people. And what did the noble Duke's argument amount to? Simply that the people of Ireland were chiefly Catholics. Was that a reason why they should be shut out from the benefits of the Constitution? If the Catholics possessed wealth and power—were in a situation in which they could
630
independently exercise the right of suffrage—why should they not be invested with the suffrage right? In the cities and boroughs the greater number of the freeholders and the householders would be Catholics; but then they would much more depend on Protestant men of property than on Catholics. Would any man at all acquainted with Ireland, venture to assert, that the Catholic influence would predominate in Belfast, Newry, and other such towns; or venture to deny, that when the Catholics, as in Galway, would be the chief electors, that they possessed every claim of property, intelligence, and independence? He thought that the noble Duke's objections, in that respect, were entirely without foundation. As the only objection of the noble Duke was founded on the single circumstance of the influence of the Catholics, it was unnecessary for him to enter further into the subject; and he would only add, that if the noble Duke expected that the country could be governed by force and by bayonets, and means of that description, he was quite mistaken. A country, to be well governed, must be governed by justice, and by a due regard to public opinion, and to the sympathies of the people. The Catholics ought not to he disfranchised on account of their religion, and if they ought not, there was no weight in the noble Duke's argument.
The Earl of Limerickcould not allow the present occasion to pass without saying a few words, although, under all the circumstances it was with great reluctance that he made any observations on the subject of this Bill, and he confessed that he was induced to say a few words only in consequence of a remark which had been made by the noble Viscount who moved the second reading. The noble Viscount was pleased to say, that he flattered himself that this measure would defeat the expectations of those who thought that it would be attended with calamitous consequences, and stated his conviction that it would be attended with the most beneficial effects. For himself, he had only to say, that he should be the last man in the world to wish that the measure should be attended with ruinous effects; and he should be most happy if the expectations of the noble Viscount should be realised. But he agreed with the noble Duke that this Bill went to overthrow the national agreement made at the time of the Union, and the arrangement made in 1829. There was a noble and learned Lord (Lord Plunkett), now in the House, who was one of the most violent opponents of the

631
Union, and that noble and learned Lord had prophesied, that if Ireland parted with its distinct political power, it would get itself entirely within the grasp of the more powerful country. He begged the noble and learned Lord's pardon for alluding to this. He was one of those who thought that the boroughs in Ireland were preserved at the time of the Union, for the purpose of forming a security for the Protestant Church, and the Protestant interests generally. In 1829, the 40 s. freeholders in the counties were destroyed, and a new constituency formed, and this had been held out as a corrective of the other Bill passed at the time for removing the disabilities of the Catholics, and as a security to the Protestant interests. If Ireland were in the same condition as before the Union, he was sure that these boroughs would not have been suppressed; they were intended as bulwarks of Protestantism; but if the Bill passed they would be so no longer. There would be thirty or forty Irish Members returned solely by the influence of the priests, and it was for their Lordships to judge if such a body, acting in concert in this country, might not produce the greatest mischief. Such were his views and feelings; but he knew that it was vain, after the passing of the Scotch and English Bills, to struggle against the measure. He hoped, however, that the evils which he apprehended from it would not be realised; and no man would be more rejoiced, should his expectations prove unfounded.
Lord Plunkettsaid, he was unwilling to provoke further discussion, and would only trouble their Lordships with a few words. His noble friend (the Earl of Limerick) had alluded to the Union between England and Ireland. At that period they were both Members of the Irish House of Commons; but upon this question they had entertained very different opinions, and had given opposing votes. He had opposed the Union vehemently. No question had ever since arisen, or ever could arise, which would so claim his attention and so occupy his heart as that measure had done. He had considered that the passing of the Union would have been the extinction of the independence of his native land, and he had struggled against it with all his might. But he had lived long enough to find that he was then mistaken, and to correct the prophecies he had then uttered, and the anticipations which he had then entertained. He did then imagine that Ireland would have
632
been thrown, bound hand and foot, at the mercy of England, and that the power thus conferred would have been mercilessly abused. He was entirely and agreeably disappointed. He never, since the period of the Union, knew a question affecting the interests of Ireland, which was brought before the United Parliament, that was not only treated fairly, but even with partiality and kindness, in consideration of the former misgovernment to which the country had been subjected. He, therefore, confessed, that he had been entirely wrong in his views, and would now protest as strongly as might be against a Repeal of the legislative Union, for he felt that from that might follow a separation of the two countries, which would be alike prejudicial to the best interests of both. It was accordingly with great grief that he heard the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) declare, that he would give his vote against going into Committee on the Bill under consideration. For this was in effect to declare, that he would deny to Ireland that Reform which had been conceded to England and Scotland. It was saying, that in England and Scotland, by the mass of the people, and by large majorities of the House of Commons, and by the decree of Parliament, rotten boroughs were rooted out as a disgrace to the Constitution—were excised as sores and ulcers; yet, nevertheless, they ought and should be continued in Ireland, as part of the Constitution of that country. Now he contended, that if there was one course of conduct more than another, which was calculated to fill the ranks of those anxious for a Repeal of the Union, it was this. To hold out to the people of Ireland that, although abuses had been swept away in England and Scotland, they should be continued in Ireland, would be, he repeated, the most disastrous sentiment which could possibly be held out to that unfortunate country. He lamented likewise the observations which the noble Duke had made. The noble Duke had argued the question as if it were one of Protestant and Catholic. He considered that he might, even taking the question in that light, prove that the noble Duke was mistaken in the conclusion at which he had arrived; but he would not condescend to argue the question on such grounds. He would ask, had the noble Duke's great measure indeed been carried, if they were now-a-days to legislate or argue upon the authority and existence of those ancient grudges between the two religious parties?

633
If they were so to do, he had no hesitation in declaring the noble Duke's measure was one of two things—useless or mischievous. He remembered that, when the subject of the Union to which the noble Earl had alluded had been brought forward there had been no question entertained respecting Catholic or Protestant: the promoters of it were wisely anxious to keep all such questions out of view. The measure was carried, and how?—with strong objections on the part of the Protestants, and by nothing approaching to an unanimous approval on the part of the Catholics; and yet great exertions had been used to reconcile them to the measure. And then, as to the towns and the counties of towns to which Representation was granted; how were they selected? Thirty-four boroughs received this right. But he never heard that any portion of them received it on the principle that they were to be bulwarks of the Protestant interests. Let them only recal to mind how these boroughs were selected. Laying aside the University, thirty-three great towns were chosen, which, in the aggregate, possessed a population of 800,000 souls. Were these selected as the bulwarks of Protestantism? He never heard it intimated at the time. The feeling on the part of those who made the arrangement was, "We are doing a fair thing by Ireland in reserving the representation to the most wealthy and populous towns and cities." In what way was it subsequently acted on? Why, the Representation of seventeen of those places, having an aggregate population of 180,000 persons, was disposed of by seventeen gentlemen. Would it be then said, that in doing away with this scandalous monopoly, they were dissenting from the principles of the Union? He never, certainly, did understand the principles of the Union after this manner. It never occurred to the opponents of that measure, that they could use such a supposition as an objection to the measure itself. He never used it; and yet he had opposed the measure as vehemently, and as industriously, and as strenuously, as he could. But then it was said, in objection to the Bill, that the 40 s. freeholders in the counties of cities ought to be disfranchised. If so, why were they not done away with at the time of the Union, if these boroughs were, indeed, intended as the bulwarks of the Protestant interest? It was urged that these 40 s. freeholders were entirely under the influence of the priests. This he did not believe; but if it were so, why were they
634
continued by the noble Duke? Again, it was said, that in this Bill they would be departing from the principles of the measure of 1829. He did not think that adjustment had been made upon the principle which the noble Duke had that night stated—that was, that originally 40 s. freeholders in the counties of cities had been preserved as a balance to the power of the freemen; and, therefore, that now that you limited the power of freemen, you ought to disfranchise the 40 s. freeholders to preserve the balance. But here it was, in the first instance, assumed, that the 40 s. freeholders were entirely a Roman Catholic constituency, under the influence of their priests. Now, this was not the argument used for the disfranchisement of the 40 s. freeholders in counties. The argument was, that they were a constituency always under the influence either of their priest or landlord; therefore, they were to be disfranchised, not because they were a Roman Catholic constituency, but because they were an incapable constituency; because they were not an independent constituency. Now here, too, was a second assumption respecting freemen. Was it true, that freemen were of necessity Protestant?—certainly not. Roman Catholics might be freemen of corporations at any time. Until after the passing of the Relief Bill in 1829, they were excluded from corporate offices by the Oath of Supremacy, but by this only; and now that it was done away with, they might accordingly be freemen, and hold any corporate office. In short, they enjoyed every corporate right. Why was it, then, that these boroughs became to be considered as bulwarks of the Protestant interest? Because there was a monopoly upon the part of those who possessed the right of election, and they never would elect Catholics. Well, then, how did the case stand? how was the measure of 1829 to be viewed? It was either meant to operate or not to operate. Now, if it was intended not to operate, it was a mere mockery and delusion. But if it were intended to operate, why should they object to measures that gave or secured to Roman Catholics those rights to which they were fairly entitled under the Relief Bill? But really he was wandering from the question before their Lordships. What they had to consider was this, were they likely to have an independent constituency? Noble Lords opposite said, this Bill would let in Roman Catholics, who would form the great majority of the constituency. Now, he did not believe it

635
would. But if Roman Catholics were in possession of that station and wealth which entitled them to a majority in the constituent body, why should they not have it? On the occasion of the production of the Belief Bill in 1829, how was the matter argued? On the one side, they said, take care how you pass this measure; it is not a small body of Roman Catholics you will admit into the Imperial Parliament; but if it be passed at all, let it be frankly acted on. The same sentiments respecting the mode in which it should be acted on were uttered from the other side. And if they did not so, the Roman Catholics would be more exasperated, and justly, than if the measure had been completely rejected. Undoubtedly it would be more galling to be now shut out from advantages to which they were entitled by law, than to have been refused the concession of them originally. His noble friend (the Earl of Limerick) had attacked the influence of the priests in Ireland as most mischievous. Now, of all things, he would most earnestly deprecate the giving a religious tincture to the disturbances which unfortunately prevailed in Ireland. This was the only thing wanting to dissipate all hope of peace, and tranquillity, and union, in that country. He could give a distinct denial to the allegations which charged the great body of the Roman Catholic priesthood with advocating the cause of mischief and separation. Of the higher portion of that body he could not speak in terms of too strong approbation, or too great respect. Their exertions, he maintained, had been most meritorious to preserve the peace. But he at the same time allowed, that there were some most mischievous persons in the Roman Catholic priesthood—men who had incurred most desperate responsibility. He declared that he would not have on his soul the weight of responsibility attaching to some of those persons for any earthly consideration. But were they not thus looking merely on the one side? Had they no priests but the Catholic priests to disturb the country? Were there no other priests who used violent, and abusive, and inflammatory language—who attended public meetings as agitators, and lost no opportunity of giving offence to their Catholic fellow-subjects? Would it, however, be fair to throw all the odium which must attach to such proceedings upon the great body of the Church of England clergy? Certainly not. He did not believe there was a more exemplary class of men in the world than
636
the Protestant clergy of Ireland. They were humane, charitable, generous, learned, and pious; their existence in affluence and respectability was a source of support to religion and peace in that country; they were the most eminently serviceable class of resident gentlemen in Ireland. But should not equal justice be rendered to the Roman Catholic clergy? Nobody could venture to deny it; and, further, he would say, as to the great body of the Roman Catholics, that it never should be assumed they were on one side, and the Protestants of Ireland on the other. The fact was, the great body of the Protestants were no more represented by those who came forward in that House and elsewhere, and declared—"I say upon the part of the Protestants of Ireland"—than was the great body of the Roman Catholics by the demagogues and agitators. He believed that the great body of the Roman Catholics were fully sensible of the benefits they had derived from the Union—of the increased prosperity—of the additional comforts they had acquired since that period. A great portion of the country had visibly improved under the benefits conferred upon it by commercial relations with England; and he firmly believed, that if one-half the influence had been used to reconcile and unite the two classes which had been directed to embitter their hostility, they would now have a peaceful and a prosperous country. It had been frequently said, that he was an enemy to the Protestants of the north of Ireland. He denied that he ever was. They formed, in his opinion, as good materials for excellent and peaceful subjects as could possibly be found. They were loyal, religious, industrious, courageous, rational; but they were persons capable of being excited and impelled to embody themselves for mischief, if their superiors chose to excite them. And he could not acquit men, in a station of life from which one might have expected better things, of having resorted to those acts which were used by the demagogues in inflaming the passions of the foolish portion of the Roman Catholic body. But all those tumultuous and illegal proceedings must be put down. The full powers of the law should be directed to this object; and if those powers were not sufficient, they would call for new laws and greater powers. He agreed, however, with the noble Marquess, that the best way to take the arms out of the hands of the agitators, and resentment out of the hearts of the public, was by

637
the removal of real grievances. He had no doubt that deciding that this Bill should not go into Committee would be regarded by the great body of the people as a refusal to remove their grievances; and he did believe, that this Bill would, if passed in its essential principles and details, be received with gratitude by the people, and would be eminently calculated to allay the disturbances which prevailed.
The Duke of Wellington, in explanation, stated, that he objected in particular to the principle on which the execution of that part of the measure which related to the boroughs was founded, and also to the principle on which the measure in general was to be carried into execution.
The Earl of Limerickremarked, in allusion to the learned Lord's observations touching the influence of the priests, that the anti-tithe meetings, and the opposition to the payment of tithes, had been first excited by a Catholic Prelate, and was encouraged and maintained by the exertions of the priests.
The Marquess of Westmeathwas surprised that he had not heard the learned Lord's objections to the close Irish boroughs at an earlier period of his parliamentary history. In no part of Ireland was there the slightest expectation of any measure like this, until it appeared in the general plan of Reform which Ministers had taken upon themselves to bring forward. There was neither the same necessity nor the same demand for Reform in Ireland, as there had been in England. The alterations which Ireland wanted were of a very different nature from the speculative advantages presented to his view in that Bill. It was a wanton creation of his Majesty's Ministers, for some reason or other to them best known. There was no reason, at all events, for enlarging the Representation on account of trade or commerce, and making the constituency more democratic. What part of the trade of Galway, for example, required more than three Representatives? Except the exportation of oysters and kelp, he should like to know what trade there was in the west of Ireland requiring Representation? He should not, any more than any other noble Lord, oppose this Bill, but he must say, that he had heard nothing to alter his opinion as to there being no necessity for it.
Lord Templemoreasked the noble Lord what he would say to the town of Belfast, which contained 42,000 inhabitants, and only returned one Member? The noble
638
Marquess could scarcely think that the Representatives of that large commercial town should be returned by a sovereign and two burgesses.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, that his observations were more particularly directed to the west of Ireland.
Lord Ellenboroughthought, it would be better that the discussion should be taken on Thursday next, in consequence of the shortness of the notice, and the absence of the noble Lords connected with Ireland.
The Bill read a second time.