Sitting of 5 August 1834

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Bank of England (Debt).—Read a third time:—South Australian Colonization; Foreign Enlistment; Pensions (Civil Offices) Act Amendment; Exchequer Bills; Church Temporalities Act Amendment (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By Messrs. HARVEY and BAINES, from two Places,—for Relief to the Dissenters.—By Mr. HARVEY, from Thaxted, for transferring the Duties of the Office of Assessor of Taxes to the Assize; from one Place, for the Abolition of Tithes in Ireland.—By the same, and Mr. BAINES, from several Places,—for the Separation of Church and State, and against Church Rates.—By Lord SANDON, from the Debtors in the Borough Gaol of Liverpool, for altering the Law relating to Insolvent Debtors.—By Mr. SINCLAIR, from a Number of Places, against the present System of Church Patronage in Scotland; from a Congregation in Pentonville, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath; from several Individuals, for Protection to the Church of Scotland.—By Mr. DUNCOMBE, from Fishlake, against any Alteration in the Corn Laws.—By Captain JONES, from Londonderry, against the County Bridges' (Ireland) Bill.—By the same, and Mr. ASHLEY, from several Places, for Protection to the Protestant Church in Ireland.—By Mr. HARVEY, from Chichester, for Inquiry into the Pension List.

COMMON FIELDS' ENCLOSURE BILL.
Mr. Childers Mr. Childers moved the Order of the Day, that the House resolve itself into Committee on the Common Fields' Enclosure Bill.
Mr. Tookemoved, that the Bill be committed that day three months.
Sir John Hobhouseadmitted it to be somewhat ungracious to oppose the committal of a Bill in limine; but at the same time he could not but think it would have been much better if a measure of so much importance to the people had originated in that House, as it was only reasonable to suppose, that the Representatives of the people were better acquainted with the wishes of their constituents than any member of the other House of Parliament could possibly be. His own constituents at Nottingham were very hostile to the Bill, and had expressed a hope that their town might be exempted from its operation. The noble Lord who introduced the Bill into the other House of Parliament had been misinformed with regard to the sentiments of a majority of the inhabitants of Nottingham. The Bill was very generally objected to there, and he should feel it to be his duty to vote against it.
Mr. Childerssaid, he had no intention to propose the exemption of any one particular town; but a general clause would be introduced, by which the neighbourhood of all large towns would be exempted from the operation of the Bill.
Mr. Tookeexpressed his determination to persevere in the Amendment he had proposed. He strongly objected to the House being called upon, at so late a period of the Session, to legislate on a subject of such grave importance. He would, however, be willing to lend his assistance in the next Session of Parliament to any well-digested measure on this subject.
Mr. Blamiresupported the Bill, and trusted no impediment would be thrown in the way of passing it into a law during the present Session: if the Bill was imperfect, it was a reason for going into Committee.
Mr. Haweswas desirous to know whether the Clause he had proposed on a former occasion, excluding the neighbourhoods of large towns from the operation of the Bill, would be objected to?
Mr. Childerswas willing to adopt the first part of it, to prevent the Bill from taking effect within ten miles of the metropolis; but he thought there were many objections to the other part of the Clause, excluding towns with a population of 3,000 from the operation, within three miles of such towns. That was a question for consideration in Committee.
Major Beauclerkwas glad to see the House entertain a different view of the question to-day from that which formerly induced it to vote against his Amendment. He was induced to withdraw his opposition to it on that occasion, at the suggestion of several Members of the House, on the understanding, that large towns would not be included in the Bill. Finding, however, that such a proposition had been abandoned, he should give the Bill all the opposition in his power.
Mr. Finchsupported the Bill, contending that it would tend much to the improvement of agriculture and the benefit of the lower classes.
Mr. Aglionbywas convinced, that nothing contained in the Bill would have the effect of depriving the poor of any of the rights or enjoyments they now possessed. He earnestly hoped the Bill would be suffered to pass during the present Session.
Mr. Rigby Wasonsaid, the period at which it was introduced formed alone a fatal objection to the measure.
Mr. Hodgesopposed the Bill. Among the defects of the measure there was one to which he would call the attention of the House—he alluded to tithes, which were not taken notice of in the Bill. He also reminded the House of the objection taken by the hon. member for Reading on a former occasion to the entire omission of any clause for the drainage of land. These objections formed only a part of the ground on which he opposed the Bill; there were many other very serious difficulties.
Sir Henry Willoughbysaid, the Bill was evidently not understood by the

963
House. There was not one word in the whole of it that could lead to the possible inference, that any waste or common land could be enclosed. He gave it his cordial support.
The House divided on the original Motion: Ayes 14; Noes 34—Majority 20.
The Bill to be committed in six months.

List of the AYES.

Ashley, Lord

Shepherd, Thomas

Barnard, George

Sinclair, George

Blamire, William

Steuart, Robert

Finch, George

Talbot, James

Houldsworth, Thos.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Howard, Philip

TELLERS.

M'Leod, R.

Poyntz, W. S.

Aglionby, H. A.

Sandon, Lord

Childers, J. W.

List of the NOES.

Baines, Ed.

Perceval, Col.

Brotherton, J.

Potter, R.

Buckingham, J. S.

Ruthven, E. S.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Sullivan, R.

Codrington, Sir Ed.

Tower, C.

Colborne, Ridley

Trowbridge, Sir Thos.

Crawford, Wm.

Waddy, C.

Duncombe, Hon. W.

Wall, Baring

Ewart, W.

Walter, John

Harvey, D. W.

Warre, J. A.

Hawes, Benjamin

Wason, Rigby

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C.

Whalley, Sir Samuel

Wilks, John

Hodges, T.

Williams, Colonel

Hotham, Lord

Wood, Ald.

Irton, S.

Young, G. F.

Kemp,T.

TELLERS.

Marjoribanks, S.

Beauclerk, Major

Pelham, Hon. C. A.

Tooke, Wm.

COMMITTEE ON DRUNKENNESS.
Mr. Buckinghambrought up the Report of the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the causes and consequences of the increasing evil of drunkenness.
Mr. Haweswished to put a question to the Chair. He did not find that this Committee had any power to make a Report to the House, but that they were merely authorised to report the minutes of evidence. He apprehended, therefore, that in presenting this Report, they were assuming a power to which they were not entitled.
The Speakerbegged to assure the hon. Gentleman, that every Select Committee of the House was bound to make Reports. The complaint usually was, that Committees assumed an unwarrantable power in not making their Reports.
The Report to lie on the Table. On the question that it be printed,
Mr. Haweswas aware, that he was pursuing that which was an unusual course in opposing the printing of this Report; but it should be recollected, that it was not unanimously agreed to. He should not, on that account merely, have met the present Motion with any opposition, but the Report was certainly one of the most extraordinary which had ever been made. He felt, that the recommendations of this Report were opposed to the interests of his constituents, and were a most flagrant violation of private rights. It was under this conviction, that he felt it to be his duty to bring the Report under the consideration of the House, though he had been strongly urged not to take such a step. The consequence of some of the legislative and prospective remedies suggested in this Report would be, first to ruin the whole trade of the licensed victuallers, in which business no less than 100,000 persons were engaged. All those persons, if they continued to sell spirits, were to be called upon to enter into an engagement to sell nothing but spirits; spirit-shops were to be as open to the public as possible—to be kept as open as those shops in which wholesome food was sold; but the spirit dealers were not to be allowed to sell more than a quart or a pint. The Report recommended, that no spirits should be allowed to be imported into this country. What, then, he would ask, was to become of our West-India colonies? Again, it was suggested, that no spirits should hereafter be distilled but by chemists, &c., for purposes of medicine. There was a clause which proposed that beer should be brewed of a certain strength, and that the price should be defined—there was to be a reduction of duty on tea and coffee—there was to be a universal branch of education, to teach children the evils arising from spirits; and this was to be made a comfortable volume for the benefit of the public; and it was considered, that this would form a very valuable accompaniment to the Poor-law Report. In large towns the workmen were to be paid on the market days (so that they would in many instances he paid three times a week); no meetings of societies in the shape of benefit or relief societies were to be permitted in public-houses, or in places where intoxicating draughts were allowed. "But," said the hon. Gentle-

965
man, "I could quote many more racy passages from this Report." ["Read! Read!"] No; he did not want to cast ridicule upon the Report of the Select Committee. The object of those who supported the Committee, he doubted not, was good; and if the document he had referred to could have been considered as embodying a Report which was practical, he should have abstained from all comment upon it; but, considering the ruin which such a plan, if put in force, must inflict on the rights and property of a vast number of persons—the disregard of all financial arrangements which it evinced, and the violation of all private rights, and private property which it contained—he should oppose the printing of the Report, and would divide the House upon that question.
Mr. Buckinghamsaid, that however much he might admire the ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman in bringing forward his objections to the Report, he could not equally admire the candour evined in making the statements. Much as he knew and had heard of misrepresentation, he had never known it more plainly made use of in support of an argument than had been adopted on this occasion. ["Read! Read!"] As the hon. member for Lambeth had not followed the invitation of hon. Members to "read," neither would he; but he hoped the House would allow him to mention that the course which the hon. Gentleman had taken proved his speech to be merely a commentary on his own observations. The hon. Gentleman had attended the Committee only three or four times, and then for a short period only; and during that short period his object had been to browbeat and to puzzle the witnesses, to make it out that no legislative remedy could be applied. But the object of the Committee was to inquire into the causes and consequences of drunkenness, and to see whether any, and what legislative measures could be adopted to prevent the increase of this evil. He wished that this Report should not be taken on the showing of the hon. Gentleman, or of himself, but that it should be printed for the perusal of the House generally; for in every division which had taken place in the Select Committee, the hon. Gentleman, the member for Lambeth, stood always alone. He denied that the Committee had recommended the non-importation of
966
spirits; or that no spirits should be distilled but by chemists, &c. The Committee had contemplated these things in the ultimate results; but they had urged nothing of the kind. Now the Committee had before them witnesses of ail professions. They had had the testimony of three Police Magistrates of London, the Boroughreeve of Manchester, of three Sub-Sheriffs, of one Physician-General to the army—of three medical men in London—of a Colonel and a Captain of the army—of officers in the navy—of a spirit dealer on Holborn-hill, and of one of the Commissioners of Poor-laws, who had expressly stated, that much of the evils complained of in respect to the Poor-laws was attributable to the unceasing habit of drunkenness amongst the poorer classes. He (Mr. Buckingham) hoped, that the House would not, to meet the freak, humour, or sinister interest of any man, refuse to allow this Report to be printed.
Mr. Hawesbegged to inquire, whether the hon. Member applied the epithets "sinister interest," to him?
Mr. Buckingham: He had certainly applied his language to the hon. Member, perhaps, but he had done so hypothetically.
Mr. O'Dwyersaid, that as to the evidence of the Sub-Sheriffs to whom the hon. member for Sheffield had alluded, he believed that such a thing as a sober Sub-Sheriff was never heard of. He believed that no man could arrive at that dignity who was particularly sober. The hon. Gentleman begged that part of the Report might be read.
[The Clerk read the Report, which was accompanied by much cheering and laughter].
Mr. Bainesmaintained, that the Report was not to be considered as pourtraying the opinions of those hon. Gentlemen who formed the Committee, because it did not contain their sentiments, but those only of the witnesses who were examined. If then there were anything preposterous in the Report, it must be attributed to the recommendations or suggestions thrown out by the witnesses, not by the Committee. The manner in which this Report had been received, was not respectful to that Committee, who had bestowed much time on the matter. The Report ought not to be thus treated with contempt. A more ungracious proceeding than that proposed

967
had never yet been adopted. Surely the House of Commons were bound to pay every attention to a question upon which the people had so numerously petitioned. For his part he warmly supported the Motion for printing the Report; and when it was printed, he was sure that nothing discreditable to the Committee would be found in it.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Baines) recommended very "warmly" the printing of this Report; but he (Mr. O'Connell) hoped that the House would as "coolly" reject such a proposition. The bon. Gentleman said, that this Report did not express the opinions of the Committee but of the witnesses! The witnesses? Did the Committee not understand what they had to do? To be sure they seemed to have been a little muddled—there must have been some mud in the water; and he saw that the hon. Gentleman's appearance was that of a man who drank nothing but water—nothing but solid water!—but ought the House to meet this proposition for printing the Report, when the Committee came before them with so silly, so absurd a suggestion as that of preventing the importation of spirits? And should they sit there and sanction such nonsense? This was the Report embodying the opinions of the witnesses! If such were their opinions, the Committee ought to have said, that at this period of the moon these men ought to be taken care of. When they talked of preventing the importation of spirits, he was astonished that the good sense of his hon. friend had not convinced him, that these people wanted a guard. Distillation was to be confined to the chemists only! But he begged pardon of the House for detaining them with such trash. If they allowed this Report to be printed, they would encourage every drivelling Legislator. Oh, yes! they would have some snail-paced Legislator moving for a Committee to inquire into the best means of preventing flies from destroying butter or honey.
Colonel Williamsthought the House bound to receive the Report, and have it printed. Whatever ridicule might attach to the course, he would take care to place the following Resolutions on the Journals of the House:—
"Resolved—That the petitions on the part of the people to this House for cheap bread, ought to be met by the suppression
968
of the practice of converting human food into useless and destructive drink.
"'That (from a time to be fixed) the distillation of ardent spirits from grain should be at once and entirely prohibited in Great Britain and Ireland.
"That it can be shown that the morals and happiness of an industrious people shall by such a prohibition be promoted, the cultivators of the soil made more prosperous, the comforts of the labourer augmented, and the productive industry of the country encouraged—the public expenditure for workhouses, gaols, barracks, hulks, Court-houses, penal colonies, and lunatic asylums be greatly reduced, and the revenue diverted but not impaired. Then all objections to this prohibition must vanish.
"That the Government which should, after such evidence, authorize the manufacture and traffic of ardent spirit from grain, would lend its authority to the violation of the first principles of political economy, as the capital, materials, and labour, employed in the conversion, become a calculable and total loss in money, and an invaluable loss in the moral character and qualifications for self-government in a nation under the influence of intemperance."
If he could not act upon these Resolutions this year, he was determined to bring it under the consideration of the House early in the next Session.
Mr. Mark Philipssaid, that although his name appeared as one of the Members of that Committee, he had not consented, nor could anything short of the Coercion Bill induce him to concur in that Report. He thought the wisest course on the part of the House would be to receive the evidence without the Report.
Mr. Philip Howardhad also been a Member of that Committee, but not having been able to give a due attendance upon it, he did not think that he should have been justified in interfering with the drawing up of the Report. He must say, therefore, that he did not consider himself pledged by the Report. At one examination, to which he had alluded, Mr. Fearon, a very intelligent dealer in spirits had proved, that drunkenness had not increased, and that the habits of the lower classes in the metropolis had improved. He was therefore bound to say, not only that he was not pledged by the Report, but that the evidence, as far as he heard

969
it, did not bear out the statement of the Report.
Lord Sandonthought the question was, whether there was anything in the Report which ought to induce them to deviate from the recommendation of the Committee as to its being printed. He had been a Member of that Committee; but he had the misfortune, from various circumstances, of being prevented from attending upon it. He found, however, that those parts of the Report which were looked upon as wild and visionary, were not the recommendations of the Committee, but merely contained the opinions of the witnesses examined. It was an easy matter to turn the Report of the Committee, or any Committee into ridicule, but the fact was, that the House could not judge of the merits of that Report until it was printed and laid upon the Table. But the printing was by no means a pledge (God forbid it should), that the House was to adopt it. But he thought that the refusal to print it would be a departure from the general usage, so great that it could not be justified unless under extraordinary circumstances. There might be, and undoubtedly was, much extravagance in certain portions of the evidence, but then there were other parts of the Report which contained much useful information. He implored the House, therefore, not to interfere with the recommendation of the Committee that the Report should be printed.
Mr. Brothertoncontended, that if the House adopted the recommendation of the Committee they would find that the happiness and best interests of the country would be greatly promoted. The evidence of the witnesses examined before the Committee went to prove the great distress which arose from the too prevalent practice of using ardent spirits, and the consequent pauperism, which it gave rise to. He admired, as every man must do, the great talents of the hon. and learned member for Dublin, but he could not help expressing his regret at finding that hon. and learned Gentleman allowing his talents to be misapplied in ridiculing a measure such as that under consideration. They were bound to be very cautious, but, above all, he thought they ought to take care, before they legislated for the punishment of crime, to remove the strongest incentives for its commission. He was by no means an advocate for coercion
970
upon this or any other measure, but he thought it expedient, that they should, as much as possible, remove from the people that temptation Which was, in most cases, found to be too powerful to be resisted. He hoped that, under all the circumstances, the House would allow the Report to be printed.
Lord John Russellwould refer to a passage in the Report for the consideration of the House. In that passage a hope was expressed that early in the next Session his Majesty's Ministers would introduce some general and compulsory measure with reference to the distillation and use of ardent spirits. Without at all entering into the details of the Report, he had only to observe, that he, for one, could never be a party to any such measure.
Mr. Sinclairthought, that the remedy proposed by the Committee was altogether impracticable. He had been appointed upon that Committee, and had at an early period attended its sittings, but finding that it was not likely to be attended with any beneficial result, he thought it better to withdraw altogether from it.
Mr. Ruthvensaid, that some portions of this Report were absurd enough, yet still he thought it would be going too far to say, that it ought not to be printed.
Mr. Maxwellwas determined to support the Motion for printing the Report, and at the same time begged to express a hope that those who had in this instance shown themselves friendly to the measure would not be deterred from coming forward in support of it early in the next Session.
The House divided: Ayes 63; Noes 31—Majority 32.
Report to be printed.

TITHES (IRELAND).
Mr. Littleton, in moving the third reading of the Tithes (Ireland) Bill, begged to occupy the House for one minute, while he adverted to what had fallen, on a late occasion, from the right hon. member for the University of Cambridge, with respect to the efficiency of the Perpetuity Purchase Fund. The right hon. Gentleman here repeated the detailed statement which he had made on former occasions, on the various receipts and expenses of that fund; the general result of which was, that the income was altogether 91,033 l., and the expenditure 66,000 l.; leaving a surplus of above 25,000 l. to be employed in optional purposes, such building chapels, aug-

971
menting small livings, &c. The right hon. Gentleman concluded, by moving, that the Bill be now read a third time.
Mr. Lefroysaid, that as the subject had been discussed very fully already, it was not his intention to enter much at length into the merits of the question, but, having voted for the second reading of the Bill, he felt himself called upon to state to the House, as well as to justify himself to his constituents, his reasons for now moving, that the Bill be read a third time that day six months. What he intended to offer to the House should consist of a short summary of what appeared to him to be the distinction between the first Bill—that which had been read a second time—and the Bill which his Majesty's Ministers now proposed to have read a third time; and in comparing the present Bill with the former, he thought it right to call the attention of the House to what was the foundation of the Bill as originally introduced to the House by his Majesty's Ministers. That Bill purported to be founded upon a passage contained in the Speech of his Majesty from the Throne at the opening of the present Session of Parliament. The passage was as follows:—"I recommend," said his Majesty, "to you the early consideration of such a final adjustment of tithes." (That Speech was delivered in February, and now, in August, the House was fulfilling the recommendation of taking the subject into its "early consideration.") "I recommend to you," said his Majesty, "the early consideration of such a final adjustment of the Tithes in Ireland as may extinguish all just causes of complaint, without injury to the rights and property of any class of my subjects." Now the Bill which was brought in in February last, in pursuance of the recommendations contained in the Speech from the Throne, was in conformity with the recommendation, and was calculated to give effect to the wise and prudent counsel contained in it. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill, in the course of his speech on that occasion, adopted as a leading principle the necessity of realizing the property of the Church, and with a view to that object, he stated, "the first thing to be done in the estimation of the Government will be to confer upon this description of property all possible security which it is in the power of Parliament to confer upon it." The right hon. Gentleman
972
accordingly at that time proposed, that the Crown should take upon itself the collection of the Land-tax or Rent-charge—that time should be allowed to the landlords to redeem it; but in the event of their not doing so, that the Land-tax should be saleable, and the produce vested in landed property for the use of the Church. With respect to the proposal for subjecting the landlords to the burthen by any compulsory proceeding, and without a power of redemption, the House, he trusted, would permit him to call their attention to the sentiments of the right hon. Gentleman at that time: his opinion then was—"that such a measure could not be recommended to the consideration of Parliament on any principle consistent with honour, justice, or good faith." The measure which the right hon. Gentleman now recommended to Parliament, backed by the weight of the Government, was precisely that which he then declared would be at variance with every principle of justice, honour, and good faith.—Now, with respect to the reviewing of the compositions, he (Mr. Lefroy) wished to show the varying sentiments of the right hon. Gentleman; it appeared then, as now, to have been the object of the hon. and learned member for Dublin to open the compositions throughout Ireland, and expose them all to a review. What, was then the language of the Secretary for Ireland? He said—"The hon. and learned member for Dublin stated, on the first night of the Session, that he believed that at least in nine cases out of ten, the effect of the Composition Act was to increase the amount of tithe in Ireland. I somewhat indiscreetly (says the right hon. Gentleman), as it appears to me now, admitted, that a trifling increase might have taken place in the case of one third of the parishes in Ireland;" but he added—"I have since found on calculation, that if I had limited my admission to one-tenth of that third, I should have been nearer the mark." He, therefore, had the testimony of the right hon. Gentleman, founded on a calculation then made, that not in one-tenth of one-third of the parishes in Ireland, was there even a pretence for a review of the composition. He had thus referred to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman upon introducing the Bill of February as a criterion, which the right hon. Gentleman could not object to, for, comparing and judging the Bill which

973
he now called upon the House to pass: the great principle of the Bill of February last, pursuant to the recommendation of the Crown, was, the extinguishment of tithes. That Bill did accordingly not only in name, but in reality, provide for the extinguishment of tithe, for by that Bill, the composition was redeemable, and the proceeds of it were to be vested in land, and the tithe-owner put in possession of land as an equivalent for what he had previously received for tithe. The right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland had stated last night, that if that plan had been pursued, the clergyman would be then as much at the mercy of the peasant as he was at present. But there was no reason to suppose any such thing. The fact was, that the clergyman was already in possession of some portion of land, and he knew of no instance in which a conspiracy had been entered into to defraud the clergyman of the rents arising out of glebe lands, no more than there had been to defraud any other description of landlords of their rents. That, therefore, appeared to him to be a mere speculative or notional objection—at all events, by the possession of land the clergyman would have the means of subsistence for himself and his family, and not be left, as many of them had been lately, in a state of actual want and destitution. It had also been said, that there was a great objection to bringing so large a portion of land into mortmain. He had already pointed out an answer to that objection—in the quantity of Bishops' land taken out of mortmain by the Church Temporalities' Act—but the objection was merely of a speculative nature. It was true, if the lands were to be held, as they were formerly held by the monasteries, occupied by the monks themselves, there might be something in the objection, but not where in general they would be let out to farmers like the lands of any other landlord. The first difference then between the two Bills was this, that the one provided for an actual extinguishment of tithes—while the other kept up the thing, though it changed the name. The one Bill met that prejudice of the people which, it was said, prevented them from paying the clergy of a Church from which they derived no benefit; while the other left the collection of the rent-charge open to every objection that ever was urged against tithe; for it was idle to suppose that it
974
would not be well known to the peasantry of Ireland, that the amount of the rent-charge was to be appropriated to the maintenance of the clergy of the Established Church. it was said, indeed, in answer to this objection, that by the present Bill the rent-charge was to be paid by the landlord. But how was the landlord to be reimbursed? If his land should be in lease, and the tenant should hold under a lease prior to 1832, the landlord would be entitled to levy the amount from the tenant. But what security was there that the tenant would not resist, and if the landlord could not recover the amount from the tenant, it would furnish him with an excuse; nay, if the landlord should be as ill affected to the Church as the tenant—or if a portion of the land-lords, from their straitened circumstances, should find it inconvenient to pay—what inducement did the Bill hold out for an understanding between the landlord and tenant?—and thereby leave the clergy worse off than before for the portion of his income which the Bill nominally leaves to him. Supposing the Commissioners of the Woods and Forests, in order to enforce payment, to appoint a receiver under this Act, and he was to distrain, would not the same objection that formerly existed to levying property distrained for tithe—would not that objection be urged with equal force to purchasing property distrained under the present Bill—well knowing, as the peasantry of Ireland must do, that the proceeds were to go into the clergyman's pocket? He voted for the second reading of the former Bill, because, though it took away from the clergy one-fifth of their income, it effectually secured the remainder, and put an end for ever to a fertile source of agitation and disturbance of the public peace. But the present Bill left untouched all the grievances, whether fancied or real, which existed before. The next great difference between the two measures was this—that by the first Bill one-fifth only of the clergyman's income was abstracted, while by the present Bill two-fifths of the property of the Church was taken away for ever. He was not in the least desirous of imputing to the Bill greater injustice than it was calculated to effect, but no man could doubt, that by it two-fifths of the Church-property was spoliated. It was true, there was a provision for repayment of one-fifth out of

975
the Consolidated Fund, and this advance was to be repaid out of the Perpetuity Fund. Was there, he would ask, ever anything so preposterous as this? The Bill first extinguished two-fifths of the property, and then they found a substitute for one fifth. But it was a mere delusion to say, that this was to come out of the Consolidated Fund. His Majesty's Ministers could not believe that the House would go on annually voting away money for the support of the Irish Church. It was unreasonable to suppose they would, and the result must be, that the one-fifth, which was nominally to be made good out of the Consolidated Fund, would eventually be left to be provided for out of the remaining property of the Church. As to the Perpetuity Fund being at all adequate for the purposes of making up the deficiency, he would take it upon himself to prove it was impossible. The Perpetuity Fund, taking it at the most exaggerated amount, was not anticipated by his Majesty's Ministers to produce more than 1,200,000 l. and that statement was made on the supposition that the tenants of all Bishops' leases would purchase the Perpetuity. In the ten suppressed sees, however, no purchase of the fee simple would be effected. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners in these sees were bound to renew. There would be no Bishop to run his life against the tenant's; then why should any man pay even a quarter of a year's purchase for the fee simple of the estate? Formerly there might have been some object to be achieved when, for electioneering purposes, it became advisable for a landlord to have a number of forty shilling freeholders; but now the case was otherwise, as leaseholders had the power to vote, and it was therefore manifest that in the suppressed sees no purchases of the perpetuity would take place, and the estimated amount of the fund must, therefore, be reduced to a sum much lower than had been originally stated. But supposing the sum to be 1,200,000 l., the interest of which would amount to only 42,000 l., the amount proposed to be supplied out of the Consolidated Fund to make good the one-fifth of the tithes was 120,000 l. annually. To meet this there would be at the utmost but 42,000 l. a-year arising from the Perpetuity Fund. The difference, therefore, was 78,000 l. a-year; and what prospect he would ask was there that that sum would be annually
976
voted to the Church? But if it were to be made (as was signified by the right hon. Secretary) a permanent grant, it would be open to the House to call to mind the ground upon which the sum had been granted—namely, that it should be made good out of the Perpetuity Fund—and that fund failing, must be made a ground of repealing the Act, and the Church would then be thrown on its own property for support—the amount of that property having been diminished two-fifths by the present Bill. But if the Perpetuity Fund should be appropriated in the manner proposed, what was to become of the several matters to which it was now appropriated: and that brought him to the statement made by the right hon. Secretary which appeared to him to show that it was perfectly impossible the Commissioners could discharge the duties that at present devolved upon them, without the aid of the Perpetuity Fund. The outgoing of the Commissioners was stated to be 66,000 l.; to that, however, must be added the sum of 4,000 l., being the interest of the 100,000 l. which the Commissioners had just borrowed. But what was the amount of their income? The right hon. Gentleman stated it at 42,000 l. a-year; but he must totally dissent from that sum being considered as annual income. In that sum the right hon. Gentleman included the amount of two years' income of the see of Waterford; and he had also included a sum of 7,000 l. which was to be repaid by the clergy for their debt to the Board of First Fruits, though it was well known the clergy were incompetent to pay it.
Mr. Littletonsaid, he had no doubt that it would be, and he believed part of it would have been paid but the clergy waited for the result of same petitions presented to the House on the subject.
Mr. Lefroywould take the earliest opportunity of moving for a return which would show not the estimate but the actual sum in the hands of the Commissioners; and he (Mr. Lefroy) had the strongest reason for supposing that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had not sixpence at their disposal. The churchwardens of St. Thomas's parish addressed a letter to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, in the month of May, in which they stated that they had no means of providing for the celebration of divine service, or of paying the officers of the

977
church, who were in great distress. This it would be admitted was an urgent application, and he called the attention of the House and of his Majesty's Ministers to the reply of the Commissioners.—"The Commissioners have not for some mouths past had money to make any payment on account of claims arising out of Churchcesses—as soon as a measure which has been brought before Parliament has become law, they will have the power of borrowing money to enable them to discharge all just claims of that description." Here was a statement from the Commissioners themselves, setting forth that they had not one sixpence to keep the roof of the church in repair, and that their only hope of having funds at their disposal arose out of their being enabled by Parliament to borrow money. He, therefore, doubted exceedingly the accuracy of the statement put forth by the right hon. Gentleman—it did not certainly satisfy him. If the House found that to be the situation in which the Commissioners were placed, what, he would ask, was to become of all the churches in Ireland (for the application to which he referred was by no means a solitary instance)? If the Perpetuity Fund were alienated from the purposes to which it was appropriated last Session, the churches in Ireland must go to ruin, and divine service be completely put an end to in that country. He (Mr. Lefroy) doubted whether the House would sanction another loan to the Commissioners; but if they even did, the fund would be so eaten up with the interest in these loans that it would be impossible for the Commissioners to meet the other charges upon it. The landed proprietors of Ireland were last year relieved from the vestry cess; and when Government were asked what they would provide in lieu of it, the House and the country were told that a substitute, beyond all doubt, was found for it in this Perpetuity Fund. The Commissioners had had an opportunity for one year of trying their hands, and upon their own showing, if the Perpetuity Fund were to be taken away, there would be a deficiency of twenty-eight thousand pounds per annum. He thought the deficiency greater, inasmuch as he did not consider their present income more than 20,000 l. a-year. He said, therefore, when the Bill differed so materially from that which had been read a second time—when the very existence of the Church was
978
brought into jeopardy by turning aside the fund which was appropriated for its support—when the principle upon which the original Bill was founded had been totally abandoned—he felt not only justified but called upon—on the score of what he owed to the interest of those he more immediately represented in that House—and on the best consideration he was able to give the subject—to resist to the uttermost the passing of the Bill. Before he sat down, he begged to remind the House that when it was last year proposed to levy a tax upon the present incumbents to make good the amount of the vestry cess, the proposition was rejected by a strong expression of the sense of the House. Then he would ask why it was that these incumbents were to be now more severely dealt with? He could well understand, if the Bill had remained as it was, why, although one-fifth was sacrificed, it should have been supported by the friends of the Church. He had voted for the second reading of the Bill—because, although one-fifth was sacrificed, perfect security was given to the remainder; and he should have supported the Bill to the last, if it had remained what it was. But the property of the clergy was not only to be reduced without any consideration, or adequate inducement, but what was left was exposed to the jeopardy to which the re-opening of the compositions left them liable. There was a new source of vexation and expense, and all the old ones still remained. He would ask did all the conscientious scruples, as they were called, of which the House had heard so much, exist as strongly to the payment of the rent charge of three-fifths as they did to the payment of the full composition under its old appellation, or could the House forget what had been within a few nights so emphatically stated by the hon. member for Tipperary (Mr. Shell), that nothing would be considered by him, and those who acted with him, as having been done, until the remaining property of the Church should be differently appropriated. The clergy of Ireland he (Mr. Lefroy) would say got nothing by this Bill, and he should be wanting in his duty to the clergy, and acting contrary to their wishes, their feelings, and he would add, their interests, were he not to oppose its further progress. With respect to that great principle of asserting the rights of property, of which the right hon. Gentleman in opening the

979
measure to the House in February had said so much, how stood the case now? By the present Bill that principle had been abandoned. There had been no vindication of the law or of the rights of property, but, on the contrary, a great bonus had been given to agitation; and those who had been the instruments and the agents—if not the destroyers of this property—had been rewarded with the spoil. It was not at the call of the landlords of Ireland that this concession was made—it was notoriously a concession made to the hon. and learned member for Dublin. Instead, therefore, of property being realized, it had been sacrificed. By the former Bill the compositions were to remain fixed—but the present measure opened them all. Should the present measure pass, no clergyman in Ireland could state what his income really was to be; all the compositions, at whatever period made, were to be exposed to review, and they were to be examined into, not upon the principle upon which the compositions had been entered into—but upon new and different principles. That he would fearlessly assert, was an anomaly in legislation unparalleled in injustice. On all these grounds he felt coerced to oppose the Bill; and he should therefore move that it be read a third time that day three months.
Mr. John Youngin seconding the Amendment, wished to make a few observations in consequence of the great change made in the Bill by the Amendment, which the doubtful opposition, or rather the connivance of Government, had enabled the hon. and learned member for Dublin to carry in Committee. When it had been proposed on the 20th of February last, "that all compositions and commutations of tithe should entirely cease after the 1st of November next—that his Majesty should, after that period, be empowered to impose a land-tax, which should be redeemable, the charge to be collected from the occupying tenant, who should be entitled to deduct the same from his rent"—he, in common with those Gentlemen whom he usually acted with, had been induced to vote for the proposition, rather as a choice of evils, under very difficult circumstances, than as any thing per se beneficial. The clergy of Ireland, as he understood, with a generosity and forgetfulness of self which well became that pious, learned, and unjustly maligned body, had put themselves into the hands
980
of their friends in Parliament, and requested them not to look to their temporary embarrassments, or the pressure of want which many individuals amongst them were suffering; but rather to consult for the permanent advantage of the Establishment. The measure, as at first produced, gave an assurance that the revenues of the Church should be but little diminished, and that no part of them should be diverted to other than ecclesiastical purposes, while the scheme of redemption held out, in his opinion, the only just and practical means of arriving at something like a final adjustment, and real abolition of the obnoxious payment. Since February, the change of men in office had been considerable, and the change in counsels still more so. So many withdrawals of principle—so many substitutions of clauses had taken place, that scarcely a single feature of the original plan remained. The chief inducements to support the measure were gone, while several most objectionable points had been introduced. The re-opening the compositions could only lead to the infinite annoyance of clergymen, and unlimited litigation and perjury throughout the country. The greatest and worst change in the Bill had been effected by the hon. and learned member for Dublin; the Church was at once deprived of two-fifths of its tithes—the remainder was vested in the Crown, and the landlords made tithe-proctors. How far this proposition was made in good faith—how far its proposer's judgment and opinion really supported it, could be best ascertained by a reference to what he had before declared. On the 20th of February that learned Gentleman addressed Ministers with: "What are you about to do now? You are about to turn the landowners into your tithe proctors to gather in the tithes, calling them a Land-tax. I do ask you to pause before you do that. Recollect that it is not the amount of the payment which is in question—it is the application of the money which constitutes the grievance. That has been one of the heart-sore spots of the people of Ireland. Recollect, that tithe agitation necessarily threatens a rent agitation—for it unavoidably mixes with it. Hitherto it has been kept separate.—Landlords of Ireland look to yourselves! If you be made under this Act, Tithe-proctors, that very spirit which has continued to agitate on account of tithes for seventy years, will

981
be now applied to rent as well as tithes. Therefore by legislating as you propose to do, you will entail still greater misery on that country than you have yet caused her." It was impossible that one so deeply conversant with Irish politics, so consistently bent on the destruction of Protestantism for thirty years, could have altered his views in the last few months. It was, therefore, clear that his Amendment had been proposed, not to relieve the Church, not to clear difficulties away from the path of the Legislature, or to restore peace to the country, but to gratify his own party with a large bonus of the plunder, and encourage them by making a stride towards the subversion of the Established Church. The men of landed estate in Ireland were placed in an irksome and invidious, and probably dangerous position, as the collectors of a long-resisted payment—and that in a country where the rights of property have never been well supported by popular opinion—where eleven-twelfths of the land are held by title derived from a right of conquest, and where there exists in the minds of the multitude a vague idea of a right of re-assumption as soon as occasion may offer. The enemies of the Church had still further reason to be well satisfied with the Amendment; for, as appeared to the hon. Member, from the explanation of the Chief Secretary, that point on which parties had been contending all the Session—on which a Cabinet had split, and which was said to be still left open—was in reality conceded. Two-fifths of the tithes were given up to the people; but the Consolidated Fund was to pay the clergyman one of these fifths; the fund was to be re-imbursed out of the Perpetuity Fund; in other words, a robbery of the Church, and a Government outlay made for the satisfaction of a particular party was to he repaid out of the Church's Own property. It required little wisdom to foresee how easily this could be perverted into a precedent for alienating Church-property, and how certainly it would be made use of to stay for a moment the clamour and impetuosity of those whom no concession could ever satisfy, while anything remained to be conceded. The hon. Member repelled the charge of bigotry brought against those who supported the Church. They had no wish to domineer over their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. They defended it, because they thought the means its enemies were taking to destroy
982
it, and raise another establishment on its ruins, were pernicious to the rights of property, and their end to be struggled against as fatal to civil liberty, on account of that influence which their priesthood invariably aspired to and exercised over the consciences and conduct of the laity. The men of property were not actuated by religious intolerance; but where they had so deep a stake were quite right—
"Not to wait upon necessity,
And leave, themselves no choice of vantage ground,
But rather meet the times where best they may,
And Shape and fashion them as best they can."
He looked with regret to the past, and with mournful anticipation to the approaching winter, when he recalled to mind the waverings and uncertainties of ministers throughout the Session, and looked to the state of feeling and excitement in Ireland, where agitation, every where triumphant, was extending that which one of the clearest-minded and most enlightened statesmen of the age termed "inseparably its effect"—crime and outrage—into districts hitherto peaceable; while Ministers, yielding to choice or intimidation in the House, had suffered the repressive powers Parliament was ready to intrust them with to be diminished and impaired. He should oppose the measure to the last, as grossly unjust to the Church, and injurious to the landlords, while it could satisfy no party and produce no peace.
Mr. Halcombewas of opinion, that the Coronation Oath, and the Articles of Union prohibited the Legislature from appropriating the property of the Church. At the same time, when a case of necessity arose like the present, something must be done. Parliament had certainly the power, if not the right, to act. Ministers were, he admitted, justified in proposing some measure; but he disapproved of the provisions of this Bill. On that account, he should feel himself bound to oppose the Motion for the third reading. The measure in his opinion gave the clergy no security for that property which was left them, and was therefore unworthy to receive the assent of that House.
Mr. Shawsaid, that frequently as he had had occasion to trouble the House since his Majesty's Ministers had transformed the Bill which they had themselves introduced, into a measure inconsistent with, and violating every principle of that original Bill, he still could not suffer that last opportunity to pass without expressing

983
his srongest dissent from the substituted measure; and the devious, vacillating, and uncandid course which the Government had pursued in reference to it. The very title of the Bill was a mockery—to that moment it was "to abolish tithes, and to substitute in lieu thereof, a land-tax, and to provide for the redemption of the same," and the Bill passing under that name did not accomplish any one of those objects, but did the very reverse. Instead of abolishing all yearly payments in the nature of tithes, (which, under the unhappy condition to which those who misgoverned Ireland had permitted all law and property in that country to be reduced, might have been some benefit), that Bill only reduced the amount to two-fifths, thereby confiscating that proportion of Church property, but leaving behind whatever evil belonged to the principle of an annual payment. It provided no Land-tax, which, under the Bill as at first introduced, was the favourite means of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr Littleton), for vindicating the law, and restoring the value of tithe property, by taking the collection into the hands of the Government for a limited time, and a specific purpose: but all idea of re-establishing either the law or the rights of property was relinquished—and the principle of redemption which constituted the whole essence of the former measure, was not only abandoned, but a species of rent-charge substituted for it at so low a rate of interest as to form an effectual bar to its ever being redeemed; and the only remaining principle upon which the Government professed to act when they brought forward the measure—namely, that the Irish landlords should receive no part of the property of the Church, was also most grossly violated by the measure in its present shape. In short, at first sight, it would appear as if the Government could have no other object in their course than to afford an example of unparalleled inconsistency in their own conduct, and of a Bill in its progress through the House, violating every principle upon which it was introduced. However the Government had another, and to him a very obvious motive—they sought by that Bill to do indirectly, what they had not the manliness to do directly—that was, to appropriate Church property to secular purposes, avoiding the differences in the Cabinet, and the embarrassment in other quarters which must arise if they
984
openly professed to act upon that principle. They did not venture to yield to the hon. and learned member for Dublin on that point, when he attempted to take them by storm, but they willingly fell into his ambuscade. His noble friend (Lord Acheson) had charged him with having accused the Government of truckling to the hon. and learned Member in the mock division of the other night. He certainly did—but then that was not the first nor the most striking instance of a mean subserviency to the views of that hon. and learned Gentleman which the Government displayed in respect of that Bill. He (Mr. Shaw) alluded more particularly to that great change from the principle of redemption to the flimsy subterfuge of three-fifths the present year (as the grounds of further reduction the next and every succeeding year, till all was gone), a plan, which it appeared from the confession of the hon. member for Waterford (Mr. Barron) the other night, had been concocted at a meeting of what were called "the Irish Members," and which the right hon. Gentleman, (Mr. Littleton), endeavoured to palm upon the late Secretary for the Colonies as his own. That right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley), however, quickly detected the imposture—boldly snatched the "honorable board "from the hands of the right hon. Secretary (Mr. Littleton), and exposed the whole trickery. Yes; he, (Mr. Shaw), would maintain that a more complete hocus pocus of uncandid and unfair dealing had never been attempted. Church plunder was the end, and the means by which the Government sought to attain it, was offering to all the parties concerned a share of the spoils. To the Clergy they said,—allow us to divest you of the title to your whole property, and become State-pensioners for three-fifths of the amount; in which case we will give you an annual charge of one-fifth on the Consolidated Fund (ready, by the way, to be withheld at any moment), and insure you for the present year four-fifths of your income. To the landlords, or more properly to the landed interest, the bribe was ultimately two-fifths of the entire Church property, provided those who held their estates leased would, for the present, submit to the payment of tithes to which their tenants were liable, and from which the landlords were by law exempt; thus doubly violating the rights of property, and endeavouring to

985
justify one injustice by another. The inducement to the House to contribute from the public purse towards carrying into effect that mystified scheme of spoliation was, that without much regarding by whom the first fruits were enjoyed, they were establishing the all-important principle of the alienation of Church property from Church purposes, and, at the same time, stripping the Irish branch of the Established Church of the means of its support. It was a part of the measure that the sum advanced from the Consolidated Fund was to be the first charge on the Perpetuity Purchase Fund, which had been last year appropriated to the sole use of the Established Church, it being at the same time notorious that the Commissioners were, at that moment, without funds to meet the ordinary expenses of repairing Churches, paying salaries, and providing things necessary for Divine Service. He (Mr. Shaw) had that day received a petition from Mr. Hamilton, of Hampton, complaining that a Church in his immediate neighbourhood, at which the average congregation was more than five hundred, had been shut up from the month of December last, owing entirely to the want of funds for its repair; and though Mr. Hamilton had offered to advance the money, (the Church having been principally built and endowed by his, Mr. Hamilton's, father), the Commissioners said they could not reckon upon funds to repay him. The fact was, they had but 6,000 l. in hand for the purposes of the commission—owing 20,000 l. to the treasury for money advanced last year, and 100,000 l. for money borrowed this year, independently of the 100,000 l. by that Bill about being charged. And would the House believe, or be deluded by the hope of repayment, when he informed them, that the entire sum as yet realized, from the Perpetuity Purchase Fund, and out of the interests of which the 100,000 l. a-year was to be refunded, amounted to 1,860 l. 18 s. 3d.? He had predicted last year, that the million would not be repaid; and now the noble Lord had postponed the first instalment for another year, and given up two-fifths beside.—[Mr. Littleton: You predicted, that no clergyman would take any part of it.]—He had expressed a strong hope, that the clergy would not accept tint money, and he was sure that those difficulties had been increased by their acceptance of it. In
986
a letter he had received from a friend in the county of Cork that day, the observation of a shrewd Roman Catholic was mentioned to him—"that another rebellion was all that was wanting to knock up the Church for ever." He was persuaded, that while some of the Irish clergy were driven to accept that money from the severe pressure of want, many of them accepted it from the apprehension of the undeserved reproach that would have been cast upon them, had any disturbance arisen from the enforcement of their rights, while any substitute, however inadequate, was offered them. He thought, then, the taunt came with an ill-grace from the right hon. Gentleman, (Mr. Littleton), that the clergy had darkened the Courts of the castle-yard, in Dublin, with their importunity for the wretched pittance that was afforded them—many of whom had been reluctantly compelled to seek it by the privations and misery endured by their families, in consequence of the imbecility, and the timid conduct of that right hon. Gentleman's Government. The right hon. Secretary said, that he paid no great respect to his (Mr. Shaw's) opinions or political principles. He did not feel that to be a censure. His principles and opinions were at least consistent, and disinterested—they had not been taken up for any particular occasion—he had had the misfortune never to have been the supporter of any Government—while he believed the fate of the right hon. Gentleman had been rather of an opposite description—as all Governments, whether Whig or Tory, had enjoyed his (Mr. Littleton's) support and he (Mr. Littleton') seemed even now inclined to lend his aid to a radical one, expecting that to be next. But could the right hon. Gentleman be so wilfully blind as to suppose that the line he had taken that Session with regard to the affairs of Ireland could procure him the respect of any portion of the people of that country. His Majesty had recommended in his Speech from the Throne, a final adjustment of the tithe question without injury to the rights or property of any class of his subjects, or of any institution in Church or State—and the right hon. Gentleman then proposed a plan, which it was not pretended could be a final settlement—and it must be admitted, injured the rights and property of all classes of his Majesty's subjects in Ireland—and by subverting the Church

987
Establishment there, must shake the foundation of every institution in Church and State. Then the right hon. Gentleman outraged every notion of common sense in employing the hon. and learned member for Dublin, the great inventor of dangerous associations, to bring in a Bill for suppressing them; and now the same hon. and learned Gentleman was the author of the present Bill for securing (as they were assured) the welfare and permanency of the Established Church, when the leading and avowed object of his life was to destroy it. Suppose the Church to consent even to receive three fifths of their income, what greater security was there for that than for the whole? In a letter written by the hon. and learned Member in December, he said, tithes both in name and in reality—call them by what name you will, must be totally abolished—the system must go root and branch." The principle of his public life was, that no one Christian should be compelled to contribute to the support of a Church to which he did not belong. How then did the present measure meet that view by merely altering the amount? And what did the hon. and learned member for Tipperary (Mr. Sheil) say?—That "it would be a delusion to tell you that reducing tithes forty per cent would produce pacification." Forty per cent will not do. You must strike off more Bishops. And you may depend upon it next Session Ireland will appear before you and call aloud for a larger measure of relief; no other expectation has been held out to you?" Then they had been told the Irish landlords would be satisfied. He believed they never would approve of injustice; they might indeed, as would be natural, in the midst of the general scramble for property, which seemed to be approaching in Ireland, take what they could get; but it would be without satisfaction. If Church property were confiscated for their use, they would receive it sullenly and contemptuously, well knowing, that it was but a bounty upon insubordination and outrage, the price of crime, and the earnest of the insecurity of their own properties, persons and lives. It could not be said with truth that he was standing on old and bigotted notions of abstract rights. He had consented to make many concessions and many sacrifices in supporting the Bill as brought in by the Government, because it would,
988
through the medium of redemption, have finally adjusted the whole question of tithes; but to that Bill, in its present form, he never could give his assent. It violated every principle of justice, and every right of property. If he was asked what would then become of the Irish clergy for the present year, he would answer, that in November next the composition would be universal throughout Ireland under the Act of 1832. The old system of tithes would be completely done away; and if we were to have any law, or any protection for property at all in Ireland, the clergy would have every possible remedy and power known to the law for the enforcement of their rights. He was convinced the clergy would use those powers as they had ever exercised their rights, with consideration and forbearance—they would never press upon a poor man, really unable to pay—but he hoped they would not abandon their just claims, nor hesitate to use the most summary and effectual process of the law against those who were contumacious, and unwilling to pay, from a spirit of unlawful combination. To the clergy, he would say, "Be just, and fear not." He thought they could recover the principal amount of their just demands by the ordinary process of the law, if they did but receive that protection due by every Government to those intrusted to its care; but even if it were otherwise, and if they were to fall, then, he would say, let it be with magnanimity, and not by their own hands—let them bear in mind the sentiments of the eloquent moderator, who, in his address at the close of the late Session of the general assembly in Scotland advised the Ministers of that Church, in a language, the spirit, if not the words of which, he hoped he recollected, and never would forget, that in the event of an anti-Christian administration infringing the rights and privileges of the Church, "then," said that eminent and faithful man, "it will become our duty to remember the men and the deeds, and the courage, and the steadfastness of former times—to withstand every attempt to deprive us of our rights, or to corrupt our principles; and if the Church must perish, rather let her perish with an unsullied fame, than live by the sacrifice of any one truth for which God hath enjoined us to contend—or of any one principle, in defence of which our forefathers bled and suffered and died."
Mr. Littletonsaid, he was sensible that the Government had exposed itself to the hostility of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr Shaw) by their opposition to those exclusive principles, of which the hon. Gentleman was the strenuous advocate; and he took credit, on behalf of the Government for having deserved his reproach.
Mr. Sinclairsaid, that it would have been deemed unreasonable and unjust in any House of Commons, except the present, which claimed to itself the honour of being reformed, to have rudely interrupted one of the Representatives of the people, especially at the early hour of half-past eight, when endeavouring to discharge a solemn and important duty. He should not, however, be deterred from avowing, that, if this question were pressed to a division, he should vote against the present Bill, because its provisions were essentially changed since he supported it on its first introduction. He knew that such conduct would be unpopular, both in this House and in the country; but he should not shrink from acting according to his conscientious conviction. He had not objected to this amendment of the hon. member for Dublin, but had voted in its favour, because he had always maintained that the burthen of tithes devolved on the proprietor and not on the tenant, and he was desirous to accelerate the arrangement as much as possible by which this principle was practically carried into effect. But he felt that there was no security provided in this Bill for the three-fifths, which still continued to be the nominal patrimony of the Church. The appropriation was now declared to be an open question, and before many years elapsed, the whole would be absorbed by a faction, half Popish and half Dissenting, whom nothing, would satisfy but the destruction of the Protestant Church, and the subversion of the Protestant faith. He had, however, chiefly risen for the purpose of recording his deep and unfeigned regret at the system which his Majesty's Government had adopted in reference to the Church. He trusted that the few remarks which he intended to submit would be couched in the language of respectful remonst r ance, not in terms of acrimonious hostility. He would gladly have abstained altogether from taking part in the discussions on this subject, and he dissented most reluctantly from the views of the Administration; but
990
this was a question of principle, and therefore admitted of no compromise—this was a crisis of peril, and therefore required decision. He firmly believed that the measures which the House was called upon to adopt were as infallibly calculated, as they were assuredly not intended, to shake the very basis of confidence and protection on which the social fabric rested. The clergy, instead of being the legitimate owners of their property, become tenants at will, removable at the pleasure of the Legislature; and the wedge, which they were now about to introduce, would serve for the accomplishment of that object, which he as strenuously deprecated as the Dissenters imperiously demanded—he meant the severance of the connection between the Church and the State; or, in other words, the confiscation and embezzlement of all Church property throughout these realms. His Majesty's Ministers had often said, that it was their desire and their duty to speak out; he intended to follow their precept, though he could scarcely add, their example. It appeared to him, that they were pursuing a tortuous and inexplicable, not a straightforward or intelligible course. The House was, indeed, assured, that on this great question they were all of one mind; but when they compared what was said within these walls with the sentiments uttered in another place, was it possible to avoid arriving at the conclusion, that the unanimity so often contended for was rather nominal than sincere? It resembled a ray of light, which appeared homogeneous to superficial or ignorant observers; but which, when submitted to the prism of strict and searching scrutiny, was resolved into constituent elements, exhibiting a striking diversity, or rather an absolute contrast, both in color and in brightness. Two of the most brilliant tints had unhappily disappeared from the ministerial spectrum in that House; the blue, as represented by his right hon. friend, the late First Lord of the Admiralty—the orange, or true Protestant, as denoted by the distinguished Ex-secretary for the Colonies; and ever since that period, the beams, reflected by the Cabinet upon the Church, had displayed feeble, ambiguous, ill-defined, and flickering light; his Majesty's Ministers were "willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike;" they longed to propitiate the Dissenters, and yet were loth to break with the Church. He believed, that they

991
had many secret misgivings as to the tendency of their present course; and, when about to descend the precipitous declivity, they almost involuntarily recoiled at the contemplation of the gulph which yawned below. By what means did they expect to arrest the downward progress of their own career? Where was the line of demarcation which was to separate concession from resistance? When were they to say to the Church destructionist, "So far shalt thou go, but no further?" He, at least, would so express himself as not to be misunderstood. He was certain that it was equally inconsistent with law, with equity, with justice, and with sound policy, to divert any portion of the ecclesiastical property in Great Britain or in Ireland from purposes in the strictest sense ecclesiastical—by which he meant the erection and endowment of places of worship in connection with the Established Church. If, therefore, he was asked at what point they ought to begin to withstand encroachment, his answer was, "Commence it now—here let us fight the battle—here let us take our ground." Compliance served only to engender fresh demands, to stimulate the ardour of their enemies, and to damp the courage of their friends. The opponents of the Church were as insatiable as they were implacable; they thought that they themselves had gained nothing, whilst the Church had anything to lose. He trusted that the friends of true religion would rally round that banner which God had given to them that fear him, and that the machinations of her enemies would terminate in their own confusion. Instead of obtruding upon a reluctant audience many other arguments, which under more auspicious circumstances he should have ventured to adduce, he would conclude by reiterating his intention to vote against the third reading of this Bill.
Mr. O'Connellcontended, that, by the Bill as it now stood, a better security would be given for the collection of the three-fifths than could otherwise exist for the collection of the whole tithe. In fact, there would be no security, unless this Bill became a law, for the collection of any portion of tithe; but now that difficulty would be got rid of. The speech of the hon. and learned member for the University of Dublin seemed to him the dying note of the heretofore ascendancy party in Ireland; that hon. and learned
992
Gentleman deplored this Bill as an injury to the clergy of Ireland; but how could it injure them? It was admitted on all hands, that they could not collect more than a fraction of their tithe. By this Bill they were secure of eighty per cent. upon their former nominal amount. They would not be reduced to such straits as some of the clergymen had been, to sell—not their wines or their carriages, but their books. That resource would not now be necessary; they would obtain exchequer bills bearing interest at three-halfpence per day for every 100 l.; and these bills they could get cash for at Cheltenham, or any other fashionable place where they might choose to reside, without any difficulty or discount. The hon. and learned member for the University of Dublin was strangely inconsistent in his logic. One day he objected to this Bill as a robbery on the landlords of Ireland; on the next day he objected to it as a bonus to them. On Monday he said they were robbed by the Bill; comes Tuesday, and his tone was altered,—the landlords had a great bonus of forty per cent by it; and in a kind of play-house whisper he informed the House, that the Bill would have both effects. Why, none but the representative of an Irish university could have adopted such extraordinary logic. The Bill was one which would have a conciliatory tendency. It would have the effect of collecting the tithe without any effusion of blood. It would form a new epoch in the history of the English government of Ireland during a period of 670 years. This was the first great step towards a conciliatory system in Ireland; and it would succeed, if the Government had the firmness to persevere in it. He would repeat, it would stop the effusion of blood for twelve months at least. He said twelve months, as not knowing whether the system might be allowed to go on beyond that time. In a pecuniary point of view it would be a saving to this country. At present the collection of tithe in Ireland cost the country 1,500,000 l.; and though this country might be called upon for some present small pecuniary penalty, still it would be money well laid out, and would prove an ultimate saving. The hon. and earned Gentleman had expressed a hope that he might see better times. In that hope he concurred, though he had no doubt that his views of better times applied to very

993
different circumstances from those which the hon. and learned Gentleman contemplated. He (Mr. O'Connell) hoped for such times as would stop the effusion of blood—to prop up a bad system of tithe collection. He hoped there or elsewhere no obstacle would be opposed to this healing measure—that no party in that House or elsewhere would be found to stand between the Government and the Irish people. He hoped that at the end of more than six centuries of misgovernment no attempt would be made to blast this first step towards the pacification of Ireland. He hoped that when certain parties considered the security of their property and their dignities, they would not oppose this healing measure, and prefer another twelve months of discord, not, and bloodshed. Whatever opposition the King's Government might receive on this question, he hoped they would have the manliness and the firmness to resist it; and there could be no doubt the resistance would be successful. It had been said, that this was his Bill. It was not. He had not brought it in; but he wished to make it such a Bill as would be useful to Ireland. The House of Commons had consented to reduce it to its present state; and he had no doubt that the people would stand by and support their faithful Representatives in this measure. He hoped that they would not suffer it to be defeated by the efforts of disappointed ambition—of vexed, and fatigued, and expiring bigotry.
The Bill was read a third time. Some Clauses were added, and verbal Amendments made, and the Bill was passed.

SUPPLY.—CASE OF THE BRIGHTON GUARDIAN.
Lord Althorp, in moving, that the report of the Committee of Supply be brought up, stated, in answer to a question put to him last night, and which he was then under the necessity of declaring his inability to reply to, that the expense of the prosecution of Mr. Cohen, the proprietor of the Brighton Guardian, had been defrayed by Government. The circumstance of Government paying the expenses of prosecutions for libels against such functionaries was not new: there were several instances on record.
Mr. Warburtonhoped this case would not be made a precedent of, because it might be greatly abused, and might lead to the oppression of individuals. He was
994
satisfied that the noble Lord would not, on principle, defend such a case.
Mr. Sheilwished to know whether the expenses of the prosecution were paid out of the secret service money, or whether they were included in the Estimates?
Mr. Secretary Ricesaid, the expenses of the prosecution were not paid out of the secret service money.
Mr. O'Dwyersaid, that libels against public functionaries ought not to be prosecuted on slight grounds; but, above all, Government ought not to sanction such prosecutions in the cases of other parties where they were not prepared to take the responsibility.
The Report was agreed to.

COUNTY BRIDGES (IRELAND).
Mr. Littleton Mr. Littleton moved the Third Reading of the County Bridges' (Ireland) Bill.
Mr. Jones Mr. Jones moved the third reading that day three months.
The House divided.—Ayes45; Noes7: Majority 38. Bill read a third time.
Mr. French Mr. French moved, that the words, "a moiety of the expenses of such work should first be granted in aid of the Commissioners of Public Works," should be inserted in the fifth clause.
Mr. Littletonobjected to the words being inserted, on the ground that they would render the Bill inoperative.
Mr. Frenchwas rather surprised at the change of the right hon. Gentleman's opinion. It was not his object to render the Bill inoperative; on the contrary, his intention was, and the effect of his Amendment, if adopted, would be, to render the Bill what, if this clause remained unaltered, it had little chance of becoming,—useful and effective. By the Bill as it now stood, the Lord-lieutenant was empowered to issue a commission to inquire into the expediency of building or rebuilding any bridge connecting two counties, and to direct that the expense should be levied off these and whatever other counties should be declared by them interested in the execution of the work, provided the Grand Jury of one of these counties should present a sum to defray the expense of that Commission, and request him to issue it. Now, did the right hon. Gentleman imagine that any Grand Jury would be so foolish as to hand over then power of taxation to the Lord-lieutenant—to leave their counties liable for any amount he or his Commissioners might

995
think fit to appoint, no control being left to them, nor specification, expenditure, or execution; no community of interest, nor any pecuniary assistance afforded them? They never would consent to it. The object of the present Amendment was to soften down the opposition of the Grand Juries, to render it their interest to take the preliminary steps, by declaring that before this power should be exercised by the Lord-lieutenant, it should be necessary for the Commissioners of Public Works to signify their intention of granting in aid a moiety of the expenses of the work, as they were empowered to do by the let and 2nd William 4th. Compulsory presentments were always objectionable, particularly so in the present instance, where the person by whose order the money was to be levied had no pecuniary interest in watching over and controlling the expenditure. Hitherto an interest of that kind had always been deemed necessary, where such a power had been demanded—witness the cases where it existed. The police expenditure—half that was borne by Government. The roads under the direction of the Commissioners of Public Works, were originally constructed at the sole expense of Government; it was but fair the counties should be required to keep them in order, but in the case before them neither the whole nor a half was contributed. The House was aware, that, of late years, a considerable outcry had been raised in Ireland against the amount of money levied under the sanction of Grand Juries, the increase of which had been erroneously attributed to the jobbing of individuals, whereas, in reality, it was owing to the amount of presentments they could neither regulate nor control, and which were laid before them merely as a matter of form. In the return made by Mr. Griffith, he found the sum raised for compulsory presentments in the year 1830 amounted nearly to 500,000 l., considerably more than half the entire expenditure of Ireland. In the county he had the honour to represent, the presentment over which the Grand Jury could exercise control was 7,344 l., while upwards of 15,000 l. was required for compulsory presentments. Referring to another return, he found that in Roscommon, establishments, such as gaols, infirmaries, &c., salaries of public officers, such as Clerk of the Crown, Peace, &c., for which thirty years
996
ago 1,600 l. was sufficient, now required by Act of Parliament upwards of 12,000 l. He trusted these facts would show how necessary it was to keep a jealous eye on presentments of this description. He admitted the tight of that House to lay on taxes, the power of the people to tax themselves for local purposes, through certain bodies, such as vestries, Grand Juries, &c., but he had yet to learn that it was in accordance with the spirit of the British Constitution to vest the power of taxation in any one individual.
Amendment negatived, and the Bill was passed.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Insolvent Debtors (India); Excise Revenue Management; Trading Associations. Letters Patent.—Read a third time:—Spring Quarter Sessions.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of WICKLOW, from the Debtors in the Borough Gaol of Liverpool, for altering the Lass relative to Insolvent Debtors.—By the Duke of CUMBERLAND, the Earl of WICKLOW, and Viscount BERESFOBD, from a Number of Places,—for Protection to the Irish Protestant Church, and against the Separation of Church and State.—By the Dukes of GLOUCESTER, DEVONSHIRE, and WELLINGTON, from several Places,—for Protection to the Church of England, and against the Separation of Church and State.

WARWICK BOROUGH.
Evidence was again taken and counsel heard, on the Warwick Borough Bill.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he could not avoid making a few observations upon this Bill. He was ready to declare that he was a great enemy to corruption, and a great friend to all those principles which promoted purity of election, but great a friend as he was to those principles, and admitting, as he readily did, that the petitioners had laboured under great difficulties, still he was bound to say, that they had not proved their case. There had been evidence enough, he admitted, to raise a strong suspicion against this borough, but their Lordships could not legislate merely upon suspicion. His Lordship recapitulated the history of the case, and gave a rapid sketch of the evidence adduced. That evidence, he would admit, abundantly proved that some individual electors had acted in a very corrupt manner, but the acts of some individuals not proved to have been very generally adopted by the inhabitants of the borough would not justify their Lordships in either partially or totally disfranchising a whole borough. If their Lordships once admitted the principle that the miscon-

939
duct of a few could be followed by such a result, they would give away the staff which ought to be kept in their hands alone, and would put it into the hands of any disappointed candidate. For if one candidate had only forty votes, and his antagonist had 1,200 votes, the former might say to himself that it was very true he could not obtain the seat, but that his opponent should never have it, for that he could show that thirty or forty out of the 1,200 men had been guilty of corruption, and so he could prevent the borough from exercising its franchise. If their Lordships were upon the evidence adduced, to proceed against the Borough of Warwick, they would, in his opinion, establish a most dangerous precedent. Under these circumstances, whatever might be his suspicions, he could not legally advise their Lordships to agree to this Bill. His Lordship put the question that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.
The Earl of Radnor: Though he had moved the second reading of the Bill, he had no more to do with it than any of their Lordships. He agreed in many of the propositions laid down by his noble friend, but he thought the case was one of much stronger suspicion than his noble friend, and he considered that the petitioners had failed in consequence of the difficulties thrown in their way. He was bound, however, to add, after considering the evidence which had been given, that he could not in conscience say, that it was such as to justify him in calling on their Lordships to pass this Bill.
The Bill to be read a second time in six months.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE IN BOROUGHS.
The House went into Committee on this Bill.
Mr. SerjeantMerewether appeared at the Bar in order to support the claims of the Vintner's Company, the rights and privileges of which were affected by this Bill. It was one of the privileges of the Company that its free Members were allowed to sell wine within the limits of the city of London, and in a circuit of three miles, without being obliged to ask for a license from the licensing Magistrates. There was a clause in the Bill which went to take away this privilege, and the learned Serjeant appeared on the part of the Company to object to the clause.
The Lord Chancellorcontended, that there could be nothing more improper than thus to allow to any particular body of men a privilege contrary to the general law of the land. The privilege which their Lordships were now called on to discuss had often been the subject of abuse, and there were instances at this moment which illustrated the evil consequences of the privilege. The object of licensing such houses was, that they should be kept within the bounds of propriety, and should not be a nuisance to the neighbourhood where they existed. To exempt any person front the necessity of taking out a license was to enable him either to abuse the privilege in his own person, or, for corrupt motives, to allow another person to have the benefit of the privilege in order to abuse it.
Lord Wynfordsaid, that abuses of this privilege were very rare, and it was not the wish of the Company to preserve the abuses. The Company offered to bind themselves to deprive any person of this privilege who should have been convicted before a Magistrate of any of those offences for which his license would be forfeited. Of course they could not be expected to give into the hands of any other persons a direct power to take away the privileges of any of their members, but they were ready to take away those privileges on the authority of a decision of a Magistrate, which in fact amounted to the same thing, so far as the ends of the public justice were concerned, while it preserved the principle of their charter, for which alone they contended. The rights of property were secured in no instance on a stronger authority than were these privileges of the Company, which came by charter from the Crown, and which could not be thus invaded without endangering the most sacred rights of property. He therefore begged to move, that the clause in question be expunged.
Viscount Duncannonsaid, that the noble and learned Lord was mistaken in supposing that this privilege was never abused. He could mention one instance of a case, the proof of which he then held in his hand. This was the case of the Shades, in the Adelphi, on the subject of which he had received a memorial from the inhabitants in the neighbourhood. The noble Viscount here read a part of the memorial, which stated that the license of the place had been taken away,

941
but that a free vintner of the Vintners' Company had allowed the person owning the House to put his name over the door, and the House had been again opened.
Lord Ellenboroughproposed, that the two noble and learned Lords should communicate with each other on this subject, with a view to accomplish that which he had no doubt was the object of both—the prevention of abuse, and the proper preservation of chartered privileges.
The Lord Chancellorhad no objection to that course, for he had not the slightest wish that Parliament should interfere with the privileges of the Company, except so far as was necessary to preserve the due administration of the law.
The Bill went through the Committee with an understanding, that the Clause in question should undergo sonic modification on the third reading of the Bill.
The House resumed.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, that, when last their Lordships' attention was directed to the state of the foreign policy of the country, the noble Duke who brought forward the subject thought it necessary to apologize for its introduction,—and how much more necessary was it that he should do so at this late period of the Session; and, when he considered the immeasurable distance between him and his noble friend, in the weight and influence which his noble friend brought to every subject he touched, how much more necessary was it that he should apologize when stating his humble opinion upon the state of our foreign affairs, and of the measures which his Majesty's Ministers had taken in that department? However, to that memorable debate he could refer for an authority which, at least with the noble Lords opposite, would justify him in calling the attention of their Lordships to the subject. He found, on looking to the records of what then passed, that the noble Earl then at the head of his Majesty's Government stated, that he held whatever related to the foreign interests of the country second in importance to no question, whether of agriculture, commerce, manufactures, or any other domestic subject. He, therefore, hoped the House would pardon him, if he deemed it his duty to state his views upon a matter of so much importance. In the few observations with which he should introduce the subject to their Lordships, he
942
should take, first, a general view of our foreign affairs,—and afterwards take into consideration the particular Treaties to which this country had recently been made a party. The noble Earl to whom he had alluded, in that farewell address to their Lordships as a Minister of the Crown,—which, he was sure, no one of their Lordships had heard without the deepest sympathy and respect,—had claimed, in reference to the question of foreign policy, great merit to his Government for having preserved the peace of Europe for three years and a half. As that noble Earl was not in his place, he did not wish to say anything discourteous towards him. On the contrary, he was most anxious to avoid anything calculated to affect the feelings of that great man, whose situation at the present moment it was painful indeed to contemplate, writhing as was his noble mind under the political treachery which had broken it down; and of whom it might well be said by the noble Lord opposite, as was said by Mark Antony of Cæsar—
"ingratitude, more strong than traitor's arms, Quite vanquish'd him, Then burst his mighty heart."
Feeling thus, he was far from being disposed to indulge in any unkind feeling towards the noble Earl upon this occasion. And he was the more inclined to impose such a restraint upon himself upon that occasion, because his noble friend near him (the Duke of Wellington) did, in the manly arid straightforward manner which so distinguished all his conduct, follow the noble Earl upon that occasion with such comments on the course of foreign policy pursued by the late Government, as was demanded by the necessity of the noble Earl's statement. But the speech of the noble Earl was followed by a more unqualified panegyric of their own foreign policy from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who, after he had claimed credit to the Government for preserving peace, added, 'I will, if any succeeding 'Government shall preserve peace for 'three years and a half longer, give them 'still greater credit for doing so.' Yes, and well he might! When his Majesty's Ministers had, by their partial measures, effected a momentary settlement without laying down any solid basis of peace, and in so doing had entirely upset all that was established in Europe in 1815, well might the noble and learned Lord say, that no

943
Government which succeeded his would be able to steer such a course as should keep the peace of the world unbroken for any long period to come. Let their Lordships look at what had occurred in those quarters where they said that their own arrangements had been completed. Was it in Belgium that the peace of the world had been so firmly settled? Would any one say, when they looked at the system of protocols and the endless mismanagement of the Belgian question, that the Government were entitled to the credit of statesmanlike views? Let any one only recollect the circumstances of the Belgian insurrection, and how could he doubt that if the Government had only acted with anything like firmness in maintaining the first protocol in less than six weeks the question would have been settled? But their eternal vacillation produced at first only protracted negotiations, and in the end that lamentable siege, and that waste of blood and treasure, which had still left the dispute as far as ever from being settled. He should not dwell upon these points farther. He should do no more than refer their Lordships to the fact, that the French were still in possession of those two magnificent points, Ancona and Algiers. The Government might say they had preserved peace; but upon what terms? Had they called France to account for the occupation of Algiers contrary to her express engagements! He would not travel into the East, because he was not willing, when their Lordships had no information before them, to touch upon subjects of a delicate character; but this he would say, that, as far as they could see into the affairs of Russia, there had been a most blameable want of courtesy towards the Russian government, which was perfectly indefensible. A noble Earl, it was well known, had been appointed upon a special mission to that Court; but with what success they had never learnt. It was certain, however, that in point of courtesy, this Government had entirely failed according to the usual practice observed towards a friendly power. His Imperial Majesty was known to have had reasons for wishing that his Majesty's government would not press upon him one particular nomination as the Minister at his Court. He believed there was no instance in which such a request had ever before been made and not conceded, However, the
944
pertinacity and obstinacy with which that appointment had been pressed had led to the extraordinary circumstance of one of the Powers of the first rank being represented in this country by a Chargé d' Affaires only, and he believed that it would continue to be so as long as the present Secretary for Foreign Affairs continued in that office. He should not enter, upon the present occasion, into the relations of the Turkish and the Russian governments, but this he would say, that if we had been justified in taking a separate and distinct line from the other parties to the Treaty of Vienna with regard to Belgium, Russia was perfectly justified in taking her own line with regard to Turkey without at all making that communication of her intentions, which under other circumstances, might be expected from her. We could not, with our present policy, expect the same confidence from the Powers which we had deserted, or look to them for the same co-operation as when we treated them with courtesy and acted in conjunction with them. If we had, unfortunately, by our policy become more alienated from those Powers with which we were formerly on friendly terms—if Austria and Prussia, as well as Russia, were impressed with the belief that Great Britain, instead of being that Conservative, that bienfaisant Power as before, which always exercised her influence in maintaining the peace of Europe and the rights of nations as they had been settled by Treaty—if, on the contrary, they now believed her to be inoculated with that virus of revolutionary liberty which they felt to be inimical to their interests and to their safety, it could not he expected that they would keep up that close alliance with her, through which she had exercised so happy an influence upon the peace of the world, but which, unfortunately, from the course his Majesty's Government had now taken it would be impossible for her to exercise again. But if they had forfeited the friendship or the cordiality of the governments of Russia, Austria, and Prussia, what new alliances had they formed to make up for the loss? They had that great and powerful ally Louis Phillippe, who had, undoubtedly, given them his full confidence, and not without reason. Then they had the Donnas Maria and Isabel; Leopold, King of the Belgians, and King Otho. Besides these, they had all the propagandists of Germany and all the

945
liberals of Italy as their firm allies. With respect to a firm alliance between this country and France, it would be far from him not at all times to wish for the closest intimacy and peace with that Power. But he was not prepared to go so far as to consider her before all other nations; neither could he go along with the encomiums which had been passed upon her days of July and their results. Would the noble and learned Lord who had eulogised that revolution deny that the King of France's late ordinances were as strong, and, he would say, more despotic, than any which Charles 10th had ever issued? Would any man say, when making the most cruel observations upon Charles 10th and his ordinances, and upon his Ministers who were now shut up in their dungeons, would any man say, that Louis Philippe stood exonerated from the same crimes? Any man who had studied the political history of France, and the character of her people, must see that France could not be governed but by the strong arm of power. Upon this principle Louis Philippe had, undoubtedly, showed himself more accomplished in the art of governing the French than his predecessors had unfortunately been. He knew that the secret was to keep 60,000 troops in the capital, and govern by his armies as Napoleon did. Would any noble Lord after the experience of the last two years say, that it was possible to govern France upon the Juste Milieu system? Must not every Government in France be compelled to choose between the conservative and the destructive principle, and follow out his choice? He thought this had been clearly proved by the French, and we should soon here have to take a leaf out of their book, and adopt one course or the other in earnest. He hoped their Lordships would now see the necessity of coming to an early decision upon this choice and declaring it in the face of Europe, so that the other Powers might know what to expect. With respect to the Treaty which had been recently laid upon the Table, although he was reluctant to make use of harsh expressions in characterising it, yet he must say, that he could not conceive anything so base or atrocious as the conduct which this country had pursued towards Portugal. It must be remembered, that we had been pledged to a most distinct and positive neutrality in the Portuguese quarrel. That House,
946
their Lordships would not forget, had agreed to Address his Majesty to that effect, after the most able and eloquent speech of his noble friend, and his Majesty in reply solemnly declared, that neutrality should be strictly observed. That declaration went forth, and was known to the people of Portugal, and had naturally encouraged the Miguelite party to spend their last resources in keeping up the struggle. Had that pledge been kept? If Great Britain had not interfered to the assistance of the one party, and in opposition to the other, would any man say, that Don Miguel would not now have been governing Portugal? Surely such conduct on the part of a great country like this deserved the description of atrocious, and could be described in no milder language. And the interests of this country had not even been an excuse, or a palliative for her conduct; for while Don Miguel had always, undoubtedly, been well disposed towards the English interests, Don Pedro, immediately upon acquiring the power, had done everything to injure them. He should like to know from his Majesty's Government whether, after all, they regarded the settlement of Portugal to be such as was likely to continue to her the advantages of peace in the Peninsula? The paragraph in the king of France's Speech was very decided upon that subject; but he was at a loss to see the grounds of such an expectation. If their Lordships looked at the different letters from Portugal they would see, from the atrocious murders now committed, that, so far from the present government being popular, there was greater disquietude and commotion in the interior than when the two armies were actually contending in the field. But, besides the assistance actually given to one party, the Ministers had permitted such a violation of the Portuguese territory by the Spaniards, in order, if possible, to seize Don Carlos, as nothing could justify under existing Treaties. He would venture to say, that that act was as gross a breach of neutrality, and as strong a case of violation of Treaties as could be produced in the history of nations. He asked, whether it was the province of the Government of this country to say, whether Don Carlos was the rightful sovereign of Spain or not? He had lately read a pamphlet written by Mr. Walton, whom he believed to be very well-informed upon the subject. From this

947
work the means by which the exclusion of Don Carlos from the Throne had been accomplished would be found to be by no means according to the ancient laws of the Spanish succession, and that it had been brought about by fraud and imposition. If, then, England was to be made a party to that fraud by the Treaty which had been formed, in what endless complications should not we be involved! He should be glad to find that the obligations of the Treaty would be at an end by Don Carlos having been driven out of Portugal. But if that Treaty were to be taken as binding upon this country to be mixed up with the wars of Spain in support of this succession or that succession, the difficulties we should get into with the other Powers of Europe would be endless. The conduct of France with regard to this question ought to be narrowly watched. Looking to history it would be found always to have been the policy of this country to prevent any union or too close alliance between France and Spain. In 1713, Queen Anne came down to Parliament and delivered that splendid Speech in which she recognized the law which Philip 5th established with this very object, with regard to the succession in Spain. The question was, whether Don Carlos could establish his claim and right according to that law; and he called upon his Majesty's Government to say, what right they had to acknowledge this Queen, if it should turn out that the majority of the Spanish people did not believe her to be the rightful heir. They had done this, for the preamble to the Treaty, in his opinion, went to the extent of acknowledging Donna Isabel as the lawful Queen. The Speech of Queen Anne to which he had alluded, contained a passage to which he begged particularly to call their Lordships' attention:—'Nothing, however, has moved me from steadily pursuing, in the first place, the true interest of my own kingdoms; and I have not omitted anything which might procure to all our allies what is due to them by Treaties, and what is necessary for their security. The assuring of the Protestant succession, as by law established, in the House of Hanover, to these kingdoms, being what I have nearest at heart, particular care is taken not only to have that acknowledged in the strongest terms, but to have an additional security by the removal of that person out of the dominions of France who has
948
pretended to disturb this settlement. The apprehension that Spain and the West-Indies might be united to France was the chief inducement to begin this war; and the effectual preventing of such an union was the principle I laid down at the commencement of this Treaty. Former examples, and the late negotiations, sufficiently show how difficult it is to find means to accomplish this work. I would not content myself with such as are speculative, or depend upon Treaties only; I insisted on what is solid, and to have at hand the power of executing what should be agreed. I can, therefore, now tell you, that France is at last brought to offer that the Duke of Anjou shall, for himself and his descendants, renounce for ever all claim to the Crown of France; and, that this important article may be exposed to no hazard, the performance is to accompany the promise. At the same time the succession to the Crown of France is to be declared, after the present Dauphin and his sons, to be in the Duke of Berry and his sons, in the Duke of Orleans and his sons, and so on to the rest of the House of Bourbon. As to Spain and the Indies, the succession to those dominions, after the Duke of Anjou and his children, is to descend to such Prince as shall be agreed upon at the Treaty, for ever excluding the rest of the House of Bourbon. For confirming the renunciations and settlements before mentioned, it is farther offered that they shall be ratified in the most strong and solemn manner, both in France and Spain; and that those kingdoms, as well as all the other Powers engaged in the present war, shall be guarantee to the same. The nature of this proposal is such that it executes itself: the interest of Spain is to support it, and in France the persons to whom that succession is to belong will be ready and powerful enough to vindicate their own right. France and Spain are now more effectually divided than ever; and thus, by the blessing of God, will a real balance of power be fixed in Europe, and remain liable to as few accidents as human affairs can be exempted from.' That was the Speech which Queen Anne made in 1713, on the occasion to which he referred; and after such a settlement of the succession to the Crown of Spain, he should like to know whether the other Powers of Europe were

949
cognizant of the change that had taken place, and if they concurred with the Government of this country in acknowledging the present Queen of Spain to be the rightful sovereign of that country? His belief was, that the very reverse was the case, and this he thought might he inferred from the Address delivered by the Queen Regent to the Cortes. Her Majesty seemed greatly alarmed at her situation in reference to the other Powers of Europe; and she said that, although her government had been acknowledged by England and France, no such recognition had taken place on the part of any of the other Powers. He therefore submitted that his Majesty's Ministers were bound to give some explanation of the circumstances connected with this Treaty, which, though of such paramount importance in every point of view, had been laid upon their Lordships' Table not only without documents to explain it, but without any official statement whatever to show the object which had led to its formation, and this too after the protestations which had been made on the part of the Government that they intended to remain neutral with respect to the internal affairs of other nations. Under such circumstances he felt that he had a right to call upon the advisers of the Crown to give their Lordships the explanation for which he now sought, notwithstanding the declaration of the noble Viscount the other night, that he would not reply to the questions which were then put to him. He hoped, however, that the noble Viscount would pursue a line of foreign policy different from that which his noble predecessor had adopted. The noble Earl had more than once declared in his place in that House, that the Government of which he was the head, would act strictly in accordance with the principle of non-intervention: but had he done so? No; for, so far from observing neutrality, this Treaty, almost the last net of the noble Earl's official life, had more of the ingredients of intervention in it than was to be found in any other Treaty which had ever come under his observation. He would not trouble their Lordships with any further remarks upon the subject of this Treaty, but he at the same time thought it right to assure their Lordships, that he had ventured upon his present task, not only without solicitation, without consultation with any party, but
950
solely and exclusively from the desire which he entertained of having the matter discussed and deliberated upon with that degree of attention which its high importance seemed to him to require. He must say, that he disapproved of the foreign policy of the present Government as much as he approved of that of his noble friend (Lord Aberdeen) whom he did not then see in his place. But, passing from this part of the case, he would, with their Lordships' indulgence, offer a very few comments upon the boasted economy of the present Government as compared with that of the noble Duke; and for the purpose of this comparison he would select that branch of the foreign expenditure which related to Secret Service for a period of three years. It should be recollected that the present was a time of profound peace, when there could be little or no necessity for foreign Secret Service; and, therefore, that the expenditure of the present Government under this head should, if there were any difference, be less, and not more, than that of the Government of the noble Duke. He had moved for a Return on this subject, and he could not help thinking that the comparison would not only be regarded as curious, but would be looked upon with surprise by the country. In the three years preceding the retirement from office of the noble Duke, namely, 1828, 1829, and 1830, the amount expended by his Government in foreign missions was 8,569 l., while in the two succeeding years, viz. 1831 and 1832—no Return for 1833 having been made—of Earl Grey's Administration no less a sum than 22,064 l. was spent on special foreign missions. Here then was a difference of nearly 14,000 l. against the present Administration. Moreover it was not a little curious that the foreign Secret Service of the present Government, for a period of three years, had cost the country between 80,000 l. and 90,000 l., notwithstanding the boasts of economy which had been made, and the obloquy which had been thrown on his noble friend, for his alleged lavish expenditure of the public money. These were facts which were incontrovertible, and with which the public should be made acquainted in order to prove to them, that the present was by no means so economical an Administration as they were led to believe. Without, however, occupying their Lordships' attention

951
further, he should conclude by moving, "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he would be graciously pleased to give directions, that there be laid before their Lordships' House Copies or Extracts of all such Communications or Information as had led to the negotiations for, and conclusion of the Treaty between his Majesty and the Queen Regent of Spain, the King of the French, and the Duke of Braganza, the Regent of Portugal, signed at London on the 22nd of April, 1834."
Viscount Melbournegave the noble Marquess full credit for his assertion, that he brought this Motion forward not only without solicitation, but without concert or understanding with any other Member of their Lordships' House. Indeed, there could be no doubt that the fact was so, because the noble Marquess had on a former occasion intimated to their Lordships the course which he meant to pursue, having declared, that if no one else should bring the subject forward he would. The noble Marquess had taken the opportunity of paying a high and deserved compliment to the noble Duke (Duke of Wellington); but it did not strike the noble Marquess, that when the noble Duke, who had at least an equal attachment to the honour and interests of the empire, who had a better knowledge of the subject, and greater weight in the House, did not feel it necessary to bring forward such a Motion, did it not, he repeated, strike the noble Marquess that his Motion might, by possibility, especially under present circumstances, be neither wise, timely, nor discreet. The noble Marquess had divided his speech into several parts. He had made a long rambling statement as to the general affairs of Europe, and had concluded with the quadrupartite treaty. But really the speech was so desultory, the various subjects were treated in so superficial a manner, tam, leviter, tam negligenter, that he appealed to their Lordships whether it was fair or decent to enter, on such a challenge, into a detailed exposition of our relations with the various countries enumerated. The noble Marquess had asked, whether Belgium was settled? Why France kept Algiers? Whether there was any probability that a Minister would be appointed by the Court of Russia?—all which he thought the noble Marquess could answer, and knew he could answer, just as well as himself. The noble
952
Marquess had just as much knowledge on these points as he possessed, and, therefore, he would ask their Lordships, whether it were right to indulge in such a general discussion as had been begun by the noble Marquess. The noble Marquess had talked of the alliance between this country and France, and that too in stronger terms than he would have used. The noble Marquess said, that it was in every way desirable, that the closest intimacy should be formed between the two countries, but, at the same time, thought that no undue preference should be shown to France over other nations, and in these sentiments he entirely agreed. That was, in fact, his opinion, although he must confess he would not have expressed himself with as much warmth as the noble Marquess had evinced; but it was quite evident, that the Government of France had recently, from some cause or other, gained especial favour in the noble Marquess's eyes, or he never would have eulogised it. The noble Marquess seemed to complain, that the state of Portugal was unsettled. From his own letters he bad learned (the noble Marquess said) that the interior of that country was more disturbed now—was the scene of more atrocious murders at the present moment—than while civil war actually prevailed. If such a state of things existed, was it to be much wondered at? He trusted, however, that even if the statement of the noble Marquess were correct, the affairs of Portugal would before long settle, and that a stable Government would be established in that country. A nation that had been convulsed and distracted by civil war, as Portugal had been, could not be expected to settle down at once from a state of discord and disquiet to a state of peace, security, and stability. But his Majesty's Ministers were blamed by the noble Marquess for having suffered Portugal to be invaded by a Spanish army. Now, what were the circumstances under which that invasion took place? The claimant of the throne of Spain had taken refuge in Portugal, and around him were collected the band of disaffected persons by whom his pretensions were encouraged. It was clear, that while he occupied such a position, there could be no security for the Spanish government, but still no attempt at invasion was made until after Don Miguel had more than once rejected the respectful applications which were made to him to

953
deliver the Pretender up. If ever, therefore, one country had a right to enter another for its own protection, Spain possessed that right in the instance referred to. An absolute necessity existed for the course pursued by the Spanish government; and, that being the case, was it not the duty of the Government of Great Britain to take care that the intervention took place under the conditions of a Treaty which would limit the parties from doing more than was really necessary for the accomplishment of the object which they had in view? This, in fact, was the main ground upon which this treaty proceeded; but upon it the noble Marquess had not rested a single argument or made a single observation. The noble Marquess had told them, that his Majesty's Ministers were bound to consider, whether Don Carlos was the legitimate sovereign of Spain or not; but, on that point, he could not agree with the noble Marquess. His Majesty's Government had nothing whatever to do with the consideration of any such question; on the contrary, it was their duty to take for granted that which had been decided, not only by the king of Spain, but by the Cortes. The king of Spain and the Cortes had settled the question of succession, and it therefore formed no part of the duty of the British Government to enter upon an inquiry respecting the Salic Law. It was sufficient for them that the right of the Queen was established de jure, and that she was recognized as the Sovereign by all the authorities of the Spanish nation. It was upon this principle that the Government of this country had acted, and this was the principle on which they were prepared to justify their conduct. With respect to what the noble Marquess had said relative to queen Anne and the politics of that day, he must say, that he could not, for the life of him, perceive its drift, or how the two circumstances were connected. It was then apprehended, that danger might arise from an union of the Crowns in the same individual; but there was not at present the remotest chance of any such event occurring. He did not know whether he had left any of the observations of the noble Marquess unanswered, but with respect to the comparison which the noble Marquess had drawn of the amount of public money expended in foreign secret service during the two periods he had mentioned, there surely must be some mistake; for if he
954
were rightly informed, that branch of the public expenditure had diminished rather than increased, as compared with former years.
The Marquess of Londonderry: The noble Viscount may, if he pleases, look at the statement of the figures to which I referred.
Viscount Melbourne: He was assured on good authority that there must be a mistake, though he was not able not having seen the documents to detect it. With respect to the Motion of the noble Marquess it was extremely large; it called for the production of 'copies of all such documents or information as had led to this Treaty.' It would be highly inconvenient to accede to a proposition like this; but, although he meant to resist the Motion, he was satisfied, that if the whole of the facts were disclosed they would only tend to the justification of the Government in the course which they had taken. In a correspondence of the kind, however, there were always matters relating to other Powers which it would not be proper to divulge; and upon this ground alone, if there were no other, he would confidently rest his hope that the House would not entertain a Motion like the present. But the noble Marquess had made out no case; he had shown no reason why the position in which those Powers stood and the circumstances in which they felt themselves placed did not justify such a treaty, and until the noble Marquess had made out some such case it was plain he was not entitled to the production of the correspondence. If the treaty had failed in the accomplishment of its object then the House would have a right to call for the explanation demanded by the noble Marquess; but as it had not failed, as no treaty had ever before been so certainly, entirely, and speedily successful in the attainment of its object as this, he must say not content to the noble Marquess's Motion.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that if he had no other reason to induce him to refrain from taking part in the present debate, he had a sufficient motive in the conviction which he entertained, that at the present moment a discussion upon foreign affairs was untimely, and, therefore, he thought that the present Motion should not have been brought forward just now. It was a fact, that the public attached at present no importance to the

955
present discussion. They were more anxious about the internal situation of this country—of England—and much as this subject might have interested them some years ago, it had not, he thought, the same attraction at present. He should possibly have avoided addressing their Lordships at all on the present occasion, were it not for the concluding words of the noble Viscount who had just addressed the House. In what he had to say he should leave out of question altogether those topics, however interesting, to which his noble friend had addressed himself in the first instance, and he should confine himself to the treaty on which his noble friend had moved for information, and to those topics immediately connected with it. It always appeared to him, that if ever there was a transaction inconsistent with the policy of Great Britain, it was the present treaty. The object of the policy of Great Britain, from the most ancient times, had been to keep the two Powers of the Peninsula independent of each other, and both independent of France. The object of the present treaty was to make them both dependent on each other, and both dependent upon France. The treaty which lay upon their Lordships' Table, was, of all others he had ever seen, the most opposed to the political system upon which this country had ever acted. Besides, that treaty, in fact, tended to introduce foreign arms into Portugal, and it tended to introduce foreign arms into Spain; and for what purpose? Not for the purpose of interference in the internal government of those countries—not of interference casually, but for the purpose of perpetual interference in the internal affairs of those countries. That treaty was not only opposed to all the policy of this country, but it was also opposed to the declaration of non-interference with the civil affairs of other countries. The noble Viscount had said, over and over again, that we never had any intention of interfering with the internal affairs of Portugal, and the answer of his Majesty to an address of their Lordships on the same subject declared that everything had been done to preserve neutrality. In fact, no principle had been laid down more distinctly than this, that we were not to interfere in the affairs of Portugal, yet, in defiance of this, we had not only interfered, but had got allies to join with us in that interference. According to the
956
noble Viscount's speech the Spaniards had been prohibited from entering Potugal, when Ferdinand wished to render assistance to Don Miguel; and in the same speech he admitted that the invasion of Portugal by the Spaniards was the principal object of the treaty. Yet see what inconsistency there was in such statements. Why, the Spaniards had entered Portugal six months before the treaty was signed, yet they were told that it was in consequence of the treaty that the Spanish troops entered Portugal. He should be glad, however, to know the meaning of the treaty. The preamble contained an extraordinary number of objects in it, and it appeared to be the object of the four Powers to settle the governments of Spain and Portugal, although, as he understood the noble Viscount, the expulsion of Don Carlos from Spain was its only object. But a very remarkable circumstance had occurred, which showed that the treaty had some object in contemplation beyond this, and this was the mode and date of this treaty. By the concluding article of the treaty it was arranged that the ratifications of the respective Powers should be exchanged within one month after the treaty was concluded, and be delivered in London; but on the 4th of June the noble Earl came down to the House and stated, that the ratifications had not been thus exchanged. The regency of Portugal had returned their instrument of ratification without the preamble, and it was necessary on account of this irregularity to have another signed; but, instead of directing this ratification to be exchanged, as the treaty required, at London, His Majesty sent his ratification to Lisbon, whereas they ought to have been exchanged in London. Now, before this could have been done, Don Carlos and Don Miguel had both retired from Portugal; and if ever there was a treaty useless for any purpose, it was this, which had for its object the expulsion of Don Carlos from Portugal, when he had actually left the country. But if by this treaty we were really to interfere in the internal management of the two countries of the Peninsula, all he could say was, that we were entering upon a series of operations of which no two Peers in that House would see the conclusion. He thought that it was not desirable that we should enter into an alliance with France to interfere

957
with the internal management of these two countries, and not only without the concurrence but against the inclination of the other Powers of Europe. He was sorry to say, that England had now lost the position which she formerly occupied in the councils of Europe, the great influential and benevolent position which enabled her not only to preserve peace by her advice, but to preserve harmony and a good understanding between other Powers. He would not enter into the consideration of the Salic law; His Majesty had thought proper to acknowledge Isabella 2nd, the daughter of Ferdinand, in preference to another relation. For the events which placed her on the throne Ministers ought to have been prepared, and by settling the succession of the crown of Portugal, as they might have done, they would have averted the consequences of civil war in both countries.
The Marquess of Lansdownsaid, he would not follow the noble Marquess through all the different topics adverted to in his speech, but would confine himself to the treaty on which the noble Duke had rested his chief argument, and before he went further he must say, that the interpretation given to the treaty by the noble Duke was the very reverse of what its plain and direct meaning implied. He was quite sure that, on a review of the treaty, the House would form the same conclusion; and he would ask the noble puke what other purposes the treaty could have in view than the settlement of the dispute without interference, or interference only in case of a concurrence of circumstances which could not be avoided? The treaty, in fact, was formed, in order to prevent any evil consequences from interference with the internal affairs of either country. As to the charge that we interfered with the internal management of Portugal, he would only refer the noble Duke to the policy which this country had constantly pursued during the dispute between the two brothers. Application had been made again and again, on the part of Don Pedro, for assistance, and what followed?—Constant refusal and repeated declarations, that while the contest was carried on between Don Pedro and Don Miguel only, it was impossible this country could interfere. The noble Duke said, the treaty was formed for the purpose of invading Portugal, and then adverted to the circumstance of this coun-
958
try refusing to permit Ferdinand to send troops into Spain to assist Don Miguel; but did not the noble Duke see the immense difference between the two circumstances? Nothing, in fact, was done by this country or Spain till the pretender to the throne of that country had entered Portugal, and then it became the duty of England to interfere. Could any man deny, that if Ferdinand had been allowed to interfere in the affairs of Portugal, that the effect of such an interference might have been injurious to the independence of the country? And again he would ask, could it be denied that if Don Carlos, by connecting himself with the usurper of the throne of Portugal, had been successful, the effect of this would have been to overturn the government of Spain? Would any man, therefore, deny, that it was just to eject Don Carlos? Would any man deny that, under the sinister and portentous aspect of the whole circumstances of the case, it was not the duty and policy of this country to interfere? The treaty was intended to apply only on the contingency of Don Carlos quitting Spain for Portugal; but when he left that country the object of it ceased. In fact, the whole plan and object of the treaty had been eminently successful, because it had accomplished its object and nothing more. Another complaint had been made against the alliance with this country and France; but any one on reading the treaty would see that especial care had been taken to arrange the mode of interference in such a way as should be consistent with the policy of England. The noble Duke and those on his side of the House depended much on dates, but others also had dates, and when the noble Duke told them that the treaty was useless, he would only say, in reply, that the treaty was agreed to on the 24th of May, and on the 20th of June Don Miguel surrendered at Santarem and Don Carlos was obliged to take shelter on the shores of this country. He would only allude to one point further. The noble Duke opposite had adverted to a matter already well known to the public—he meant the informality in the mode in which the treaty was finished. No doubt such informality had occurred, but he was authorized in saying, in addition to what had been declared at the time, that the informality in the omission of the preamble was unintentional on the part of the government of Portugal, and that it

959
was not in consequence of any objection on the part of that government to comply with every provision contained in that treaty. But the noble Duke had also blamed the noble Lord at the head of the foreign affairs for having committed his Majesty's Government, by sending to Lisbon that treaty without first obtaining a sufficient security against the chance of what had been termed the mala fides of the Portuguese government. His noble friend had, in point of fact, exchanged declarations with the Representatives of all parties in this country, that unless the preamble was agreed to in the form in which it was originally proposed, while assent was given to the other terms only, the whole treaty should have no effect whatever; so that his Majesty's Government had not in the smallest degree committed itself in that transaction. On all these grounds he thought the treaty in question had been most wisely concluded. That it had caused great benefit was apparent from the effects which had immediately followed. When the noble Duke adverted to the present state of Europe, and to the policy pursued by his Majesty's Government, he had represented that this country could not longer occupy that proud situation among European states which had enabled her to maintain the peace of Europe. He must answer, that the peace of Europe had been maintained—that the prophecies to the contrary, which for the last four years had from time to time been made, were falsified—that the prognostication that the march of French troops into Belgium was with a view to their permanency in that country was manifestly erroneous, from the fact that the pacification and the settlement of the disputes between Holland and Belgium would have now been accomplished but for the vacillation, not of England, but of other Powers, whom, despite their vacillation, the authority of England, judiciously displayed, had deterred from presuming to interfere with that course of policy which had been successfully directed to the maintenance of the peace and tranquillity of Europe. It was his firm belief that peace and tranquillity would continue by an adherence to the same course of policy. The noble Earl who had introduced this discussion had adverted, in terms which he knew not whether they were designed for compliment or satire on his Majesty's Government, to the connection existing
960
between this country and France. But whether the noble Earl meant to be complimentary or satirical, he would say, that his Majesty's Government had never interfered with the internal government of France under Charles 10th, because it thought that Government arbitrary; nor would it interfere with the internal government of that country under Louis Philippe, because it conceived it to be more constitutional, or, in the new language of compliment adopted by the noble Earl, more unconstitutional. He would, however, remind the noble Earl, who seemed to see nothing to distinguish the government of Louis Philippe from that of Charles 10th, that under the latter a series of acts were performed in direct violation of the law, and without the sanction of the Representative Chambers of the country, whilst, on the other hand, all the acts of Louis Philippe had been performed under the powers granted to him by law, and had been approved by those chambers which lawfully represent the sense of the people of that country. It was not, however, upon questions of the internal government of France that he built the policy of a strict alliance and intercourse between the two countries. He did believe that, while that alliance and intercourse continued on the happy foundation upon which it had hitherto stood, (and that there was every disposition on the part of France for its continuance was apparent from the recent speech of the king of France,) the peace of Europe, which it was the common object of both to preserve, would be more effectually and certainly maintained than by any other course that could be followed.
The Marquess of Londonderry, in reply, repeated, that France had domineered over and subjugated the Councils of this country in the transaction to which he had called the attention of their Lordships. He rejoiced that he had done so, because the discussion had elicited the fact, that the object of the treaty having been accomplished is was now at an end.
Motion negatived without a division.