Sitting of 5 February 1834

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Mr. EWART, from Liverpool, for the Repeal of the Corn Laws; and from Ship Masters of Liverpool, complaining of the different Hates of Duty on Ship-building Materials in Liverpool and the Isle of Man.—By Mr. WALLACE, from Greenock, for an Alteration of Church Patronage in Scotland.—By Mr. WILKES, from the Committee of the Protestant Society, for the Protection of Religious Liberty, for a National Registration of Births and Marriages.—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from Kilrane, for the Repeal of the Union, and for the Abolition of Tithes; from Clare, for the Introduction of Poor Laws into Ireland; and from the Children of John O'Leary, for the Remission of his Sentence of Banishment.—The various Sessional Orders were agreed to.

REPORT ON THE ADDRESS.
The Report on the Address to his Majesty was brought up and read.
Mr. Cobbettsaid, he objected to that paragraph which spoke of agricultural distress. For his own part he could not reconcile those conflicting statements, that great distress existed amongst the agricultural classes, and that tranquillity prevailed

109
throughout the country. He should not have troubled the House, but that these statements would have the effect of producing an impression throughout the country that there was a want of sympathy and commiseration in that House with the owners and occupiers of land as well as with the agricultural labourers. He should, therefore, move the omission of the following passage:—"We lament, in common with your Majesty, the distress which the proprietors and occupiers of the land continue to suffer; but it is satisfactory to us to learn that in other respects the state of the country, both as regards its internal tranquillity and its commerce and manufacture, affords the most encouraging prospects of progressive improvement." This picture of tranquillity would, no doubt, be very satisfactory if it were true, but unfortunately it was not. With respect to this tranquillity, he would take upon himself to say, that there was no Gentleman in that House who came from the country districts of England but knew that no such thing as tranquillity existed there. He would ask whether hon. Gentlemen could shut their eyes to the fact that day after day the Press was teeming with accounts of incendiary fires throughout the whole of the agricultural districts? It was beyond all dispute that during the last three months, there had been in the county of Norfolk alone an average of four fires a night? With these fearful facts staring them in the face, would that House venture to assure his Majesty the internal tranquillity of the country was in a state; of progressive improvement? There were other parts of the Address with which he found fault. He objected to it as much on the ground of its stating too little as of its stating too much—of its saying nothing, as of saving that which was not the truth. Instead of talking of progressive improvement and internal tranquillity in the same breath that it lamented the existence of distress amongst the proprietors and occupiers of land, it should have stated the extent and nature of that distress, and said something about the means of relieving it. Instead of congratulating the King upon what they all knew to be false, the House ought to offer some kind of comfort and relief to the farmer. He should, in consequence of this omission and of the misstatements contained in the Address, move an Amendment, proposing to substitute for the sentence to which he
110
had already referred the following words:—"We have, in common with your Majesty, to lament the continuance of the distress amongst the agricultural classes, and to assure your Majesty, that the nature, the extent, the causes, as well as the lamentable effects of that distress, shall be objects of our immediate and most anxious consideration." He could not say whether the House would or would not take this subject into consideration; but if they did not, they would not perform their duty to their constituents. What excuse could be made for neglecting the inquiry? Not the excuse of ignorance because they had before them the Report of the Agricultural Committee of the last Session. He was aware that the Report of the Committee did not recommend further inquiry, but it contained evidence to show that further investigation was necessary. Hon. Members might say, the Report recommended nothing, and that it was the opinion of the Committee that the less the House meddled with the state of agriculture the better. He must admit, that the Committee said nothing; and the more shame it was to the thirty-seven English Gentlemen who sat on that Committee, that they had not brought their labours to any better termination. He was not, however, correct in saying, that the Committee had done nothing. They had, unfortunately, done something which was worse than doing nothing, they had recommended to that House not to interfere in the affairs of the agriculturists, as such interference would, in their opinion, create more mischief than good. He by no means entertained such a low opinion of all the Members of that House as to suppose, with those thirty-seven Gentlemen, that the House was not fully capable, if it went honestly to work, of proposing and carrying into operation measures which would give effectual relief to the agricultural classes. In allusion to the state of agriculture, the hon. mover of the Address last night said, that the extinction of tithes was one of the practical modes of relieving the agriculturists. This was a curious remedy. What, he would ask, had the extinction of tithes to do with agricultural distress? Oh! it was said, tithes operated as a check to improvement, and prevented the more extensive application of capital to land. What was the fact? Tithes had existed for 1,000 years; and it was reserved for the wiseacres of modern times to discover that they were

111
the cause of paralysing agricultural enterprise, and of ruining the English farmers. The evidence collected by the Committee of last year proved, that land was not now so well cultivated as it used to be; that the crops were smaller, and at the same time there were more hands than could find employment in the rural districts. How was it, then, that whilst there were more hands than could get employment, there was at the same time a want of those hands for the improvement of the land. This ought to be inquired into. Were tithes the cause of these difficulties? Who was to find out a remedy for these evils? Who was to find out the cause of them?—Why, that House, whose especial duty it was, to find out the causes of evils, and to provide a remedy. It was their duty to tell his Majesty that they would endeavour to provide a remedy; and he thought the hon. member for Hampshire had fallen into a great error in asserting, without inquiry, that the extinction of tithes was such a remedy. If tithes were a hinderance to agricultural improvement, they should be declared so by Parliament; but then rent must necessarily be also a hinderance. He defied any man on earth to show him that tithes were a greater hinderance to improvements than rent. If the principle of the hon. member for Hampshire were correct, so also was the principle that rent was a burthen on industry. He was not the possessor of any land, not even of as much as he could stand upon, nor was it at all likely that he should ever have any; but he could easily conceive how pleasant it would be for him, if he had a farm worth 40 l. or 50 l. a year, to have the whole of the tithes upon that farm abolished. But he denied that the abolition of tithes would be productive of any general good. The extinction of tithes as a remedy for agricultural distresses was a mere fiction; and if his Majesty's Government acted upon it, unless rent were also abolished, they would be guilty of as great a delusion as ever bad been practised by any set of political quacks in this world. The abolition of tithes would neither stimulate industry, find employment for the idle, nor bread for the hungry. The hon. member for Ipswich bad dwelt at some length upon the prosperous state of the commerce and manufacture of the country. It was not quite clear, whether the hon. Member meant by commerce,
112
what was understood as commerce by our ancestors, namely, the shipping interests. That great interest was in a declining state; and the Report of the Committee on Commerce and Manufactures would fully corroborate what he had stated. He had read part of the evidence taken before the Committee, and the whole of the Report of the Agricultural Committee; and, if it was asserted, that manufactures were prosperous he would ask, how that was consistent with the fact that agriculture was suffering? Suppose that commerce and manufactures were flourishing, what were those interests, great as they were, compared to those of the agricultural population? The persons employed in agricultural pursuits formed sixteen-twentieths of the population of the country. He was not making a hasty assertion, and he spoke within compass when he made that statement. Supposing that the other branches of industry were in a flourishing condition, were they to be contented because a few money-mongers, and because a few pawnbrokers on a great scale were said to be prosperous? Were the owners and occupiers of the land to be contented because a few haberdashers had become as rich as Lords, and because Lords dined with haberdashers, and shot game for them. He did not, as he said before, own the breadth of his hand in land; but he had some acquaintance with agriculture. He knew that the estimate which he had made of the agricultural population was not too great, and in proof of this assertion he would refer to Salisbury among other towns, the inhabitants of which were described as not engaged in agriculture, and yet there was scarcely a man in it who did not earn his bread by some connexion with husbandry. Was not the man who made a plough and a cart dependent upon husbandry. Though no farmer himself, he felt an identity of interest with the tillers of the land, and he opposed the passage in the Address because it indicated an attempt to sacrifice the occupiers and owners of land for the benefit of a few money-mongers. In fact, the land was eaten by them, and the landowners would, ere long, be ejected from their estates. Upon the presentation to the House of a petition from the Dissenters that very day, praying relief from Church-rates, he inquired whether the petitioners did not also seek to be relieved from tithes? The answer was, "Not yet."

113
He felt now, as he had felt at the passing of the Test and Corporation Acts, and as he then told the noble Lord, that the Dissenters would never stop, and the noble Lord could not stop, until they were relieved altogether from tithes. What was really wanted was, that justice should be done to the common people, and unless that were done it would be in vain to hope for tranquillity. According to the newspapers, fires were constantly taking place throughout the country. The very papers of that morning gave an account of four; and it was a remarkable fact that of late the average convictions was not more than one in every forty burnings. This he called a remarkable fact, because it clearly proved, that an extensive combination of the labourers created a difficulty of detecting the incendiaries. There had been more fires within the last year than during 1830, when a Special Commission was sent down to try the offenders; and yet there were few or no convictions. He was sorry to observe some late proceedings of farmers in a parish in Norfolk. They, it appeared, had come to the silly resolution of reducing the wages of labourers 1s. per week until the incendiaries were discovered. This was the proceeding of men out of their senses, conscious of distress, and perfectly incompetent to apply a remedy. This act was in itself a proof that there was an evil at work which the sufferers themselves did not understand, and afforded an additional ground for inquiry into the state of the agriculturists. It was the duty of Parliament to search out the evil, to trace its cause, and to provide the remedy. It was the duty of that House to declare as much to his Majesty. It was a sense of duty alone which had induced him to bring forward his Amendment. He had no desire of calling for a division, and should be perfectly satisfied if he could receive any assurance from the noble Lord, that some inquiry would be instituted by Government. The Speech was anything but tranquillizing; it would rather operate as a firebrand. He was certain that the passage as it stood would be considered throughout the country as an intimation that there was no intention of giving the agriculturists any relief. He would ask again, why was the fact of disturbance denied? Why was inquiry refused, when the Government could command the hearty concurrence of every
114
honest man in Parliament? It was necessary to do something, and unless something were done, the industrious portion of the community would be thrown into despair, whilst bad men would be encouraged in their work of mischief. The hon. Member concluded by proposing his Amendment.
Mr. Fieldenseconded the Motion.
Lord Althorpsaid, it appeared to him that the hon. Member had entirely misunderstood what was intended to be conveyed by that part of the Address to which he had alluded. The hon. Member seemed to think, that it was intended to express to his Majesty something which would leave no hope of improvement in the state of agriculture. No such object was intended by those who framed the Address. The hon. Member had expressed his regret, that neither the Government nor the gentlemen who composed the Committee of last year, had recommended further inquiry into the condition of the landed interests. He thought, that Government would be wrong in recommending any such inquiry after the Report of that Committee, unless they bad good ground to expect that they could devise measures to relieve the distress which existed. The hon. Member had said truly, that the Committee of last year had stated, that the cultivation of land was worse at present than it had been some years past; that agriculture was on the decline; and that great distress prevailed amongst the agricultural population. But the hon. Member ought to have remembered that, after the fullest investigation into the subject, the Committee had concluded that no legislative measure should be taken respecting it. It was, however, competent to the hon. member for Oldham, or to any other Member of the House, to propose such inquiry, or to make any other specific motion on the subject that he pleased; and he would take upon himself to say, that any proposition which would benefit the agriculturist, without detriment to other interests, would have the cordial co-operation of his Majesty's Ministers, and also, he believed, of every independent Gentleman of that House. He admitted, with the hon. Member, that a system of incendiarism existed in some parts of the country; but that fact would not justify the Government in saying, that the country generally was not tranquil. Though incendiarism, existed, it did not prevail to

115
such an extent as to justify any man in saying that the people of this country were not at present in a state of tranquillity. In respect to tithes, he would say only one word—namely, that when that question came to be considered, he would undertake to prove, that the effect of tithes, as an impost upon agriculture, was very different from rent. He thought also it could be shown, that they checked the cultivation of land, and, if it could be so shown that the effect of tithes was to discourage the investment of capital in land, he was sure that a change in the mode of collecting them would be considered beneficial both by the payers and by the receivers of tithes. No man felt more sincerely than he did for any distresses under which the landed interests might labour, and there was no man who would feel more happy in relieving such distress; but he felt bound to say, that he could not see how any legislative interference would accomplish that object, or in any way improve the condition of that great body.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. Finnwished to say a few words to the House upon that part of the Address which related to the alleged disturbances in Ireland, and the operation of the Coercion Bill, of which Ministers boasted so much. That was a most unconstitutional measure, directed against the rights of his much-injured and much-misrepresented country. He would like that the right hon. Secretary for Ireland should give him some account of the application of the secret service money in the county (Kilkenny) which he had the honour to represent in that House, in order to see how far this very secret service money had been influential in creating the alarm, if not the reality, of the disturbances complained of. Nine-tenths of those disturbances had their origin in this fruitful source of bribery and corruption. A system of espionage amongst the lowest underlings in and about office, disgraceful in a civilized nation, had been complained of, and justly complained of, in England; but he would venture to affirm, that for one spy in England, there were to be found twenty in Ireland; and yet no exertion was made to put a stop to so abominable a system. They were told that Ireland was disturbed, and that England was enjoying tranquillity. Now, with the single exception of the crime of murder,
116
the unlawful outrages which that unhappy country had to answer for, were by no means so great as were represented. He would warn the right hon. Secretary for Ireland to beware how he credited these reports; to close his ear to the place-hunting, proud expectants of office, and listen to the disinterested and wholesome advice of those who had the real welfare of their country at heart. He gave credit to Ministers for the best intentions, but they had been labouring under delusion. He would ask the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, whether, in the whole course of his experience in office, he had reason to observe that the agitation of the Repeal question, so much reprehended, could fairly be connected with a system of "excitement and violence" in Ireland, as alleged in the Speech from the Throne. He considered that passage of his Majesty's Speech to be one at once unjust and impolitic, as being itself calculated to excite feelings of a most angry and dangerous nature. The hon. Member concluded by moving the following Amendment:—"And we beg leave to represent to your Majesty, that the people of Ireland, in seeking the repeal of the Legislative Union between Great Britain and Ireland, have committed no act of violence, but have strictly confined themselves to the exercise of their undoubted and indefeasible right of publicly discussing the merits or demerits of that measure, and of respectfully petitioning both Houses of Parliament for the alteration or abrogation of that or any other Law which they may deem injurious to their interests."
Mr. Littletonrose to reply to the question put to him by the hon. member for Kilkenny, as to whether there had existed any connexion of political feeling with the outrages complained of in Ireland? His reply would be decidedly in the affirmative. The tone and character which these political discussions had assumed, was such as to excite the people to a very general resistance to the laws. The hon. member for Kilkenny had made allusion to the working of the Coercion Bill. For the satisfaction of the hon. Member, and of the House, he would beg to read a comparative statement of the stale of crime, and the numerical amount of outrages in the county of Kilkenny, at two distinct periods of time. He had compared the returns for seven months

117
previous to the passing of the Bill, and for seven months afterwards, up to the 31st of December last; and they were as follows:—

For 7 months previous.

For 7 months after.

Burglaries

428

62

Burnings

30

9

Injury to cattle

34

5

Assaults by Whitefeet

151

34

Illegal notices

127

27

Injury to property

44

24

Firing with intention to kill

17

3

The following he said were very important. Previous to the passing of the Bill the robberies of arms amounted to sixty-five, and afterwards there were only two. Administering of illegal oaths 135 in the former period, and in the latter five. The total of the two numbers was 1,072 and 227; leaving a diminution of no less than 845, to bear testimony to the efficacy of the measure of last Session.
Mr. O'Connelldeclared, that the mea-sure of last Session was one of robbery, of injustice, and cruelty; and miserably de-fended by such evidence as that which had just been adduced by the right hon. Secretary for Ireland. That right hon. Gentleman had favoured the House with a statement of the decrease of outrages in the county of Kilkenny, but nothing could be more fallacious; and he would refer the; right hon. Gentleman to a more happy instance of the decrease of crime in another part of Ireland. The county of Clare had been the scene of disturbance, much more violent and extensive than the county of Kilkenny. The county of Clare had been tranquillized—and how? Not by means of Coercion Law. Two Special Commissions had been issued, and by these constitutional proceedings, the disturbances had been quelled. The right hon. Secretary for Ireland boasted of a de-crease of cases of outrage in the county of Kilkenny, to the amount of eight hundred and odd out of 1,072; but he was happy to tell the House, that in the county of Clare, the decrease of disturbances had been seven to one greater than in Kilkenny; in fact, there was no appearance of outrage left, though no Coercion Act had been applied to it. He was prepared to show by the returns, that such had been the case. The question was, whether the Coercion Act had worked well or ill? The right hon. Secretary had given an opinion in its favour, but not till he had been asked to speak on the subject. In the last Session the right hon. Secretary was
118
silent when addressed on the subject. As to political excitement, which had been so much deprecated, and to which was ascribed all the crime and outrage of which Ireland had been the scene, it could be proved, that at those times when political excitement in Ireland had been highest, offences were least in number and enormity. His Majesty's Government talked about "a final adjustment of tithes" as a measure calculated to "extinguish all just causes of complaint." But how was his final adjustment to be arrived at?—By dispassionate, friendly, and conciliatory means. The subject should be discussed without passion, without anger, without violence; and then the measure might give permanent peace to Ireland. The question was one of vast and deep importance, as all parties seemed to agree that on a "final adjustment of tithes" depended the peace and prosperity of the agricultural districts in that country; and that no permanent tranquility could be had without it. It was a measure of paramount importance, and, he, therefore, hoped the Government would give it the best consideration. It should be a complete, a full, and satisfactory measure; no delusion, He spoke it without disrespect to the House, but really there had been such curious experiments tried of late years in respect to Ireland by the legislative wisdom, that he could not avoid alluding to them. Why, they had seen two or three Tithe Bills passed for the benefit of Ireland by the present Ministers, which had increased rather than diminished the burthens of the people. And were these burthens to be aggravated by such language as that they had just heard? But Ireland did not look for words—for promises; they would no longer satisfy her. Ministers must show by their acts, that they were zealously disposed to afford relief of a substantial kind. To return to the proposed "adjustment of tithes." How could this be done without sacrifices being made in some quarter or other? Did Ministers propose to play a game where everybody was to win, and nobody lose? The people of Ireland would not be con tented with anything short of the total extinction of tithes. And could this be done without loss somewhere? And who was to suffer? He did not wish to exonerate landlords from the maintenance of the religious establishments of the realm; but the labourers must be exonerated:

119
One-tenth of the gross produce of the land was by law appointed for the support of the Protestant religion in Ireland; whilst the landlord's share was about one-third of the gross produce. Let part of the latter be devoted to keeping up the Protestant Establishment. No one denied the claims of the Protestant Clergy to maintenance and reward for their labours. But why should the people be compelled to pay for a clergy whose service they did not want, and by whose labours they did not benefit? No juggle of legislation could uphold such a preposterous claim; and he therefore repeated, that he would exonerate the people of Ireland from all contribution to the temporalities of a church they did not belong to. He had received a letter, from which it appeared, that in the county of Kilkenny, there was a parish in which not one Protestant was resident; and yet this Church, which was one of venerable antiquity, and therefore, perhaps, not left to perish, was supported by the tithe system. Any attempt to keep up tithes and ecclesiastical temporalities in such a place as that must be unjust, and must eventually fail. Ministers had proposed an excellent specific to allay the Repeal agitation by this adjustment of tithes, if it were to go to the extent, and be of the nature he had mentioned. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Littleton) would thus prove himself a much better; agitator than himself, by taking away all desire for the Repeal. Let the people of Ireland be freed from that dictation, that subjugation, under which they now groaned. Let their burthens be diminished; let the Protestant Clergy have what was their due; but let not the mass of the Catholic population be called upon to pay other clergy than their own.

CHARACTER OF THE IRISH MEMBERS.
Mr. O'Connellcontinued: He then came to a different subject. The attention of the House having been called to the Coercion Bill, he would take this opportunity of alluding to a circumstance which was connected with it. It had been publicly stated that votes had been procured in support of that measure in a manner so disreputable, as to be scarcely within the bounds of belief; but he did not wish Ministers to suppose that he believed the part which was attributed to them in the transaction. A statement, however, had been published in the newspapers,
120
with the name of a Member of that House attached to it, which contained a serious charge against the Ministers, and before he determined how he would vote upon the Address, he wished to give them an opportunity of refuting it. The utterance of the calumny was attributed to the hon. member for Hull. In a speech which was published in all the newspapers in the British dominions, that hon. Member was represented to have made use of these words:—"It is impossible for those who are not in the House to know the secret machinery by which votes are obtained." They were Treasury secrets, probably, that were alluded to here; and he did not wish to inquire into them; but he had a right to call upon the noble Lord opposite, to disclaim the imputation which followed. Again, he begged to declare his disbelief, that Ministers had any share in the transaction—"Non meus hic sermo." It was, however, but right to give the noble Lord an opportunity of refuting the calumny, if he thought fit. The hon. and learned member for Hull, then, was represented to have said further, that "an Irish Member who spoke with great violence against every part, and voted against every clause of the Coercion Bill, went to Ministers and said—'Do not bate an atom of the Bill, for it is impossible to live in Ireland without it.' 'What!' said the Ministers, 'this from you, who vote against the Bill?'" Well might they say so (continued the hon. and learned Member); the only wonder is, that it could be supposed they would speak to an individual who could so conduct himself. The narrative proceeded:—"Oh, yes," rejoined the Member, "I am obliged to vote against the Bill, because if I did not, I could not be returned from Ireland, and then I must be out of Parliament altogether." And that would be no great loss to Parliament, and still less to Ireland. The constituency of Ireland had a right to know whether there was such a person as was thus described. He had already expressed his disbelief that Ministers had circulated such a story, and he would add, that he believed it was totally untrue, that any Irish Member had acted in the manner represented. He had spoken to every Irish Member who could come within the description, and they assured him it was impossible that Ministers could have made such a statement, because it was untrue with respect to any of them; and the noble

121
Lord and his colleagues were incapable of fabricating a deliberate falsehood. Although he acquitted Ministers of any share in the transaction, it was possible that the story might have been circulated by some person about them without their knowledge and sanction. Under these circumstances, he felt it his duty to ask the noble Lord, first, whether he or any other member of the Cabinet, had ever stated, that an Irish Member had acted in the manner described; and secondly, whether any Irish Member ever went to the noble Lord, or any other Minister, and made the statement which had been imputed to him?
Lord Althorpsaid, that to the first of the questions, he could answer positively for himself, and to the best of his belief, for his colleagues, that no such assertion as had been referred to had ever been made. With respect to the second question—namely, whether any Irish Member who voted and spoke against the Coercive Bill ever made any statement to the Administration similar to that which the hon. and learned Member had referred to, he was prepared to say that, as far as he was aware, no Irish Member who voted and spoke against the Coercive Bill had made any such statement to a Cabinet Minister. He felt that he was placed in a peculiar situation. The hon. and learned member for Dublin a few moments since said, that his right hon. friend had properly answered a question, because it was put to him; and, under the same circumstances, he felt that he should not act a manly part if he answered the question short. He had said, that to his knowledge no Irish Member who voted against the Coercive Bill had made the statement in question to a Cabinet Minister; but he should not act properly, if he did not declare, that he had good reason to believe that some Irish Members (certainly more than one), who voted and spoke with considerable violence against the Bill, did in private conversation, use very different language.
Mr. O'Connell: I am astonished at the noble Lord's statement. "The noble Lord is shrinking—why not state the names of those Members?"
Lord Althorp(across the Table): Does the hon. and learned Member accuse me of shrinking?
Mr. Sheil: Tell us the name of our accuser.
Mr. O'Connell: I retract the word
122
"shrinking," as applied to the noble Lord. I thought that my questions implied more perhaps than they really did. I feel that I ought not to use a harsh expression towards the noble Lord, and therefore I retract it. I now come back to the point, and I ask the noble Lord who are the Irish Members who have acted as he has described?
Lord Althorp: I am answerable for what I say, and for what I believe. With respect to naming the Irish Members to whom I have alluded, I am perfectly ready to do so if they choose to call upon me; but unless they do so, I think I should not be justified in doing it.
Mr. O'Connell: I am authorised by every Irish Member [Oh! oh!]—well, by every one now present in the House ["No!"]—then I will take another course: I ask the noble Lord whether I am one of the Members to whom he alludes?
Lord Althorp: No.
Mr. Finn: Am I one?
Lord Althorp: No. [Mr. Carew O'Dwyer and Mr. Lynch, severally put the same question, and received the same answer. Several other Irish Members rose from their seats with the view of putting the same question to Lord Althorp. Great confusion prevailed, and amidst shouts of "Order," and "Chair."]
The Speakerwas certain, that upon a moment's reflection, the House would see the difficult situation in which they would be placed if this discussion were continued in the spirit and manner in which it had commenced. He deeply regretted that the noble Lord had felt it his duty to answer the questions which had been proposed to him. Any person acquainted with the rules of the House must be aware that even subjects infinitely less calculated to excite the feelings of the public and of individuals could not be dealt with by them unless they assumed a public character, and were brought before them as questions of privilege, being defamatory of a Member or Members. He put it to the House whether what a Member had said out of the House or in private could assume such a character as to form the basis of public discussion?
Mr. O'Connellhoped that the House would bear with him and his friends, and that every man who valued his character would aid them in endeavouring to prevent equivocation on the subject.
Mr. Humerose to order. On a former

123
occasion he had defended his hon. and learned friend the member for Dublin from an attack made against him on account of words spoken out of the House at a public meeting. He held that what a Member uttered out of the House, unless it came under the definition which the Speaker had given, could not be a subject, for their consideration in that House. He put it to the House whether, if speeches and correspondence out of doors were to be brought under the notice of the House, they would ever see a termination to such discussions as the present? He was fully aware of the delicate situation in which many Members must be placed by the aspersions which had been cast upon them, and should be most happy if the House had the power to extricate them from it; but as it was, his hon. and learned friend must excuse him for appealing to the Chair to know whether his hon. and learned friend could proceed further in the matter.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he must observe that the question before the House was a public one, inasmuch as it concerned deeply the constituency of Ireland to know whether any of their representatives had behaved in the manner described. The noble Lord had satisfactorily replied to the question put by himself and another Irish Member, but other Members, and amongst them his hon. friend, the member for Tipperary, (Mr. Sheil) had been interrupted when they rose to propose the same question to the noble Lord. His hon. friends had constituents who were deeply interested in their character, and therefore he pressed the noble Lord to be more explicit. He asked whether there was a single Scotch or English Member who would be content to rest under the imputation which had been cast upon some Irish Members? Was it anything but fair to ask that the guilty should be detected, and that those who were innocent should have the opportunity of freeing themselves from imputation? The noble Lord had said "more than one" Irish Member, who had voted and spoken against the Bill, had made the statement referred to. An opportunity of clearing themselves had been given to some two or three, but why should not the same indulgence be extended to all on whom the imputation had been cast? He thought that, in justice, the House could not refuge them the opportunity. The hon.
124
member for Tipperary had constituents, who had a right to know whether the Member they had sent to that House was worthy of their confidence or not; for the sake of that portion of the community thus interested, then, and also for the characters of the hon. Members themselves, he felt, and he was sure the House would on a little reflection concur with him, that an opportunity of explanation ought not to be denied to those who sought it.
Mr. Henry Grattansaid, that as one of those interested, he claimed the right to offer a few words. This was a charge brought by one Member of Parliament against another, appearing first in a report of a speech in a newspaper. He would suggest that the House, in order to be able to take cognizance and to go fully into the inquiry, should in the first instance have the statement itself before them. There were precedents for this in Hatsell—cases were there mentioned in which individuals, not members of Parliament, had been called before the House to answer for certain allegations made against Members of the House. He would refer to cases upon record; those, for example, of the Earl of Suffolk, the Bishop of Lincoln, and the Archdeacon of Bath. In these cases committees had been appointed. The same course ought now to be followed. They ought to have the printer or publisher of the paper in which the statement first appeared, or they ought to call on the individual whose statement it was represented to be, if he chose to acknowledge it. It was of the utmost importance to the character of many Members in that House, that the individual who had been described as having gone to Ministers or their friends, and recommended them to support the Bill which he himself was at the same moment publicly opposing, should be known, if in fact any such person existed; for there could be no doubt that to some such influence it was owing that many English Members who had promised to oppose the Bill had afterwards voted for it. He felt it necessary to say that there were thirty or forty English Members who had declared to him that they would vote against the Bill. They stated that they did not choose to communicate with Mr. O'Connell, for that they thought his politics too severe. He had a list with the names of many of those Members whom he met

125
in the library, and where he took those names down. They there said, "Mr. Grattan, we will vote with you against the Bill;" but when the question came to a division, there were only two of them who opposed it. This was on the 2nd of March last. If this change in the determination of so many hon. Members was brought about by underhand representations, the author of them ought to be known. It turned out, however, that the charge, as originally made, was false, at least in one respect; for it said that some Irish Members, who had voted and spoken strongly against the Bill, had gone to some of the Cabinet Ministers; but, according to the statement of the noble Lord, no such communication had been made to any Cabinet Minister. Here the alleged speech of the hon. member for Hull was at variance with the declaration of the noble Lord. In whatever way the case before the House was viewed, it could not rest where it was at present, and if his hon. and learned friend who had introduced it, did not prosecute the subject, he gave notice that he would bring it forward as a case of breach of privilege, and would move that the editor of the paper in which the statement first appeared should be called to the bar.
Mr. Sheilsaid, the noble Lord had, in answer to questions put by his hon. and learned friend, and put at his (Mr. Sheil's) instance, stated two circumstances. The noble Lord stated, that no communication had been made in support of the Bill to the Cabinet, or to any Minister of the Cabinet, by any Irish Member who had spoken and voted against it. The noble Lord had also said, that not only had no communication been made to the Cabinet by any Irish Member who had voted and spoken strongly against the Bill, but that no such communication, with a recommendation that the Bill should be passed, had been transmitted by any such Irish Member. He repeated those statements of the noble Lord, that he might be set right if he had misunderstood him, and for the purpose of showing that, whatever might be the nature of the charge against one or more Irish Members on this subject, it had now taken a shape quite different from its original form. The original charge was, that an Irish Member, who had spoken violently and voted against the Bill, had gone to Ministers and recommended that it should be persevered
126
in without alteration. This charge had now been distinctly negatived by the noble Lord. So far, therefore, the charge as originally made was not true. He perceived by what was intimated by a gentleman on the opposite side, that he dissented from this view of the case; but he entreated that hon. Gentleman, who he believed was utterly incapable of striking a stiletto stab at the character of another, to reserve his surmises until the conclusion of the whole affair. The noble Lord, as he understood, had said, that no communication in favour of the Coercion Bill had been made or transmitted to any Cabinet Minister by any-Irish Member who had voted and spoken strongly against the Bill, which was ground for a presumption, that no communication whatsoever of the kind alluded to had ever been made.
Lord Althorphad not meant to authorize any such inference. What he had said was, that no statement had been made, or message transmitted, in favour of the Bill to any Member of the Cabinet by any Irish Member who had voted and spoken against it.
Mr. Sheil: Or communicated in any way whatever. He did beg that the noble Lord would give a decisive answer. He had understood the noble Lord to add, that some Irish Members [An Hon. Member said: More than one.]—that more than one Irish Member, who had voted and spoken warmly against the Bill, had held language out of doors on that subject very different from their expressed opinions in the House. The noble Lord had stated, that he believed that statement; but he refused to give the name of the individual who made it, adding, "that he took on himself all the responsibility." "Now, the noble Lord having said this so unequivocally, (said Mr. Sheil), I would beg to ask the noble Lord, who has thus publicly expressed his belief of the allegation conveyed to him—I would ask him, whether I am one of the Members to whom he alludes?
Lord Althorp: Yes. The hon. and learned Gentleman is one.
Mr. Sheil, who had resumed his seat on putting the question to the noble Lord, remained in it for some moments; at length he rose and said: "Having heard the statement which the noble Lord has just made to the House, I beg on the other hand to declare in the face of my country, and if I may say so without irreverence, in the

127
presence of my God, that if any individual has said to the noble Lord, or to others, that I gave any approbation of the Coercion Bill in private, he has belied me by a gross and scandalous calumny; but as the noble Lord has made the statement on his own responsibility, I shall say no more." [After another short interval]
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that after what had just passed he felt it his duty to the hon. and learned member for Hull (Mr. Hill) and to himself, to take the earliest opportunity of publicly retracting the language he had used towards that hon. Member. In the belief that for the whole of the allegations made by that hon. Member, and for which he had refused to give up his authority, there was no foundation, and conceiving it meant to throw imputations on all those Irish Members who had opposed the Coercion Bill, he had used very strong language in speaking of him. He now publicly tendered to him his retractation of all he had said; and he offered to give it in the House or out of it, for he now fully admitted that the hon. and learned Member was justified in what he had asserted. He was sorry that he had used any such language, and he begged the hon. and learned Member's pardon. As to the other part of the charge, which involved some other Irish Members, he would say nothing. He would leave the matter to those Members themselves who felt themselves aggrieved by it. Having said thus much, he would only state further, with respect to the Amendment which he had moved, that it was not his intention to take the sense of the House upon it, or on the Address generally. He would content himself with his simple negative.
Mr. Hillsaid, that it so happened that he had unguardedly made use of words at a public meeting at Hull, which, being without premeditation, did not make any great impression on him till his attention was drawn to them by the sensation they created. Upon this he looked into the published reports of his speech given in the newspapers. He found three reports published which differed materially from each other; and though he could not trust entirely to his memory as to the exact expressions used, he thought he could confidently say, that his words were not those stated. As far as he remembered, the words were these:—That he had been informed that a Member of Parliament (he
128
did not even say an Irish Member) who had spoken violently against the Coercion Bill, and voted against it, had had communications with Government upon the subject, and stated to the Government that the Bill was necessary, and ought to pass. He had not considered it necessary before this time, to make even this explanation; and he thought that the different reports of the expressions given in the papers would have been sufficient to create a doubt of their authenticity, and rendered explanation unnecessary. But as soon as he found that they had created a sensation in Ireland, and among the Irish Members, he inserted a short letter in the newspapers, offering to all the Irish Members who chose to ask the question, to say whether the person asking were, or were not, the man. Many Irish Members availed themselves of that offer; and he now confidently appealed to them if he had not, in each instance, given a prompt answer. He was compelled by his feelings as a man and as a gentleman to do this much, and he could not do more. He had since seen statements in the newspapers, and had received letters calling on him to give up his authority. Of course he could not have done so. He would have crept out of existence before he would have placed another in his situation, or shifted the responsibility of his words to another from himself. He felt disposed to agree with those on the other side, who asked for examination into the subject. He trusted that no slight irregularity in form would be allowed to form a bar to inquiry, for it was important that it should be examined into, seeing that the Parliamentary conduct of Members was impugned; and it was evident, from the tone with which the House received the subject, that it was considered by them no light matter. If any Gentleman on the other side would move for a Committee to examine into the matter, he (Mr. Hill) would second the Motion; and he pledged himself to prove before that Committee every word which he had said. He could not do more, neither could he do less. He accepted the concession made to him by the hon. and learned member for Dublin. He could not, however, help saying, that the subject came heavily upon him from those charges having been made at a time of great domestic affliction and calamity. The hon. and learned Member offered further concession out of the House; but

129
that he declined, feeling satisfied with what was already said. He had only further to add, that he begged the pardon of the House that any action of his should have cost them so much trouble.
The Speakersaid, that it was impossible he could allow the discussion to terminate in its present state; and much as he regretted that an hon. Member had considered it his duty to bring the subject under the consideration of the House, and regretting, also, the manner in which the noble Lord had thought it necessary to answer the question, joining, also, with the hon. and learned member for Hull in his regret, that so much public feeling and private pain had ensued from the expressions made use of (as that hon. and learned Member said) unguardedly, but which expressions conveyed charges against Members of the House, which were serious in themselves, but ambiguous. He said, this, however, without imputing any improper motives to the hon. and learned Member; he thought it, however, his duty to suggest, as the case had been brought under the consideration of the House,—as an appeal had been made, and the subject was thereby brought within their jurisdiction, and the House could interfere,—it should not be permitted for the parties concerned to carry it to any other tribunal, but that the matter should be settled entirely within the walls of the House. He was sure, that there was no old Member in the House but would acknowledge, that if the speeches of Members during a debate were picked up and made the subject of proceedings out of the House, there would be an end to all freedom of debate, of the dignity of the proceedings of the House, and of their usefulness in the public service. He hoped, therefore, that whether the question were now set at rest or not, it would not be touched by either party, except within the walls of the House.
Mr. O'Connellwas happy to have the high authority of the Speaker for what was passing in his own mind. He could not but think it would be unbecoming that this subject should pass without a public investigation; and he, therefore, hoped, that he should be allowed to bring forward, to-morrow, as the first business of the day, a Motion for the appointment of a Committee of Investigation; and he accordingly now gave notice of that intention. He was sure that no one could be
130
more delighted than his friend (the hon. member for Tipperary), that an investigation should take place; for he had no doubt, his hon. friend would come out of it triumphantly. He could assure the hon. and learned member for Hull, that had he known of the domestic affliction to which he had alluded, he (Mr. O'Connell) would have smothered his feelings for a time, however he might have been goaded by them. He thanked the hon. and learned Member for having accepted of his apology. He was not a person whom the hon. and learned Member could have called upon to give him satisfaction in any other way; and he had, therefore, thought it his duty to be the more emphatic in his concessions.
The Speakerhoped, that the House would coincide with him in the course which he was about to pursue. He felt so strongly the responsibility of the situation in which he was placed, that he was most anxious that the House would agree with him in asking from the hon. Member an acquiescence in the decision of the House.
Mr. Sheilsaid, that the noble Lord, at the outset of his declaration, had referred to a private conversation, and stated, without being called upon, and by anticipation, and before he was asked any question on that subject, that he took upon himself the responsibility—that he stood as the Representative of the person who alleged the truth of the statement ["No, no.!"]. The noble Lord had certainly said, that he would take upon himself the responsibility of the statement, that more than one Irish Member had expressed different opinions of the Irish Coercion Bill in and out of the House; in other words, that more than one Irish Member had opposed the Bill, who approved of it; and that this information was communicated to him by an individual for whom he felt respect; but he refused to give the name.
Viscount Palmerstonrose to explain his understanding of the word responsibility, as it was used by the noble Lord, and certainly as it was understood by himself. The hon. and learned Member had called upon the noble Lord to give the name of his informant. The noble Lord did what every honourable man would on such an occasion,—he refused to give the name; but he took upon himself the responsibility of the statement he had made. But

131
he did not take upon himself the responsibility of the correctness of the statement. He merely vouched for the fact, that the statement had been made, and he felt bound to take upon himself the responsibility of having said so.
Mr. Sheilsaid, this was not a case for diplomacy. When the noble Lord mentioned that he would not name his informant, he added, that he would take upon himself the responsibility. Now he (Mr. Sheil) charged the noble Lord's informant with falsehood in alleging; that he had expressed himself favourable to the Coercion Bill, and the noble Lord took upon himself the responsibility.
Lord Althorprose to explain his meaning. He had stated he had had information, that Irish Members who voted against the Coercion Bill approved of it; that he would not give up his informant, and would take upon himself the responsibility of not doing so.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, that his impression of the meaning of the word responsibility, as used by the noble Lord, was just that which was all along affixed to it by the noble Lord. He could not have meant it in the conventional sense attributed to it by the hon. member for Tipperary. Could any man, either in or out of the House, understand the expressions of the noble Lord in any other sense than that in which he himself had stated he had used them? He called on the House to assert the authority of the Chair, and not allow the question to be pursued.
Colonel Evansunderstood the noble Lord to have said, that some Members had spoken differently in private from what they had expressed as their opinions in public. Now, these words did not impute a very serious degree of impropriety in any man, if no further explanation were given of them, or if not in direct contradiction to his public acts.
Lord John Russellcoincided with the Speaker in thinking that the privileges of debate would be injured if this question, and such questions as it, were not kept within the jurisdiction of the House. He hoped that, the House would insist, that both the noble Lord and the hon. and learned Member should either tacitly or expressly agree—and that in a manner which could leave no doubt of their meaning—that they should not carry the question beyond the walls of the House.
Mr. Sheilsaid, that the preliminary in-
132
timation came from the noble Lord himself, that he would take upon himself the responsibility; and he (Mr. Sheil) thought it unfair, that he should be called on to take a different view from that to which he had been invited by the noble Lord.
The Speakerwas satisfied, that the hon. and learned member for Tipperary felt differently on this subject from any other Member in the House. He had allowed the subject to be proceeded with, from the conviction that the Orders of the House should be enforced, and that the question being once brought before the House, should not be allowed to be dealt with out of doors. And if he now saw reason to doubt, that the Orders of the House would be observed, unless an injunction were laid on the hon. Member, he should consider it his duty to impose an injunction on either, or both. He need hardly add, that if the hon. member for Tipperary would not yield to the decision of the House, he must be restrained by its authority from doing anything further in this question but with its permission.
Sir Francis Burdeltfully coincided with the suggestion of the Speaker. The adoption of that suggestion was necessary to preserve the freedom of discussion; and he (Sir F. Burdett) should move, that the House acquiesce in the suggestion of the Speaker, and that the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) and the learned Member (Mr. Sheil) should be put under restraint.
The Speakersaid, that after the expressions which had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman, he trusted the House would permit him to express his belief, that no Member of that House would impute to him (the Speaker) the wish or intention voluntarily to impute a meaning to words made use of by any hon. Member. He trusted that the House would permit him to say, that he would be the last man in the House to assume to himself the privilege of dictating to it the course it should pursue; but after the general expression of the feeling of the House, he would at once venture to call upon the hon. and learned Gentleman to assure the House, that, his case having been brought before them, to their consideration and judgment it must be left.
Mr. Sheilsaid, surely the House must see the peculiar predicament in which he was placed by these preliminary proceedings (for such he might term them). The

133
House would remember, that when the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the first instance volunteered a reference to private conversation, and stated his belief in the information which he had received, he (Mr. Sheil) immediately requested that noble Lord to give him the name of his informant. To that request the noble Lord had not acceded; thus leaving him no other resource than that which he had adopted. If that noble Lord had no intention of intimating from whence his information was derived, or if it was his determination to make no concession on his part, why did he invite him (Mr. Sheil) to pursue that course which he had of necessity adopted? The noble Lord was surely not called upon to refer to private conversation, or to state cither his belief or disbelief of the information which had reached him, but he had gone beyond this question. The question which had been put was simply, whether any Irish Member or Members went to a Cabinet Minister for the purpose of making a communication to the Ministry, and whether they made any communication for the purpose of inducing Members to take a particular course? Now, the noble Lord, not content with answering this question most unequivocally, went beyond that, and stated that notwithstanding no individual Member made any such communication to the Cabinet, yet that he believed that more than one Member had expressed certain opinions in private conversation. He submitted, therefore, that it was the noble Lord, and not himself, who had offended, if offence there had been, against the rules of the House. Let him entreat the House to give him a patient hearing. A deep wrong had been done him. The noble Lord had gratuitously declared his belief in a statement vitally affecting his character, and yet the noble Lord refused to give the name of his informant. He had a right to ask who was the person that made the communication? What manner of man could he be? He made a statement to the noble Lord, or to some other person who brought it to the noble Lord, foully and infamously false; and, having done so, he allowed matters to proceed to their present point, without declaring himself. The name of such a man ought to be exposed. For aught he knew to the contrary that anonymous informant might have picked from some phrase out of his private conversations, and, grossly and infamously
134
falsifying what he had said, had imposed upon the noble Lord. The House, under these circumstances, was not justified in calling upon him for any promise. He had said nothing offensive to the House or offensive to the noble Lord. The very moment that the noble Lord had assumed to himself the responsibility, and refused to give up the name of the author of the calumny, he felt that he had but one course. He might have told the noble Lord, had he been desirous of being offensive, that the noble Lord had made himself a participator in the falsehood; that, by screening the slanderer, the noble Lord himself must be content to bear the character. That, however, he had not done; and he repeated, that he was the party who had real and substantial ground for complaint.
Mr. John Stanleyput it to the hon. and learned Member to consider whether it was at all likely to clear his honour from the charge by fastening the responsibility on the noble Lord. Surely it would be much better to have the matter thoroughly investigated than to press the responsibility upon the noble Lord, to whom the question had been put as a Minister.
The Speakersaid, that if the hon. and learned Gentleman thought he meant to place him in a worse situation than he would any other hon. Member under similar circumstances, he did him an injustice. The reason why he was averse, if it could be avoided, to the House coming to any fixed Resolution on the subject was, that those hon. Members who did not take part in the proceedings that evening, as well as those who did, might think that every personal quarrel that occurred between hon. Members ought to be brought before the House for its decision. He (the Speaker) was sure the hon. and learned member for Tipperary would not better his position by refusing to comply with the wish expressed, that he would pledge himself not to take any proceedings in the matter out of the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman, he was certain, would, on cool calculation, see the reasonableness of the view which he took of the question. If the hon. Member did not make the suggested pledge voluntarily, the House must do its duty, however reluctantly.
Sir Robert Peelthought it extremely desirable that the hon. and learned Mem-

135
ber should be fully convinced that the House had no intention whatever of imposing upon him a line of conduct that could by possibility be deemed derogatory to his personal honour. The question appeared to him to stand thus: There was a charge against the public character of the hon. Member, but there was none other. The House, therefore, required from the hon. and learned Member a declaration that he would not resort to means well understood and foreign to the rules of that House to relieve himself from the charge. The House asked from the hon. and learned Member no concession whatsoever. It had never occurred to him that the noble Lord, when he used the word "responsibility," meant to place himself in personal opposition to the hon. and learned Gentleman. All that he understood was this, and he believed it was the general feeling of the House, that the noble Lord, being asked as a Minister whether or not a certain statement had been made, said it had, and that he believed in the person who made the statement, but that he could not disclose his name, and, therefore, he took upon himself the responsibility of declaring that there had been such a statement.
Mr. Sheilsaid: "Will not disclose."
Sir Robert Peel: Why, the noble Lord could not. It was impossible he should mean to attach to himself a personal responsibility.
Mr. Sheil: He said so.
Sir Robert Peel: The hon. and learned Member fixes a technical meaning upon the word. He declared solemnly upon his honour, as a man and a gentleman, that he could see nothing in the slightest degree derogatory in the course proposed to the hon. and learned Member. No concession was asked. On the contrary, the hon. and learned Member was left at perfect liberty to take whatever steps he thought necessary for the vindication of his public character, in the assembly in which it had been attacked; and that assembly had a perfect right, and was bound to require at his hands, an assurance that that which was properly within its jurisdiction should not be transferred to another.
Mr. Sheilrepeated, that he could give no such assurance as that required. He did not feel that the House had any right to make the demand. With respect to the meaning he attached to the word
136
"responsibility," as used by the noble Lord, he could not see that it was in the least other than it ought to be.
Mr. Secretary Stanleywas convinced that the whole of the present conversation arose out of a misunderstanding on the part of the hon. and learned Member, of the sense in which his noble friend had used the word responsibility. It was, he believed, evident to almost every Member in that House that nothing personally offensive had been intended. The question put to his noble friend was this—"Did you or did you not hear such a report?" He replied that he had heard it from parties worthy of credit—that he believed them; that the matter, however, must rest with him, for that he should not go further, and make public the source whence he had derived his information. Now, if saying that was to be esteemed an act of personal provocation, he confessed himself unable to comprehend how public affairs could be carried on. With all possible respect for the feelings of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he must be allowed to say, that after it was so evident that his noble friend was perfectly unconscious of offensive tendency in the language be had used, and when all the Members of that House who spoke upon the subject were also of opinion that it was free of offence, the hon. Member scarcely could be warranted in not coming forward and frankly declaring that he had no intention of following up the matter further.
Lord Althorpsaid, that what he meant when he used the word "responsibility," was this:—A statement had been made to him, in which he believed. He felt when the question was put to him that a declaration to that effect was likely, indeed must give offence, and, therefore, he determined himself to vouch that such a statement had been made, to declare his belief in it, and not to disclose the name of the person who had made it, but to take upon himself the responsibility. If offence, therefore, had been given he was answerable.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, it was quite clear that it was the noble Lord who ought first to be called upon to give an assurance to the House that he would be a party to no proceedings out of it.
Colonel Leith Haythought, that a more injudicious course to himself, than that which the hon. and learned Gentleman

137
was pursuing, could not be adopted. He would do well to consider the suggestion which had proceeded from the Chair. If he sought to vindicate his character, the course proposed by the hon. and learned member for Dublin was the best calculated to carry conviction to the mind. But on the other hand, to endeavour to fix responsibility on his noble friend, who only spoke when called upon in his official capacity as Minister, appeared to him to be conduct unworthy of any Member of that House. For his own part, as an individual Member of the House, he did not hesitate to avow, that similar communications had been made to him respecting the conduct of certain Irish Members, but he also would refuse to give up the names of his informants, and was ready to take upon himself any responsibility that might attach to this statement.
Sir Francis Burdettsaid, that if it should be found impossible to induce the Gentlemen between whom the dispute had occurred, to take the course desired by the House, he trusted the House would exercise its authority. No good could result from any other course of proceeding. He put it to the hon. and learned Member to consider that no concession was asked from him. By the Motion he had proposed to make, the hon. and learned Member and the noble Lord would be put precisely on the same footing; and, unless they would voluntarily and gracefully comply with the arrangement, the House must exert its authority. He begged, therefore, formally to move—
The Speakersaid that, before the hon. Baronet made his Motion, perhaps he might be allowed once more to urge that arrangement which appeared to him in every way so desirable. If the hon. and learned Gentleman considered the matter, the hon. and learned Gentleman would see that he had no choice, but was compelled first to call upon the hon. and learned Member for the assurance he had requested. If he had made the like request from the noble Lord, the reply might have been that the noble Lord had received no offence; that nothing had occurred which would justify the supposition that he intended to take any steps out of that House with reference to the conduct of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The case, however, as it bore upon the hon. and learned Member was very different. It was the language of the
138
hon. and learned Member that had excited his suspicions, and induced him to suggest to the House to call for the assurance which the House evidently thought necessary. Having said thus much, he must also suggest to the hon. and learned Member that the instances were rare indeed in which, under circumstances of a similar character, the expressed wish of the House had not been fully complied with, without there being any necessity for a Resolution being adopted.
Mr. Hardyagreed with the hon. Baronet (Sir Francis Burdett) in thinking, that if the House found it necessary to take any step, the proceeding should bear equally on the noble Lord and the hon. and learned Member. But he thought that the situation in which the hon. and learned Member was placed was one of great cruelty. A communication had been made to the noble Lord affecting the hon. and learned Gentleman's character; and when the noble Lord was asked for the author, his reply was, no, he would give no name, but would take the responsibility on himself. This communication somehow or other found its way to the hon. member for Hull, and was by him made public; and, therefore, he concluded that the hon. and learned Member had a full right to a complete investigation. With respect to the alleged machinery said to be used by the Government to gain votes, he must say he could not credit it. It appeared to him impossible. But he repeated that the position of the hon. and learned Member was a cruel one. On the one hand, the noble Lord vouched for an assertion affecting deeply the character of the hon. and learned Member; on the other hand, the hon. and learned Member solemnly declared that the assertion was false and foul. When the noble Lord was asked for his authority, the reply was, no, he took the responsibility on himself; and yet the House required the hon. and learned Member not to take any steps without its jurisdiction. That was a course the House ought not to take without resolving on inquiry.
Mr. Ruthvencomplained that little encouragement was given to Irishmen to speak whilst people made noises, which were perfectly discreditable on the present occasion; for whilst they were talking of responsibility, there was no responsibility to be incurred which could equal the want of courtesy evinced by certain anonymous

139
laughers. He was sorry to find that on some occasions the private feelings of parties were disregarded. For his own part, he did not wish to make what was already unpleasant a great deal more so. He thought that the noble Lord had come forward in a most candid manner, and he was the last man to call upon that noble Lord to pledge himself to any responsibility in virtue of his official situation. He felt that the noble Lord had not meant, in using the term responsibility, to convey anything thing more than the meaning generally attached to it; though, perhaps, his hon. and learned friend's feelings had led him to interpret the word in the way in which it was made to apply on particular occasions. But he never could allow such a statement as had been made, to go forward in a manner to give it credence with a certain set of persons. He asked not, however, for any personal collisions; but he did ask for an opportunity to be afforded to the hon. and learned Gentleman to set himself right in reference to the imputation which had been cast upon him, an imputation, too, which was as unjustly attributed to that hon. and learned Gentleman as it would be if applied to himself. It was under these feelings that he would observe that the Irish Members would forget what was due to his hon. and learned friend, and to themselves, if they did not demand that an inquiry (with the acquiescence of the noble Lord) should be made. He wished to have this object attained, as, in that case, he believed the report which had been circulated would turn out to be a calumny.
Sir Henry Hardingesaid, he was persuaded that every Member of the House must feel that the noble Lord was restrained by a high sense of honour from disclosing the name of his informant; but, on the other hand, the hon. and learned Member had solemnly asserted that the statement vouched for by the noble Lord was false and foul. Under these circumstances, it was a difficult matter to say how the House could interfere without imposing a restraint on the honour of one party or the other. But the proposition of the hon. Baronet appeared to him to be perfectly just, with this condition, that there should be a full inquiry. Let the hon. and learned Member have that assurance from the House. He, therefore, would second the Motion of the hon. Baronet, with that addition.
Mr. Cobbettsaid, the sort of proceeding which had been often alluded to, he for his part held in very great contempt. He thought the hon. and learned Member had been very hardly dealt with. The case was simply this:—A man goes into a company and he says, "I am informed that one of you stole a horse, but will not tell you my authority. I take the responsibility on myself." Well, one of the company says, "Am I the man you charge with stealing the horse?" The accuser replies, "Yes, you are." To which the retort is, "You lie." Well, then, the person who brought the charge must bear all the responsibility.
Mr. Abercrombyexpressed his regret at the circumstance which had given rise to this discussion, but he hoped that the House of Commons would not shrink from the prosecution of its duty. He hoped they would not separate until they should have taken such effectual means as should prevent any such consequences as those which were likely to arise if the matter were allowed to remain as it then stood. The hon. and gallant Officer seemed to think, that a necessary condition in the present case must be, that an inquiry should be proposed, and a Committee appointed. Now he would object to the House being clogged with any such proceedings; for even if such Committee were appointed, he should still say it was not necessary to fix this as a condition upon which the House should rest. He objected to a Committee, as it would decidedly be a novel mode of proceeding, and before he should be prepared to grant inquiry, he must have time for reflection, but at the present time he was not prepared to come to a conclusion. With regard to the hon. and learned Gentleman, he was sure that no person who had taken a part in this discussion, was disposed to do anything which should be inconsistent with his honour. It was perfectly clear that, whether the Members concerned voluntarily gave their assurances that the matter should not go further, the necessary restraint must be imposed upon them. He would submit to the House, whether the House should not adopt the suggestion of the hon. Baronet, the member for Westminster, for the purpose of settling the matter in question.
Mr. Halcombethought it was the duty of the noble Lord, before the hon. and learned Member was called upon to give

141
any pledge, to promise that a full inquiry into the subject in dispute should take place, and that the noble Lord would, if required, go into a full explanation of his conduct. Without such a pledge, he did not think it would be fair to exact submission to the opinion of the House on the part of the hon. and learned Member, but with it, in the event of a refusal on the part of the learned Member to bow to their decision, they would, in his opinion, be justified in proceeding to the utmost extremity.
Mr. O'Dwyerthought, if the authority of the House was to be appealed to, in restraining his hon. and learned friend from adopting such measures as in his judgment might appear most fitting for the vindication of his character, while at the same time the noble Lord was to be left free and unshackled, they were bound in justice to impress on the noble Lord the propriety of retracting one expression which he had made use of. He (Mr. O'Dwyer) understood the noble Lord to say, that he fully believed the statement of his informant ["No, no."] [Mr. Sheil: He did, he did.] It was certainly his (Mr. O'Dwyer's) impression, as well as that of many hon. Members who sat near him, that the noble Lord had so stated; and, unless the noble Lord distinctly denied it, he was bound to take it for granted that such was the fact. The case then stood thus:—The noble Lord had published an imputation against the character of his hon. and learned friend which, if it were true, would render him not only unworthy of a seat in that House, but in every sense an unfit associate for any man possessing the feelings or character of a gentleman. This imputation, the noble Lord stated, did not originate with himself, but reached him through a third person. Was it, under these circumstances, too much to ask of the noble Lord whether or not he believed that the charge he made had foundation? The noble Lord took upon himself to publish that charge to the world, but he had done so without expressing one particle of disbelief in the statement of his skulking informer. No, the noble Lord had not expressed his belief that his informant might have exaggerated the alleged conversation, or that in a spirit of exaggeration he might have ingeniously tortured an expression which his hon. and learned friend dropped inadvertently. The noble Lord had adopted
142
the entire calumny, and with great respect he (Mr. O'Dwyer) urged it upon the House that, unless they called for a retractation of the noble Lord's expressions, they would be acting with great injustice in demanding of his hon. and learned friend to make the required submission. He would not detain the House further than to say, that the statement of the hon. and learned member for Hull, contrasted with that made by the noble Lord, ought now to be regarded as false. It now appeared that there was no transaction whatever such as that hon. and learned Member had related to his constituents at Hull. A more outrageous, unjustifiable, and unprincipled attack never was made on the character and honour of any set of men than that which the hon. Member had promulgated, to whom he begged to observe that he owed it to his own character, as much as he owed it to the injured feelings of the parties whom he had been instrumental in slandering, to place his informant in such a position that he might receive the punishment his falsehood and malice so loudly called for.
Sir Francis Burdettsaid, that it now only remained for the Speaker to call on the hon. Members in turn to give their assurance to the House, that nothing which had there taken place that evening should be personal beyond its walls, and that the subject in dispute, having been placed under the consideration of the House, should be allowed to abide its decision.
Mr. Hillwished, before the Speaker rose, to say one word in reply to the observations just made by the hon. and learned member for Drogheda. Every syllable of what he had stated to his constituents at Hull, he had heard—he believed at the time—he still believed. He was willing, as he had already offered, to give his best exertions for having the matter placed in a train for inquiry; and if, on the termination of that inquiry, it should turn out that he had been misinformed, he pledged himself, without adopting the precise expressions used by the hon. and learned member for Drogheda, to adopt their meaning to the fullest possible extent, and, as far as was in his power, to visit his informant with the punishment his deception would then so imperatively call for.
The Speakerwas sure the House felt with him, that the longer the present discussion was persevered in, they were only

143
likely to get the further from the real merits of the case, and the deeper in painful misunderstanding and misrepresentation. He presumed he was now fully authorized by the House to call on the two hon. Members to give an assurance to the House, that the matter under dispute should not be prosecuted out of its walls, but should abide the inquiry, which he believed he was correct in saying it was intended it should undergo. Before doing so, however, he desired by way of preface to observe, that nothing could be more mistaken than to suppose an intention on the part of the House to impose upon the hon. and learned member for Tipperary restrictions and terms different from those by which it was proposed the noble Lord should be bound. The same assurance, in the same terms, would be required from both parties; nor would the one be more restricted or bound down than the other. He wished further to observe, that if an hon. Member, having been called upon from the Chair, in pursuance of a Resolution of the House, to give a required assurance, should refuse to answer that call, the House had the power, and further, he would say, it would be its imperative duty, to carry such their Resolution into execution, by ordering the individual so offending into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. There was no alternative so long as the House performed its duty; and he, therefore, hoped the hon. Members whom he was about to call upon would at once see the justice of the course pursued towards them, and willingly com-ply with their demand, instead of requiring the House to assert its authority by compelling compliance. He would first call upon the hon. and learned member to give the required assurances, but he trusted the observations he had just made would clear away from his mind the impression (supposing it to exist) that because he called on him first he had the remotest intention to impose on him restrictions differing from those which he would subsequently have to require from the noble Lord. Having said so much, it only remained for him, in the discharge of his duty as Speaker, formally to call upon the hon. and learned member for Tipperary "to assure this House, that the matter now before this House shall not be prosecuted by him out of its walls, but shall be left to abide such discussion as, upon inquiry into it, the House may think proper
144
to come to." The right hon. Gentleman, on resuming his seat, immediately called upon Mr. Sheil by name.
Mr. Sheilwas in the House, but did not answer to the call. After the lapse of a few minutes,
Sir Francis Burdettrose, and moved, "That Richard Lalor Sheil, having declined to obey the Call of the House communicated to him through the Chair, be taken into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms." The hon. Baronet observed, that nothing would mortify him more than the reflection of having urged a proposal likely to tarnish in the smallest degree the character or honour of a fellow-man; but, as he was confident such a charge could not in the present instance be made against him, he felt it his duty to persevere in the course in which he had set out.
The Speakerbegged to remind hon. Members, that they had come to a mere point of order, and the regulations of the House upon it were so precise as to admit of no further discussion. The House had instructed him as the Speaker to call upon the hon. and learned Member for an assurance; the hon. and learned Member had not, for certain reasons, answered that call: and it now only remained to assert the authority of the House, in pursuance of its strictly and well-defined regulations. He would, however, venture to suggest to the hon. Baronet, that in order to give the hon. and learned Member time to consider his position, he should postpone his Motion until the other business of the day was concluded.
Sir Francis Burdett, would, of course, bow to the suggestion of the Chair.
The Speaker formally called upon Lord Althorp to give the like assurance demanded from Mr. Sheil.
Lord Althorpimmediately rose, and said, that as he had received no offence, he could have no hesitation in declaring an intention of not following up the matter under consideration, by any proceedings out of Parliament. He had received no provocation whatever; consequently could entertain no hostile intention towards the hon. and learned Member, or any Member of that House.
On the noble Lord resuming his seat, Mr. O'Connell made some observation to the hon. Member sitting next him, which was not heard in the body of the House.
Lord Althorpimmediately rose, amid

145
loud cheers, and with considerable warmth, demanded to know, what the hon. and learned Member meant by his gesticulations.
Mr. O'Counell:—Simply that I entertain a deep sense of the injustice done to my hon. and learned friend; that I am penetrated with the sentiment, that he is not getting fair play. I have ever entertained a strong abhorrence—every one who hears me will admit that I have reason to do so—to the practice of duelling; but there never was a stronger instance of the injustice and absurdity of what were called the laws of honour than the present. True, the noble Lord has received no offence, but he has given one. The noble Lord has pledged himself, as easily he might, that he will not send my hon. and learned friend a hostile message; but has he pledged himself that he will not respond to a challenge? The answer given by the noble Lord was in point of fact a mere delusion, and yet the House was content with it. Until the noble Lord pledged himself not to respond to any proceedings out of the walls of Parliament, I must say, that the noble Lord, equally with my hon. and learned friend, has declined complying with the Call of the House.
Lord Althorphad to observe, that he had given the only answer he could to the demand which had been made on him. He had pledged himself not to take any proceeding with reference to the matter before the House without its walls.
The Speakersaid, he certainly understood the noble Lord to pledge himself, that he would not out of the walls of that House, himself either originate proceedings upon the matter in dispute, or respond to any proceedings emanating from the hon. and learned member for Tipperary. To that extent he conceived himself to have been charged by the House—to that extent he meant to call upon the hon. and learned member for Tipperary—to that extent he meant also to call upon the noble Lord—to that extent he understood the noble Lord's answer to go; and, unless he contradicted him, he would still presume, that it was to that extent the noble Lord had pledged himself to the House. He now called upon the noble Lord to say, whether he had been right or wrong in his supposition?
Lord Althorp, after a pause, said, that a consideration for what was due to himself
146
must prevent him from giving a pledge not to respond to any call that might be made upon him.
Sir Robert Peelthought, there was another party deserving of some small consideration in the present matter, and that was the House. He felt the hon. Baronet would now only discharge his duty by amending his Motion, and at once moving, that both the noble Lord and the hon. and learned Member be committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.
Sir Francis Burdettfelt that the course suggested by the right hon. Baronet, was the only one now left to him; and would therefore move, "That Lord Viscount Althorp, and Richard Lalor Sheil, having declined to comply with the Call of the House communicated through their Speaker, be committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms."
The Motion carried, nemine contradicente.
[After the lapse of a few minutes, Lord Althorp first, and then Mr. Sheil, rose to leave the House, and were immediately taken into custody.]
The Question was put on Mr. Finn's Amendment to the Address, and negatived without a division.

LORD ALTHORP AND MR. SHEIL.
Mr. Secretary Stanleyrose, and spoke as follows:—Mr. Speaker,—it is not my intention, Sir, to offer any observation, or to renew in any shape whatever, any discussion upon the merits of the question which has so long and so painfully been under the consideration of this House upon the present evening. I am, Sir, the bearer of a communication, which I trust will give the same satisfaction to this honourable House, which it has unfeignedly given to me and to our mutual friends. Sir, my noble friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), whose conduct was under the review of this House this evening, felt that he had done as much, and that he had gone as far as he could fairly be called upon to go, when he had stated to the House, that he was willing to enter into an engagement, that, in consequence of what had passed, he would take no active steps in the affair whatever. The House, in its wisdom, had judged this not to be sufficient, and looking to the exercise of its authority, and the vindication of its dignity, in the enforcement of its own

147
views, it had taken that extreme step, almost the extremest it could take, which had placed both parties under an authority, which made it physically and morally impossible that any hostile collision could take place. Sir, I am authorized to say on the part of my noble friend, that although he had expressed opinions of his own, he bowed to the authority of the House with the respect that he owed to it. In fulfilling this duty I am also bound to state, that my noble friend has acted by the advice of his colleagues, who, on no occasion, would for any consideration on earth, hint to him advice which could in the slightest degree be discreditable to his character, or could cast the slightest shade on his untarnished reputation. In consideration of the respect which the noble Lord owes to the authority of the House, and to the course of the public business, which might be materially impeded without his presence, he authorizes me, Sir, to give, on his part, the assurance, that he is ready to make the declaration which the House requires, and which it has enforced—namely, that he will not take any steps himself, nor respond to any hostile message, in consequence of the proceedings that had taken place in the course of this evening. Having made this statement, which I trust will be to the House as satisfactory as it is to me, and feeling confident that my noble friend opposite will view it in the same way, I have only to move, "That Lord Viscount Althorp be discharged from the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms."
Mr. Humerose to second the Motion. He had given his vote with great pain; but he had felt that there was no alternative but to support the rules and regulations of the House. The manner in which the noble Lord had yielded to the wishes of the House must add to his high character.
The Speakersaid, that having already had occasion so frequently to address the House in the course of the evening, most painfully, he hoped he might be permitted, before putting the question, to say two words expressive of the deep satisfaction he felt at the conduct of the noble Lord. He cordially concurred with the hon. member for Middlesex, that after the speech which had been made by the right hon. Secretary, there could not exist two opinions in the House upon the course which had been pursued on the present
148
occasion by Lord Althorp—a course which, if possible had increased the high estimation in which the public as well as the private character of the noble Lord was held.
The Question carried nem. con.
Mr. Shawbegged to suggest to the Speaker the propriety of calling on the member for Hull to make the same assurance to the House as had been required from the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) and the hon. and learned member for Tipperary.
Mr. Hillsaid, it was his anxious wish to place himself under the guidance of the House. If the Speaker thought it right that he should make to the House such an assurance as the hon. member for the University of Dublin alluded to, he should most certainly feel bound to obey the call of the right hon. Gentleman.
The Speakerthought, that after what had just fallen from the hon. and learned member for Hull, the House would feel it to be unnecessary for him to call on that hon. and learned Member for any further assurance. The statement just made would be received as an assurance on the part of the hon. and learned Member that he would not take any steps in this matter of which the House could not approve.
Mr. Humestated, that in consequence of what had passed, he and other friends of the hon. and learned member for Tipperary (Mr. Sheil) had communicated with that Gentleman; and he had the satisfaction to state on the part of his hon. and learned friend, that he felt anxious to show his respect for the orders of the House, and that, without giving any opinion upon the subject which had led to the situation he was then in, he had come to the determination of submitting implicitly to their wishes. He, together with the other friends of the hon. and learned Gentleman, had stated to him that by adopting this course, so far from acting in a manner derogatory to his character as a man of honour, he would be taking the most effectual means of supporting it, and placing it in a higher and more worthy station than before. In following the advice tendered to him by his friends the hon. and learned Gentleman was actuated solely by a spirit of obedience to the orders of that House, which it was, upon all occasions, the duty and the interest of every Member individually to uphold. He moved, "That Richard Lalor Sheil,

149
Esq., be discharged out of the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms." He offered, on the part of that hon. and learned Gentleman, an assurance that no proceedings should be taken by him with reference to the subject which had placed him in custody, out of the walls of that House.
Sir Edward Knatchbullseconded the Motion.
The Speakersaid, he could not but express his gratification at the course which the hon. and learned Member had adopted. The House, and the country at large, would feel, that he had been rightly advised by the hon. member for Middlesex and his friends, when he was told, that he would best maintain his own honour, and best consult his personal dignity in upholding the dignity and character of that House.
The Question carried nem. con.