Sitting of 29 July 1834

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Mr. LITTLETON, from Attorneys in Ireland, against the Civil Courts (Ireland) Bill.—By Sir ROBERT PEEL, from Clogher, for Protection to the Protestant Church in Ireland.—By the same, and Mr. RICE TREVOR, from a Number of Places,—for Protection to the Established Church, and against the Separation between Church and State.—By Mr. SPRING RICE, from Limerick, for a floating Dock at that Port.—By Mr. ROTCH, from several Places, against Trades Unions.

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN COLONIZATION.
Mr. W. Whitmore Mr. W. Whitmore moved the Order of the Day, that the House resolve itself into Committee on the South Australian Colonization Bill.
On the question that the Speaker do leave the Chair,
Mr. Baringsaid, that this was the most extraordinary Bill that had ever been introduced into that House, and as an opportunity had not yet been afforded of discussing the principle of the Bill, he did not think it could be otherwise done than on that occasion. He would, therefore, take the opportunity to make a few remarks on what he considered the object and scope of the measure. He would first call the attention of the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies to the subject, because, though the Bill professed to be brought in by the hon. member for Wolverhampton, and to be supported by the hon. and gallant Member behind him, yet when the House considered the immense extent of the scheme, and how far the Crown lands were involved in it, it became very difficult to know how it could be considered otherwise than a Government measure. His first objection was to the period at which the Bill was brought forward. The Bill was only printed on the 17th of July, and when hon. Members reflected on the difficulty of getting a House together at this advanced period of the Session, for the despatch of the ordinary business of the country, he thought it was too much to

701
call on Parliament at such a moment to deliberate on so grave and comprehensive a subject as that of colonizing Southern Australia. On this ground alone, without entering into the important questions the measure involved, he would seriously recommend the postponement of the Bill till the next Session. He had said, it was a most extraordinary Bill, for it proposed to establish a new colony in Australia. If that were the real object, why should the Crown depute it to private individuals, and why should so important a measure be put off until a joint-stock company, that was to be raised for the purpose, should take the matter up? But the real object of the colony was, to realize the views of a set of gentlemen, whom he hoped he should not offend by calling experimental philosophers, and with whom this was a favourite and long-cherished theory. These philosophers were about to form a colony upon a principle which would throw all others in the shade. They were persons possessing great and varied powers of mind, and most enlarged understandings, but, as it too frequently happened, the schemes of these theoretical individuals were seldom so contrived as to meet the ordinary purposes of life. He had always been of opinion, that plain practical men were much better able to conduct the affairs of mankind than persons who advocated particular theories. Two of the greatest generals who ever lived, Frederick of Prussia and Napoleon Buonaparte, used to say, if they wished to select a person unfit for government, they would seek for him among the theorists of the colleges. He was of the same opinion. But what was this project? One would have thought there was full scope for the talents of these experimentalists in the wastes of Pennsylvania, where there was nothing to obstruct the enlarged views they entertained. Or if they wished to make the experiment merely, why had they not selected some moderate-sized cabbage-garden, without going to a country nobody knew where, and grasping a tract of territory embracing several degrees of latitude and longitude and bounded only by the great geographical line of the tropic of Capricorn? The Bill he viewed as a speculation, and he objected to it because it raised a large sum of money on the land by way of mortgage, while the future government of the country was taken out of the hands of
702
the Crown. He would therefore say, limit the attempt, or the colony would be so tied up by mortgages that it could not revert to the country again. If the Crown made the experiment, it possessed the power to retrace its steps; but the result of this Bill would be, that if these gentlemen made a mistake, as he knew they would, after their blundering was at an end, the land would be so locked up that it would be unavailable, and this country would have to redeem the mortgage. He was himself a friend to emigration; he liked to see new colonies established, because he considered them a benefit to the poorer classes of the country; but he did not think this measure in any way connected, as had been stated, with the Poor-law Amendment Bill, which they had passed. He did not therefore oppose this Bill on the ground of hostility to the principle of emigration, but because it was founded on interested motives, without any view to benefit the parties who might be induced to emigrate, and because it would tend ultimately to throw discredit on emigration itself. For his own part, he should like to see the same system prevail in our colonization that existed in the United States, by which a most beneficial and convenient intercourse was kept up. He was not disposed to make objections of a party nature, or he might point to that part of the Bill which increased the patronage of the Government, by giving them the nomination of three more Commissioners; but he would confine himself to objecting to the scheme itself. He would say, take sixty or 100 miles square; and he asked, if that was not enough for these gentlemen to play their pranks in? If the experiment succeeded, or if the quantity of land was insufficient for the experiment, let them add another 100 square miles, and another 100 after that; but why block up half a great Continent, by seizing on such an immense tract of land? Why, the very distance would make it impossible to form a settlement to any considerable extent. It was well known, that emigrants might get to America from Ireland in thirty days, and for 3l., and 50,000 had accordingly emigrated there in the course of one year. The money to be borrowed by this Bill was 200,000 l. in the first instance: the whole amount, however, was unlimited, and was declared to be raised for the purpose of sending emigrants out to

703
Australia. The scheme on which the whole plan rested was, that no land was to be sold under 12 s. an acre, and so positive were the philosophers in this theory, that they would not leave it to the Government to interfere in any respect; they said the colony might have what form of government it pleased, but 12 s. an acre at the least, must be paid for the land without any discrimination, whether it were sheep-walk or the richest arable land, but that no credit could be given. He spoke from experience in matters of this sort, having in the early part of his life spent many thousands in plans of this description, and he would pledge his existence on the fact, that the principle of paying 12 s. an acre and not allowing any credit could not be practically acted upon, and yet it was on this principle the whole plan mainly rested. He had several thousand acres of land in the best parts of Pennsylvania, and he would be glad to sell it for half the money, and give very good credit into the bargain. The very smallest quantity of land an emigrant could take was 200 acres, which would cost him 120 l. in ready money; it would cost him 120 l. more to remove his family there, and he must spend at least 500 l. or 600 l. to stock the land. Now, he would put it to any man acquainted with the condition of the people to say, whether there was any individual to be found so great a fool as to lay out these sums of money, to set himself down upon 200 acres of land in a community of kangaroos? He admitted, that he never knew an instance of a sober and temperate working man going out without acquiring independence and comfort, but he must also observe, that if a small English farmer were to make the experiment with his few hundred pounds, he would heartily repent it. Then, what was the way the land was to be worked? Why, they expected the English labourer would go over there to work for them, as convict labour would not be permitted; but they would be disappointed; the labourer would not go over to Australia to seek labour only to promote the experiments or make the fortunes of others. He considered the details of the Bill quite impracticable. 200,000 l. was to be borrowed to send emigrants over to people the colony; he did not say this would involve the responsibility of the public, but the loans must be contracted, and the land
704
shut up until the Government paid off the debt. He next objected to bonds being circulated through the country apparently on the faith of an Act of Parliament, as they would tend very much to delude the public, who might advance the money, and would have the effect of lowering the credit of the country. There was another absurdity in the Bill. It was provided, that those who lent the money should have it back upon three months' notice; but how were they to get back their money from the tropic of Capricorn? It was not from any hostility to emigration itself, for if he was sure it would be of benefit to the poor, he should look at the dreams of success with pleasure and delight, but it was because he believed the scheme would prove abortive, and turn the whole plan of colonization into ridicule, that he gave it his most decided opposition. He would only ask the right hon. Secretary whether it was just or politic to introduce so important a Bill at this period of the session, and whether so extensive a subject ought not first to have been considered by a Committee up stairs? He was so convinced that this ought to have been the case that he would conclude by moving that the Bill be commited that day six months.
Mr. Wolryche Whitmorereturned his thanks to the hon. Member for the very fair and candid tone in which he had addressed the House, being convinced that no Member of that House was better acquainted with the subject, or possessed a clearer understanding of its general bearings. The first objection of the hon. Member was, that the promoters of the measure were endeavouring to establish by Act of Parliament what it was in the power of the executive to perform without it. He admitted that it was so, but if the hon. Member would look to what had taken place on the occasion of establishing other colonies, he would find they had frequently been established by Act of Parliament without the intervention of the Crown, therefore they could not be said to be deviating from the constitutional practice on similar occasions. The hon. Member had called the supporters of the measure philosophers, experimentalists, theorists, and a variety of other names, and had also said it was the project of a joint-stock company. He would not say their theory was right—it was yet untried, and might prove erroneous—but he would

705
say there was no class of philosophers, or theorists, or whatever the hon. Member pleased to term them, that ever undertook a plan of any kind with less prospect of any personal advantage to themselves. The appointing of three Commissioners would not add to the patronage of the Government, and all objections to the Bill on that account were without foundation. He next contended, that it was absolutely necessary that a very considerable extent of territory should be employed for the purpose as an inducement for emigrants to settle there, it being intended that no convict should be suffered to set a foot in the colony. Convict labour would not be allowed in the colony, and every encouragement would be given to free labour. The principle of the Bill was, that all the proceeds arising from the land should be employed in sending out adult labourers, by which means the surplus population of, as well as the uninvested capital of this country, would find the means of employment. The hon. Member had also objected to the measure on the ground that labour would not be cheap in the colony. He trusted, that labour there would not become cheap, which was a circumstance greatly in favour of the Bill. The object, however, was not so much to regulate the wages of labour as to supply the colony with labourers. The hon. Member also complained that all the land was estimated at the same value. It was true that the price of the whole was fixed at 12 s. an acre, and it was natural to suppose that all the good land would be first bought up, but in proportion to the progress of cultivation, when roads had been constructed and the lands enclosed, the whole would be rendered valuable. The hon. Member would find, upon inquiry, that the land at present sold by the Canada Company, was at a considerably higher rate than 12 s. an acre. The hon. Member objected to the distance of the colony; but that objection was obviated by paying for the passage of labourers. It was true, that the Bill gave the Company the power of borrowing 200,000 l. for carrying on the government of the colony; but it would borrow a small portion only of this sum at first, and increase the debt as the extension of the population of the colony might render it necessary. It was said, that the Company was to have power to borrow money to an unlimited extent for the purpose of
706
sending out labourers, but it would submit to some limitation on that point. As the Bill now stood, however, it could not borrow money for that purpose, until after it had raised a sum of money to secure the Government of this country against all charges on account of the expenditure of the colony, and until after there should have been deposited 35,000 l. for the purchase of land. It was true, that this 35,000 l. would remain a debt upon the land, but it was not of such large amount as to excite any apprehension; it would be liquidated as fast as possible, and during the time that it lasted, a constant stream of labour would be poured into the colony. He was inclined to think that it was the policy of this country to encourage emigration to Australia rather than to our American colonies. If the principle, then, upon which the Bill proceeded were correct, and it should succeed in introducing civilization into Australia—a point which was of the utmost importance—the nation would derive greater advantage from peopling Australia, than from colonizing our American possessions. But whether the measure should prove successful or not, that which the House and the country were most desirous to see would be promoted by it, inasmuch as a full scope would be given to the energies of the country. It would afford the means of transmitting to a foreign country the advantages resulting from the excellent institutions of Great Britain; it would afford the means of employment to all industrious subjects, to the rich as well as the poor; and the Bar, the Church, and the medical profession, which were inundated with superfluous talent, would be afforded the means of a free exercise of their extensive and varied energies. But one of the most salutary effects of the measure to which he looked forward, was the improvement of Ireland, which he thought was more likely to be effectually promoted by measures of this description than of any other.
Mr. O'Dwyerdid not rise to oppose the although he should say, that he could not give the principle of it his support. If the Bill, however, went to a Committee, he should assist in amending such of its provisions as appeared to him of an objectionable nature. He rose principally to express his strong dissent from the opinion that the creation of colonies, and the transportation thither of that

707
which could not be supplied—"the bold peasantry" of the land—was not in itself a calamity much to be deplored, even if its necessity were proved to exist. He would add, that no necessity could be proved to exist unless it were demonstrated that nature had been so improvident as to multiply human beings in a degree exceeding the means of a country for their support. This consideration would, in itself, have induced him to direct the attention of the House to the unexplored advantages which the empire contained within itself, even if the hon. Member had not made a particular reference to the country to which he belonged. He paused to express his surprise that the projectors of this scheme had sent their philanthropy on a voyage of discovery to the tropic of Capricorn, and that it never occurred to those who were so desirous to encourage colonization, that Ireland, their own country—filled with subjects of the same Government—similar in language, habits, tastes, and connected by all the intersocial relations which existed—should not claim their earliest attention. Was it not strange that at this time and when emigration to distant lands was so bountifully encouraged, one-fourth of the soil of Ireland, although chiefly reclaimable, was in a state of nature, and English enterprise had not yet reached it. What did this proceed from? Was it from insecurity for property? Who spoke of the insecurity of investments in Ireland? Did Englishmen, who were ever ready to scatter their capital in the most perilous experiments? Loans were levied with facility for every foreign government that had a show of authority, as well as for governments not yet established, and it mattered not whether the negotiator was the cacique of Poyais or the latest adventurer, the pretender to the Spanish crown, the capital of Englishmen was freely embarked in desperate speculation. Was it, then, the much exaggerated insecurity of life that deterred Englishmen from exploring the unworked mines of Irish industry? He understood the House to affirm his inquiry; but, without dwelling on the exaggerations which abounded on this subject, he would ask, did not every one agree that the distractions of Ireland flowed from her misery, and that wherever employment travelled, industry, peace, contentment, and all the blessings of obedience to the laws, and tranquillity,
708
followed in its train? He was sorry to say, that there existed in the House a singular ignorance of the condition of Ireland, and that most of the hon. Members who heard him knew less of that country than of the most remote of their dependencies. Probably most hon. Members, even those who knew everything concerning the intended settlement at Australia, were ignorant that there were in the library volumes of Parliamentary Reports on the subject of reclaiming the waste lands of Ireland, and that they all concurred in the wisdom, the humanity, and the practicability of that measure. Report succeeded Report, full of the evidence of the most experienced agriculturists—the most distinguished men in science—the most learned in the statistics of the empire—all presenting an irresistible mass of proof on this subject, and illustrating their opinions by the results of successful experiments, and that their Reports were as a dead letter to this very moment. Previously to 1819, four Reports had been made, and the statements in them were enforced with strenuous recommendations in the Report of the Committee of 1819, which then sat to inquire into the causes of the hunger and disease which prevailed in Ireland the previous year, That Report stated, amongst other facts. that there were 2,000,000 acres of reclaimable bog in Ireland, of a soil suited to the production of grain, and that they presented a great source of employment for the population, which would, in addition, ensure to England supplies of grain at moderate prices, and which would render that country independent of foreign nations for the food of its manufacturing population. He should add, that Mr. Nimmo had stated, that there were nearly 4,000,000 of acres which were reclaimable. Had anything been done to effect these desirable results? He answered, nothing. The same Report recommended the enactment of a law to assist private speculation in this matter. This suggestion, too, was unheeded, and in 1824 a Bill with this object was introduced. At that time Ireland suffered under the misfortune of having as Chief Secretary the right hon. Gentleman who represents the University of Cambridge, and he resisted the Bill with a promise of introducing a measure still more beneficial, of which the country had since heard nothing. He should not delay the House with much further obser-

709
vation, but he could not avoid adducing one statement from hundreds equally strong. The Report of 1819 stated, that there was an immense amount of land in Ireland convertible to the production of grain—that all the scientific men consulted by Government, including Griffith, Nimmo, Sir Humphrey Davy, and a host of other eminent men, had given their testimony as to the cheapness with which an experiment might be made of its likely good results, and of the important advantages to the wealth and strength of the empire which this experiment would bring. He now asked the House to reflect upon the observations which he had felt it his duty to make, he hoped not unreasonably. Would it not be better policy to cultivate the natural resources of their own empire, and raise up, as it were, from new creations of their own land an attached body of fellow-subjects, who, in future ages, as in the present, would be affected by no interests antagonist to the empire at large. Humanity as well as policy recommended this course. The system of emigration contained in it most distressing incidents. Every man, no matter how humble, loved his country, and in severing himself from the land of his fathers he made a sacrifice most frequently of his own happiness for the prospective benefit of those who were dear to him. Emigration, too, generally drew from the country the best and least indigent of the humbler classes, and left a residuum of the idle and the profligate. It was then better to apply themselves to a serious investigation of the subject on which he had occupied the attention of the House; and when their own natural means of providing for a superabundant population was proved to be inefficient, let them engage in those remote speculations which he now thought were at least premature. Whilst he said this, he did not deny, that in most cases those persons who emigrated from this country greatly improved their condition. He merely contended, that the empire did not benefit by the process.
Mr. Secretary Ricesaid, the hon. Member who spoke last seemed to have forgotten, that the waste lands he had alluded to belonged principally to private individuals. He could, however, inform him, that the Government had not been inattentive to the subject, but that in several parts of Ireland the Government had become proprietors, and had made
710
great efforts at a practical improvement of the land, which he was of opinion would be of more general utility than any legislative measures of improvement. He thanked the hon. member for Essex for the useful and practical light in which he had approached the consideration of this question; and thought, if there was one consideration more than another that ought to weigh with the House and the people on the subject, it was this,—that it was distinctly ascertained that a primâ facie case was made out of the probability of the scheme being successful, in order that the public might not be able to turn round on Parliament or the Government, in case of its failure, and say that, having brought them into the difficulty by sanctioning the speculation, they were bound to lend protection to them. The Government was fully aware of the difficulties that surrounded the question, but they were overbalanced by the great advantages, and the great probability of success held out by the proposition contained in the Bill; they had, therefore, determined to countenance it, considering it one of its duties to do every thing in its power to extend the advantages of British institutions to every part of the globe. He was surprised to see the hon. member for Essex oppose the Motion for going into Committee, that an opportunity might be afforded of seeing whether the details to which he objected could or could not be amended. The hon. Member had much overstated the extent of the territory that would be employed in colonization; but it was of the greatest importance that it should not be too limited, inasmuch as no convicts would be permitted to enter the colony, and, therefore, it became necessary that ample space should be afforded to induce labourers to seek employment there. The question of extent was, however, quite an open one. The measure had been called a Government measure; so it was, to a certain extent, the Government having consented to the introduction of the measure into Parliament for the purpose of discussion; and if it should meet the approbation of the Legislature, and appear to be a fit subject for experiment, the Government would be willing to lend their aid to it, not certainly as a joint-stock company, but to carry into effect the recommendation of the promoters of the Bill whether they were philosophers or not. He was of opinion the very circum-

711
stance of such despots as Napoleon and Frederick being opposed to the principle of theoretical men, was a great argument in their favour. He should certainly desire to see a practical man at the helm; but he thought it would be of advantage to the ship if the exertions of scientific men could be brought into operation, subject to such direction. He differed with the hon. Member in supposing, that any of the prerogatives of the Crown were compromised by this application to Parliament: on the contrary, he thought such a proceeding the most constitutional course. He did not think the colonization of the Swan River and other countries would have been worse, if they had been passed through that House. He concurred with the hon. Member in regretting, that the measure had not been introduced at an earlier part of the Session, and also, that such an unlimited power was given in issuing bonds. He would observe, in conclusion, that the principle of the Bill had been assented to by his right hon. friend who preceded him in the office he now held. As the objection was confined to the details of the Bill, he hoped the House would suffer it to go into Committee.
The House divided on the Motion:—Ayes 72; Noes 7: Majority 65.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Gaskell, D.

Attwood, T.

Grote, G.

Attwood, M.

Hay, Colonel

Bannerman, A.

Hawkins, J. B.

Barnard, G.

Hawes, B.

Barnes, Sir E.

Hoskins, C.

Beauclerk, Major

Humphrey, J.

Blamire, W.

Hutt, W.

Bowes, J.

Langdale, C.

Briggs, M.

Lemon, Sir C.

Buckingham, J. S.

Maxwell, J.

Bulwer, H. L.

Morpeth, Lord

Burrell, Sir C.

Mullins, F. W.

Calvert, N.

Oliphant, L.

Chapman, M. A.

Oswald, J.

Chapman, A.

Pelham, C. A.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Peter, W.

Clay, W.

Philips, M.

Collier, J.

Porter, R.

Crawford, W.

Pryme, G.

Dalmeny, Lord

Rice, Rt. Hon. T. S.

Divett, E.

Ruthven, E. S.

Duncombe, T.

Scholefield, J.

Evans, G.

Scrope, P.

Evans, Colonel

Shawe, N.

Ewart, W.

Sinclair, G.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Skipwith, Sir G.

Ferguson, R.

Stewart, P.

Fleming, Admiral

Talbot, J.

Fryer, R.

Thicknesse, R.

712

Thompson, B.

Warburton, H.

Tooke, W.

Williams, W. A.

Torrens, Colonel

Wilks, J.

Troubridge, Sir T.

Wood, G. W.

Turner, W.

TELLERS.

Verney, Sir H.

Childers, J. W.

Wallace, M.

Whitmore, W.

List of the NOES.

Hughes, H.

Wall, B.

Sandon, Lord

Walter, J.

Somerset, Lord G.

TELLERS.

Tancred, H. W.

Baring, A.

Tower, C. T.

Handley, Major

The House went into Committee: the Amendments were passed, in order that the Bill might be printed in its amended form.

MAJOR PITTMAN.
Mr. Huttrose to ask the hon. Gentleman, the Under Secretary of the Home Department, whether he had received any information as to the case of Major Pittman, a Magistrate, who had been found guilty of an offence against the law?
Mr. John Stanleysaid, that he had received no information upon the subject, but, perhaps, his noble friend, the member for the county of Devon, could give the hon. Gentleman some.
Lord Ebringtonsaid, that he first heard of the matter on Thursday last, through what purported to be an extract from a letter, giving an account of an assault committed by a Magistrate of the county of Devon; and he then thought it his duty to wait upon the Lord Chancellor, when he found that the noble and learned Lord's attention had been already called to the matter, and received his direction to make further inquiry into it, and to inform him of the result. By the last post he had received an answer to a letter which he had addressed to the Chairman of the Petty Sessions, which stated, that the circumstances as reported in the paper were substantially correct. Perhaps, however, it would be right for him to state, that that Gentleman added, that it was his impression, and that he believed it to be that of his brother Magistrates, that a sufficient example had already been made for the ends of justice by the punishment inflicted by the Court. He had also received a letter from Major Pittman, expressing a hope, that a week's time would be allowed him to enable him to send up a statement, which he trusted would remove the unfavourable impression which

713
the case had created. In this stage of the proceedings it would, of course, be improper for him (Lord Ebrington) to express any opinion in a matter so deeply affecting not only the office held by Major Pittman, but also his character as a Gentleman. No proceedings would, of course, be taken, until Major Pittman had had the fullest opportunity of explanation, and until the Lord Chancellor was fully in possession of the whole of the circumstances. When that period had arrived, no doubt such steps would be taken as were necessary to satisfy the justice of the case, and also to uphold the character of the Bench.
Colonel Daviesdid not understand upon what ground the House had been referred to the noble Lord in such a case. He thought such an interference and explanation quite irregular, seeing that the noble Lord was only Member for the county.
Lord Ebringtonsaid, he was Vice-lieutenant of the county also.
The subject was dropped.

TITHES (IRELAND).
Lord Althorp Lord Althorp moved, that the House should resolve itself into a Committee upon the (Tithes Ireland) Bill,
Mr. O'Connellrose to take the sense of the House on the question upon which he had given notice for the postponement of the measure for the present Session; for, whatever might have been the form of his notice, such was its object. Difficulties which had arisen prevented him from bringing his motion forward at an earlier period; and he should at present confine himself to as few topics as he possibly could. He had first to inform the House, that the Bill itself contained 172 clauses. This was what he might term the large Bill—while there was another, which added 30 clauses to the original Bill, making in all 200 clauses. It was unnecessary for him to remind the House, that they had now arrived at the 29th of July; so here were 200 clauses to be considered; and they were of such a nature as to affect the people of Ireland doubly—they affected both the tithe-payers and tithe-receivers—those who desired to be relieved from the burthen, and those who wished to make it the means of a large and emolumentary possession. Besides, in its nature, the Bill was of vital importance to Ireland. There was no man acquainted with that
714
country who did not know how much of the disturbances which existed there flowed from the fertile source of the tithe system. At the same time, there was no man acquainted with Ireland who would say, that all the disturbances which existed there flowed from the tithe system. It was mixed up with other causes, which accumulated as well as produced crime, and led to all its embittering effects. The object of the Government, it was his conviction, was to introduce a measure to quiet Ireland. No doubt the quietness of Ireland was the object they had in view; and he was the more convinced of this from the changes which had taken place in the Bill—some of them useful, but others, he regretted to say, of a contrary tendency. If ever there was a measure which required a fuller or more deliberate consideration, it was certainly this Bill. Nor would he be accused of exaggerating, when he said, that upon this more than upon any other measure or class of measures introduced into that House depended the tranquillization of Ireland. Perhaps hon. Members did not advert to the immense advantage which, during the last twelve years, tithe-owners had obtained by legislation over tithe-payers. Eleven years ago tithe-owners were amenable to public opinion, and even to those from whom they received their tithes; and the consequence was, that in nine instances out of ten the tithe-owner was obliged to assent to a fair and reasonable composition. He readily did the Irish clergy, as a body, the justice of admitting, that where they themselves levied tithes without the intervention of a proctor, with some marked exceptions, they were just and lenient. Another advantage to the tithe-payer was, that if the owner did not collect the tithe each year, he lost it for ever. Up to the period of which he was now speaking, there had been many partial insurrections, for such he called the disturbances on account of tithes. Afterwards the Composition Act was passed, and it gave to the tithe-owners a great advantage over tithe-payers, an advantage of which they did not neglect to avail themselves. They had powers of distraining, of sustaining actions without proof of contract, every possible power that could be bestowed on them, greater than those possessed by landlords themselves. His Majesty's Government at that time, as would appear from the de-

715
bates, exulted in the thought, that they had finally settled the question. And what had the result been? Why, that at the end of six years from passing the Act, Ireland exhibited a greater picture of disturbance and disunion than ever—disunion to everything but opposition to the collection of tithes. He implored the Government to reflect on this, and not, by persevering in the same system, to turn over another leaf in the same book of calamity. What were they now going to give the tithe-owners? a demand on the Treasury, to be secured by the proprietor by a rent-charge on the best property of the country—and this was intended to quiet Ireland! Now, what would be its effects. The measure was not a uniform one, and there would be an uncertainty and variation in the charges on the various parishes of Ireland. He could quite comprehend any measure for quieting immediate and existing discontents, even though that measure should require sacrifices from the tithe-owners or tithe-payers, or both. He could easily understand the value and importance of an immediate remedy; but this Bill, he would implore the House to recollect, could not come into complete operation till 1839. They might as well talk of postponing the settlement of the tithe question for ever. By this Bill, from the 1st of November next, and including that day, the present tithe-owners would cease to have any claim upon the land. But with regard to everything due before that time, they would be left to their usual and present resources. According to the Tithe Composition Act, the tithe-owner must distrain for his claim within twelve months after it was due, or not at all. Now, look what would be the effect of this limitation; it would just operate as Lord Tenterden's Limitation Act had—as a notice to every man to come forward and distrain, and urge all dormant claims, lest they should be for ever foregone. Then, in addition to this, from the 1st of November, they would begin collecting in the 1,000,000 l., or the 800,000 l. of it which had been expended. Indeed, whatever might be the feeling of the parties, there was one class of dormant claims which must be made against those of deceased testators; for if the executors forebore to make them, a Court of Equity would charge them with the amount as assets in their hands. He knew it had been said in private, that those dormant and out-standing claims
716
were not numerous. He believed, however, that the amount was greater than was imagined. At all events, their paucity in number was an additional reason for Government interfering by the present Bill, and taking into their own hands the entire of those claims. And then, in addition to all these, they would have to collect their own land-tax or rent-charge. So that, the month of November next, if this Bill passed in its present shape, would probably be a sanguinary month. He did not say it as a threat or taunt; but he deeply feared that such would be the effect of the harvest of litigation and contention which would then be reaped; thereby increasing the existing hostility to tithes, and aggravating the dangers of the country. How much better would it be to bring in a Bill founded on one uniform plan. By the present measure an allowance was to be made to landlords, varying from twenty-five to forty per cent. Now, what, he asked, would be the practical consequence of such a variation? Suppose three nearly adjoining farms, one paying the rent-charge of 100 per cent, the next, seventy-five per cent, and the third, in an adjacent county, divided only by an imaginary line, paying only sixty per cent, what would be said by those farmers when they met together at the same market, and compared their relative situations? How contented they would be! They would be told it was according to the law and the Act of Parliament! What great additional respect it would give them for laws and Acts of Parliament. How it would increase the filial respect which they felt for the species of protection they had been in the habit of receiving from Acts of Parliament! This, surely, was not the way to quiet the country. He did not doubt that Ministers were actuated by the purest intentions; but had they the most opposite notions, they could not have thrown together a more complete olio of contradictions and difficulties, or one more calculated to excite riot and disturbance. Forty per cent! He did not deny it was a boon; but why not give it at once and to all? Instead of bidding and huxtering with the landlords about it, let them give it at once, and levy the rate. The Government supposed, that by holding out this temptation, they would get the landlords to come into their plan; and probably many would—many honourable men—who would allow their

717
tenantry the benefit of what they received from the Government; but he feared there were many others who would jump at it as a bargain to benefit themselves alone. These landlords would be regarded by the peasantry as tithe-proctors, and every one knew in what degree of esteem they were held in Ireland. For his part, he should not like to be the man to collect that landlord's rents. It was a great evil that the feelings which had hitherto existed against the tithe-owners alone, was extending itself to the landlord. The waters of bitterness were swelling in that direction. This was no party question. It was admitted on both sides of the House, as one of the greatest evils of these agrarian disturbances, that they had the effect of assailing rent; and he very much feared that the position in which this Bill would place the landlords, would direct the agrarian disturbances towards getting rid of rent. How much better then would it be to postpone this Bill to next Session, and suffer all these serious objections to be weighed in the interim! Besides, there was another most important objection to proceeding with the present Bill. They had issued a Commission, a Commission approved of by themselves, a Commission, perhaps, too tedious in its details, but founded on a principle full of hope for Ireland. It was impossible for Government to go on next Session without some general plan of tithe appropriation. They could not form a judgment on this subject till they had obtained the Report of that Commission. How much better, then, to defer the final settlement of the question till then, and form the whole into one uniform system! Let them, then, moderate that little, if they found it too much, or increase it if they found it too little; for of this he assured them, that if the appropriation were satisfactory, they would find the collection of tithes in Ireland much more easy. The success of any or every system they attempted to establish, must depend upon the nature of the appropriation. If they postponed the measure, they would have time to deliberate whether they could not, with advantage, frame the Bill in a different way. Whether it would not be better to make the abatement of forty per cent certain for three years, with the power of diminishing the allowance to landlords by whom, or in districts by which it was opposed. In fact, all they ought to do would depend on the result
718
of the Commission, and if they did not postpone their Bill, they could not expect to make it anything but a piece of patchwork. With respect to the withdrawal of the redemption clause, about which so much had been said, it was clear that they could not properly settle, till they had settled the appropriation. He thought that such a plan of redemption might be devised as would get rid of dissatisfaction in Ireland—lead to the final extinction of tithes. Again, let them consider the advanced period of the Session—let them look at the thin state of the House on a discussion that at another period would have filled its walls. Two-thirds of the Members were out of town, and the majority of those who attended to its business were Gentlemen connected with the Government, who must necessarily feel disgusted at having a discussion forced upon hem when their votes were previously engaged. Surely it was not right to decide upon so important a measure, and now open to so many objections, under such circumstances; nor was such hop-step-and-jump legislation calculated to attract the confidence of the people of Ireland. But the question would be put to them, what they would do if the measure were postponed? He admitted that was a question which he was bound to answer, for it could not be left as it was. Well, this then, was what he proposed. There was from 200,000 l. to 300,000 l. of the million not yet disposed of. He knew, indeed, that 820,000 l. had been claimed, but many of those claims had been disallowed, and reduced. He knew that, in the South especially, many improper claims were advanced; one especially, in the county of Cork, where the barrister (Mr. Antisell) actually had produced to him the receipts of the tithes claimed, and still the parson insisted on his claim, because the peasantry had forgotten to give the requisite notice of opposition. The barrister, however, refused his claim. In relation to what he had said before, he would remark that persons who made such claims, were not likely to fail in bringing forward before November next any which were at all colourable. Well, these claims were at present, say 200,000 l.; to that he would ask them to add 150,000 l. more, pledging the House by a Resolution, that it should not come upon the general taxation of the country, or upon the Consolidated Fund. But let it, if they

719
pleased, be raised by Exchequer-bills, especially and solely chargeable on the tithe-property of Ireland. He saw no objection to thus anticipating the tithe, and he would warrant they would get the money in half-an-hour. They were substantially arranging this question as a new Government, and should be bound only by their own opinions of expediency; and he urged them, therefore, to adopt a course which would lead to the most satisfactory settlement of the question; and if they thought any parties would not take the money, they had only to tell those parties, that they would not give them the assistance of the military or police in collecting their tithes, and they would not find it necessary to put forth any other Proclamation. He was sorry such a bad feeling existed amongst the clergy. What he was going to relate he could prove by an hon. Member of that House, who was coming in the packet from Cork with the clergyman in question. The hon. Member asked the clergyman, whether he would take any of the million, who replied, he would not touch a farthing of it, but that he sold his tithes, 800 l., to a tithe-proctor for 450 l. ready money, on the express stipulation, that he should not give up one farthing to the "rascals." The advance of this sum would suffice till the next Session, when the Commission would have made its Report, which Report, together with the plans of the Government, he should propose to be referred to a Select Committee, consisting of Gentlemen of all parties and opinions, who might give the subject their most deliberate attention; and if then they failed in tranquillizing Ireland, it would be impossible to deny that they had done their utmost to accomplish it. He was sure there was nothing in the temper or character of the Irish people to render it likely that an experiment of justice and kindness should fail. No man could say from experience, that it would, for very few such experiments had been tried, and one which had been made was accompanied by a rigid refusal to carry its consequences into effect. Let them only come to the determination deliberately, and it would he sure to be satisfactory. He apologized for detaining the House so long, and concluded by moving, that the Bill be committed that day six months.
Mr. Littletonsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to the
720
complexity of the Bill; but he assured the House, if the alterations which Government had to propose were acceded to, its length would be greatly diminished, and instead of 200, it would not contain more than seventy or eighty clauses. He could not think the hon. and learned Gentleman was really sincere in the proposition which he had made in the conclusion of his speech, to appropriate the residue of the one million, and take another grant of 150,000 l. for the purpose of meeting the present necessities of the case, in order to the safe postponement of this measure. He, at all events, could never consent to such a course of proceeding. For what would be the effect of the proposition? He was not blind to the evil consequences that had resulted from the grant of last year. A long desuetude of payments must always be attended with most unfortunate effects. But the hon. and learned Member instead of one year's desuetude proposed two, and it was very much to be feared, if that proposition was acceded to, when the period of appropriation arrived, the House would find that a total annihilation of tithe property had been the consequence. He did not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman believed the House would ever accede to such a proposition. His only object seemed to be, by postponing the subject for another year, to render the collection of this revenue still more difficult. He did not mean to impute any improper or personal motives to any one; but he believed, that the hon. and learned Gentleman was so deeply pledged to a resistance of tithes altogether, that he never could consent to any plan which did not involve the total destruction of that species of property; and for that neither the House nor the country were yet prepared. Although the hon. and learned Gentleman had so far expressed his gratitude for the kindness in which the measure originated, he had not given that full and entire credit to Government which they deserved, for the efforts they had made to conciliate the feelings of the Irish people generally, and which he hoped, if successful, would he most beneficial. Indeed, he was convinced from the communications which he had received from those who were professionally connected with Ireland, that there was the greatest disposition on the part of the landlords in that country voluntarily to take on themselves the payment of tithes on the con-

721
ditions offered by Government, and a great proportion, he had no doubt would be disposed to give the benefit of the advantageous concession which had been made to their tenants, thus making, pro tanto, an absolute extinction of tithes. He should certainly oppose the proposition of the hon. and learned Member.
Mr. Sheilsupported the proposition of the hon. and learned member for the city of Dublin. The English Tithe Bill had been introduced at an early period of the Session, and had been abandoned in consequence of the disapprobation of certain gentlemen who came up as delegates from all parts of the country; and yet the Irish Tithe Bill, which had not been produced till a late period, was obstinately persevered in, notwithstanding the united opposition of the two Irish parties in that House. He opposed the Bill because it greatly exaggerated the value of tithes. The lay tithes, instead of being scheduled at 1,000,000 l. were valued at 3,000,000 l., and the clerical tithes were rated at twenty-five years, instead of twelve or thirteen years' purchase. The Bill involved the most important interests of Ireland; and why should it be discussed and decided in that advanced period of the Session, and in the unavoidable absence of the great majority of the English and Irish Members? He had heard hon. Members connected with his Majesty's Government say, that if necessary, Parliament might meet in October. Yes, they were ready to meet in the month of October, for the purpose of enacting measures of coercion; but nothing could induce them now that they were assembled to adopt any measures of relief or remedy. They, at that side of the House, had been charged with being factious; but this, at least, could not be denied, that a portion of the Members at his side, possessed something like a practical knowledge of the country, while on the opposite side, even the responsible advisers of the Crown might, with one exception, be said to know nothing of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Secretary for the Colonies, certainly had had a practical acquaintance with that country; he was a Gentleman who must be respected for his talents, and confided in for his integrity; he believed that that Gentleman loved Ireland, and earnestly desired to promote that which he believed to be its true interests, but if he persevered in sup-
722
porting such a measure as the present, it might with perfect truth be said of him, that he permitted his love altogether to overcome his judgment.
Mr. Henry Grattansaid, that everyone of the various Bills introduced from time to time in that House, were declared to be for the pacification of Ireland, and for the permanent settlement of the tithe question. Especially the several Bills respecting tithes were declared to be in every instance for the permanent settlement of the question, and, in an eminent degree, the Bill of 1828 was expected to produce that permanent settlement. Yet by what a strange process was that object sought to be accomplished—by nothing less than the enactment of a law which would sanction the arrest of an Irish landlord in England for the tithe debts alleged to be due by him in Ireland. What was another feature? Why, that certain parties were to have a bonus of forty per cent for collecting that which he would undertake to say, never could be collected. Let it be recollected, too, that this bonus was offered to parties constituting a class, a very large proportion of which stood in rather peculiar circumstances—he alluded to the persons holding leases for lives renewable for ever. They were chiefly persons having incomes of 500 l. to 600 l. or 700 l. a-year, belonging to that stamp, who had, up to the present moment, resisted the payment of tithes; and no man living, who had the slightest acquaintance with Ireland could doubt, that they would continue to resist them; putting power into their hands, or leaving it optional with them to facilitate or impede the operation of the measure at their own good pleasure, was the surest mode that could be adopted for defeating its provisions altogether. Would hon. Members be at the trouble just to look at the Bill as it stood, they would find that, stripped of the redemption and the appropriation clauses, it was almost nothing—a thing affording as little prospect of a permanent settlement of the question as anyone of tine several measures which had been introduced into that House year after year, and Session after Session, as far back as the recollection of the oldest Member could extend. If they wished to abolish tithes both in name and in substance in Ireland, let them impose a tax upon the land throughout the country. He remembered that when this doctrine was broached before, the right hon. mem-

723
ber for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel) asked, whether the tax was intended to include houses, and his answer was "Yes," because, if the house-owner had the benefit of a Protestant clergyman, he had a right to pay for it, as well as he (Mr. Henry Grattan) or any other gentleman had who held a landed estate. He would say, let this tax be imposed generally—let the amount of it be placed in the hands of Government, and let a proper remuneration—say, 200 l. or 300 l. a-year—be given to the working clergyman, who preached, or otherwise officiated in his Church, fifty-two times a-year (few of them did so often). In this way the clergy would be respectably provided for, without being driven to solicit from a poor and almost perishing people, the mean and trifling offering which each was expected to make. After making this provision, they would find that a surplus revenue would remain, applicable to such charitable cases as might be agreed upon. Let Government propose such a measure as this, and the House and the country would at once understand it. But as the law now stood, clergymen called in the aid of the police and the military in the collection of their tithes; and what was the consequence? In a district in one county (Monaghan we believe), the troops and police had been called in—houses were broken open, and the lives of the inhabitants threatened if they offered to resist. And for what? For the recovery of poor and paltry sums due to the clergyman in the shape of tithe; and for these sums the clothes, furniture, and other articles, were seized and taken away without remorse. This outrage was complained of, and an Assistant-Barrister, Mr. Curran, was sent down by the Irish Government to institute an inquiry upon the spot; that learned gentleman, for whom he entertained the highest respect, appeared to him to have made a report certainly erroneous, and as certainly against the feelings of the people, and against what they believed to be justice and their own legitimate interests. That he should, in consequence of such a report, have incurred the odium which now unfortunately attached to his name in Ireland, was quite a matter of course, and he begged to say, that Government might have easily found a fitter person to put upon the Commission recently appointed in consequence of the Motion of the hon. member for St. Alban's,
724
than one who, whatever might be his private and personal merits, was the last man in the world who ought to have been placed in a situation which required to be filled by persons capable of commanding the respect and the confidence of the people of Ireland. Surely such men alone ought to be Commissioners to inquire into a question which involved interests affecting at least one-seventh of the property of the country, for if they took the trouble to reckon up the value of the Church-lands, the tithes, the Church-cess, the minister's money, and the other payments made to the Established Church, they would find that it amounted to at least one-seventh of the whole property of the country. Was this the way to afford satisfaction to the people of Ireland? Were they to go on continually experiencing this cruel and grinding system of oppression? In the year 1800 boundless promises were made to them—freedom, peace and comfort were to be at once their lot. Commerce was to flourish, and wealth was to flow in so rapidly as almost to inundate the country. These were the promises of Mr. Pitt in 1800. How had they been redeemed? There was no redemption—the whole ended in sad, comfortless, hopeless disappointment and despair. If there had been faith or truth, or honour in these promises, would not the Government at least have entered into inquiry with a view to redress? If the Ministers wished to act fairly and honestly towards Ireland, would they not take some steps to redeem those promises to which the English Government was pledged. If this had been done at an earlier period,—if it were proposed to be done, it would be the means of preventing those acts of outrage and violence which, if pursued, were likely to lead to consequences of a much more serious description. Were they, he would ask, to pass a question of this important nature without inquiry—without consulting the feelings and opinions of the Irish people? Were Ministers to propose this after having given up the English Tithes' Bill, and the English Poor-Rates' Bill, upon an expression of dissent on the part of the majority of the people? It was not so on the question of Reform; there the petitions presented by the people were counted, and their opinions consulted. He would say, that upon the whole, the Ministers were legislating against common-

725
sense and common-reason; they were acting with a total disregard to their own characters, and without the slightest consideration for public honour or national reputation. He was, for the reasons he had given, bound to support the Amendment of his hon. and learned friend the member for Dublin.
Lord Althorpobserved, that the hon. and learned member for Dublin moved for delay, without stating the course which, in the event of such delay being granted, he was prepared to recommend Parliament to pursue. As far as he could understand the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman, it was limited to this—to postpone for the present Session the measure then before the House. The substitute which the hon. and learned Member proposed for the Bill was an advance of money, in order to enable his Majesty's Government to go on till the next Session of Parliament, without taking any definite step in the arrangement of the question of Irish tithes. His right hon. friend, the Secretary for Ireland, had, however, clearly stated, what must be the consequence of any such proceeding, namely, that so long a cessation in the collection of Church property, would make it almost a matter of impossibility ever to collect it at all. Now, he did not believe that that was the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman, or his friends; for, however they might differ from his Majesty's Government as to the appropriation of Church property, they all agreed that that property ought not to be abandoned. Unless, however, some step were taken to show, that that property would be collected, the total relinquishment of it would soon ensue as a matter of course. The hon. and learned Member had made some observations on what might be the effect of landlords, by this Bill, pursuing different courses; some taking the bonus offered by the Bill, and others not doing so; and he had stated, that in some cases the tenants would have to pay the whole of the tithes, in others only seventy-five per cent of the tithes, and in others only sixty per cent. In his (Lord Althorp's) opinion, the tendency of this would be to produce a more rapid commutation of the tithes by the prospect of benefit which that commutation would hold out. "But," said the hon. and learned Gentleman, "why not do that at once which you now propose to spread over the space of five years." That proposition had been under the serious
726
consideration of his Majesty's Government; but it had been thought better, instead of subjecting the landlords to any compulsory condition, to leave the matter to their own option. Most undoubtedly it was the wish of his Majesty's Government to carry their plan into effect at as early a period as possible, and he repeated, that the only ground on which they abstained from insisting on an immediate composition was not disinclination to that result, but a disposition to avoid throwing on the landlord a burthen which he might not be prepared at once to endure. The hon. and learned member for Tipperary argued, that because Ministers had postponed the English Tithe Bill they ought to defer to the wishes of the Representatives of Ireland, and postpone the Irish Tithe Bill. Now, he (Lord Althorp) begged to say, that the results of such postponement would be very different in the two countries. In England, there would be little, if any, of dissatisfaction; certainly no breach of the public peace, and tithes would continue to be paid. But in the present state of public feeling in Ireland, not only would no money be paid, but there would be confusion and bloodshed. Hon. Gentlemen had said, that they ought to leave to the tithe-owners the power of recovering their arrears. Now he believed that in amount they were very small. He believed, in fact, that with the advances made by Government, and the collection that had since been effected, the arrears were smaller than many hon. Gentlemen supposed. Therefore, by postponing the Bill, they would not prevent the danger which it was supposed would attend the collection of a large amount of arrears. Upon all these grounds, then, he was resolved to persevere in urging forward the Bill, notwithstanding that such strong objection had been taken to the measure on the ground of Ministers having left out the redemption clause. That certainly was the last accusation which he thought would have been brought against them, especially by the hon. and learned member for Tipperary, or any of those hon. Members from Ireland who were in the habit of voting and acting with him in that House. He had always understood from those Members that one of their chief objections to the Bill was its containing that very redemption clause, the omission of which was now made matter of complaint. In the criticism of the 6th clause

727
which the House had heard from the hon. and learned member for Tipperary, he to some extent assented, and was rather of opinion, that the Bill would not go through a Committee without considerable changes being made in the form of that clause. Before he sat down there was one other topic to which it was necessary that he should advert—namely, the notice which had been taken of the various other Bills heretofore introduced into that House respecting the affairs of Ireland. He begged leave to say, that he had never thrown on a late right hon. Colleague of his (Mr. Stanley) the sole responsibility of the previous Tithe Bills, or the sole discredit of their failure. It was not his habit to throw on others a responsibility or a censure which might partly apply to himself. He had in the beginning approved all those measures, and given them his hearty support, but subsequent experience convinced him, that they were not calculated to work out the great practical results which he, in common with his right hon. friend, and in common with the other ministers of the Crown, anticipated. Therefore, he must in fairness say, that a part of the shame of failure—if there were any, when they all did for the best,—most assuredly attached to him in common with his right hon. friend. The proposition now made by Government, had one great object, to throw the tithes on the landlord, and thus relieve the occupying tenant; and to induce the landlord to take this responsibility, by giving to him—or, more properly speaking, by giving to his estate, rather than to himself—a handsome bonus. By so doing, he hoped they did that which would ultimately tend to the satisfaction of Ireland, and the consolidation of the strength and resources of the two countries. He well knew the difficulty of the question—he was fully alive to the embarrassments which surrounded it; but he honestly thought that, in the course they were now taking, they were going far to supply a remedy to that great evil which so powerfully afflicted Ireland. It was said, "Why not wait awhile, and call Parliament together again at an early period, to adopt some measure in reference to tithes? but really this argument, in his eyes, carried with it no validity whatever. Then, too, it was said, that the Irish Members were away, or going away. Really, if the objections of those hon. Gentlemen to the
728
present Bill were not sufficiently strong to induce them to remain throughout the discussion, he did not think they would be justified in declining, for the present, to legislate upon the subject. This was rather a strange way of maintaining their own position. He thought it was the duty of that House to proceed with the Bill, and, at least, endeavour to do something to restore tranquillity to a distracted country. Let it be remembered, that the subject was not new—that the question had long agitated the public mind—that there had been ample time for the full consideration of the Bill before them. The case was urgent; and he conscientiously believed, that if they did not now take it into their serious consideration, with the view of settling the public mind, and coming to some practical decision upon it, that greater danger and confusion might ensue, which would entail upon them a responsibility which he, for one, was not willing to bear.
Mr. Lynchsaid, that it was his intention to support the Motion of his hon. and learned friend, the member for Dublin; and he would do so, not only on account of the inconvenient season at which the question was brought forward, but because he objected to the Bill altogether. It was neither final nor satisfactory. Final it was admitted it was not, and satisfactory it could not be, for it neither gave a proper appropriation nor just redemption. The noble Lord said, that the question now was the preservation and security of the fund. They were called upon, therefore, to secure the fund, without knowing for what purpose it was to be applied. They were called upon to enter into a contract without being told what all the terms of that contract were. They were called upon to increase to an enormous extent the value of the property (if the expectations of the noble Lord were realised), without being informed for whose benefit the value of the property was to be so increased, except so far as they were informed by the Bill itself; and when he looked into the Bill, he there found that the appropriation was to be continued as heretofore for the support of the Establishment. He objected to this blindfold, this piecemeal legislation. He asked why this measure was not made final? His Majesty's Ministers had made up their minds, as they informed the House, to a different appropriation. Why

729
did they not settle that appropriation at once? It was said they had not sufficient information. Then, he asked, why not wait for that information? But the noble Lord would ask, what was to become of the fund in the meantime. He, however, would ask the noble Lord, what would become of the fund if this Bill passed? They would not be able to collect in either case. They might legislate; but they would legislate in vain. They might endeavour to collect, but their Exchequer would be empty. Call it what they might—tithes, composition, land-tax, or rentcharge—the fund would never be secured whilst they continued the present appropriation. That appropriation was continued by the present Bill. This was not his opinion alone, but the opinion of every witness examined before the Committee of 1832. Besides, he should object to any Bill which did not make a different appropriation from the present, not only because he objected to that appropriation, but because he was anxious to secure the fund; and, without a different appropriation, he did not consider the fund could ever be secured. For the sake of the security of the fund itself he objected to the present Bill, for of this he was perfectly convinced, that if the final settlement of this question was any longer postponed, the fund would be for ever endangered. He would endeavour, as far as he could, to put a stop to this wild legislation. In the course of two years they had passed three Acts of Parliament, all of which had proved abortive. They had failed in their object—that was, the collection of tithes; but they succeeded in bringing the laws into disrepute—in bringing the House and the Representatives of the people into disrepute. They had thereby shown the people what they might do by resistance—they had raised a power which they could only put down by good laws and wise legislation—they had alienated the affections of the people. He entreated them to take care that they did not by their Bill alienate the affections of the landlords. He called upon them to recollect what occurred in respect of the tithe of agistment in 1735, in the Irish House of Commons. The occupiers of land opposed the payment of that tithe. Both the Lords and Commons united in that opposition. He appealed to the Resolution passed in the Irish House of Commons on that occasion, and which
730
had the effect of an Act of Parliament—for, under that Resolution, no agistment tithe was afterwards paid in Ireland. He asked, what was that Resolution, but resistance to the payment of tithes? And by whom was that Resolution passed? By the Catholics of Ireland? No; but by the Protestant house of Commons and landlords of Ireland. He called upon the House, therefore, to look seriously at the evil, to apply the proper remedy, and to apply that remedy in time. He called upon them not to fall into the error of the former Parliament. The proper remedy, in his opinion, was a just appropriation—the reduction of the establishments to the full amount of the tithes; and if this he could not get, he would then ask for redemption on fair and equitable terms. But what was effected by this Bill? It was a mere re-enactment, with a change of name, of the Act of 1832, with complicated and expensive machinery. By it a Land-tax was to be payable for five years to the Crown, to the same amount, not only in the whole, but with respect to each tenant, to be levied and raised in the same manner—to be appropriated exactly for the same purposes. He asked what was this, then, but the same composition, the same substitution for tithes, payable to the King, and not to the parsons. By this Bill the parson was protected, but the people were neglected. By this Bill the odium of collection was, to a certain extent, removed from the parson, and thrown upon his Majesty, whose officers were to be the tithe-proctors of Ireland. Was that wise or politic? Every objection that was urged against the first Act of 1832 was applicable to the present Bill. The impolicy of causing the King's Government to come into contact with the people as tithe exactors—the inability of the Government to enforce the demand, strengthened by the admitted failure of that Act, were applicable to the present measure. The objections urged against the Composition-Act of 1832 were also applicable to the present measure. The inability thereby to enforce the demand, and the danger of confounding rent with tithe, were all equally applicable to the present measure. His Majesty's Ministers confessed that they could not safely bring that Act into effect; and yet what was this measure but a compound and mixture of the two? It was the intention of his Majesty's Ministers to omit the redemption

731
clauses in the Bill. He objected to these clauses—first, because the terms thereby offered were exorbitant and unjust, and, next, because the redemption money was to be laid out in the purchase of land. But it did not follow, if there was redemption, that the investments should be in land; and if the people of Ireland could not get the appropriation they asked for, he contended on their part that they were entitled to just and equitable terms of redemption. He called upon his Majesty's Ministers to ascertain what was the value of tithes previously to legislating, and at such value to allow the landlords of Ireland to redeem, if the Parliament would not alter the appropriation. By the Bill, after five years, the Land-tax was to cease, and the amount of such Land-tax, or composition for tithe, less by twenty per cent, was to become a direct charge upon the land. Every landlord of Ireland was to become a Crown debtor under the Bill. His person and all his property were made liable. This was a most important change. In the first instance tithes were mere voluntary offerings; they were afterwards enforced by ecclesiastical measures; but until after the Reformation, no remedy was given for non-payment of tithes in the temporal courts. To this hour the tithe-owner had no direct charge upon the land. He had a mere right to have the payment of tithes enforced. Previously to 1824 the income of the tithe-owner was uncertain, dependent upon the seasons and the crops. By the Act of 1824 the Parliament made that certain which was before fluctuating, and by this Bill they were about to make that certain income a direct charge upon the land. This part of the Bill appeared to him to be most arbitrary and unjust. He called upon the House to consider how other matters stood. A debt was due from the tenant to the parson. The parson had ample and sweeping remedies to enforce that demand. He failed—he was not able to enforce it—he called upon his Majesty's Government to assist him; and by means of the act of 1832 they gave him their assistance, and interfered on his behalf. They also failed in collecting the tithes. The parson called upon them for further powers, and by means of the Composition-Act of 1832, further and ample powers were given. It was acknowledged that that measure could not be brought into action—and the parson called upon the
732
Government again for assistance; and the assistance which the Government meant to give him was, to make the landlord pay the debt of the tenant. In this respect this Bill went much further than the Bill of 1832. By that the Legislature did not interfere with existing contracts; by this Bill all contracts between landlords and tenants were violated. He asked why should this burthen be thrown upon the landlords of Ireland exclusively? This was corporate property—the property of the nation—property which could not be recovered—property at this time employed for the support of the Church Establishment in Ireland. Why should the landlords of Ireland be called upon exclusively to support that Establishment. If he were told that it was for the good of the nation—if it were said let the nation support that establishment—he denied the right of Parliament to throw this burthen exclusively upon any set of persons. He called upon the House to consider how the collection of the Land-tax and rent charges was to be enforced. The King was to have a receiver after notice given to the tenants of the landlord, or owner of the first estate of inheritance. The receiver would proceed to enforce the Land-tax or rent-charges. The tenant would either pay his rent, or might act in collusion with his landlord, and refuse to pay the receiver. The receiver would distrain. He asked, how were they more advanced by that than under the Act of 1831? There might be a rescue; the military would be called out, who might finally succeed in seizing the cattle,—the cattle were brought to auction, but no bidders; so that the scenes of 1831–32 would be re-acted. But this was only the first scene of the tragedy. The Crown being satisfied, either by voluntary or by compulsory payment by the landlord, the landlord had immediately the same campaign to go through with the person liable to him. Let the House recollect that, call it what they would, until otherwise appropriated, the people would look upon it, and consider it, and call it tithes; so that, instead of a Bill in the Exchequer by the parson against the tenant, there might be three or four, or more pitched battles,—and this was called settling the question, and restoring peace to Ireland. In the first place, it was causing the Crown to come into collision with the people; and, secondly, either bringing the landlord into

733
collision with his tenants, and thereby endangering the rent as well as the Land-tax, or else causing the landlord and tenant to combine against the tax. The contest formerly was between the parson and the tenant; the contest, after the passing of this Bill, would be between the parson and the tenant, the tenant and the landlord, the landlord and the Government; and this was called settling the question. He would say, that, by this Bill, the very foundation of society would be sapped. It had been truly observed, that the objection of the people of Ireland to the payment of tithes was not merely to the payment itself, but to the manner in which it was appropriated. This was made manifest by the fact of the resistance being as great, if not greater, in compounded parishes than in those not compounded; and also from the fact, that they objected to the payment of the county-cess. They denied the right of any set of men to call upon another to support the minister of a religion which they did not profess; they further objected to the payment, as it was for the support of an establishment already mischievously large; and they also contended, that tithes were originally, and ought to be now, differently appropriated. He would not then enter into any of these objections, none of which were removed by the present Bill. It was true great concession had been made by the Government; but the chief objections were not removed; and he should, therefore, oppose the Bill.
Mr. Wardhad paid an earnest attention to the arguments brought forward in support of his Amendment by the hon. and learned member for Dublin, and after giving them his most serious and dispassionate consideration, felt bound to say, that though they carried much weight in their application to certain clauses, yet that they did not at all effect those general principles on which the Bill was founded. In his opinion, the question of arrears required the immediate consideration of the Government; whether those arrears were great or small was not then the point—there were arrears, and that point peremptorily demanded, and ought, without any delay, to have the best attention of the Government. Now, he acknowledged that in the principle of the measure then before them there was much that was sound, much that was rational—that
734
was fair, aye, and that was in a kindly spirit too. The removal of the obnoxious burthen from the tenantry to the landlord, he always considered to be a sine qua non in any measure which was really intended to settle the question of tithe. This was to be effected, and in a way, too, that he heartily approved, by offering such liberal terms as would induce the landlords to coincide with the views of Government. Some arguments which he had intended to have addressed to the House on this part of the measure had been forestalled by previous Speakers, and he should not repeat them; but he wished to say a word or two on the question of appropriation, which had been mooted by the hon. and learned member for Dublin. That hon. and learned Gentleman stated, that he, for one, would not take any steps to preserve tithes till he knew to what purposes they were to be applied. He looked at that as a totally distinct question. He certainly thought it desirable that they should have decided the question of appropriation on a former occasion, by which the subject would have been simplified, correct principles avowed, and an equitable settlement sooner obtained. But then the House thought otherwise, and declared, that they could not safely legislate on so delicate a subject without further information; but, at the same time, they had given a distinct pledge—a pledge that nothing could do away with—that the question should not be lost sight of, that it must and should be entertained at the commencement of the next Session, with a view of putting the principle itself into active operation. Every leading Minister of the Crown had declared his sentiments in such a way that there could, hereafter, be no doubt with regard to them. They had been plain enough, straightforward enough, explicit enough, to satisfy every reasonable friend of the principle of the State having the right of appropriation. He agreed with the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it was their duty not to postpone this measure to another year, which, perhaps, might prove fatal to the fund itself, and leave them nothing for appropriation. When, however, they did come to the principle involved in that question, it would be found how unflinchingly he would insist on the fullest latitude being given to its operation. At present he wished to confine himself to its preserva-

735
tion, with the view of its being applied hereafter (vested rights being respected) to national purposes. When those vested rights had fallen in, not one shilling would he allow, nor did he believe Parliament would allow, beyond the absolute justice and necessity of the case. The Bill, which in Committee might receive any alteration that was necessary should have his best support, as its leading principles had his warm approbation.
Mr. Waddybegged to say, that though the Irish Members in that House might be outvoted, they still ought to be heard as evidence of some weight, and as witnesses possessing some knowledge of the matter, derived from practical and personal observation. Clumsy and lumbering Acts of Parliament, however they might be multiplied, could do no good for Ireland. The people of that country were oppressed by high rents—by higher tithes; the appropriation of tithes, however, was the great question which now agitated Ireland—the people never again would pay them; and, until that question was definitely settled, neither peace nor happiness could prevail in that country. The Imperial Legislature had, indeed, been ever since the Union in the habit every year of passing Act after Act to settle this question, and each, after it had served its temporary purpose, or rather after having served no purpose at all, was, like those which went before it, "consigned to the tomb of all the Capulets," there to moulder and be forgotten like all its ancestors, as absurd and as useless as themselves. In his opinion, it was idle to separate this Bill from the question of appropriation—that alone was the grand question; the question was not about levying tithes; they never could levy them until the people of Ireland became assured that they would no longer be applied to maintain the pastors of another church. He respected the Protestant Church—he respected the Protestant clergy, although a few improper persons, as in every other Church, might be found amongst them. He would not abuse the Church or the clergy, on the contrary, he would support them as far as he could. He did not wish to find the Protestant Church endangered, and but for the abominable system of tithes the Protestant Church would be respected. That was his wish and his hope, and if it was not realized, the fault, perhaps, was not with the clergy, but with the state of
736
the laws. When he heard there was a Scotch Attorney General for England, he expected much assistance from him upon the subject of Irish tithes. He expected to find a Presbyterian who, in his own country, resisted tithes, a valuable friend and an ally for the cause of Ireland, and he hoped that the Scotch Attorney General, who was, no doubt, as brave and as true as any of the clan of Campbell, would now in the hour of need do his duty by the sister country. All he sought for his country was justice, and if justice were not done her, the result must be frightful to contemplate. He hoped there would be no tithe war in Ireland, for it would be pregnant with ruin. He believed this Bill would be put off—he hated the Bill—for November next. "Let us have" said the hon. Member, "the little money that is due to us—I am grateful for it, but if threatened, we will resist your Tithe Bill." It might be more mild than its predecessors—but that was not enough for the people of Ireland. They had now a new head upon old shoulders, as far as the Cabinet was concerned, but yet he could not bring himself to vote for this Tithe Bill. Let justice be done to Ireland, and English money would not be required for their protection or support. Bad measures would always produce bad results—and, until the system of Government was altered, there could not be peace or happiness in either country.
Dr. Lushingtonadmitted, that the Bill was exceedingly complicated and difficult to be explained; but this was unavoidable with reference to the subject-matter for which the Bill proposed to legislate, and the Acts of Parliament which had been already passed to settle the question. Every mode of legislation had been resorted to, and, he believed it was the general opinion, resorted to in vain. In framing a Bill for this exigency, it was not the fault of the present Government if it were not able, under the circumstances of this question, and in the state of society in Ireland, to produce at once a plain, single, and intelligible measure. The other alternatives were, to do nothing, or to leave the Bill of last Session to operate; but he had the opinion of the hon. member for Wexford (Mr. Waddy), and of other hon. Members, that the Bill of 1832 was exceedingly injurious to the peace of Ireland. If the Bill of 1832 was reprobated, then should they adopt the Bill of

737
his right hon. friend with the alterations of the hon. and learned member for Dublin? As to the paltry sum of 200,000 l., with the addition of 150,000 l., if the probable consequence of granting that was, that it would set at rest a question which had agitated Ireland, no one member of that House, however devoted to economy, would deny, that it was a measure of prudence and of the best economy to grant it, and would not be ready to grant that and even a larger sum, provided such would be the effect. But he was not willing to grant a sum of money to the Church of Ireland, considering that the Church of Ireland was already in possession of a larger revenue than was necessary. He would with pleasure make a large grant to the people of Ireland, but he would not lavish on the Church of Ireland sums which it was not entitled to. It was impolitic to suffer the right to tithes to fall into abeyance, and he did not consider that the owner of the soil was entitled to the tax. He believed, that after the Church of Ireland had been amply provided for, there would be a surplus; and he hoped by the just distribution of that surplus to benefit Ireland at large. He honestly declared, that his mind was made up, and that, after maturely considering the subject, he had come to the conclusion, that the Established Church of Ireland was made to stand upon a basis, which no ingenuity, no eloquence could sustain, because it was not founded on justice. There could be no greater enemy to Ireland than he that would tie the living to the dead, and continue the system of past years, of compelling men by oppression to become converts to another faith, which was as opposed to true policy as he believed it was contrary to the word of God. He wished to wait, however, for the result of the Commission. He did not desire to deprive the existing incumbents of their incomes, or to interfere with vested interests; but he would not give one shilling beyond the actual wants of the Irish Protestant Church on the absurd ground of the expansiveness of Protestantism. The advantages offered to the landlord, by the conversion of a Land-tax into a rent-charge, were a sufficient boon to tempt him, inasmuch as it was a certain benefit of from twenty to forty per cent. If English landlords were offered thirty per cent, they would conceive themselves the most fortunate of individuals. If this
738
were the case in England, was there such a morbid feeling in Ireland, that landlords would rather reject this boon and live on in their existing state? He could not believe it. When Irish landlords and the people of Ireland knew the feeling of that House—when they knew that it was resolved to Reform the Church, and fairly to distribute and appropriate the revenues, was he not justified in thinking that the Irish people would give them some credit for consulting their wishes and interests, and for a readiness to remove any grievances that remained? Was it not better, then, for all to unite to render the Bill as efficient as might be, in order to diminish any evils which might arise under it, and to strike out all that might operate to oppress the people? And what was there to prevent the House from revising the measure next Session? Was it more difficult to deal with a tax than with tithes? With respect to the question of investment in land, he dismissed it from his view. To redemption we must come, but to an investment in land he (Dr. Lushington) would not come; for with the knowledge of all the evil consequences that resulted in this country from tying up land in mortmain, and aware of the effects of adding 8,000,000 or 9,000,000 more to the extent of land possessed by the Church, he could not consent to a measure that must be dangerous to the country.
Mr. Maurice O'Connellcould see no exigency which rendered the immediate passing of this Bill necessary; and as it was no effectual remedy or final measure, and gave no real relief to the occupying tenant, he would postpone it. In fact, it imposed upon landlords a tax which they would be unable to recover from their tenantry, and would only reduce the landlords to the same poverty as the tenantry. How could such a Bill be a benefit to Ireland? It compelled landlords to resort to more oppression and cruelty than before. Landlords, who wished to be kind and forbearing to their tenants, were taxed sixty per cent, and compelled to levy this tax from the tenant. Why not either take off, in a straightforward manner, forty per cent at once, or wait till the great question of appropriation was decided, and till they had the Report of the Commission?
Mr. Barronsaid, that, in the absence of any other plan which was likely to

739
produce peace and tranquillity in Ireland, he must vote for entering into discussion, at least, upon the clauses, without pledging himself to the details. He thought, that some of his hon. friends were now dealing rather hardly with the Government. He remembered that, at a meeting of the liberal Irish Members, which he attended, it had been determined to press the Government to concede three points—first, the omission of the appropriation clause; secondly, that there should be a new valuation in all cases in which there had been any complaint; and thirdly, that the reduction on tithe should be increased from fifteen or twenty per cent to forty per cent. Now all these points had been conceded; and he accordingly considered it rather strange that hon. Gentlemen should now offer such strenuous opposition to the Bill. The landlords would, he was sure, make nothing by the Bill, but would give every farthing which was abated of the tithes to their tenantry. He was quite certain, imperfect as the Bill was, that it would be beneficial to Ireland; and he, therefore, would vote for the Committee.
Mr. Fryerlooked upon the Bill as a robbery Bill. The object appeared to be to take away money from the Irish Church and to give it to the Irish landlord. The Government, he considered, had acted in a cowardly manner. The full value of the tithe ought to have been imposed on the land. The Bill would never satisfy the people of Ireland. He was convinced they never would be the better for it.
Mr. William Rochespoke as follows:—Sir, ably and amply argued as this question has already been, I shall not venture to detain you long. Apprehensive, Sir, as I am that this Bill is not calculated to create general satisfaction, nor to arrive at a speedy, sound, and equitable settlement of so momentous, so long floating and fluctuating a question. Believing, therefore, that it is susceptible of much improvement in order to render it perfect and permanent, and that it may, during the recess, experience that improvement, especially by the introduction of two most vital, but omitted principles, those of a salutary appropriation of any excess of income and of an encouraging plan for redemption of tithes, with a view to their final extinction, I do think it would be advisable, with these objects, to defer the measure to next Session, in expectation of
740
those improvements, without which it will be in vain to deem it conclusive. Sir, my hon. friend, the member for Waterford, has alluded to the dignified bearing which the landlords of Ireland will evince in this respect, as regards the reduction they are to enjoy; but even if so, Sir, I should like to see the same reduction rendered rather more than optional in favour of the tenantry also. He has likewise adverted to circumstances which attended some meeting of the Irish Members on this question, an explanation of which I shall leave to those Gentlemen who took a more prominent part than myself on those occasions; for, Sir, never having been personally connected with tithes, either as payer or receiver, I was not so conversant with their minute details and bearings as others of my hon. friends. But, Sir, I do not feel the less acutely on a subject so interwoven with the fate of Ireland, and always one of the most prominent and permanent amongst the many causes of Ireland's destruction and miseries. Important, indeed, Sir, should be the advantage of the Established Church to Ireland, in other respects, to counterbalance and compensate for the evils engendered by the injustice and severity of its tithe system, and the pride and oppression of its ascendancy. But, Sir, as we cannot recall or remedy the past, it is the more our duty to rectify and improve the future, and endeavour to bring about a conciliatory feeling throughout the various grades of religion altogether. My own impression certainly is, that it is not consonant with the true interests of religion itself, with moral justice, or even political expediency, to empower any one sect to levy forced contributions on another—I say forced, because there are many things which would and ought to be done from good feeling, from spontaneous and Christian-like principles, that it would be great injustice to render cornpulsory,—a principle of compulsion, Sir, that has tended materially to mar those kindly influences on the human mind which religion is otherwise calculated and designed to produce. But, Sir, meantime it is our duty to render the present system as little obnoxious as we can. I am, therefore, glad to see the impost put more directly on the landlords, preventive as it will be of those calamitous conflicts which have so often occurred between the parson or proctor and the peasantry, which

741
tended so much to degrade religion and demoralize Ireland; and furthermore, when the complaints of the peasant would be met with the bayonet or the Bridewell, the remonstrances of the landlords would be calmly heard and attended to. But, Sir, redemption, with a view to final extinction, should be, and I think and believe is, the wish of all classes, and of none should it be more so than that of the clergy, for they will, most assuredly, find the landlords more formidable adversaries than the peasantry in the event of any dissatisfaction. Sir, without extinction, you will be rolling the stone of Sisyphus and find you have your task to begin over again when you imagined your labours were consummated and concluded. Sir, I am sensible Government have endeavoured to do a great deal in this vexata questio towards mutual satisfaction; but, as I think and have explained, that most important point still remains to be adjusted, I would prefer to see a more perfect Bill brought in next Session than an imperfect one now, more especially as, by the suggestion of my hon. and learned friend the member for Dublin, immediate inconvenience can be provided against without, in my mind, those apprehended results occurring which are dreaded by the right hon. Secretary for Ireland. I will, therefore, vote for postponement.
Mr. Walkerregretted he was under the necessity of taking a different view from some of his Irish friends, and that he could not vote for the proposition of his learned friend, the member for Dublin, to postpone legislation on the tithe question to the next Session; his reason for not supporting that Motion was, not that he would not be well pleased to obtain a longer time for the consideration of so difficult a subject, but that the people of Ireland stood at this moment in a most dreadful position as regarded the existing law; he meant that Act which passed last Parliament, and the operation of which, unless some alteration was made before the close of the present Session, would commence on the first of next November. He had in the last Parliament resisted that law to his utmost; it was a most atrocious and tyrannical law; and he was now placed between a choice of evils, the certain operation of that Act, which he knew would produce destruction of life and property, or the proceeding with legislation at this advanced, and therefore inconve-
742
nient period of the Session; and he had no hesitation in choosing the lesser evil, for he felt, that any amendment in the existing law would be serviceable; but really the proposed extensive amendments he looked on as a boon, and therefore should vote for their being carried as soon as possible, they being neither more nor less than the repeal of a bad law. He had very great hopes, before the Bill had passed through Committee, that it would receive such additional alterations as would render it an immediate and extensive relief to the occupiers of the soil. The professed principle of this Bill was to relive the occupier rather than the landlord, and therefore he was sure the Government could make no valid objection to extend this bonus to every occupier who might remain liable to the payment as well as to the landlord—he would wish to go further, and at once lay all pay-merits upon the landlords in the first instance, with power only to recover from their tenants the reduced amount which they themselves had paid. The House might rely on it, unless it removed at once the occupiers from all collision with the collectors, unless they secured the full bonus in every instance to the tenants, and unless they also relieved them from the collection of the arrears, as recommended by the hon. and learned member for Dublin, they would cause a renewal of all the oppression, misery, and expense to the public, which had taken place during the last three years; but if they did assent to those alterations,—and he believed there was an inclination on the part of the present Government to do so,—he thought the Irish Members would be wrong to let the present opportunity pass for legislating on them, and run the risk of any change of circumstances which in a future Session might prevent them from obtaining such favourable terms. He also felt himself bound in justice to support the Government in carrying the amendments which they had conceded, as he was one of those Members most active in endeavouring to obtain them. The Irish Members had required from the Government three principal alterations in the original Bill; first, the expulsion of those clauses which vested the tithes in land, and appropriated it for ever to the use of the Church; secondly, a power of appeal, and review of the valuation in aggrieved parishes; thirdly, a reduction

743
of the payments forty per cent, one-half of that per centage to be extinguished, and the other to be paid from the Consolidated Fund. Had those demands been conceded at once, it would have given great satisfaction; unfortunately they were delayed, and also were yielded in rather a complicated form; still, in spirit, and practically, they had been conceded; and that having been done, he would not feel himself justified in refusing his support to going into Committee upon the Bill, which was to enable the House to make those amendments in it.
Mr. Ruthvensaid, that the plan which his hon. and learned Colleague had propounded would remove the difficulties which impeded legislation on this subject, and was founded on a principle of conciliation, which, if acted upon, would produce the happiest effects in Ireland. The legislation upon this subject had hitherto been adapted solely with a view to meet the exigency of the moment, a system which could not be too much condemned. He thought that Church property was public property, and ought to be kept for public purposes, instead of being frittered away under the pretence of giving a boon to landlords.
Mr. Shawcould not support the Motion of the hon. and learned Member against going into Committee upon a Bill for the second reading of which he (Mr. Shaw) had already voted; for strange as the House might think it, after all the changing and shifting of the Government in their opinions and declarations on the subject, yet the Bill they were now about going into Committee upon was, in every letter of it, the very same as he had approved of, including the redemption and appropriation clauses; but, in Committee, as he understood, the Government were to abandon the only principle of that, their own Bill—namely, redemption, and substitute for it another and a totally different measure, the effect of which must be to prevent redemption. He could not but congratulate himself in having his opinion so fully justified as it had been that night by the statements of the right hon. Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Littleton), and of the noble Lord (Lord Althorp), with respect to the pernicious tendency of temporary grants to the clergy, in lieu of their regular and just resources. He need not remind the House how strongly he had deprecated such a course last year, as a
744
violation of all principle, tending to the destruction of property, and to bring the law into contempt. To the repetition of any such temporising expedient as that, therefore, he would give his warmest opposition. The hon. and learned member for Dublin had entirely failed in endeavouring to charge the opposition to tithes in 1830 to the introduction of the composition system into Ireland. There was no relation of cause and effect between them; on the contrary, the Tithe Composition Acts had been working, and would have continued to work extremely well, so far as regarded the clergy and the people—but that did not answer the purpose of the political agitator, who, as was most justly stated in the able dispatch of the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, recently laid on the Table of that House—was the true cause of that system of violence and outrage which peculiarly displayed itself in the organized and unlawful combination against tithe property; and the hon. member (Mr. O'Connell) himself would hardly deny, that political agitation was at its height in Ireland from 1824, the period of the introduction of the Composition Acts, to the year 1830, when the systematic opposition to the collection of tithe may be said to have commenced. Then from 1830 to 1832 the Government were ill-disposed, in the midst of the reform mania, to lay restraint upon any species of agitation or excitement. In the latter year the subject, however, forced itself on their attention, and they brought in an Act by which 60,000 l. was advanced to the Irish clergy, and the tithe to be collected for the time by the Crown. He had often before stated, that great expense and delay had been incurred in consequence of the Government having, at the instance of the hon. member for Tipperary, expunged the provision enabling the clergy to recover costs. That, of course, proved a large bounty on litigation; but, notwithstanding, from an exercise of the powers vested in the Crown for the recovery of their debts, opposition had ultimately been overcome, and tithe was again being paid throughout almost every part of Ireland, when the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was induced, by the influence of representations, made, as he had no doubt, for the purpose of keeping the question still unsettled, to make that unfortunate declaration against the further collection of tithes, which he

745
was persuaded had been the principal cause of all the sufferings and misery which both the clergy and the country had since undergone. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell) had alluded to the conduct of some clergymen in the south of Ireland, in respect of proceedings for the recovery of their tithes. He maintained that, as a body, there never was a class of men who, under circumstances such as they had been placed in, had shown more exemplary conduct, patience, and forbearance, than the Irish clergy. He never contended, that they were above the ordinary infirmities of human nature; and if an individual clergyman, who might have witnessed his family bearing the severest privations, in consequence of an unlawful combination against his property, spoke in language somewhat warm and severe of those who were the cause of it, he could not blame him much. Still less could he blame the principle on which the hon. Member stated a certain clergyman to have acted, who, while he received but half of the debt due to him from an agent, wished all to be collected from the refractory tithe-payer. That was the same principle which the Government themselves admitted they were bound to act upon, in withholding a bounty from the wilful defaulter. But with respect to the case where the hon. Member (Mr. O'Connell) stated, that a clergyman had, upon a mere technicality of law, refused to allow a receipt which he had signed himself—all that he (Mr. Shaw) could say was, that he did not believe any such case had occurred; and that, if it had, he would be one of the first to condemn the clergyman who had so acted. Then the hon. member for Tipperary (Mr. Sheil) spoke with sonic harshness of clergymen proceeding in the Court of Exchequer for sums within the Local Civil Bill jurisdiction; but the truth was, it was impossible to recover those sums in the inferior courts, on account of the difficulty and danger of having their processes served. He would be as ready as any man to censure a harsh or vexatious proceeding against a poor man; but if the refusal to pay a just demand did not arise from any inability on the part of the debtor, but from a spirit of unlawful combination, and determination to resist the law to the uttermost, he was of opinion that it was then not only excusable, but justifiable and right, to
746
resort to the most summary and effectual remedy the law would sanction in its own vindication, and to punish such a wilful defaulter. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Littleton) said, as to the question of redemption, that supposing they were agreed upon the principle—that the hon. and learned member for Dublin, and others would differ as much as ever upon the manner of redeeming. His answer to the right hon. Gentleman on that point was a very simple one—namely, that he proposed no plan of his own, but was content with the one which the Government had proposed, which was at that moment provided by their Bill, and for the abandonment of which they well deserved all the taunts that had been cast on them from all sides that night. The hon. member for Tipperary (Mr. Sheil) had justly observed, that the Government were not giving up redemption, because they thought it bad in principle; on the contrary, they approved of it. He would add, that not only did the Government approve of the principle, but they would not have had the least difficulty in carrying it into effect; for never was a Government backed by a more willing majority. The fact was, the whole object was to avoid the consequences which would result in their own Cabinet from the difference of opinion which, to that moment, still existed there on the subject of appropriation; and his Majesty's Ministers were willing then, as they had been on other recent occasions, to sacrifice principle, in order to avoid an inconvenience. Redemption was the whole principle of the Bill—it had been from the first its great object. The Bill was introduced for no other purpose. He had consented to the Bill, notwithstanding there were many objections to it—he had made every concession that it was possible, consistently with principle, to secure, under present difficulties, a fixed settlement of the question by redemption; he had for that purpose agreed to the provision, making over fur a limited time the property of the Church to the Crown in the nature of a trustee, in order that the property might be restored to order, and revested in perpetuity in the Church; on that account, too, in consideration of the power of redemption on advantageous terms, and for that consideration alone, was the rent-charge making the landlords liable, admitted. But now the Government proposed to

747
keep the form, and give up the substance—to abandon the principle of the measure, and retain the machinery which was to have served merely to carry that principle into operation. He objected to the landlord being rendered subject, and, without consideration, to a charge to which by law he not only was not liable, but had actually contracted against. He ridiculed the juggle, supposing a rent-charge was established, of having one rate for 1836 and another for 1839; in the one case allowing a bonus of 40 per cent, and in the other none. He deprecated the endless scene of litigation that would be opened by those clauses which overturned all compositions from the year 1824 to the present time, by allowing an appeal universally, where the parties in many cases were dead, and the evidence lost, and advancing public money, too, to promote these appeals. But his great and insuperable objection was vesting in the Government (not, as was originally proposed, for a limited time and a specific purpose, but permanently) the property of the Church, and for ever after making the clergy mere stipendiaries on the bounty of the Government. To that he would never consent; he should, therefore, resist the omission of the redemption clauses in Committee; and if he failed in that, he would find it his duty to vote against the third reading of the Bill.
The House divided on the Amendment:—Ayes 14; Noes 154: Majority 140.

List of the AYES.

Attwood, T.

O'Connell, J.

Blake, M. J.

O'Dwyer, A. C.

Gillon, W. D.

Roche, W.

Grattan, H.

Ruthven, E. S.

Lynch, A. H.

Ruthven, E.

O'Connell, D.

Sheil, R. L.

O'Connell, Maurice.

Visors, N. A.

O'Connell, Morgan.

Waddy, C.

The House resolved itself into a Committee.
Clause, No. 1, was postponed; Clause, No. 2, was agreed to. On Clause No. 3 being proposed,
Mr. O'Reillyobjected to the clause. Government could not collect tithes without the concurrence of the landlords. Many landlords would have no inducement to saddle themselves with the expense; and if they resisted, the Bill would be inoperative. The collectors should collect from several individuals in small frac-
748
tions from each. In place of that it would be better, as most of the country was divided into townlands, to collect the whole from one occupier of the townland; and he thought the landlords who urged on their tenantry to abolish tithes, in order to increase their own rents, should not have the benefit of any relief rather than their tenants. In place of the tithe composition, a rent-charge should be levied on the landlords, which they should be compelled to pay, and the arrangement should be immediately made, not postponed till a future period.
Lord Althorpsaid, that it would be desirable to pass over the land-tax, and convert it into a rent-charge, if such a thing were practicable, inasmuch as the tenants would be at once relieved by such a proceeding. But there were great difficulties in the way of adopting such a course, and he thought it would be most unjust to compel the landlords to take the payment upon themselves at once. He hoped, however, the landlords would be induced to do so voluntarily, in consequence of the bonus held out to them to adopt the rent-charge voluntarily before November, 1836.
Mr. Shawsaid, that the noble Lord had now opened one of the many inconsistencies in which the Bill would abound, when altered according to the new proposition of the Government. The land-tax and the rent-charge had both been introduced with a view to redemption; and now the principle of redemption, which was the very essence of the Bill, was to be abandoned by the Government. The object of a final settlement by redemption had alone induced him and the other friends of the Church in Ireland, to support the measure. If, however, the redemption clauses were omitted, then, even on the principle advocated by the Government themselves, the rent-charge should not be retained; for the Government had introduced the rent-charge solely with a view to carry the redemption, and putting the payment on the landlords of tithes to which they were not liable by law, was alone justified by the Government themselves on that ground.
Lord Clementssaid, that it would be much easier to collect the amount from the tenants, if it were made compulsory upon the landlords to take the payment upon themselves at once. He, therefore, thought, that for the sake of the landlords them-

749
selves, the clause ought to be made compulsory at once. Another inducement to do so was this, that every parish in Ireland would then be under the same system.
Mr. Sheilconcurred with the noble Lord.
Mr. Littletonsaid, that he feared, that if the rent-charge were forced upon the landlords, their resistance to it would be general; and he never could consent to the abandonment of the Land-tax, or to putting the rent-charge upon the landlords, until the law had been vindicated, and the property secured by the Government collecting the tithe, and obliging the tithe-payer to become amenable to the law, otherwise it would be unreasonable to expect that the landlord could ever collect it from his tenant.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that he very much doubted, that when the House had got through this Bill, so far from settling the tithe question, they would have only passed one of the most complicated and mischievous measures that had ever passed that House; and so far from the question being settled, new elements of strife would be afforded by it. The occupying tenant would soon find out that there was no difference between Land-tax, rent-charge, and tithe-composition, except that the impost proposed to be levied upon him now would be higher than when levied upon him by the landlord, than when it bore the name of tithe.
Clause postponed.
The House resumed. Committee to sit again.

EXCISE ACTS.
The House resolved into a Committee on the Excise Acts, when it was resolved, that all duties on Starch and Stone Bottles should cease and determine. On a Resolution being proposed to the effect that the present duties on spirits in Ireland should be lowered,
Captain Gordon Captain Gordon moved the insertion of the word "Scotland," in the Resolution proposed by the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reducing the duties on spirits, in order to place the distillers of Scotland on the same footing as the distillers of Ireland.
Mr. Gillonseconded the Amendment, as being calculated to confer a boon upon Scotland.
The Lord Advocateopposed the Amendment, as being contrary to the feelings of
750
the people of Scotland, and calculated to increase smuggling in that country.
The Committee divided on the Amendment—Ayes 9; Noes 36: Majority 27.
The Resolutions were agreed to, and the House resumed.

TRADES' UNIONS.
Mr. Rotchrose to submit his Motion for leave to bring in a Bill "to protect from the domineering and often cruel interference of Trades' Unions, the rights and privileges of those of the working classes who are not inclined to join such Associations."
An Hon. Member moved, that the House be counted, when forty Members not being present, the House adjourned.

MINUTES.
Bill. Warwick Borough. A further examination of Witnesses took place on this Bill, the second reading of which was again postponed.
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of LANSDOWN, from British Residents at Calcutta, for a Law protecting Tithes.—By the same, from Citizens of London, in favour of and by a NOBLE LORD, from Leeds, against the Poor-Law Amendment Bill.—By the Earl of MULGRAVE, from Okehampton, for Relief to the Dissenters.—By the Earl of MANSFIELD, from Logie, for Protection to the Church of Scotland.—By the Bishop of EXETER, from Exeter, against the Universities' Admission Bill.—By the Duke of GLOUCESTER, the Marquess of CLANRICARDE, Lords WYNFORD and BEXLEY, and the Bishops of EXETER and GLOUCESTER, from a Number of Places,—for Protection to the Church of England, against the Separation of Church and State, and against the Claims of the Dissenters.—By the Earl of HAREWOOD, from Ardwick-le-Street, for the Repeal or Alteration of the Sale of Beer Act.

SUPPRESSION OF DISTURBANCES (IRELAND).
Viscount Melbournerose to move the third reading of the Suppression of Disturbances (Ireland) Bill. He observed, that the general grounds on which this Bill rested, the provisions which it contained, and the state of the part of the country to which it extended, and also its effect on those who had been subjected to its operation, had been so recently, so clearly, and so distinctly laid before their Lordships, that he did not conceive it to be necessary for him again to go over the ground at present. It would almost be sufficient for him merely to move, that it be read a third time. It had been a great misfortune, not to say a great calamity, which, as it was produced by the nature of the free Government under which they lived, they ought not, on the whole to deplore, although its effects had in many instances been most injurious, that the affairs of the Government were never, with respect to one part of the country, treated with common fairness in discussion. That part of the country had always been made the arena on which opposing political parties had fought their pattles—the ground on which Administrations had been attacked, and that on which the opponents of the Administration had al-
656
ways found their strongest points of attack. This, was, in fact, a great misfortune, for whether considered with reference to the importance of the country, or with respect to the particular circumstances in which it was placed, no matter required to be considered with more calmness, seriousness, and moderation. He knew that in discussions upon this Bill, comparisons had been drawn between disturbances which at various times had taken place in this country, and those which for many years past had disturbed and disgraced the population of Ireland; and it had been stated, that the Government had not at any time taken measures in any respect of a similar degree of severity towards those who disturbed the peace in England. His answer was, that there was no analogy whatever between the two cases. The difference between them was, on the contrary, very great. It had been stated, that England would not endure, with regard to herself, the introduction of measures such as this which was now proposed for their Lordships' consideration as affecting Ireland. He did not know what the English people would not endure, if they were subjected to similar circumstances. He trusted that the case would never arise—a case to call on a British Minister or a British Parliament to consider or propose a measure with respect to England, similar to that which now lay on the Table of that House. But he would tell their Lordships one thing, that England would not endure—England would not endure for one month, or one fortnight, that state of things which would render a measure like this necessary. England would not endure those outrages by night, that terror by day, that system of intimidation so widely spread in many districts in Ireland in which disturbances prevailed—England would not endure it for the shortest possible time, without taking those measures that should be effectual for the remedy of such an evil. He called on their Lordships only to consider the difference with respect to the circumstances of England, and the nature of the crimes that prevailed in this country, and contrast them with those committed in Ireland, and it would be manifest to everybody, that no pretence existed for the comparison that had been made. He had a Return with respect to both countries, which would enable him to show the difference between them. In 1833, in England, the number of crimes

657
committed amounted to 20,072. Of these, above 15,000 were offences of larceny—offences of robbery, committed without violence, and with secrecy. The whole number of offences committed without violence, was 17,131, leaving for those which had more or less of violence connected with the commission of them, the number of 2,941. This statement, undoubtedly, considering the great population of the country, though larger in amount than could be wished, was not one to fill the mind with any extraordinary degree of horror and alarm. Now, what was the state of Ireland during the same period? According to the Reports of the Inspectors of Police there, the number of outrages amounted to 9,943. In these Returns, no distinction had been made as to robberies committed with or without violence, but their whole amount was stated at 1,800 or 1,900. The list of outrages contained in it cases of riot, of rescue, of attacks upon houses, of illegal meetings, of appearing in arms, of burning and levelling dwellings, of maiming or destroying cattle. He asked their Lordships whether, pointing out this difference between the two countries was not sufficient to show that there was a necessity for a measure of this kind, in one of the two countries, while to the other it would be wholly inapplicable. He was sorry, however, to say, that the mere list of offences thus furnished would give but an inadequate account of the state of the country, but an inadequate idea of its condition could be formed from the details of murders and of horrors at which the blood ran cold. Those who had the task of reading the accounts of the smaller offences, would see in them a pervading character which was most fatal to the peace of society. No man could do any one act—could take a servant, could make the commonest disposition of his property, could settle a rate of wages, could give out a piece of work, without subjecting himself to annoyance, perhaps to injury, during the day, or to the nightly visit of ruffians, for the purpose of committing some violent outrage; and if any man resorted to the laws for protection, or if he assisted another in resorting to them, he was probably pronouncing the sentence of his own death, and in all probability would be murdered, perhaps in mid-day; and, as it too often happened, if not with the active assistance, at least, through the
658
effect of intimidation, with the silent permission of all the surrounding populace. He said, therefore, that it was absolutely necessary that the Government of Ireland should be invested with the power which this Act was to give them. But he apprehended that the most difficult part of his task was to reconcile their Lordships to the repeal, or rather the omission, of clauses which, in their opinion, would give additional force to the Government. He had before stated, and he would distinctly state it again, that this omission was against his opinion, that his opinion was in favour of the clauses, in favour of those three first clauses which gave the Lord-lieutenant power to disperse meetings. The grounds on which he was of that opinion were these: the Constitution of this country was formed of the prerogatives of the Crown, the privileges of the Parliament, and the rights and liberties of the people. It was in the harmony, agreement, and consent of these various principles, and in keeping each of them within bounds, that the frame of the Government was formed, and the advantage of the country in general was secured. When either of these powers exceeded their clue bounds, and abuses were committed, it became absolutely necessary to place limits to the force of that part of the Constitution. It was the experience of our history that such was the case, and many such limitations had taken place in consequence of the abuses thus created. In his opinion the right of petitioning had been abused and perverted in Ireland, where it was used for the purpose of overthrowing the Constitution of the country. He knew that it might be said, that it had been abused in England; that it had been sometimes carried to too great an extent here, he was willing to admit. Violent language had been sometimes used at public meetings here, and menacing conduct had even occasionally been exhibited. But here these things were transient—they were the spontaneous ebullitions of the moment—they soon passed away, and all again relapsed into peace. In Ireland, on the contrary, they were of certain regular recurrence, as regular as the monsoons and the rains of a tropical climate; and they bore the impression of being actuated by one mind, set on foot by one impulse—they were guided by one power and one spirit. On these grounds he had been prepared to

659
submit that these clauses were called for by the necessity of the case, and that they ought to have been adopted by Parliament. At the same time he must say, that their importance ought not to be overrated, nor be imagined to possess a power or an efficiency which did not in fact belong to them. They were effectual for one purpose; but, in the first place, they never had been used to prevent public meetings for the fair discussion of great public topics; and in the second place other means had been found to check the abuses of speech at these meetings. These clauses could not prevent a body of men from acting in a settled manner, and with a definite purpose, as the Roman Catholic Association had done; and attempts had been made since, though not with the same success, to establish a society like that Association. He was aware of the effect which speeches produced upon a body of persons assembled together for the discussion of political matters in Ireland. He knew that the language of a letter which had been before quoted described speeches and agitation as cause and effect. He might admit that representation to be true, and yet deny that they were the primary cause of the outrages. He knew not exactly what that cause was. Whether it arose from a supposed adherence to ancient rights, whether the people believed that they really did suffer under unparalleled oppression and misgovernment, and that this produced that character of violence among them, he did not know; but he knew that a spirit of violence did exist, ever ready to burst forth into action. There were persons, too, who were ever ready to unite against the well-being of the community, and he believed that whatever might be the future fate of Ireland, whatever might hereafter happen to it, that spirit of combination would oppose the most serious obstacles and the strongest impediments to its growing wealth and prosperity. That these speeches, however clamorous, and whatever topics they might urge (and he admitted, that many of them were most unjustifiable), that they did very great mischief, and that they were totally unwarranted by the facts, he could not possibly deny. They represented Ireland as domineered over by a foreign party (a topic the most irritating that could be addressed to any people), that the whole country was suffering from the misconduct of the whole body
660
of landlords, and that nothing remained for the people but utter ruin, abasement, and degradation. He knew how false these topics were; he could not deny that such topics so addressed and so received, must produce considerable effect; but that they were the primary cause of the outrage he had described, he must say he did not believe. Their Lordships would recollect, too, that the insertion of these clauses had not prevented speeches of this dangerous nature, from being addressed to the Irish people. Therefore, although he was ready to admit, that it would be better that the Government should be armed with the power which these clauses gave them, yet if it was said that such powers were absolutely necessary for the safety and peace of Ireland, and that that safety could not be preserved without, he could not believe the fact to be so. He was, therefore, ready, without these powers, to be responsible for the peace of Ireland. It had been found necessary to omit these three clauses which had formed a part of the Bill of last year. Their Lordships were aware of the reasons which had been urged for this omission, and none could refuse to acknowledge that if they could be dispensed with, the omission was demanded by justice. He was aware that Ministers had been much censured for agreeing to give up those parts of last year's Bill, and it had been said, that they had better have resigned than have abandoned them. In this opinion he did not concur. He thought it was the duty of the Government to adhere to his Majesty, and he concurred in the sentiment expressed by a noble Lord, that if ever bound not to desert the Monarch, the obligation was at that time more imperative than at any other period. For himself he did not say, that in accepting office he had made any sacrifices, for perhaps he would not gain any credit for such an assertion. Neither would he pretend any indisposition on his part to the acceptance of office, or affect to be insensible to the excitement it created, and the distinction which it conferred, but when acknowledging that, he felt that he might add, that he had also a full and perfect sense of the responsibility which it involved. Still, fully as he was impressed both will the distinction and the responsibility, he would adhere to the service of his Sovereign as long as that service was deemed useful, and when he

661
found it could be dispensed with, he would resign the trust as willingly as he had accepted it. He was not aware that he had anything more to add. If the noble Duke was of opinion that the safety of the empire rendered necessary the retention of the clauses proposed to be abandoned in the Bill before them, he hoped he was prepared to justify that opinion by reasons; but if the noble Duke had any doubt upon the subject, he also hoped that Government would receive the benefit of that doubt.
The Lord Chancellor,before putting the question, said, that as the Amendment to be proposed by the noble Duke was a substantive measure, it should come before the House as a distinct Motion. The Bill should be now proposed for the third reading, and the noble Duke could afterwards make his Motion on the question that the Bill do pass.
The Earl of Riponsaid, that what he wished to state to their Lordships would come better in, and be more applicable, at this stage of the proceeding, than if he reserved it for the Amendment intended to be proposed by the noble Duke. It was with great reluctance that he felt himself called upon to address their Lordships on this occasion, because he found himself compelled to accede to a measure, at the same time that he held in the utmost abhorrence the principle upon which it was founded. None amongst their Lordships were less disposed than he to trench upon liberty, or bind down the people with unnecessary restrictions. He concurred with his noble friend who presided over his Majesty's Government, in acknowledging that nothing but extreme necessity would sanction the measure. In acquiescing in the proposition before their Lordships, he was reluctantly obliged to confess that he felt very much pained at some circumstances connected with it. When his noble friend, who was lately at the head of the Government, had on a recent occasion called upon their Lordships to pass this Bill, he had stated in a full, clear, convincing, and satisfactory manner, the reasons by which he was compelled to resort to the necessity of adopting this measure, and there was no part of the Bill on the necessity of which he more forcibly dwelt than on the clauses now proposed to be omitted by the measure at present before their Lordships. Under these circumstances, he thought it
662
imperative on their Lordships to consider why it was that—he would not say the same Government, but—a great portion of the same Government now called upon that House to consent to so material a change as to omit those clauses then deemed so indispensable. The only reason now given for this change was, that they were compelled to make it. There were many persons in the present Government for whom he entertained the most unfeigned esteem and respect, and he hoped that, whilst he had acted with them he had demeaned himself as a man of honour, and one not unworthy of their friendship; but however high might be the estimation in which he held them, he thought more satisfactory reasons should be assigned for this change than those which had been given. The noble Lord who had lately been at the head of his Majesty's Government had told them, that the clauses now proposed to be omitted were indispensable, and that without them the measure would not be effective. The noble Earl did not, on that occasion, say a single word which could lead their Lordships to suppose that there was any difference amongst the members of the Government upon this point. There could not, at that time, have been any such difference; for, if there had, the noble Earl would not have been justified in not having, at that time, stated it to their Lordships. The opinion which the noble Earl did state, he stated as that of the Government, and he confirmed this opinion by no less authority than that of the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland; a nobleman of whom he could not speak in terms sufficiently expressive of his regard. Despatches written by him were read to the House for the purpose of showing how necessary it was that these clauses should be retained; and how did it now happen that a noble Lord came down to that House with a proposition for doing them away? That part of the Bill which affected agitation was proposed to be omitted, notwithstanding the strong testimony borne by the despatches transmitted from the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, and in which, with a most philosophic spirit of inquiry, after a close analysis of all the circumstances, and in a mode of reasoning close, conclusive, and convincing, the connexion of predial outrage with political agitation was clearly demonstrated. As he said before, if the Government was of opinion that it could go on without the power

663
which these clauses conferred, he should be satisfied—leaving, to them all the responsibility—to take the Bill in the shape in which they brought it before their Lordships; but it was very difficult to adopt the conclusion, that the Bill would answer the proposed purpose, without knowing what induced the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland to write the letter out of which the difference of opinion in the Cabinet arose. Under these circumstances, he thought it somewhat hard upon their Lordships to be called upon to consent to the change. The difference in the Cabinet, it appeared, had arisen because of a communication which had taken place without the sanction of one who, above all others, should have been consulted. And to whom had this unauthorized communication taken place? He would not name individuals; but the communication had been made to one who was ever found resisting the measures of the Government, and upon whom no reliance could be placed by the Government, and from whom every proceeding flowed which disturbed the tranquillity of Ireland; one whose hostility adopted every form of vituperation and abuse, and who had of late exhausted the whole vocabulary of even his vituperative language in his attacks on the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland. No Government could by possibility stand, which proceeded in such a manner as this; and he would venture to predict, that if the present Government acted on such a system, it would not last long. But knowing, as he did, the spirit, the resolution, and the judgment of the noble Lord now at the head of the Government, he had some hope, that such practices would not be followed. Their Lordships should remember, that when, on a former occasion, this Bill, including the clauses now proposed to be thrown out, was brought before them for a second reading, those clauses were attacked in their Lordships' House, and were most elaborately defended by the Ministers. The communication which had been called an "indiscretion," but which, in other words, was a great blunder, took place, and the change in the Bill was the consequence. In a day or two after the circumstances became known, it was stated, that the right hon. Gentleman concerned in making the communication had resolved to resign; but it eventually turned out that, at the request of the Government, he consented to retain office. After some delay and
664
some doubts, by the efforts of his noble friend, now First Lord of the Treasury, things were in some measure restored. That noble Lord accepted office; at his magic touch most of the severed members of the divided Cabinet again united, and affairs assumed their present position. But still it was not a thorough reunion. He who was the life and soul of the former Ministry was not now amongst them. This description of the noble Earl no one could gainsay. None would deny his exalted qualifications for the office which he held, or how eminently fitted he was to contend with the difficulties which he had to surmount; nor would even those who disapproved of his measures, hesitate to admit, that a life spent in the furtherance of reform furnished ample reason why he should have been the last person to be removed from the Ministry. But under the circumstances of the case, the noble Earl was justified in retiring; but it appeared to him that the noble Earl had fallen a sacrifice to the conduct of others. If, instead of the change which had taken place, the noble Earl had carried on the business of the Government to the close of the Session, he might then have retired from office under circumstances calculated to give not the slightest pain either to himself or his successor. These observations were connected with the Bill, for if the change had not taken place, the Bill would have passed in the shape in which it had been introduced. The Lord-lieutenant of Ireland was placed, by these proceedings, in a situation which, for difficulty, could not be surpassed, for, from the documents before their Lordships, it was to be assumed, as his deliberate opinion, that the clauses were necessary. The clauses were to be omitted, and who was the cause that those portions of the Bill, which had been pronounced so necessary, did not pass? Who but he, who was himself the embodied personification of the spirit of agitation—he who would not stop here—
—tamen ultra pergere tendit. Actum, inquit, nihil est, ni pœno milite portas Frangimus, et mediâ voxillum pono Suburrâ
To meet him those changes had been made: he had thundered at the gates—they lay prostrate at his feet, and he now reared his ill-omened standard over the citadel. To meet the views of this individual, the noble Lord at the head of the Irish Government had been placed in a most unpleasant position. After this view of the

665
transactions which then took place, it was to be hoped, that the noble Lord now at the head of the Ministry would be allowed to exercise his own judgment, and act on his own discretion. As circumstances stood, and as the Government appeared to think these clauses unnecessary, he was bound to acquiesce in their opinion. No one would be more gratified than he if it were found that Ireland could be kept tranquil without them; but if stronger measures were found necessary, he hoped the noble Viscount would not hesitate to apply for them. If they were not applied for, the noble Viscount himself would be the next victim, and the last would be the Constitution of this country.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that as the House seemed disposed to take the debate on the question for the third reading of this Bill, he should take that opportunity of addressing to their Lordships the observations which he felt it his duty to make, postponing the Motion which it was his intention to submit to their Lordships, until the proposition now before them was disposed of. The noble Viscount had told them, that he did not think the clauses omitted in the present Bill, but which were contained in the measure of last year, were absolutely necessary for the peace of Ireland, although he admitted, that he had voted for them, and that he had been desirous of seeing them pass. The noble Viscount, as well as the noble Earl (Earl Grey) had both said, that they would vote for nothing which they did not believe to be absolutely necessary.
Viscount Melbourne: I did not say, I would vote for nothing that I did not think absolutely necessary; though I might have said, that I would vote for nothing that I did not consider expedient.
The Duke of Wellington: Well, then, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the noble Earl had declared that they would vote for nothing which they did not consider absolutely necessary. But he would go farther than the opinions of the noble Viscount: he would go to the opinions expressed in two Acts of Parliament, the one passed in 1828, and the other passed during the last year. Upon both those occasions it was stated, in the most positive manner in the preambles of those Acts, that political agitation was the particular object which was intended to be put down by them; that it was alike dangerous to the public tranquillity, and
666
inconsistent with the safety and existence of all regular Governments. Those clauses had been fully justified by the Ministers of the Crown, and passed both Houses of Parliament with large majorities; and if they were not absolutely necessary for the peace and security of person and property in Ireland, would that have been the case? But see what the Lord-lieutenant said, see how he described the state of disturbance which existed in Ireland, and to what cause he traced the evils complained of in that country! He treated agitation and outrage as cause and effect, and so, in short, did every Magistrate in communication with the Irish Government. But this was not all. The noble Earl and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had both descanted, on a former occasion, on the necessity of passing those clauses, saying that, if the lower orders were restrained by the Bill, it was only an act of common justice that some restriction should be placed on the conduct of other parties. Moreover the noble and learned Lord said, that it would be unfair to press the loins of those who disturbed the peace of the country, without, at the same time, pressing the fingers of those by whom the peace of the city was disturbed, and that it would be inconsistent or unjust to frame clauses for preventing the lower orders from being out at night—for passing, as he called it, "the sunset" part of the Bill—without also framing clauses for the restraint of those who agitated the city. Under these circumstances it was, that the noble Viscount now told them that those clauses were not necessary; but with such evidence before them was it possible that their Lordships could place any reliance in such a statement? The noble Viscount had contrasted the state of this country with that of Ireland, and he had said, most truly, that the people of England would not tamely submit to a measure like this. The fact was, that the people of this country would not submit to such a state of things as now existed in Ireland, and he would defy any one to point out a place in any country in the world in which a state of insurrection, similar to that which was exhibited in that country at the present moment, was to be witnessed, not excepting even the wilds of Asia, Africa, or America. They talked of the liberty of the people, but, for his part, he could not understand that to be liberty which afforded security for neither life nor property. The

667
security of life and property was the first consideration in every civilized state, but for the last three years he would defy any one to say, that either life or property was secure in Ireland. The noble and learned Lord had frequently told them that the duties of allegiance consisted of obedience to the laws on the one hand, and protection for the subject on the other. This was no doubt the fact; but then came the question, why was the Crown to be prevented from giving protection to the loyal portion of the people of Ireland? The Act of last year proved most effectual in the suppression of disturbances, and why that Act was not now to be continued in its integrity he was at a loss to understand. But the noble Viscount told them that the part of the Bill relating to proclamations for putting down unlawful assemblies was not necessary for the preservation of the peace, notwithstanding the Lord-lieutenant declared that it was. The noble Viscount said, that the Proclamation clauses were ineffectual; but was that the case, or how was the assertion borne out by the fact? They had it from the Lord-lieutenant, that these clauses had effectually prevented the permanence of such assemblies—had even put down adjourned meetings; nay more, the Proclamation clauses contained in the Acts of the years 1828 and 1829, it was well known, had not only been effectual, but had successfully frustrated the attempts which were made to get up unlawful meetings. He would go further and say, that it would be utterly impossible to prevent unlawful assemblies by the Bill now on their Lordships' Table, unless those clauses were embodied in it. Without them the Lord-lieutenant could not proclaim a meeting appointed to take place in the city of Dublin as unlawful; and as the three first clauses of the Act of last year applied altogether to meetings in the city of Dublin, they ought, he submitted, to be inserted in the present Bill. The only reason that ought to have led to the omission of the clauses was, that they could not pass the Act through another place if they retained them. He would say, that there never was a Government which possessed the confidence of the other House in the same degree as the Government of the noble Earl lately at the head of his Majesty's Councils; and, notwithstanding the resignation of the noble Earl, and notwithstanding the re-
668
signations of some of his colleagues about a fortnight previously, he would venture to say, that the Government which existed at the present moment, possessed the confidence of the other House of Parliament in the same degree that the noble Earl formerly possessed it when he had the assistance of the noble Earl (Earl Ripon) on the cross bench, and his other colleagues. It had been the misfortune of the Government of Ireland to submit to the dictation of the person to whom the noble Earl on the cross-bench had alluded; and it was to that influence that the Government had given way on this occasion, and had left out these important enactments. He would ask, whether the noble Viscount(Viscount Melbourne) really supposed that he could not carry this measure unaltered through the House of Commons without the assistance of this person? If the noble Viscount entertained this opinion, he was perfectly right in bringing forward the measure in its present shape. His own opinion, with respect to the duty of the noble Viscount and his colleagues had been alluded to; and he therefore must again say, that it was his own opinion, that the noble Viscount and his colleagues were bound to continue to serve his Majesty, and make any sacrifice consistent with their own honour and characters, and consistent with the interests of the country, as long as his Majesty should require their services. It appeared to him, that if the noble Viscount had stated in his place the opinions he had formerly expressed, he could have carried that Bill through the other House. If the noble Viscount had declared, that he believed the measure necessary for the public service, and the provisions of which the noble Viscount even now admitted to be desirable, he thought that the noble Viscount, by so doing, would have afforded a greater security for the maintenance of the peace of Ireland, than he could by any half measures. He had heard it stated, and he confessed with some pain, that a noble relative of his, the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, had changed his mind on the subject of those clauses; but he had seen no evidence whatever of any change of purpose on the part of his noble relative, or any change of opinion on this question; and that which made him positively certain in saying, that there could be no change of opinion, and that the alleged change of

669
opinion was mere pretence, was the circumstance that the noble Earl, late at the head of the Government, spoke of the opinion of the Lord-lieutenant as favourble to the clauses in the first week in July, he believed on the 4th; and when the supposed change of opinion on the part of the Lord-lieutenant was stated to have taken place so far back as the 18th of June. When the noble Earl introduced the subject in the first days of July, he must have been aware had any change of opinion taken place in the mind of the Lord-lieutenant, and it must have been strange if he had not mentioned this to their Lordships. The noble Earl also, in reply to some observations on this subject, said, that the only authority for the assertion was mere matter of correspondence in private letters, and that the public had nothing to do with the letters; and he also quoted the opinion of the Lord-lieutenant as authorising the measure that had been introduced by the Government. He was satisfied, therefore, that there was no ground to authorise the assertion of a change of opinion on the part of the Lord-lieutenant. He should vote for the third reading of the Bill as it at present stood, and he should propose an Amendment which would prevent the exclusion of the three clauses of the Bill of last year; but he should not trouble their Lordships to divide, as he only wished that his opinion should be entered on the Journals of the House. He had no intention to press the adoption of his opinion on the Government, or to force upon them powers which they did not think necessary. Under these circumstances all he should have to do would be to move his Amendment, and allow it to be negatived.
The Earl of Glengallexpressed his regret that the clauses relative to public meetings had been left out of this Bill. The Government had for some time been making concessions with a view of promoting the peace of Ireland, but they had hitherto been unsuccessful in their expectations. The reason why concession had hitherto failed was, that the Government had not consulted the Magistrates or Gentry in their proceedings, and appeared to have no confidence in them. They, therefore, very naturally did not trust the Government. This mutual want of confidence between the Magistracy and the Government had been productive of the greatest evils. When they passed the
670
Coercion Bill last year it was hoped by the gentry of Ireland that steps would be taken to put down agitation, that the Government would not continue to yield to the demands of the agitators, but that steps would be taken to secure the peace of Ireland. The Government had tried to procure security to property, and tranquillity to Ireland by concession, but had altogether failed. When they passed the Coercion Bill he had hoped that they intended to tell the agitators in that country that they would yield no more to them—that they would not make further concessions to them until they had shown by their conduct that they deserved them. By excluding the clauses preventing political agitation, they threw power into the hands of those who would make the worst possible use of it, and who would pursue a course most detrimental to the interests of this country. If they passed the Bill in its present shape, and allowed public meetings to be held, a month would not pass over without having agitation against tithes throughout the greater part of Ireland. The state of Ireland was most alarming, and he feared that it would become even worse. As an illustration of the present feeling the noble Lord mentioned that lists were given about of those whose ancestors' properties had been forfeited by Cromwell and after the battle of the Boyne, and the names of the present holders of the estates were given as usurpers.
The Earl of Harewoodwas satisfied that the peace of Ireland never could be secured so long as such practices obtained as had lately taken place in relation to the Government of that country, and to which so much allusion had that night been made. When such scenes took place, could the people look with any confidence to the Government? The circumstance he had alluded to excited much speculation, but it appeared to him that the whole thing hinged on the private communications that had been made to the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, with a view to extort from him an opinion which had been most improperly acted on. If the production of the communications in question in that House were not altogether regular, still there were other means of making the matter public which could have been acted upon, if the opinions were honestly expressed, and which would have afforded satisfaction. The country

671
then would have been able to form a just opinion on the subject. The noble Earl, lately at the head of the Government, had retired solely to allow, apparently, the adoption of measures which appeared satisfactory to the great agitator of Ireland. In the first place the Government had called upon their Lordships to give an opinion on this subject, and to declare that a certain measure was necessary; and, instead of following it up, they had abandoned that measure. It appeared that an individual—and he meant nothing disrespectful by that term—had made a communication in a certain quarter, and which had been called a great indiscretion. This had been so designated because the person had made a communication which should not have been made, and which had not been hastily or thoughtlessly made, but that it was made with the sanction of a person, which made it of much greater importance. The strongest circumstance of all, however, connected with this proceeding was, that it had been kept back from the knowledge of the head of the Government that any such communication had been made. Apart from the Bill he felt the greatest anxiety that such conduct should not be repeated. He said this not only for the sake of the people of Ireland or the people of this country, but for their Lordships' sake; for he could not help recollecting that their proceedings were looked upon with anxiety by all Europe, and such conduct as he had alluded to only tended to lower the character of this country in the estimation of every civilized people. It ought not to be forgotten that the communication in question had been made to a person who had been twice denounced in the King's Speech—to a person whose conduct it had been stated was the main cause that rendered it necessary to keep such a large army in Ireland. Under these circumstances need he express his surprise that the Government should condescend to enter into secret negotiations with him? There was also another reason which should have operated upon them. The person in question had repeatedly declared that nothing would satisfy him but the Repeal of the Union. Now the Government had declared, and had called upon both Houses to sanction their declaration, that they would stand by the Union even to the shedding of blood. He had no wish to speak harshly of the Go-
672
vernment; but he would ask what might it be supposed was the opinion of the Government on the subject after what had been reported to have taken place? He had differed almost constantly on political subjects with the noble Earl lately at the head of the Government; but he would at once declare that every feeling of political hostility towards that noble Earl was at an end when he saw the unbecoming manner in which he had been sacrificed, and on such an occasion. He should support the third reading of the Bill, and he trusted the Government would not have reason to regret having left out the clauses to which allusion had been made.
The Marquess of Clanricardebegged their Lordships to recollect that, on a former occasion, the noble Earl, then at the head of the Government, had stated that the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland had communicated to the noble Earl that the Marquess Wellesley could carry on the Government of Ireland without the power of putting down political agitation, although, at the same time, he thought such power desirable, and the noble Viscount had come forward to make a similar declaration to that made by the noble Earl. He was glad, for his part, to hear the noble Duke say, that the present Ministers had the confidence of Parliament, because he thought that they deserved such confidence; but he did not think that they would continue to possess that confidence if they called for powers which were now declared by the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland not to be absolutely necessary for the Government of Ireland. It must be obvious to any man, that the feelings of a people would be excited if they were constantly told that they were ill-governed and oppressed; and in a country like Ireland, where the people were in such distress, and so long had just grounds of complaint, such language was peculiarly calculated to rouse the feelings of the people. When, however, he admitted this, and regretted the evils of political agitation, he denied that that was the main cause of the outrages that were committed in Ireland. Agitation might have much power in rousing the feelings; but he thought that it could not be contended that it was the main cause of the disturbances. Indeed he thought that the noble Duke must admit this. Were agrarian outrages new in Ireland? Need he refer

673
to what passed twenty years before the rebellion; and again, twenty-eight years ago, when the noble Duke was Secretary for Ireland, and when it was deemed necessary to pass such a law as that on the Table to put down outrages? He repeated then, that although political agitation at the present moment might have a powerful effect on the mind of the people, he distinctly denied that it was the cause of the predial agitation which prevailed. The noble Duke said, that security was the chief object of Government, and that that was to be consulted before liberty. Undoubtedly security both of person and property was of the highest importance, but were not the people also entitled to have a Government which they could place confidence in? He concurred entirely in the provisions of the Bill. There was sufficient ground for passing a measure to put down outrages, but it was unnecessary to adopt the clauses relating to political agitation. He had objected to that part of the former Bill, and his noble friend, then at the head of the Government, knew the opinion he entertained on the subject. He gave his sanction to the present Bill with greater willingness because he had perfect confidence in the noble Marquess to whom the carrying it into operation would be intrusted. The whole of that illustrious individual's conduct and life afforded a guarantee that the powers given in the Bill would not be abused, but that they would be exercised with impartiality and moderation. He trusted, however, that next year they would be able to restore the Administration of the ordinary law in Ireland, and that it would be no longer necessary to infringe on the liberties of the people. He was satisfied that they would never gain security to life or property in Ireland by Coercion Bills alone, but that it was only by sanctioning such reasonable and just measures as he trusted shortly to see before the House that the permanent peace of that country could be secured.
The Earl of Haddingtondid not think of contending for the proposition, that to coercive measures alone they ought to look for security. He was well aware that there was much to occupy the Parliament and the Government of this country, perhaps for years to come, in devising measures in defiance of all the clamour that might be raised, for the improvement
674
of Ireland, for her peace and for her tranquillity; but if their Lordships determined on introducing a coercive measure, if they were persuaded that it was necessary in the present state of the country, the question was, whether that coercive measure should be efficient, whether it should go to the cause, or deal only with the effect, which was the subject more immediately under the consideration of their Lordships. It would be presumptions in him to doubt whether the noble Marquess was better acquainted with the condition of his own country, than he was; but he thought he had pretty good authority on his side, when he said that agitation and predial disturbances were intimately connected as cause and effect. He had the opinion of the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland to that effect; he had the decided and strong opinion of the late first Lord of the Treasury to that effect; he had the opinion of his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack to that effect; and he believed that he should have had the united opinion of the whole Government to that effect, but for the disclosure of that private correspondence and juggling which had taken place, from which it appeared that confidence had been betrayed, and which, for the sake of those concerned, he wished had never been made known. The very reason of the thing would show that it must be so. They had the predial outrages in the one case; in the other they had the agitators touching on the string which they knew would be responded to by the feelings of the people of Ireland, and creating a question, which, but for them, would never have been created. Yet, what did this Bill do? If they passed it, they would press with the weight of their whole loins upon the unfortunate, ignorant, deluded peasant out of the House an hour after sunset, inflamed by the declarations of interested agitators, who went abroad in the night to scatter discord and ruin around them. Upon the poor misguided peasantry they pressed more than was necessary; but in the case of the agitator they pressed not at all; or if they did, they pressed upon him with their little finger only. Thus they were content to deal with the effect, but the cause they left unchecked. Suppose he had no authority for what he was urging, he would ask their Lordships, was there not a probability in the nature of things that he was right? He had listened with

675
great satisfaction to the speech of the noble Earl who lately held the office of Privy Seal. In detailing what had taken place on a recent occasion, it appeared to him that his noble friend had stopped rather short. He would not repeat what his noble friend had stated, because he would not weaken the effect of his noble friend's remarks; but he would come at once to the point. His noble friend, to the best of his recollection, finished his statement by making some remarks on the indiscretion or blunders of his right hon. friend, the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Now, he was certainly one of those who thought that the right hon. Gentleman had been very hardly used. It might be that his right hon. friend had been guilty—who was there that might not be?—of some common indiscretion. His right hon. friend himself admitted, that he had acted with indiscretion; and he could not deny that statement of his right hon. friend; but at the same time it was worthy of remark, that for some days his right hon. friend bore the whole blame of that indiscretion. The subject was brought under discussion, but there was not one word said by any human being to show that any other person had been guilty of rashness, indiscretion, insubordination, or whatever they were pleased to call it, but his right hon. friend, the Secretary for Ireland. At last it came out, that there was another person—a Cabinet Minister—a noble Lord of unimpeached, and unimpeachable character, who had so far participated in the indiscretion, that he had authorized the communication without ever consulting the First Lord of the Treasury on the subject; which communication that noble Earl, standing in his place in this House, said was made to a man with whom he authorized no communications, because in that man he did not think that confidence could be placed. There was some one, therefore, to share with his right hon. friend, the Secretary for Ireland, the blame of what had taken place. If he might be allowed to refer to the ordinary channels of communication, he would say, that he had once seen a statement which he had never heard contradicted. That statement was made by a noble Lord, in another place, who was nearly connected with the noble Earl, late at the head of his Majesty's Government, and who, having the honour and the interest of his noble rela-
676
tive near to his heart, put a question to his right hon. friend, the Secretary for Ireland, and asked him, whether any other persons had communicated, or had followed him in communicating, not with the Arch Agitator of Ireland, but with the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland; for he had not forgotten, that his right hon. friend was dealing not only with the hon. and learned member for Dublin, but with the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland also. His right hon. friend replied (very properly, no doubt: probably if he had been in the same situation, he should have given a similar answer), in such a manner, that his answer amounted simply to a refusal to answer. Why, if his right hon. friend had known that no other individuals had communicated with the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, would he not at once have given a reply to that effect? Would he not have said, "I, and I only, communicated with the head of the Irish Government." He had not the slightest suspicion that the noble Lord, who was Home Secretary, was a party to such a communication. His right hon. friend, however, simply replied, "That he saw no reason why, having been guilty of one indiscretion, he should be led into the commission of another." Then, till that statement was contradicted, he (the Earl of Haddington) concluded he had a right to say, that there were other communicators. Who they were, he knew not; probably he never should know; and now that the mischief was done, he did not much care to know. But he would say, that his right hon. friend had been very ill-treated indeed; and that he was sure there must be more in this transaction than met the eye. Suppose his right hon. friend bad gone unauthorized to make that communication—suppose he, holding a subordinate office, by going first to the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, and then to the Arch Agitator, had caused all those disturbances which had ended in driving out of the Government the noble Earl who was its Chief—in the high manliness and integrity of whose character it was impossible not to have confidence, and who, as a clog to the wheel of the Movement, was more especially entitled to that confidence—suppose, he repeated, such had been the interference by a subordinate Officer of the Crown, could it be argued for an instant, that he would be at this moment Secretary for Ireland? He would say, rather, that there had been much that they

677
did not know of, and the effect of which, as had been so ably described by his noble friend, was likely to produce an unfavourable impression in the country as to the character of public men, and not looking like a very auspicious beginning of this new Administration. He called it a new Administration; he was aware, however, that his noble friend at the head of the Government stated the other night, that it was not a new Administration, and that it was meant to conduct the Government on the same principles as were acted on while the noble Earl was in office. He had been a good deal struck with the positive declaration of the noble Earl, that this was not a new Ministry. That it was so, was surely shown by this fact, that the Prime Minister had retired, and he was somebody. He was a great man in this country; and he was still more in his situation at the head of the Government. When the noble Earl resigned, they were told, that the whole Government was dissolved—that it was at an end. But whether it were in the hands of the noble Lord now at the head of the Government, or whether it were in other hands, he did not know; but he must admit that they had been informed, that though the Government was dissolved, it was not dissolved. However, it soon revived again; here it was, and not a new Government, but an old Government. The very first measure introduced by this new-old Government was different from the measure that had been introduced by the former Government. They were unanimous, as far as he knew, on that measure, and they now unanimously recommended a different measure. There was this extraordinary fact, however, that they did not approve of the measure they recommended; they all expressed their regret, that they had to bring it forward. His noble friend had told their Lordships, that it would have been impossible for them to carry the first Bill through the House of Commons. He had had great respect for the House of Commons ever since it had been Reformed, though he preferred it as it was before, and nothing should induce him to speak of that House but with respect. Still he would say, that he could not believe the Representatives of the people, coming fresh from the people, would think so little of the poor peasant, as to consign him to the curfew, while he who kept the country in a state of continued disturbance, while
678
the Agitator, who was the cause of all the mischief, was allowed to escape. He would say, that it was unjust; he would say, that it was cruel. He regretted that they should be called on to pass so one-sided a measure, bearing as it did on the ignorant, unfortunate, and perhaps the oppressed, but undoubtedly the poor; and letting go scot free those who agitated the community, while they served their own purposes. He did not believe the difficulty existed in the House of Commons; it was to be found somewhere else—in the Government itself. Here, however, they got into a labyrinth. He confessed he did not understand one half that had passed on this occasion. That the Government was composed of individuals who entertained discordant opinions on this measure, was true. That those who were most attached, in these days of popularity-hunting, to what were commonly called popular principles, had prevailed, there could be no doubt. He felt sure that one at least of the noble Lords opposite would rather have had the Bill with the clauses which had been omitted, than without them. But the Bill was to pass, malgre the opinions of those who thought it imperfect. His noble friend said, that difficulties would have been experienced in the House of Commons, had this not new, but old Government, attempted to carry the first Bill through that House; but how could that be, if this were the new-old Government, which had sufficient influence to cause its opinions to prevail in the House of Commons? If his noble friend should pursue a course really calculated to give peace to Ireland; and if he would, at the same time withstand those efforts to accomplish vague and indefinite changes, which now unfortunately prevailed in this country, he would promise—though he knew it was of little use—his decided support; but he was afraid, considering the manner in which his noble friend's Government had commenced its operations, that it was not likely to lead to any results so happy as those to which he had adverted. A new Government had been formed, and nothing had yet occurred in that House to prevent its having fair play. Should he prove a false prophet, no man would rejoice more sincerely at it than he should.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that he for one felt that he was placed in a curious

679
position on this occasion. He was called upon to vote for a measure of great severity, without having any documents laid before the House to show that such a measure was necessary, and without any explanation from any Member of the Cabinet to justify their Lordships in passing this particular measure. It was true that the noble Viscount, at the head of his Majesty's Government, had made some observations, but they were in favour of a Bill which had been read a second time in that House, and which now lay on their Lordships' Table for a third reading. The noble Viscount's speech was, in fact, in favour of Lord Grey's Bill, and not in favour of the present Bill; their Lordships were, therefore, now called upon to pass this Bill, without having any evidence before them that such a particular Bill was necessary. He was glad that the sense of the House was not to be taken upon this measure on this occasion. He was glad that by passing the Bill, without question, the whole responsibility of the case would be thrown upon the Government. No consideration on earth would ever induce him to vote for such a Bill as this. If it were to go to a vote, which he was glad to find would not be the case, he should certainly retire without voting at all. He regarded this measure as the most unjust and tyrannical that had ever been passed by the Legislature of a free people. The Bill of last Session was a Bill of justice and mercy compared with this measure. He could not help here referring to the language which at different periods had been used in regard to this measure by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. That noble and learned Lord, when he had been taunted a few nights ago with having made use of arguments so contrary to his present opinion on the subject—the noble Lord's answer was, that that was an improper time to discuss the point, and that they should wait until this measure came before them, when he would give a full explanation of his sentiments upon it. They were now arrived at the third reading of the Bill, and there the noble and learned Lord sat reposing on the Woolsack, and the other noble Lords on the other side of the House sat in silence, waiting to hear what would be said, without saying any thing themselves on the subject. He would just refer to the language of the noble and learned Lord when the former
680
Bill was under the consideration of the House. The following were extracts from the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in that House, on the 4th of July, in reply to the noble Earl's (Earl of Durham's) objections to the clauses that related to political meetings:—"Under the circumstances of the case, he could not, however, help feeling that it was not fit, or fair, or consistent, to draw that line of distinction which his noble friend had drawn between the infraction of public rights connected with public meetings assembled to discuss public matters, and what his noble friend seemed to think of less importance—namely, the domestic rights of subjects, which were affected by the other part of the Bill, though not touched upon by that against which his noble friend had expressed his opposition. These were the grounds, the noble and learned Lord afterwards said, which prevented him from drawing that line of distinction which his noble friend had pointed out. If he suspended one species of right (and he hoped and believed that he consented to that suspension for the last time), he felt that it was equally necessary to suspend the other. Yes, he deemed it necessary to apply a legislative enactment to the exciting cause as well as to the mischief which that excitement produced."* He should like to hear from the noble and learned Lord in what way this Bill applied a remedy to the exciting cause. The noble and learned Lord formerly considered the clauses relating to public meetings of such importance that he would not allow them to be withdrawn. How could the noble and learned Lord now justify his change of opinion? The noble and learned Lord, no doubt, possessed a great deal of ingenuity, but he thought that it would puzzle even his ingenuity to find out an excuse for such a sudden, and such an extraordinary change of opinion. Two reasons had been assigned for the alterations that had been made in this Bill. The one was a public one—the other was of a private and mysterious nature. With regard to the public reason, it had been stated by the noble and learned Lord on a former night, that the House of Commons would never pass this Bill with those clauses, having ascertained that
Hansard (third series) Vol. xxiv. p. 1122–1123

681
the noble Marquess, at the head of the Government of Ireland, had expressed his opinion that he could dispense with them. But he would positively deny, that it was a fact, that the House of Commons would not pass the Bill with those clauses. He might deny it on the ground that the present House of Commons would support the Government, no matter how it was changed. In fact, it did so, and there was, somehow or other, some one slipping into the Government every day. It was but to-day he saw that a noble friend of his opposite had become one of the Ministry, and he was happy to see his noble friend's accession to office. It was on the 3rd of July that the extraordinary, he would say the disgraceful, proceeding took place in the House of Commons, when one hon. Gentleman said, "Upon my honour it is so," and another hon. Gentleman replied, "I declare solemnly, and upon my honour, that it is not so." It was upon that occasion, that it was disclosed that the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland had admitted, that he could dispense with those clauses; yet a few days after, in the House of Commons, the Ministers had a majority of 174 to ninety-two in reference to those very clauses. That was a proof that the measure, with those clauses, would be carried through the House of Commons. It was, therefore, nothing but trifling with that House, and with the country, to tell them that the House of Commons would not pass the Bill with those clauses. He next came to the private reason alleged for making those alterations in the Bill. That reason was said to be contained in a private letter from the Marquess Wellesley, and it was said, that it justified the Government in making the alterations that had been made in the Bill. That letter should have been produced in justice to the noble Marquess himself, and the correspondence also which had produced that letter from the noble Marquess should have been produced. What could be the reason that the letter of the noble Marquess was concealed? It was the impression on the minds of many that the Government were afraid to let that correspondence be seen; that they were not only afraid of the treachery which would be exposed on the part of some members of the Government, but that they were afraid to let the more honourable and virtuous members of the Cabinet know the real reason of such a
682
course of proceeding. The noble Marquess opposite had said, on a former evening, that if any member of the Cabinet had written such a letter, he would not remain a colleague in the Cabinet with him.
The Marquess of Lansdownsaid, that his words were, that if any member of the Cabinet had betrayed his noble friend (Earl Grey), he would not remain a colleague with him.
The Earl of Wicklowwould not, of course, say, that the noble Earl, late at the head of the Government, had said, that he had been betrayed by any member of the Cabinet, but he would maintain that the effect of the letter in question had been to betray the noble Earl. The noble Earl, indeed, had himself afterwards said, that he had not been betrayed. At all events he had been ill used. If he did not feel so, why did he not remain a member of the Cabinet? Why did the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, when he was questioned in the House of Commons by the noble Earl's relative on the subject, decline to answer the question? Why did he say, that he would not commit another indiscretion in replying to it? Was it not plain that the right hon. Secretary was not the sole party to the correspondence that had taken place with the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland? Was it not plain that though the hand might be the hand of Esau, the voice was still the voice of Jacob? The conclusion at which the country and the Press had arrived—a conclusion in which he (the Earl of Wicklow)concurred—was, that that correspondence had been carried on by a member of the Cabinet. If the letter in question had not been written by a member of the Cabinet, there was no doubt that it had been suggested by one. He was sure, therefore, that the noble Marquess opposite would not stand upon mere words, but that if he found that a member of the Cabinet had been a party to such a correspondence, he would not continue a colleague with him. So anxious was he to hear what the noble and learned lord and other noble Lords had to say in their vindication, that he would not trouble their Lordships further on this occasion.
The Bishop of Derrysaid: My Lords, it is with extreme reluctance that I offer any observations to your Lordships' consideration; but as the subject under discussion is one materially affecting my

683
own country, I trust I shall receive your Lordships' indulgence, and be permitted to make a very few observations upon it. My Lords, I do certainly regret the withdrawing of the clauses which have been alluded to, because it may possibly have the effect of casting odium upon the noble Earl, late at the head of his Majesty's Government, of being desirous of adopting measures of great severity; but, my Lords, to any insinuation of that description, the noble Lord's whole political life furnishes the most unequivocal contradiction. I do, in my conscience, believe that no statesman ever held in greater veneration the principles of the Constitution, and that no man ever felt greater pain from being compelled to sanction a departure from those principles. My Lords, the noble Earl does not require any eulogium from so humble an individual as I am. His public services cannot be forgotten; they will live in the memory of a grateful country, long after his consignment to the tomb. My Lords, I do confess that, upon principles of humanity also, I regret the withdrawal of those clauses from the Bill, because that appears to me calculated to promote the mischief caused by public meetings, where the passions of an easily-excited population are constantly influenced, and where the unfortunate peasantry are encouraged to the perpetration of acts which expose them to the vengeance of the law. I must, however, my Lords, acknowledge that I derive much consolation from reflecting upon the assurance recently given to your Lordships, by a noble Marquess connected with his Majesty's Government, namely, that if the experiment (this I believe was the term used by the noble Marquess), should fail to ensure the tranquillity of Ireland, he should consider it his duty to advise his Majesty immediately to assemble Parliament, with a view of arming his Ministers with such powers as might in that case be required; and, my Lords, as far as my recollection serves me, the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, in whom I have always reposed the utmost confidence, coincided in opinion upon this subject with the noble Marquess. My Lords, you can scarcely conceive the deplorable state of Ireland. One of the Irish newspapers which reached me this very morning contains an account of two atrocious murders—in one case, the unfortunate person had the temerity to pay
684
his rent—in the other, the crime was, having the audacity to seek for a payment due to him by legal proceedings. My Lords, I do not feel it to be any part of my duty to enter into a discussion upon the subject of the private correspondence to which your Lordships' attention has been frequently directed, nor have I any disposition to do so. I shall not, therefore, trespass further upon your Lordships' time than to express my gratitude for the attention by which I have been honoured.
The Marquess of Lansdownwould only trouble their Lordships with a few observations on this occasion. The noble Earl opposite had grossly mistaken what he had said on a former evening. The right reverend Prelate, however, was perfectly correct in what he had attributed to him. He had said on a former night, that if this experiment should fail, he entirely concurred with his noble friend at the head of the Government, that it would be their duty at once to call Parliament together for the purpose of repairing the error which they had committed, and of arming the Government with additional powers. With regard to what the noble Earl had attributed to him, he would repeat what he had said on that occasion. He was speaking at the time of the false assumption, that his noble friend late at the head of the Government had said, that he had been betrayed by a member of the Cabinet, and he said, that if such had really been the case, which was not the fact, he would not continue in the Cabinet with such a colleague. His noble friend (Earl Grey) on a subsequent evening had distinctly disclaimed, that he had made any such statement as that he had been betrayed by a member of the Cabinet. He lamented—as who did not lament?—that a certain correspondence had taken place with the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland; but his noble friend also added, that he was sure that nothing had been done which had not been well intended, both towards him and the public service. He would add nothing to what had been said, and so truly said, by his noble friend (the Earl of Ripon) as to the merits and services of his noble friend lately at the head of the Government. He would only say this—that his noble friend would be the last man, finding himself compelled by circumstances, for which he was not to blame, to retire from the Government, to spare any effort of his towards promoting

685
the public service, and towards promoting the maintenance of such a Government, as might be best calculated to meet the exigencies of the times. It was because his noble friend (Earl Grey) had given the sanction of his great name to the formation of the present Government, that so humble an individual as he (the Marquess of Lansdown) formed a part of it, and should continue to belong to it. He felt authorized to say, that whatever opinion his noble friend might have formed as to the expediency or necessity of those clauses, he would, if he had seen the impossibility of carrying them through the other House of Parliament (which, at the time he first proposed the measure, he could have no means of ascertaining), be the first to say that it would not be desirable to carry them by a bare majority in the House of Commons. The present was an experimental measure. It was easy for noble Lords on the other side of the House to say, that those clauses could have been carried in the House of Commons without difficulty. Would they try to carry them? Let them only look to the progress of the present Bill through the House of Commons. How did it happen, if it were so easy to replace those clauses, that no member there had made a motion similar to that made to-night by the noble Duke? Was it not obvious, that, under the circumstances of the case, it would be impossible to carry such a motion in the House of Commons? He trusted that they would not see agitation again prevail in Ireland; but if it did, the Government was pledged to call upon Parliament at once for additional powers to put it down.
The Earl of Aberdeenshould not have addressed the House upon the present occasion, had it not been for some observations which had fallen from the noble Marquess. The noble Marquess had told them, that the only proper object for the consideration of their Lordships at present was this—whether this Bill was suitable or not? He agreed with the noble Marquess, that it would have been so, had the Bill before the House been the same Bill which was introduced by the noble Earl late at the head of his Majesty's Government. In that case, whatever might have been said respecting the private communications received from the noble Marquess, the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, no one would have adverted to his change
686
of opinion, if the measure as proposed by his Majesty's Government had remained the same. But, the only reason given for the change which had been made in the Bill, was the change which had taken place in the opinions of the noble Marquess, which change was only known by a private letter. He protested against the practice of justifying public measures by the private letters of high functionaries, as it must be prejudicial to the public service, and detrimental to the Constitution itself. If it were a private letter on which this change was effected, he would be one of the last parties to violate its secrecy; but then he insisted, that a Minister ought not to rely on an opinion so expressed to justify a measure of such high importance as the present. The noble Viscount, by relying on such a source of information, deprived their Lordships of every security they could have in the declarations of Government. The noble Viscount had said, that he would preserve by every means in his power the general peace of Europe. But the noble Earl, late at the head of the Government, when he attempted to account for the change in the noble Marquess's opinion, said, that that change was not founded on any change in the position of Ireland, but on a consideration of the position of Government in the House of Commons. Now, there were occasions on which the House of Commons might be inclined to pursue a policy towards certain foreign Powers of which the noble Earl might not be altogether inclined to approve. Some one might suggest to our Minister at any particular Court, that it would be acceptable to the House to have the situation of the country with regard to that power a little changed—that a little more insult to that power would be popular in the House of Commons, and that it would make the Government popular if such insult were inflicted. He might be told, that such a suggestion was improbable: but it was not more improbable than the suggestion which had absolutely been made in these transactions. The practice of high functionaries acting upon private letters, was most unfair to his Majesty. Was his Majesty not to know the reasons which induced his Ministers to bring in measures which they stated to be for the good of the people? If this practice prevailed in one department, why was it not to prevail in every other? He thought,

687
that as Ministers had founded their change of this measure on the contents of a private letter, they were now bound to make that private letter a public document for the information of their Lordships.
Viscount Melbourne: He was not much surprised at the observations which had been made by his noble friend on the cross-bench, and by other noble Lords on the proceedings which had recently taken place. Undoubtedly those proceedings had been extremely unfortunate. There had been much of error in them, much of haste, and much that was inconsistent with the ordinary mode of carrying on the Government—much which he trusted would not occur again, and much which was injurious to the character of the country, and to the stability of the Administration. He did in his conscience believe that in those transactions there had been nothing of ill-intention, nothing base, nothing of a low or an interested character—that all had been done under mistake, and that all had been meant in the purest principles of sincerity. With respect to the observations of the noble Earl who had spoken last, he had only to say, that he entirely agreed in them; but then the justification of the change which had been made in the Bill was not founded entirely on the contents of the Marquess Wellesley's private letter, but on the unfortunate consequences which had resulted from its disclosure. It had been said by another noble Earl, that the change in the Bill was a concession to the agitators. If that change should encourage them to proceed in their old course, if it should give them additional weight and authority, that would be a result that nobody would regret more than he should; but the fact was, that the change was not a concession to the agitators, but to the public opinion of this country, and more particularly to that of the other branch of the Legislature. The noble Earl on the other side of the House had seriously pressed upon the attention of their Lordships the injustice of insisting on one part of the Bill, and of abandoning the other. But in pressing upon that part of the Bill which the Government had retained, they had applied to it epithets of "unjust, violent, tyrannical, severe in the extreme," epithets which, if well founded, ought to induce them to vote against the Bill under any circumstances. The noble Duke had asked him, how he could venture to be-
688
come responsible for the peace of Ireland, now that he had abandoned the clauses which he had formerly deemed necessary to its preservation? The absence of those clauses might, he admitted, render it a matter of greater difficulty to govern Ireland; but if that difficulty should be greater than he anticipated, he should have no hesitation in resorting to the measures which had been mentioned by his noble friend (the Marquess of Lansdown). The Government had abandoned these clauses on necessity; and it ought not, therefore, to be said, that it had abandoned the principles of the Administration which preceded it. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Wicklow) who had addressed their Lordships in a manner, and had used language, which if he were not desirous of avoiding harsh words, he might call offensive, solemnly put a question to him, to which he should have had no objection to have given an answer, had it not been put in so repulsive a form. The Government, he would only say, was prepared to act upon the determination formed by Earl Grey's Cabinet, and sanctioned by Parliament, and would resist to the utmost of its power everything that was likely to lead to the Repeal of the Union.
The Bill was read a third time.
The Duke of Wellington moved to add the Clauses to the Bill of which he had given notice in his speech.
The Lord Chancellordid not rise for the purpose of giving any opposition to this Amendment, though he must say, that he could not concur in it. He rose, however, to state, for the satisfaction of the noble Earl behind him (the Earl of Wicklow), that the noble Earl should again hear him state for the second time the reasons which had induced him originally to give his support to these clauses. He thought, however, that the noble Earl might have spared him the trouble of this repetition, as the noble Earl, after infixing those reasons well in his mind, had refreshed his memory by reading what appeared to be a very correct note of what he had said when he first delivered his opinions upon this subject.
The Earl of Wicklow,interrupting the noble and learned Lord said, that he neither wanted nor stood in need of any such repetition as that with which the noble and learned Lord was threatening him. He wanted the noble and learned Lord to reconcile, as he had promised,

689
the inconsistency of his conduct in supporting these clauses on one day, and in condemning them almost on the next.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Earl had completely misunderstood him. He seemed to think that he (the Lord Chancellor) had changed his opinions respecting these clauses—that he had abandoned them entirely—and that he was not inclined to repeat them. Now, what his two noble friends (the noble Marquess and the noble Viscount) had already said to-night was that which he too was now about to say. It was not an option on the part of Government whether it would omit these clauses or would not. The noble Earl had dwelt upon the Ministers' abandonment of their principle, and had called upon them to explain their inconsistency, as if it were not possible to explain it, when the simple fact was, that they, having formerly held certain opinions in favour of these clauses, had been induced by a total change of circumstances to abandon them. It had been said, that the present Government, professing to be a mere continuance of Earl Grey's Ministry, had begun its career by introducing a measure totally repugnant to that which that noble Earl had approved. Now, that was not the fact. What better authority could they have upon the point than his noble friend himself? And what had his noble friend said? With that manliness which formed a distinguishing part of his character, and which at once adorned and exalted him above all his contemporaries, his noble friend had said, "Whatever might have been his opinion formerly, still, if he had remained at the head of the Government, under all the circumstances in which the present Administration was placed, he would have adopted the same course with them." ["No, no,"] No! why he had heard it with his own cars, and could trust implicitly to his own recollection. [The Marquess of Lansdown: Earl Grey said, that "he would have advised it."] Well, it was all the same; whatever his noble friend would have advised, that he would have done. His noble friend then had said, that he would advise the non-insertion of these clauses in the circumstances of unparalleled difficulty in which the Government was placed. As mention had been made of his noble friend lately at the head of the Government, he must say that he agreed entirely in all that had
690
been said by his noble friend on the cross bench, and the noble Marquess opposite, respecting that distinguished and honourable man. But of this he was sure, that a man less capable of the special pleading which had that night been put into his mouth by the noble Earl behind him—a man to whose character such special pleading was less germane—a man less capable of that disingenuousness which the noble Earl behind him had attributed to his noble friend, was not to be found upon the face of this earth. The noble Earl had told their Lordships, that his noble friend had come down to the House and said, "I have never said that I was ill used. I have never said, that I had much to complain of. I have never said, that there was treachery around me." From all which the noble Earl, with a prodigious ignorance of his noble friend, had concluded that his noble friend all the time meant that it was true that he had been ill used—that it was true that he had much to complain of—that it was true that there had been treachery around him. Now, this was not only not what his noble friend had complained of, it was also directly the reverse; for the noble Marquess who had just spoken had distinctly said, that he knew that there had been no such thing as treachery or bad intention. The noble Marquess also had added that his noble friend had said that, though that had been done of which he disapproved, he had still the firmest reliance on the pure motives and the honourable intentions of those who had done it. He owed it to his right hon. friend the Secretary for Ireland to state thus much, for it would have been most extraordinary. If his noble friend had had the slightest doubt, or the slightest vestige of a shadow of doubt, remaining upon his mind respecting the good intentions of his right hon. friend, knowing as his noble friend did all the circumstances of the transaction. If there was any motive more than another which operated on those, who had acted in the manner which their Lordships had heard described more than once that day, it was the desire to smooth the way of his noble friend, to make the task of government easier to him, and to prevent that event from happening which all persons, both in the Cabinet and out of the Cabinet, equally deprecated—he meant the retirement of his noble friend from the head of

691
the Administration. He appealed to his noble colleagues—he appealed to his noble friend himself—whether more assiduous efforts—nay, whether more repeated efforts—had ever been made by one set of men connected with another in the same Cabinet to retain that man amongst them and to prevent him from resigning, than had been made by the members of the present Administration within the last twelve months to prevent the resignation of the late Premier? No less than six times had his noble friend expressed a wish in the last year to resign. On this point he could speak with some certainty, for, in five out of six of the cases in which attempts had been made—and they had all succeeded but the last—to dissuade his noble friend from his intention, he (the Lord Chancellor) had taken a foremost part. He knew that a rumour, a very absurd rumour, had gone abroad, that his noble friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and himself had long wanted to destroy the late Government, and that they had directed all their efforts to remove the noble Earl who had lately retired from its head. Now, why was his noble friend so anxious to retire upon this late occasion? Because he had made up his mind that he would retire at the close of the Session, in the course of a couple of months, or it might be of a fortnight. "But then," said his noble friend on the cross bench, "the noble earl resigned, and his Government was dissolved, when presto, by the touch of the magic wand of the noble Viscount, or of somebody else, all the members of the Cabinet were restored to their places, and each of them was found to be as he was before." Now, his noble friend had given a somewhat different account of this transaction. His noble friend had said, "the moment my noble friend, Lord Althorp, thought proper to withdraw, I determined to do so too; but, having once resigned, I could not think of returning again to office. I rejoiced, however, in prevailing upon Lord Althorp to continue in office, although I would not continue in it myself, because I had made up my mind for months previously to retire from the Government." All this their Lordships had heard long ago; but there was an important feature connected with it which, by some accident, had been forgotten by the noble Viscount, who seldom, however, forgot anything. It was said, that his noble friend (Lord
692
Althorp) had authorized the communication made by Mr. Littleton to Mr. O'Connell. Now, his noble friend never did any such thing. He was asked, whether it would be inconvenient to the Government to make a communication to that personage? To that he had answered, "No;" but when he was further asked, "Ought there to be such a communication made to Mr. O'Connell of the intentions of Government as would induce him to suspend his motions?" his noble friend had said, "Yes," but had added, "Take care that you don't commit yourself." Was this permitting every species of communication? Quite the reverse. His noble friend (Earl Grey) had said, that he would refuse all communication with that eloquent and distinguished personage. Now, on that point he differed entirely from his noble friend. He did not know how Government could be carried on if certain leading men were to be considered as tabooed and interdicted from all communication with the Government. To say that, with a leader of opposition distinguished for his talents and eloquence—with a man who was held in reverence by a large portion of his countrymen, and who exercised great influence over them, no communication should be held, appeared to him to be one of the worst and most ill-grounded maxims on which the business of Parliament could be conducted. In point of fact, he did not see how business could be carried on if such communications were stopped. He had never hesitated to make a statement of his opinions when they differed from those of the distinguished person to whom allusion had been made so often that night; and if any of their Lordships should charge him with dreading that individual, or those who acted with him, he would only say this, that he did not know any man who had expressed himself more strongly against that individual and his supporters than he had, when he had felt it to be his duty, and a painful duty he could assure their Lordships he had always found it to be. He trusted, that their Lordships knew sufficient of him to be aware that he could not truckle to any individual, but he would not call it truckling to individuals or abandoning his duty, to hold forth to them such concessions as were just, and to adopt such courses as were conciliatory, provided that such concessions and such conciliatory courses were for the safety of

693
Ireland and the tranquillity of the empire. He held such concessions to be wise and statesmanlike; and it would be no argument to deter him from making them, to say that, by granting them, he should favour and exalt any one given man. His duty was, to consider men only as they were connected with the subject; his duty was to view the subject in all its bearings, and to fling all personalities, whether of odium or of favour, to the winds. He had very sanguine hopes, notwithstanding the omission of these clauses, that the Bill would be found sufficient for its purpose; and, if he did not entertain these hopes, it never should have had his sanction. But if, after having made this concession to feelings which prevailed elsewhere, the Government should find that agitation was renewed in the centre of Ireland, and that the flame there rekindled should be spreading to the more remote parts of the country, their Lordships might be assured that the Ministers would advise the reassembling of Parliament, for the purpose of applying a remedy to the then ascertained necessity of the case. That that necessity might never arise was his most fervent prayer, and he might add, that he felt almost a confident expectation that it would not. He trusted, that the prospect which had been held out in both Houses, that the Parliament would be convened, if the state of things in Ireland rendered its meeting necessary, together with the good feeling which he hoped to see prevail among all classes of men, would have the effect of preserving the peace of Ireland. Nothing could be more incorrect than to say that he, even at the beginning, was one of those who thought these clauses to be as necessary as the other parts of the measure; for he had already stated, that he was originally opposed to the re-enactment of the public meeting clauses, and anxious for their omission, as well as for the omission of the Court-martial clauses. This he had before mentioned in explanation to a noble Earl not at present in his place; but he had added, that on further consideration of the subject, and after he was convinced by the additional communications and discussions of the injustice of pressing upon the peasant in the country, while the agitator in the city was permitted to go untouched, his repugnance to the re-enactment of the meeting clauses was overcome, and he agreed with his
694
colleagues, for they came to a unanimous opinion on the subject, as to the necessity of retaining the clauses. The correspondence which had taken place between the Secretary for Ireland and the Lord-lieutenant had been a good deal dwelt on, but the intimate confidential habits of those two persons, and their near family connexion, made a constant correspondence on their part a matter of course. And what did his right hon. friend (Mr. Littleton) write about? The Lord-lieutenant having at one time stated the Court-martial clauses were necessary, and having at another expressed an opinion that they might be dispensed with, all that his right hon. friend requested the Lord-lieutenant to do was to reconsider his opinion with respect to the necessity of the public meeting clauses. He was also in the frequent habit of corresponding with the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland. He had communicated with him on every subject interesting on this or the other side of the water, and distinctly remembered having asked his noble friend in a private letter whether, as the Court-martial clauses had been flung over, he could not do with still less of the Bill? He never received an answer to that inquiry from his noble friend; but his noble friend wrote a letter to the noble Earl, lately at the head of the Government, in which an answer was given by anticipation to that inquiry; for he believed that the Lord-lieutenant distinctly said, that the question he (the Lord Chancellor) had put had not given rise to his letter. A great misunderstanding prevailed with respect to the cause of the omission of the meeting clauses. It had been said to be the letter sent by the Lord-lieutenant to Earl Grey. This statement had been repeatedly made, and as often denied. The letter sent to Earl Grey was not the cause of the omission of those clauses, for after its receipt a Cabinet Council was held, the subject was discussed, and the Ministers came to the unanimous conclusion not to give up those clauses. But he would tell their Lordships what was the cause of the omission of those clauses. It was the communication to Parliament and to the people of that letter, which showed that at one time, at least, a doubt existed in the minds of those best capable of judging on the subject as to the necessity of the public meeting clauses, that convinced every member of the Cabinet of the perfect

695
hopelessness of carrying them. The noble Earl (the Earl of Wicklow) had passed sentence on the Government for not retaining those clauses, but this the noble Earl ought to have been the last person to do. The Government had omitted those clauses because they knew they could not carry them; and what prevented the noble Earl from voting for the Amendment of the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) to re-introduce the clauses, but the conviction that they could not be carried? The noble Duke had also attacked the Government for leaving out the clauses, but, influenced by the same prudential reasons which guided the conduct of the noble Earl, he did not intend to press his Amendment to a division, because he knew he could not carry it. He (the Lord Chancellor) had felt much gratification at hearing the speech of the right reverend Prelate (the Bishop of Derry). It was worthy of a good Irishman and a good Englishman. Swayed by no bad party spirit, but, on the contrary, entertaining the kindest feelings for his country, he had, like a firm and wise legislator, stated his opinions, in the great bulk of which he (the Lord Chancellor) concurred; and he hoped that the right reverend Prelate would join him in praying, (for sure he was, the right reverend Prelate's prayers would be more effectual than his) that no necessity might arise for the extraordinary reassembling of Parliament, but that the present summer might be signalized by increased tranquillity in that part of the United Kingdom to which the right reverend Prelate belonged.
The Earl of Wicklowdenied, that he had ever charged the noble Earl, lately at the head of the Government, with resorting to special pleading. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack stated, that he had frequently communicated with the noble Marquess at the head of the Irish Government. Now, he could not help thinking that the noble and learned Lord had made them acquainted with a fact of very great importance, for, considering the noble and learned Lord's high station, his correspondence must necessarily have had great weight with the noble Marquess. The object of these communications was said to be to keep Earl Grey at the head of the Government. No doubt the Ministers were very anxious to keep Earl Grey among them; and if report spoke true, they had made that distinguished indivi-
696
dual an offer of the Privy Seal. [The Lord Chancellor: No, no.] He could only say, that the statement was widely circulated, and as widely believed. [The Lord Chancellor: It was not correct.] He hoped the Ministers would all deny the statement for the offer was not an honour to them. The noble Earl, in conclusion, condemned the course pursued by his Majesty's Ministers, and observed, that if greater agitation than ever did not shortly prevail in Ireland, it would not be owing to the present Bill, but to the bargain which, to the disgrace of the Government, appeared to have been made with the base part of the country.
The Lord Chancellorcould assure the noble Earl that the bargain which he supposed the Government to have made with what he called the base part of the country was the creature of his imagination; for no understanding had been come to, no negotiations had taken place between any human being and the Government, or friend of the Government, authorized or unauthorized, as far as they (the Ministers) knew, which could, even by the greatest perversion of language, be characterized as a bargain. But the noble Earl was only preparing future grounds for an attack on Ministers; for if agitation prevailed, he would attribute it to the omission of the meeting clauses; and if agitation ceased, he would see in that fact only a proof that a secret treaty had been made with the base part of the people in Ireland. As he had mentioned the correspondence which had taken place between him and the Lord-lieutenant, he trusted, that in justice to the noble Marquess, the production of that correspondence would not be called for. If the letter to Lord Grey was unfit for publication, the correspondence which had passed between him (the Lord Chancellor) and the noble Marquess was certainly not less so. It related to private and domestic subjects, and would be perfectly unintelligible to the public at large. Some of it was in prose, and some not in prose—some in Latin, and a small part in Greek; and he believed that a more motley correspondence had never before been produced. It was this literary intercourse, which he carried on with such a truly classical, accomplished, and great man as Lord Wellesley, that formed the chief amusement of his moments of relaxation from business. But, he repeated,

697
that the letter sent by Lord Wellesley to Earl Grey was not occasioned by anything written by him (the Lord Chancellor).
The Marquess of Westmeathwas glad to hear that negotiations had not taken place between the Government and a certain party in Ireland. He was convinced that any concession made to that party would only have the effect of rendering the situation of the loyal inhabitants of the country more uneasy.
The Duke of Wellingtonfelt convinced, that if his Majesty's present Ministers had so chosen, they might not only have carried the Bill with the public meeting clauses in it, but also have retained Earl Grey at the head of the Government. It, however, appeared from the statement of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that not the contents of the letter written to Earl Grey, but the discovery of its contents, formed the reason for omitting the clauses relating to public meetings. Was it, then, to be supposed that a reformed House of Commons would have so far stultified itself as to reject the Bill as originally introduced, merely because a discovery was made of the letter written to Earl Grey? He did not intend to press the Amendment he had proposed to a division, for reasons which must be obvious to every one of their Lordships. He only moved it, that he might have an opportunity of recording his opinions, and protesting against the omission of the meeting clauses.
The Amendment was negatived without a division, and the Bill passed.
The following Protest against the Third Reading (after amendments had been negatived) of the renewal of parts of this Bill was entered by the Duke of Wellington.
Dissentient—1st. Because the three clauses of the Act of the 3rd William 4th, c. 4, which it was the object of the Motion to insert in the Bill, were calculated to prevent the evils existing in Ireland, which Parliament had upon former occasions declared to be "dangerous to the public tranquillity, inconsistent with the public peace and safety, and with the exercise of regular government."
2nd. Because the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland has declared that in his opinion the "agitation" (which it is the object of these clauses to prevent) "of the combined projects for the abolition of Tithes and
698
the destruction of the Union with Great Britain, had in every instance excited and inflamed the disturbances existing in Ireland;" which his Excellency has described as being "of a discontented, disorderly, and turbulent character;" such as "secret combination, concealed organization, suppression of all evidence of crime, and the ambition of usurping the Government, of ruling society by the authority of the common people, and of superseding the law by the decrees of illegal associations." That this system of agitation had for "its inevitable consequence, combinations leading to violence and outrage;" that they were "inseparably cause and effect."
3rd. Because his Majesty's servants have expressed, in strong terms, their concurrence in these opinions of the Lord-lieutenant, and their sense of the necessity for adopting measures to meet the system of agitation. They have stated, that it is impossible "that a perpetual system of agitation can be pursued without stirring up among the people a general spirit of resistance to the constituted authorities, which breaks out in excesses such as have been described." "That it is not safe to leave the Government unfurnished with the means to prevent an association calling itself the Central Association of Dublin, assuming a political character, carrying on its proceedings with all the forms of Parliament, directing other associations throughout all parts of Ireland, and desiring a general organization for the express and avowed purpose of carrying into effect measures which must be subversive of the security of the country, and destructive of all peace, order, and law." "That it is not consistent with justice to put down the liberties of the people in the country, but not in the city, and that Parliament should press hard with the weight of the loins upon the peasant, but not lay the weight of the little finger on those, who by their conduct nourish and increase excitement and generalize local agitation." "If the effect, disturbance and outrage, must be put down, the exciting cause must be attended to likewise." "It is an infraction of popular rights when power is given to prevent or put an end to public meetings; but it is not a greater infraction of the constitutional rights of the people, a more decided invasion of the indisputable rights of the King's subjects, than is to be found in the sunset part of the Bill?" "It is necessary to apply a

699
legislative enactment to the exciting cause, as well as to the mischief which that excitement produces."
4th. Because the principle of the British Constitution and the object of all our laws, from Magna Charta down to a recent period, have been to give protection to life and property, as well as to secure the liberty of the subject; which last has hitherto been considered as the means to attain and secure the first mentioned objects.
5th. Because the protection of the subject by the Sovereign, and the allegiance of the subject to the Sovereign, are reciprocal duties. It appears, therefore, to be the duty of the two Houses of Parliament, convinced by the evidence laid before them of the state of disturbance, outrage, plunder, and murder, existing in Ireland, of the insecurity of life and property, of the misery and sufferings of the industrious peasantry and other classes, and of the discontinuance of all habits and pursuits of industry, wherever these outrages prevail, to pass laws to enable his Majesty and those exercising his authority effectually to prevent them, if possible, and to punish those guilty of exciting them.
6th. Because it appears, from the papers laid upon the Table of this House by his Majesty's Ministers, that the Act of the 3rd William 4th, cap.4, wherever it had been carried into execution, had been effectual in preventing agitation, and, in a great degree, disturbance and outrage, and in bringing to trial those guilty of such offences; that witnesses had come forward to give their testimony of injuries done to themselves or others; that Magistrates and Juries had performed their duties; and that the districts of the country in which the Act had been enforced were beginning to feel the effects of returning tranquillity, security, and happiness.
7th. Because it is obvious that the Bill now under consideration cannot prevent agitation in associations in large towns. Yet it is to these associations that the Lord-lieutenant attributes the system of violence and outrage, as effect to cause; and he states, that he cannot separate the one from the other in the unbroken chain of indissoluble connection by any effort of his understanding.

WELLINGTON.

PENSHURST.

ROSSLYN.

BEXLEY.

700

WHARNCLIFFE.

WYNFORD.

MELROS.

WARWICK.

FORESTER.

WICKLOW.

REDESDALE.

SALISBURY.

ERNEST.

BELMORE.

LONDONDERRY.

WILTON.

BEAUFORT.

SANDWICH.

FALMOUTH.

PRUDHOE.

MOUNT CASHELL.

GLENGALL.

COLVILLE.