Sitting of 26 August 1835

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Illegal Securities; Clerk of the Crown; Special Constables; Wood Duties; Insolvent Courts; Savings' Banks (Scotland).—Read a second time:—Colonial Passengers; Sheriffs (Ireland); and Dominica Relief.

TITHES ON TURNIPS.
The Duke of Richmondmoved the second reading o the Tithe on Turnips' Bill. It was scarcely necessary for him, after what occurred here a few days since, to trouble their Lordships at any length on this subject. He had no doubt that the decision given by his noble Friend (Lord Lyndhurst), when sitting in a Court of Law, that Turnips drawn from the ground to feed sheep were titheable, was quite correct, and therefore he thought the law ought to be amended; for such a law was a great injustice on the farmer. This Bill had been opposed as a Bill upon a matter affecting only an individual case—a matter not likely to occur again. If he believed that such a case as that on which his noble and learned Friend had decided would never occur again, he should not trouble their Lordships to give the Bill a second reading. But he anticipated on the contrary, that a claim of the sort recently established in a Court of Law, would again and again be brought into a Court of Justice; and such claims ought in justice to be prevented. He thought, too, that every friend of the Church must wish that the difficult and delicate question of tithes should be brought forward with as little prejudice as possible. The question of tithes was in itself already sufficiently complicated, and as a friend of the Church he wished that this new and ungracious claim, never before heard of, should not be added to the rest, to prejudice the minds of people on the discussion of the general question. He moved that the Bill be now read a second time.
Lord Ashburtoncould not consent in this case any more than in any other to proceed on any principle but that of right. He repeated that he objected to legislate on individual cases; at the same time he must admit that since the former stage of the Bill he had considered it more fully than on a former occasion, and that he must allow that the case on which it was founded was a case of considerable hardship; and that if cases of hardship could ever justify the Legislature in interfering, this was a case that would justify it. At

979
the same time he must again say, that upon principle he objected to the rule of the House legislating on individual cases. The noble Duke had stated on the former occasion that it was attempted to levy a tithe Upon Turnips moved from the ground for the purpose of the sheep feeding on them in the very field in which they were grown. It appeared that the law sanctioned such a claim of tithe. If that was so, the application of the principle of tithes was most unfortunate, but still it was a legal application of the principle. He should not, however, in this instance, oppose the further progress of the Bill.
Lord Broughamagreed with the noble Lord, that if ever there was an unfortunate result from the correct application of a legal principle, this was a case of that sort; but of the correctness of the application of the principle he had not the least doubt. By law the produce of the land became titheable upon its severance from the soil, but here the beast, too, that eat that produce, paid the tithe—for the tithe of agistment was paid; so that the produce paid tithe at once in the animal and in the vegetable form. He was heartily glad that his noble Friend had brought in the Bill to remedy this double payment of tithe in respect of one article; and he thought that his noble Friend was rendering a service to the Church itself by this measure.
Bill read a second time.

RECOVERY OF TITHES.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, that the object of this Bill was to prevent the heavy expense of a tithe suit from being incurred in cases where Quakers, and persons who from religious scruples alone objected to pay tithes, were concerned. It was proposed that tithes under the value of 10 l. should be recovered from them by summary proceedings before a magistrate, and the remedy in such a case ought not to be against the person of the party, but against his goods. He thought that the case of the tithe process which had occurred some time ago, had produced a bad effect in the country, and, for the sake of the Church itself, he should wish to see the present measure adopted.
The Earl of Rosslyndid not rise to make any objection to the second part of the proposition, which, indeed, he thought might advantageously be adopted; nor to say any thing against the abstract justice of the case with respect to the first propo-
980
sition: but he submitted to the noble Duke whether it was proper, at this season of the year, and at this period of the Session, to make any great alteration in the law with respect to the mode of recovering tithes. It was difficult to say how far the proposed mode of recovery ought to be allowed to extend. The sum of 10 l. did not afford a satisfactory limit, for a question of the right to take tithes might be involved in a demand for more than that sum. He thought that their Lordships ought hot to legislate on this Bill without more information.
Lord Broughamfully agreed with the noble Duke as to the second branch of the Bill, and he thought, too, that to leave an objectionable law in existence with regard to the collection of tithes, was not a matter of advantage to the Church; in fact, that this Bill was only doing what Mr. Burke had called "Taking away from the Church the power of being odious." As the first part of the Bill, however, required consideration, and, though fully agreed as to the principle of the Bill, he had not made up his mind on the details. Since they involved references to several Acts of Parliament, he should suggest that the Bill should be advanced one stage this day, and the next be taken to-morrow, when he would engage to have looked into the Acts in question.
The Marquess of Salisburysaid, that the second clause of the Bill put the Quakers in a better situation than any other of his Majesty's subjects, as it freed them from personal responsibility. He did not see why this favour should be shown to them in preference to all other persons.
Bill read a second time.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS—SPAIN.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, it had been his intention to bring before their Lordships at some length the civil warfare in Spain, which was now more than ever important from the large body of our fellow-countrymen who were engaged in it. He had come down to the House prepared to enter into the circumstances of that most disgraceful and discreditable war, in which the country had been plunged by the gross mismanagement of his Majesty's present Ministers. He had paid considerable attention to the subject, expecting that there would have been an opportunity, which at an earlier period had unfortu-

981
nately not been afforded, for entering ino the full discussion of this most momentos question. He had not only entered into a strict examination of the propriety of the recent policy of the Government in regard to Spanish affairs, but of that treaty which was completed by his Majesty's former Government, the tripartite treaty, from which every subsequent misfortune, as related to the conduct of his Majesty's present Ministers, had resulted. On entering the House, however, it had been suggested to him, by those to whose judgment and sentiments he was always inclined to give the utmost attention, that it would perhaps be advisable, in the present uncertainty of affairs in that unfortunate country, to postpone entering into a comprehensive discussion. The present condition of the Queen's Government—the loss of her influence in places where adherence to her cause was counted upon—the miserable accounts from Arragon, and even from Madrid, of the doubtful position of that party, the maintenance of which had been so earnestly attempted, were undoubtedly indicative of further changes and reverses. When his friends pressed upon him this situation of the Queen's Government, so uncertain and tottering, and this aspect of affairs, so likely to render it difficult either for the present or any succeeding Government (which, from the late exhibition the other night must soon occupy the other side of the House) to discover what line of policy should be observed by this country, he felt himself bound, though undoubtedly with great unwillingness, to bow to their proposition for adjourning the full consideration of the subject. Under these circumstances he should occupy the attention of their Lordships for only a few moments. For that short time even he would not trespass upon their notice did he not think that he was called upon to draw attention to the peculiar predicament in which his fellow-countrymen were placed with regard to the information which the country had, during the last three months, received from the noble Viscount opposite. After what had lately occurred the noble Viscount surely must acknowledge that he had been completely deceived—that his Government had been misled—and that the country had been deluded. He must acknowledge also that he had not been in possession of that important information which he, as a Minister of the Crown, and
982
which other noble Lords, also Ministers of the Crown, and silting in the other House, were bound to obtain and communicate to his Majesty's subjects. The noble Viscount would recollect that three months ago he called his attention to these points. He inquired in the first place whether those individuals who enlisted in the service of the Queen of Spain were or were not included in the convention signed by Lord Eliott. What was the answer of the noble Viscount? Distinctly and unconditionally that those individuals would be included in that convention. At this information he (the Marquess of Londonderry) was certainly much surprised, for it so happened that at that very time he had in his possession a communication relative to the convention which rendered it impossible for him to rely upon the statement of the noble Viscount. He was then morally certain that the individuals referred to would not be included in that convention; that, as foreigners newly arrived in Spain, they would never be once thought of as coming within the protection of that document; and that by no construction of it whatsoever could they be so included. But if what passed in that House were remarkable, what passed in the other was still more singular. There the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the man who, above all others, ought to have made himself acquainted with every article and every sentence in the convention, and to have mastered every detail, absolutely declared in answer to the noble Lord who moved for the Order in Council, not that the English troops would be, but that they positively were, included in the convention. Such a total want of common information, and of knowledge of the principle of the treaty, he could hardly have imagined in noble Lords who acted as Ministers of the Crown. The information of which they professed to be ignorant could have been easily procured; but, setting aside that point, how were they to account for, how were they to excuse, their direct and positive declarations against the Very letter and spirit of the articles in the convention. Still this was not all. Unaccountable and inexcusable as all must admit this conduct of his Majesty's Ministers to be, he had a still stronger charge to urge against them. What could he think—what must the country think—of a Minister of the Crown holding the most responsible situation of

983
all his colleagues, coming down to the House and stating that he treated the important decree of Don Carlos, to which his attention had been called—as what?—as a positive forgery? That statement, unexpectedly as it came upon him, he certainly could not believe. True it was, that he (the Marquis of Londonderry) had no secret service money at his disposal, or any peculiar means of obtaining early and important intelligence from the Continent, yet, entertaining a desire to ascertain what was the state of the northern provinces of Spain, and making some little exertion to gain the requisite information, he had been enabled not only to obtain information of this decree, but also to ascertain its authenticity. Could not the noble Viscount have done the same?—Could he not have saved an exhibition of ignorance such as had never before been made by a Minister? Why, that very day, the 3d of July, the decree, in the original Spanish, was to be seen in London upon the Exchange. Next day he had brought the decree down to the House, stated the certainty of his information, and again challenged the noble Viscount to doubt its authenticity. What followed? Why, the noble Viscount came forward; not, indeed, in that frank and manly manner, which from the previous character of the noble Viscount he had expected, but, with an easy and indescribable indifference again declared his incredulity upon the subject. Let their Lordships put these two points together. Connect the declaration of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that the English troops were positively included in the convention, and the declaration of the noble Viscount, that the decree of Don Carlos was a forgery. Remember that at that very time Colonel Evans and his coadjutors were enlisting their officers and men in Portsmouth, Plymouth, London, and other places; and then consider that these men were not included in the convention; that the decree of Don Carlos was not a forgery; and that already some of our fellow-countrymen had been shot in the Carlist army. Was not the conduct of the noble Viscount, and the noble Lord the Secretary of State, unparalleled? Was it impossible to charge them with a degree of neglect and culpability which was indefensible? He did consider it his duty, under these circumstances, to put it upon record that on this important occasion the First Lord of the
984
Treasury and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had totally neglected their duty—a charge by no means trifling against Ministers of the Crown. It had been his intention to enter into the fact of the quadripartite treaty not having been observed, and of the impossibility of fulfilling the articles of agreement, but he found that now impossible. At the same time, France was not allowed to interfere, and it had been stated in the other House by Sir Robert Peel that it was quite impossible for England to carry into effect the stipulations of the treaty. It was indeed the opinion of the law officers of the Crown that these articles could not be carried into effect. Was the noble Viscount enabled to contradict the report that Austria, Russia, and Prussia had, on the probability of the intervention of France, cautioned her that they would not allow her to take any step upon that treaty? Would he deny that the treaty could not be acted upon? All this management, followed by no practical result, reminded him of a very sensible personage who managed to manufacture a great gun, which he afterwards found it was impossible to fire. The treaty was acted upon by the noble Duke near him when in office, and he was quite sure that if he had remained in office he would have acted upon it, or, at all events, that he would not have been driven to this order in Council. That the noble Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was a very able man there was no doubt; but still it could not be denied that this treaty, and all the important consequences from it, had actually merged, into what?—a suspension of the Foreign Enlistment Act. This was all that he had been enabled to do, and this very measure he had arrived at under the dictation of the Spanish Ambassador. Had the Ministers openly declared war they would not have been in the disgraceful position they were in at present, carrying on underhand an infamous and scandalous species of warfare. Their policy appeared to him to be wholly unworthy of British Ministers. In stating this as his opinion, he was perfectly conscious of his own inability as compared to others to bring forward this important topic. Still, he should never hesitate in important conjunctures to give expression to his honest opinions, no matter what the question might be—no matter whether such a discharge of his public duty might

985
in the opinion of some disqualify him for those public employments to which it was the King's prerogative to appoint. The same course he would take on all future occasions. Through evil and through good report he had never shrunk from taking it, and he would never fail to take it, despite of adverse opinions or factious condemnation. In calling the attention of the Government to the case of the unfortunate individuals who were engaged in this foreign warfare, and who would be plunged into a situation still more difficult and dangerous if the Queen of Spain were obliged to defer to public opinion in that kingdom, he was actuated by no feelings of party, but by those of common sympathy. When he saw his own countrymen blindly led into such destructive warfare—when he contemplated the probable fate of the English officers and the English soldiers—he was bound, both as a man and a soldier, to endeavour to enlist the exertions of the Government in their behalf, and to hold out a solemn and impressive warning to others who might ignorantly be seduced from their native homes by false and deceitful representations. He begged pardon for having troubled their Lordships at such length; but, having prepared himself on every part of the subject, he found it almost impossible to forbear from partly expressing his opinions. Greatly did he regret that the attention of Parliament had been diverted through the whole Session from the consideration of our foreign policy, and much did he lament that his Majesty's present advisers, in whose path less obstacles had been thrown with regard to foreign affairs than in that of any of their predecessors, should have been so wanting in judgment, so careless in collecting information, so indecisive in acting, and so generally mistaken in their views of questions concerning foreign countries. Seldom had they been called upon for explanations, seldom for information, and never had they experienced an obstinate, a determined opposition to any peculiar measure of foreign policy. Yet, with all these advantages, there was scarcely one branch of their foreign policy which was not liable to the heaviest censure, and which, if the House of Commons had been less engaged with domestic subjects, would most assuredly have called down unequivocal disapprobation. The noble Marquess concluded by moving that the Order of
986
the Day for taking the conduct of government in relation to Spanish affairs into consideration be discharged.
Viscount Melbournegave the noble Marquess much credit for the prudent forbearance he had exhibited, in not going into a more extended discussion of the Question, which, as he had well observed, might have an unfortunate effect on the present state of things. He should not have made any observations now that the Motion was to be withdrawn, but that it was impossible to sit quite quiet when the noble Marquess made such statements as he had thought fit to make. He knew that there were two parties in Spain, one in favour of Don Carlos, and another disposed to a more liberal Government; but from all the information which he had received, the Queen had the support of the great majority of the influence, the weight, and real strength of the country; and that being so, it was impossible for him to admit the state of Spain was such as the noble Marquess had described it. He would follow the example of the noble Marquess and not go at any length into the subject of the treaties. At the same time he was prepared to show that the policy pursued by his Majesty's Government with regard to Spain was a sound course of policy and was founded in justice. He was also prepared to show that the support which had been given to the Government of the Queen of Spain—which had been recognized by his Majesty—was not on account of any opinion entertained or interest existing as to the right of making a disposition of the Crown of Spain which had been done, and still less from any desire on the part of his Majesty's Ministers to uphold any particular form of government in that country. Whatever might be the interest of other nations, he was convinced that it was the interest of England that Spain should be strong—that Spain should be united—that Spain should be peaceable—that Spain should be prosperous—and, above all, that Spain should be independent of all foreign nations. Such was the opinion on which he had acted—this was the opinion which was entertained by himself and colleagues; and they thought that the course which had been pursued by them—although this opinion might be open to some remarks and objections—was the best calculated to produce the effect and result

987
they so anxiously desired. The noble Marquess had charged him with having manifested great ignorance and fallen into gross error on a former occasion, by which he had deluded their Lordships as well as persons out of doors, on an important matter, with respect to which he should have been better informed. The first point with respect to which he was accused of expressing an erroneous opinion, was the validity and extent of the convention or treaty, which had been signed on the 28th of April by the General, the Commander of the Queen's army, on the one side, and Zumalacarreguy, on the part of Don Carlos, on the other. The noble Marquess stated, that when he asked him whether the treaty included within its operation such foreigners as entered the service of the Queen of Spain, he (Lord Melbourne) replied that the convention did include foreigners. He certainly said so, and he was of the same opinion still. He was satisfied that all parties engaged in the war, or participating in the contest, were entitled to the benefit of the convention. He had formerly expressed this opinion, and he had neither seen nor heard anything to induce him to alter it. The eighth article of the treaty entitled the soldiers in the armies then engaged in warfare in the northern provinces in Spain to the benefit of this convention. The article undoubtedly was loosely worded, but this was the purport and object of it. He saw nothing in the article to justify the assumption that any persons who afterwards joined the army were excepted from the convention. The noble Marquess stated that he had put a question to him on the 3d of June as to a decree issued by Don Carlos respecting foreigners in the Queen of Spain's service, who should be taken prisoners by his forces; and he had then stated, in reply to the noble Marquess, that he believed the decree to be a forgery. He was justified in saying so at the time; he believed that it was the case when he answered the question of the noble Marquess, and he believed this with persons in other parts of Europe, who had better means of information at the time than he had; he knew that what he had then stated was believed to be the case at Bayonne, which was near the seat of warfare, as well as at Paris: and he therefore stated an opinion which he had good reason to rely upon as being well founded.
988
He was then too willing to believe that no person at the present period of time, and under the circumstances of modern warfare—whatever might be the course in which he was engaged, or whatever might be the nature of the war, or however his passions might be excited against the party opposed to him—could resort to an act of such horrid barbarity, for which there was no parallel, except in a decree issued in the most bloody and revolting period of the French revolution. He repeated, that the only precedent for the decree of Don Carlos was that issued by the National Convocation in 1794, in which it was declared that no quarter should be given to foreigners taken in arms against France. If he regretted anything in the speech of the noble Marquess, it was that he, being a Peer of the British Parliament and a General officer in his Majesty's service, should mention the decree of Don Carlos without using one single word of condemnation respecting it—without using one single word of regret that it had been issued—without uttering one term of indignation, which was called for by the natural character of such a proceeding. It was not his intention to enter further into the discussion. The noble Marquess had said that all those proceedings had flowed from the two treaties of last year. This was undoubtedly true; but he was prepared to defend the policy of those treaties, and he was also prepared to defend all the measures founded on them. He repeated, he was fully prepared to defend what had been done; and he fully expected, from the course of policy which had been pursued, that no untoward result would follow, but that safety, tranquillity, and prosperity, would be extended to that portion of Europe, the fate of which, as well as its well-being and happiness, was of the greatest importance to this country.
The Earl of Carnarvonhad no doubt but that the noble Viscount believed that foreigners were included in the Convention when he made the declaration in that House to which his noble Friend had alluded. Still it was impossible for any man not to admit that the declaration of the noble Viscount had been most mischievous. There were many persons who no doubt, but for that declaration would not have joined the expedition which had recently sailed from the shores of this country. It, no doubt, induced many to go out to Spain

989
who would have abstained from doing so, if they knew that they were, if taken prisoners, to be shot as outlaws or felons. The noble Viscount said that he could not entertain a good opinion of Don Carlos, after having issued such a decree. He admitted that such a decree was most unfortunate, and at the present time should not have been issued. He could not defend the issuing of such a decree on general principles, but under the circumstances in which this was issued by Don Carlos, it was almost necessary. But when the noble Viscount resorted to such strong language with respect to this decree he did not make a single allusion to the decree issued by General Valdez, who was notorious for his hatred of England and Englishmen. It was only a few days ago that they saw a statement in the public prints that this man had seized some Frenchmen and Poles, who, he supposed were on their way to join Don Carlos, and instantly had them shot. The generals of the Queen's force had issued an order that all foreigners serving in the army of Don Carlos, who were taken prisoners, should pay the penalty of their lives. The noble Viscount had severely censured the proceedings of Don Carlos, but much mildness or moderation was not visible in the revolutionary movements of Arragon and Valencia, of Mercia and Catalonia, or in those proceedings which had recently occurred in Madrid, where a number of persons had been found to proclaim themselves against any settlement of the country whatever. He did not think that the conduct of those who had dyed their hands in the blood of the Queen of Spain's representatives at Barcelona was free from the strongest reprehension. The noble Marquess said, that foreigners were included within the operation of Lord Eliot's Convention: he sincerely wished that such might be the case, but he could not, after attentively reading the Convention, make out in what manner that was effected. The Convention was made when there were no British troops in the country, and referred only to the two adverse parties which were then in the field. He could not see how it could be made to apply to parties who had not then taken part in the contest. He wished that Don Carlos had not pursued the course which he had followed, but from what had transpired it appeared that this Prince was forced to issue the decree by his troops and officers.
990
He was almost constrained to do so by the peasantry of the northern provinces, and he was not surprised at this when he recollected the savage and revolting cruelties perpetrated on them by the leaders of the forces opposed to Don Carlos, and more especially by Generals Mina and Valdez. Were the atrocities of the constitutional Generals of such a character that they could be justified? Were the murders committed by General Mina and others, of sons, and brothers, and husbands, in the presence of the females of their families, to be palliated? From what he knew of Spain, he did not think that the present government in that country was likely to be confirmed and strengthened by the intervention of foreign troops, or that this would induce the people to rally round the throne, and to manifest feelings of loyalty. If the Queen's Government were established by foreign troops and foreign bayonets, it would be found to be an inherent vice in the Government, and would make every act of the Government, however beneficial it might otherwise be, adverse to tbe feelings of the people. He was well acquainted with the Spanish nation, and was warmly attached to it. He would caution the noble Viscount to beware, lest the Spanish nation and Government considered the sending out the forces to that country as a direct intimation in favour of the Government of the Queen. He could not help considering that we were now engaged in a very unjust quarrel, and in a war which provoked the feelings of the inhabitants of the North of Spain. The people in the four Northern Provinces of Spain had been provoked to a state of revolt by the tyrannical conduct pursued towards them by the Government of the Queen of Spain, and by taking away from them their rights and privileges, of which they could not legally be deprived. Every noble Lord who had been in Spain must be aware that the liberties of the Basque provinces were mixed up with the recollections of the ancient glories of their country, and were associated with all the subjects of local attachment. He was sure that noble Lords could not be aware of the extent of the ancient liberties of the Basque provinces, which his Majesty's Ministers were so sedulously assisting the Spanish Government to put down. The rights and liberties of these provinces were as extensive as those of any one of the Swiss Cantons; they were free from the pay-

991
ment of all taxes to the Crown; there were no Customs' duties or Custom-house officers throughout these provinces; they furnished certain quotas of soldiers and sailors, who acted separately from the other forces; the country was governed by its own popular assemblies, and all the local authorities were appointed by the people. These were not empty forms in the mere gauds and trappings of free government, but they were substantial and beneficial rights and liberties, which were loved and regarded by the people, who, with their predecessors, had for centuries been accustomed to them. These provinces were united to Spain, on the guarantee that the rights and liberties of the people should be confirmed for ever. Every king of Spain, both of the Austrian and Bourbon lines, had respected the liberties of the inhabitants of these provinces; and the Spanish Government, in now breaking through these solemn guarantees, had pursued a course which was utterly unjustifiable; and it was neither just nor proper that this country should throw the weight of its influence into the scale to assist that government in destroying the liberties of the Basque Provinces. He did not see how the noble Viscount could justify himself in lending the assistance of this country to do that which we would not do ourselves. He could not help feeling the strongest sympathy for the brave people of Biscay, who, he thought, had been most cruelly treated; and, at the same time, he felt the greatest regret that his Majesty's Ministers had taken part in a quarrel by which the national honour was involved.
Lord Broughamwould not occupy the time of the House for more than a few minutes, nor would he promise not to enter into the question at length, for he found that those who made use of those expressions departed from their promises. The noble Earl had made such a promise, and had not only gone into the whole question, but he had spoken upon it as if it were merely a Basque question; and therefore one peculiarly adapted to the consideration of the House. The observations made by the noble Earl might have been very well for any Basque to make in one of the Basque assemblies in the north of Spain, before they were abolished, and since then for one of the representatives of one of those provinces to make in the Cortes of Madrid; but which, he would
992
humbly take the liberty to suggest, the English Peers and the English people had as little to do with, as the Spanish people in any of their Basque provinces had to do with the rights and ancient privileges of the English Municipal Corporations, which, for ought we knew—and it was fair to assume it, from the sympathies the opponents of reform, in those bodies, manifested for the old Basque institutions—might be at that moment the subject of declamation and discussion in one of these Basque Parliaments. He was not surprised at the view the noble Earl had taken of the affairs of Spain. He allowed the noble Earl full credit for the romantic feelings which he manifested towards a people with whom he had passed many years of his youth. But while he bestowed a full degree of praise on the noble Earl for his romantic and sentimental attachment, he must remind him that there was something to blame in taking this one-sided, squint-eyed, one-eyed—if he might use the term—view of the subject. Instead of regarding the subject as a whole, he looked at it only from one narrow point of view, and altogether disregarded all other parts of the subject. He would, therefore, endeavour to attract the attention of the noble Earl—from merely viewing this question as affecting the Basque provinces, and the small minority of the Spanish nation which—as was well known of small minorities in other countries—might prove great opponents of the government, in adopting measures of improvement—to the general question. The noble Earl extended all his sympathies to the Spanish people, and had none whatever for his noble Friend at the head of the government. Not satisfied with defending the part of Spain where the people were now in arms, the noble Earl proceeded to attack his noble Friend for the conduct he had pursued. He had endeavoured to disturb the rest, and to break the slumber, and to prevent his noble Friend reposing in peace on his pillow; but he doubted very much whether the noble Earl would succeed in doing that which he had never known to have been done before. The noble Earl had said that his noble Friend was the cause of all the blood that would be shed, but which was now in the bodies of the volunteers which had proceeded from this country to Spain. This, the noble Earl said, would be the result of the answer his noble Friend had given to a question put

993
to him on a former occasion. Since that question had been put, the noble Earl had adopted the view of the question he now expressed. He took, however, merely a one-sided view of the question then put. He forgot the situation in which his noble Friend (Lord Melbourne) was then placed by the person who had put the question. He had forgotten that the question was put by the noble Marquess, who was now his coadjutor in defending and praising Don Carlos. The noble Marquess, on the former occasion, said that he believed that the decree alluded to had been issued by the legitimate, the ill-used, and the sainted Don Carlos. How was his noble Friend to answer this? Was his noble Friend, as Minister of the Crown, to sit silent on the occasion, from fear lest what the noble Earl stated had occurred in consequence of his answer, should follow from it? If his noble Friend had done so, he well knew what would have been the tone of triumph the noble Marquess would have taken—he was fully aware of the language that would have been adopted on that occasion—and also what would have been the character of the speech that would have been prepared in consequence by the noble Earl, who had that night prepared and made a speech under different circumstances. He could well conceive what would have been the nature of the interpretation that the silence of his noble Friend would have been exposed to. His noble Friend had then stated that he believed that the decree of Don Carlos had not gone forth, and he had reason at the time to believe that this was the case; for he had not then heard from headquarters, and thus far might have been differently circumstanced from noble Lords opposite. It appeared, then, that there were some questions which should not be put in consequence of the answers that might be given—for these answers might possibly place indiscreet persons in situations which they would not otherwise have placed themselves. The answer, however, was not to be censured, but the person who extorted it. It was certainly the first time that he had heard of serious responsibility being incurred, by giving such an answer as his noble Friend had given to the question that had been put. By what parties, then, had the charge been brought against his noble Friend? Was it brought by those who had been induced to volunteer into the service of the queen of Spain?
994
was it brought by the Constitutionalists? was it brought by the enemies of Don Carlos? was it by the supporters of the Queen? No; but by those who countenanced Don Carlos—by those who comforted, and assisted, and supported that person. They were the persons who charged his noble Friend with having been guilty of a serious offence in believing it to be impossible that Don Carlos, their own peculiar favourite, their own legitimate sovereign, their own sainted model for admiration, would be guilty of a crime which made all humanity shudder, except the man who committed it, and which made virtuous men blush that such a being could meet with supporters and defenders. His noble Friend could not believe this favourite to be so bad as he had turned out to be. There was no choice now left, but to believe that Don Carlos had been guilty of the most shameful breaches of solemn treaties, and had been guilty of cruelties which were unexampled and unparalleled in the most troubled periods. There could be no longer the least doubt, but that Don Carlos had issued an order which reflected infamy on him who issued it, but which, to the honour of Spain be it spoken, and to the greater infamy of him who issued it, the Spanish troops refused to obey. He had observed a curious and elaborate infelicity of expression made use of by the noble Earl, in allusion to the decree of Don Carlos. The noble Earl had stated that persons had been induced to enter the service of the Queen of Spain, as volunteers, who otherwise would not have done so, in consequence of the statement of his noble Friend on a former occasion. Now he did not believe that a single individual, one way or the other, was influenced by his noble Friend saying he did not believe Don Carlos had issued his decree. It had turned out, certainly, that his noble Friend was mistaken, and that the decree was true; it then became a source of triumph for the Carlist party that Don Carlos was much worse—was more treacherous and more inhuman than his noble Friend had believed it possible he could be. The noble Earl, in censuring his noble Friend for expressing this opinion, adverted to the decree of Don Carlos, and what was the term he used? That it was an unfortunate decree. Aye, in the same sense, then, in which robbery was unfortunate—murder was unfortunate—and the most

995
shameful breaches of faith were unfortunate—in which Robespierre was unfortunate, and in which he, whose example the noble Lord had quoted, not in defence, but in palliation of his legitimate hero, was not only unfortunate, but the most unfortunate of men.
The Earl of Carnarvon was understood to deny that he had used the expression imputed to him.
Lord Brougham: Not used the word "unfortunate!" Then must all noble Lords on that side of the House hear with one set of ears, and all noble Lords on his side hear with another; for if ever there was a phrase, to the use of which he should, in his opinion, have been able to swear with the utmost certainty, it was that the epithet "unfortunate" had been applied by the noble Earl to the order which he said had emanated—the expression was scarcely English—from that prince. There was quoted in justification of this order, another which had been issued by a constitutional chief, and which was said to have seen the light only six or seven days ago.
The Earl of Carnarvon: No, not so;—that order had been in existence ever since the commencement of this murderous warfare in Spain; and indeed had been one of the first causes of it.
Lord Broughamsupposed that it was a mistake, and that the noble Earl had intended to say that this order had only come to his knowledge within the last six or seven days. It must evidently have been in existence six or seven months; but even if it had been a longer period in existence, it would be no justification for the promulgation of such an order as that issued by Don Carlos. He would show their Lordships the difference between the conduct of a hero deemed legitimate by the Carlists of France, and Spain, and England,—and a British general—he meant the late Duke of York. Here was a contrast well deserving the attention of their Lordships. When Robespierre prevailed on the National Convention to issue its sanguinary edict against giving quarter to the British troops in 1793, not in 1792, as his noble Friend had said in mistake—for the war did not commence till 1793.
The Duke of Cumberlandsaid he recollected it well, for he was with the army at the time—it was in August, 1793.
Lord Brougham: Yes; and the Duke of York was then in command of our army
996
in Flanders. Though he differed from that illustrious prince on many points—and God knew that there were very many points of difference between them—he must say of him, that he (the Duke of York) had many most admirable qualities and that there never existed a more humane man, or a more soldierly officer. The Duke of York received the order of the National Convention at his camp whilst under arms, and instead of thinking of retaliation, issued immediately a counter-order directing his troops to give quarter to any French troops whom the vicissitudes of war might throw into their power. That was the only way in which that truly British prince dreamt of retaliating that blood-thirsty decree. But the unfortunate Prince of Spain—unfortunate, indeed, in his decree, but most fortunate in his advocate—followed the bad example of Robespierre, and not the excellent example of that gallant British prince, who refused to issue, much more to carry into execution, any retaliatory orders, which must have aggravated most frightfully all the ordinary horrors and calamities of war. He was no believer, if that would comfort his noble Friend, and would restore him to those slumbers which the noble Earl had striven so earnestly to banish from his pillow,—he was no believer, he repeated, in the possibility of his noble Friend's answer to the noble Marquess's question having induced any one of our gallant countrymen, who would not otherwise have gone to Spain, to volunteer to serve in that country under General Evans. If he knew any thing of the spirit of his gallant countrymen, the result would have been the same as it now was, supposing that his noble Friend, instead of answering as he did, had said, "Yes, this proclamation is genuine. Don Carlos is capable of anything; his life is intrigue; cruelty is his nature; blood is his delight; and I do believe not only that this proclamation is genuine, but that he will carry it into effect upon any unfortunate British soldiers whom the chance of war may fling into his power." He was no believer, he once more repeated, in the assertion that the answer of his noble Friend had influenced a single soldier or citizen, no matter whether he had borne arms before, or whether he now rushed to war for the first time, having been previously prevented by the terrors of the Foreign Enlistment Act. He agreed with his noble Friend in the

997
principles which he had so clearly and justly expressed on this subject—principles which he believed had the full concurrence of a noble and gallant individual who knew the wants and capabilities of Spain better perhaps than any man living—he meant the Duke of Wellington, to whom that nation, and especially our own, owed an immense debt of endless gratitude for his services in that country. He believed that the noble Duke agreed with his noble friend as he had expressed himself on this subject. He believed that among those things which the noble Duke deemed most desirable for Spain were its peace and tranquillity, and consequent upon its peace and its tranquillity its prosperity; but far above and beyond all was its independence, and the exclusion of all interference in its affairs, which rested upon foreign influence. For his own part he should look upon that as an evil day, not only to Spain but also to England, which should dawn upon the flag of France waving over one yard square of Spanish territory. These had been his opinions at all times. These were the principles on which, in office and out of office, his public conduct had been ever regulated. But when he heard the noble Lord speaking of the impossibility of our enduring, and of Spain enduring, any further interference of foreign bayonets, whilst he agreed that he should look on foreign bayonets as the most mischievous gifts, as the most fatal curse, that could be inflicted on Spain by an offended Providence, for he knew that foreign bayonets would only exasperate still more Spanish parties, and postpone indefinitely the restoration of peace,—when he heard, he repeated, the noble Earl speaking in that strain, he felt that his forgetfulness of the recent events of Spanish history was such as he did not often recollect to have met with, and such as he could not help marvelling at exceedingly. He was now alluding to the time when, under the friends of the noble Duke—the counsellors of the Bourbons of France,—a forest of foreign bayonets bristled in the fields of Spain in 1823, when a foreign army, under a foreign prince, carried the doctrine of foreign interference to an extent which he thought the noble Duke would himself now deplore. But he would not touch further on that point. He had dwelt longer than he had intended upon others. ["Hear," from the Earl of Wicklow.] I dare say, said the noble Lord, that the noble Earl who has
998
just cheered me thinks that I have dwelt too long already. I dare say that such is the opinion of the noble Earl who sits here—as I understand his brag is elsewhere—to keep two ex-Lord Chancellors in order. I wish him joy of any success which he may think he has obtained over one of the ex-Chancellors,—I mean my noble and learned Friend; but I leave your Lordships to determine how far he has been successful in his efforts to keep me in order. The noble Earl always begins by stating that I speak too long—I cannot exactly say the same thing of him. I never heard him too long, but I have heard him when I might add another word after the word "too,"—but I decline. The noble Earl cannot accuse me of having broken faith with him, for I did not promise at the commencement of my speech that I would limit myself to a few moments or a few remarks.
The Duke of Cumberland: You said at the outset that you would confine yourself to a few moments.
Lord Brougham: The illustrious Duke is greatly mistaken as to what I did say at the outset—he must have been asleep, or he did not hear me—for I said exactly the very reverse. What I did say was, that after the examples set me by the two noble Lords who had preceded me, each of whom set out with saying that he would confine himself to a few remarks, and each of whom contrived to make a long speech, I was anxious to guard myself against any such promise, lest I should be equally tempted not to keep it. The noble and learned Lord went on to observe, that the point which he wished to recal to the recollection of the noble Earl was, the conduct of his friends, the legitimate Bourbons—the Carlists of France—of that party against the legitimate party of Europe, lying to the north of the Pyrennees—of that Bourbon Carlist party of France, who sent an army under the Duke of Angoulême into Spain, for the purpose of overthrowing the Constitutional Government, and who by the aid of foreign bayonets planted another form of Government in that country. He had no wish to see foreign bayonets enter Spain; but if they did go, the acuteness of the noble Earl would lead him to recollect that there were two ways in which they might go. They might either go armed with a commission from a foreign power, as the army of France did in 1823, when it overthrew

999
the Constitutional Government of Spain—which was a way of carrying foreign cayonets into a country wholly abominable, and which was the only way which was censured by the noble Earl—or they might go under a commission from the State to whose aid they went. But in that case he did not call it the intervention of foreign bayonets but proper and legitimate auxiliaries of the Government, led under the constitutional banners of the country. He would tell the noble Earl, that such an admission of foreign bayonets, had always been a principle of constitutional freedom. He would not go back to the period when the intervention of foreign bayonets upon this principle had established the free, constitutional, and Protestant Government of England, in the century before the last; but he would say generally, that any State which was attacked from within or from without, had a right, if it pleased, by its constitutional organs—by those exercising the Government—by those representing the people for whose safety those representatives were called together—that Government, those organs, and those constitutional powers, had not only a right, but if need be, it became their duty to call in foreign assistance, provided always that such foreign assistance was dependent and disciplined, and subordinate to the domestic powers of the State. These were his opinions with respect to the intervention of foreign bayonets. He disapproved of the intervention of the Legitimists of France, who interfered for the purpose of putting down the constitution of Spain; but not of the intervention of the gallant English, who rallied round the constitution now established in Spain, restoring peace and prosperity, and preserving the independence of that country.
The Duke of Wellingtondid not rise to take any lengthened part in the discussion, but rather, if possible, to prevent it going further, for he had hoped, after what had fallen from his noble and gallant Friend, who had deferred entering more fully into the question to a more fitting opportunity, that their Lordships' attention would not have been called to the whole of that question at present. It was not, he repeated, his intention in rising to follow the observations of other noble Lords and go into the question himself. He rose rather for the purpose of protesting against such a speech as was made by
1000
the noble and learned Lord. The pretence for making that speech was to expose the fallacy, as the noble and learned Lord termed it, of the speech of the noble Earl (Carnarvon). If his noble Friend were to speak at all on the subject, he could scarcely fail to advert to the war, and to the origin of the war, now raging in the Basque provinces. His noble Friend had not gone far into that subject, and certainly did not deserve the answer which he had got from the noble and learned Lord. The noble and learned Lord had adverted to an expression which had fallen in the course of his remarks from his noble Friend. His noble Friend had pronounced his disapprobation of that decree of Don Carlos which was the subject of discussion. It was true that he had not denounced it in the strong and violent terms used by the noble and learned Lord, but he had expressed his disapprobation of it in terms in which every one of their Lordships must concur. No doubt every one of their Lordships highly disapproved of that decree. What his noble Friend had stated was undoubtedly true:—namely, that both sides had been guilty of these excesses. Before the noble and learned Lord had entered into his violent denunciation of the noble Earl's speech, he should have examined the question calmly and carefully, and should have seen whether, in the convention itself there might not be found some excuse for this decree. He wished, however, to avoid all such discussion at present, and to leave the hands of His Majesty's Government, and indeed of every Englishman, free, in order that the efforts of all might be directed to put an end to that description of warfare, and to secure what he believed all had equally at heart—the tranquillity of Spain. That was the reason why he deprecated the further continuance of this discussion; it could not lead to any good, and the sooner it was put an end to the better.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, it was not his intention to prolong this discussion by replying to the remarks made by noble Lords on the other side; but there were two points which he could not pass without some reply. In the first place, he thought that it would have been as well if the noble Viscount, before he had delivered his violent philippic against the decree, of Don Carlos, had recollected what he seemed to have forgotten—the

1001
transactions which had given rise to that decree. He would supply that defect in the noble Viscount's statement. On the 18th December, 1833, General Quesada, as Captain-General of Castile, issued an edict, calling upon all Carlists to lay down their arms, and setting a price upon the heads of several leaders named. The 6th article of this edict ordains thus:—"The commanders of the columns and troops of Her Majesty's Government will execute all those persons, be they who they may, not availing themselves of this pardon, giving them no more time than is strictly appointed to enable them to prepare to die like Christians, which shall not exceed four hours;" and the 10th thus:—"All classes of the authorities are strictly charged, under the heaviest responsibility, with the execution of this decree, &c." It was published in the Madrid Gazette. Don Carlos was also formally denounced by the Queen's Government, and the decree which he had issued was a species of retaliation of that proceeding. The second point to which he would refer, and on which there was some difference between the noble Viscount and himself, was, whether these auxiliaries, as they were called, were included in the convention framed by Lord Eliot; whether they were included in that convention the noble Viscount must know much better than he did, but would the noble Viscount have any objection to lay a copy of that convention upon the Table? [Viscount Melbourne: it is there already.] He would read the 8th article of that treaty, as it was first drawn up by Lord Eliot, and afterwards altered by the Queen's officers, and he would then put it to their Lordships whether, under the alteration then made, these auxiliary troops could be included. Lord Eliot first visited the Carlists, and with them the articles of convention were agreed on. In the first copy the 8th article ran thus.—"Should the war extend to other provinces, the present agreement shall be binding on them." This was signed by Zumalacar-reguy on the 25th of April, and showed the Carlists were desirous of making the convention general. But then there was no question of foreigners interfering. Lord Eliot proceeded then to Valdez and Cordova. They refused the 8th article, and drew up another, as follows:—"Should the war extend to other provinces, the present agreement shall be binding on
1002
them, provided they are the same armies carrying on war in the three Biscayan provinces, and in the kingdom of Navarre which, through the vicissitudes of the war, proceed to carry the war into other provinces." The new copy was not signed till the 28th of April. This was a proof that Valdez wished to confine the operations to the four provinces, and he contended that by this Clause foreigners enlisted afterwards were peremptorily excluded from the convention; and he contended that the British auxiliary force could not be considered as the same army as that which was engaged in Biscay and Navarre at the period of that convention. He was aware that the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, had given a different interpretation to the terms of this convention; for he had said in direct terms, in the House of Commons, that the convention did include the troops engaged in the late expedition to Spain. Now, to that statement he thought the documents he had read gave a direct and satisfactory contradiction.
Order of the Day discharged.

CONSTABULARY (IRELAND).
Viscount Duncannonmoved the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of this Bill. By the law as it now stood, there were four provincial inspectors of police, and a deputy-inspector, in each county. The provincial inspector, of course, superintended all matters of police in his province, and the county deputy-inspector superintended those in his district. By the present Bill it was proposed that there should be one general inspector of police for all Ireland, with a salary of 1,000 l. a-year, the deputy at a salary of 600 l. a-year; and there should be an officer, called a sub-inspector, in each county, with a salary of 300 l. a-year. These sub-inspectors were to be taken from the present class of chief constables. By the law at present the magistrates had the appointment of the constabulary force, but in almost every instance they allowed the appointments to be made by the inspector, and experience had shown that the constables selected by the latter were of a better class, and more efficient, than those appointed by the magistrates themselves. By the present Bill it was proposed to take the appointment from the magistrates altogether, and to vest them in the inspector, who should be appointed by the Crown. By this

1003
arrangement it was not intended to throw any slur upon the magistrates, but to render the force more efficient by concentrating the authority under which they acted. The Bill also proposed, that in order to render the police more efficient, and in order to hold out a reward for the faithful performance of duty, a superannuation fund should be provided, to give a retiring allowance to those who deserved it, after a certain period of service. One object of the Bill was to assimilate as much as possible the police force of Ireland to that of this country. And by the arrangements of this Bill, he expected the superintendence would be more efficient and much less expensive to the country. An objection had been made to transferring the appointment of the constabulary force from magistrates to inspectors appointed by the Crown, but that arrangement was necessary in order to make the police an efficient force. Noble Lords opposite might, he was aware, deal with the Bill as they liked; but having moved the second reading of it, he should feel it his duty, if the Motion were opposed, to take the sense of the House upon it.
The Marquess of Londonderryobjected to transfer to the Crown the appointment of the constabulary force, because he believed that the power thus transferred would in effect come to the hand of the individual to whom the noble Viscount and his friends were so much indebted for being in the Government.
The Earl of Rodensaid, the Bill would take the appointments out of the hands of the magistrates, who were a most excellent and fearless body of men. It was an object to make country gentlemen resident on their estates in Ireland, but this would tend to banish them. The Bill was one which had not passed without strong objections in the other House, but it was supported of course there by those whose object it was to put the Irish magistracy down. There were several other objections which he had to the details of the Bill. One was to that part which empowered the inspectors to train to the use of arms men who would be placed on the lists from which the future appointments of the police were to take place. He thought this objectionable, because when so trained they were not bound to enter the police, and their skill and knowledge of arms might be afterwards used to forward the purposes of some reckless demagogue.
1004
He also objected to what he considered the unconstitutional principle of giving the Crown a power to appoint a force paid by the country, and over which the country would not have the same control as it would over a regular force. A similar proposition was made in a bill introduced in the year 1822 by Mr. Goulburn, and it was objected to on this very ground by several individuals who were either members or supporters of the present Government; amongst others by the noble and learned Lord (Brougham), who spoke against it, as did also another noble Lord (Althorp), then a Member of the other House; and in the minority on the division on that occasion he found the names of Henry Brougham, Lord Althorp, Lord Duncannon, C. Grant (now Lord Glenelg), and several others, friends of the present Administration. On these grounds he could not consent to the Bill, and would, therefore, move as an Amendment, that it be read a second time that day six months.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, the noble Earl, in his reference to the Bill of Mr. Goulburn, and in his charge of inconsistency in those who opposed parts of it, and supported similar enactments in the present Bill, should have considered the different state of circumstances in Ireland in that day and the present. That difference would justify the change of opinion as to the course that was pursued then, and that which ought to be pursued now. As to the taking the power of appointing the constabulary force from the Magistrates, it was only taking from them that which in effect they had already relinquished. The inspectors had it already, and the present Bill went only to give them de jure what they already possessed de facto; their Lordships had the authority of the Magistrates themselves for saying that the inspectors were the proper persons to have the appointment by having left it to them so long. It was, therefore, he contended, no slur upon the Magistrates to take away a power which in effect they had already voluntarily relinquished.
Lord Broughamsaid, the Bill was not in all points the Bill of 1822, but even if it were, the circumstances to which it applied were different. "It is said," continued the noble and learned Lord, "that this Bill is supported by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, and that it will promote his views. Now I have a

1005
very high respect for that hon. and learned Gentleman. I respect him for his great talents, and high legal knowledge. I respect him for that large share of the confidence of a great portion of my fellow-countrymen which he possesses. But with all this respect I cannot consent to make him the dictator of my vote, which I must do, if, by the strange logic used by noble Lords on the other side,—I must, on every occasion on which he supports a measure which I approve, vote against that measure, and for the simple reason that he supports it." He had looked carefully into the Bill, and would give it his support.
Lord Farnhamthought, the present state of the police good, and he would let it remain as it was.
The Earl of Winchilseaapproved of the Amendment. He would not assent to any measure which took away the power of the Magistrates, but he objected to this Bill on higher grounds. He considered it one of those three instalments which were to be paid to the hon. and learned Member for Dublin for his support of the present Administration. The first was the placing at his disposal a certain portion of the revenues of the Church of Ireland. The second was the present Bill, which would give him an immense influence and control over the whole of the police force of that country; and the third, which had not yet come up to their Lordships' House, was such an alteration in the state of the representation in Ireland as would place nearly the whole of the elective power in his hands. He would on these grounds oppose the present Bill.
Lord Hathertonproved from experience that great inconvenience resulted from the present system of police in Ireland, and that inconvenience justified the change proposed by the Bill. In the communications from Government which referred to some local matter which required dispatch it often happened that it was necessary to send first to the provincial inspector, who communicated with the sub-inspector for the county, who addressed himself to the chief constable of the district. It might be said, why not communicate with the chief constable on the spot, in the first instance? That, no doubt, could be done, but it involved this inconvenience—that he who should in the regular course of communication know it first, would be the last to learn it. These difficulties would
1006
be removed by the plan proposed in the Bill. It was said that this would give pain to the Magistrates of Ireland. He had had good opportunities of knowing the sentiments of many of that body, and he could assure their Lordships they did not look with any feeling of jealousy at the removal of the appointment of the constabulary force from their hands. However, if their Lordships thought this part of the Bill objectionable, they might remove it in the Committee; but let them not reject the whole Bill on that account. He could assure their Lordships that this Bill had been approved by the Marquess Wellesley and Lord Stanley, and was now in nearly the same state as that in which he had found it on coming into office.
The Marquess of Headfortdid not think that the Bill cast a slight on the Magistrates, and he would support it.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that if there were no police force at present in Ireland, he should prefer the plan now proposed to the existing law, though he admitted the present force to be efficient; but there were some parts of the proposed plan which he greatly admired; for instance, that of having one general superintendant of police for the whole country, and also the plan of superannuation. He objected, however, to the general and sweeping change which the Bill proposed in the removal of the whole of the present body at once. He also objected to taking from the Magistrates the power of appointing the constabulary force. It was true the inspectors had generally exercised the power of appointment, but it was by consent of the Magistrates, and under their control; but his chief objection was, that the Magistracy of Ireland would receive it as a withdrawal of confidence from them. On the whole he thought the Bill well digested, and not the result of any dictation elsewhere: but he thought it too late in the Session to discuss a measure of this importance, and he would therefore recommend that it should be kept over till next Session, before which a more full opportunity would be given for reconsidering the whole of its provisions, and with that view he should vote for the Amendment of his noble Friend.
Lord Fitzgerald and Veseysaid, that when this measure was first introduced, he had supported the vesting the appointment of the constables, not in the Magistrates, but the Crown; but it had

1007
been given to the Magistrates, and it worked well, for though the Magistrates had virtually transferred the power to the inspectors, still they exercised a salutary control over it by the power of recalling it whenever they saw it abused; and having so used the power which the Act thus placed in them, he thought it would be casting a slur and a stigma upon them to take it now out of their hands. He also objected to the late period, the 26th of August, for the second reading of a measure of this importance when there was no opportunity for fully discussing it.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, he should be ashamed to show his face amongst his brother Magistrates in Ireland if he consented to take from them that power which they had so long and so faithfully exercised. He would support the Amendment.
Lord Glenelgsupported the Bill, and defended his consistency in supporting that part of it which he had opposed in 1822, on the ground of the altered state of circumstances in Ireland. He did not think that the omission of the clause relating to the power of the Magistrates would impair the general efficiency of the measure, and he hoped that those noble Lords who were favourable to the other parts of the Bill would not reject it altogether, as they would have an opportunity of omitting that clause in the Committee.
The Earl of Haddingtonbore testimony to the good conduct and efficient state of the police in Ireland. He did not oppose this Bill on the ground of its attempting an improvement of that force, but he did object to it on the ground that it would take away from the Magistracy that salutary control which they had exercised over the constabulary appointments. He had one other objection to the Bill, and it was summed up in these words—that was the 26th of August. The Bill had been in the possession of the Irish secretaries, he might say ready prepared, for the last three or four years, and it was now, on the 26th of August in the present Session, brought before the House. At such a period of the year how could they be called on to make so great and essential a change in the police force in Ireland?
Viscount Duncannonassured the House that there was not the least intention of throwing any slur upon the Irish Magis-
1008
trates. There were some noble Lords who seemed to say they would vote against everything which Mr. O'Connell had supported. Without dwelling longer on that point he should just add, that if they wished to deal fairly with the measure, they would read it a second time, and do what might be necessary to amend it in Committee.
The House divided on the original Question. Contents 39; Not Contents 51: Majority 12.
Bill postponed for six months.