Sitting of 2 May 1836

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Spirituous Liquors' Sale; Spirit Licences' (Scotland).
Petitions presented. By Mr. EATON, from the Guardians of the Newmarket Union, for the Extension of the Time for the Repayment of the Money advanced for building Workhouses.—By Mr. THOMAS GLADSTONE and Mr. FLEMING, from Leicester and Portsmouth, for the Repeal of the Duty on Spirit Licences.—By Mr. THOMAS GLADSTONE and Mr. CHALMERS, from Leicester and Paisley, for the Repeal of the Duty on Fire Insurances.—By Sir ROBERT PRICE and Sir RONALD FERGUSSON, from Hertford and Nottingham, for the Revision of the Criminal Code.—By Mr. ROBINSON, from the Medical Practitioners of Worcester, Complaining of the Inadequacy of their Payments for Attending Paupers; and from the Attorneys of Worcester, for the Repeal of the Duty on their Certificates.— By Mr. ROBERT WALLACE, from Edinburgh, for adopting Measures to Expedite the Royal Mail to that Place.—By several MEMBERS, from various Places, against the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland).—By several MEMBERS, from various Places, against the Tithe Commutation Bill.—By several MEMBERS, from various Places, for the Repeal of the Duty on Newspapers.—By several MEMBERS, from various Places, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Mr. HINDLEY, from Warrington, for the Amendment of the Factories' Act.—By Mr. BROTHERTON, from various Places, for Exempting Building Societies from the operation of the Stamp Duties' Bill.—By Mr. PARROT, from St. Ives and St. Mawes, to exempt Fish from Tithe. —By Major FANCOURT, from Nairn, for the Abolition of Corporal Punishment in the Army and Navy.—By Mr. ROBINSON, from Glasgow, for the Repeal of the Duty on Marine Insurances.—By Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD, from various Places, for the Municipal Corporations' (Ireland); and from St. Paul, Dublin, Blackheath, and Ballindaggin, for the Abolition of Tithes.—By Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD, from Dublin, for the introduction of Poor Laws into Ireland; and from Idrone West and Patrick Nowlan, for Inquiry into the Case of the Carlow Election; and from Raheen, Complaining of the Conduct of the Revising Barristers, and praying for their Removal.—By Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE, from various Places, for Inquiry into the Case of Lieutenant Colonel Bradley.

CHURCH RATES.
Lord Stanley, seeing the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, in his place, begged to claim his attention for a very short time in asking a question. He had that morning received a communication from a parish in Lancashire, from which it ap-
500
peared that some extensive alterations or improvements were contemplated by the authorities in respect to the parish church; but they could only carry this work into effect by mortgaging the church rates. He, therefore, wished to ask the noble Lord to give the House some information as to whether it was the intention of his Majesty's Government to bring forward a measure respecting Church-rates? and whether in such case care would be taken in such Bill to secure the validity of all existing arrangements under the present law?
Lord John Russellsaid, he had certainly given the House to understand that a measure in regard to Church-rates would be brought forward in the course of the ensuing Session. As his noble Friend had put this question, he would take that occasion to state to him and to the House, at what time and under what circumstances he proposed to bring forward the case. It would be recollected that on a former occasion, when a resolution was introduced which went to propose the abolition of Church-rates, it was strongly resisted, on the ground that the House were not fully informed of the actual amount of property held by the Church, and that it was not proper for the House to proceed to provide a substitute for Church-rates in the absence of such full and adequate information. He did not share in that opinion, but he did think it quite necessary that the question with respect to the appropriation of the Church revenues, according to the recommendation of the Commissioners, should be settled before they proceeded to deal with the question of Church-rates; because, if the House should agree with him in the opinion that the revenues of the church were barely sufficient for the religious instruction of the people, they would then have a ground upon which they might proceed. He would say, however, that his view of the matter, with regard to what were grievances, was, that in framing any measure bearing reference to Church regulations, the question ought to be considered as one affecting not a particular class, but the whole community. He had prepared two measures bearing on the subject of registration of marriages, &c, and he should consider it would be ineffectual to attempt to settle the question of Church-rates unless he were first prepared to settle that of registration of marriages, &c. Therefore, the answer which

501
he had to suggest to the noble Lord was this—that he did intend to bring forward, in the present Session of Parliament, a measure affecting Church-rates; but that his doing so must depend on the House joining with him in the opinion that the Church revenues should be disposed of in a manner conformable to the recommendations contained in the Report of the Commissioners; and that there should be a disposition on the part of the House to relieve all the prominent grievances of the Dissenters. He did not know that he need say further with regard to existing engagements contracted under the present law, because, certainly, all such contracts must be respected. The noble Lord concluded by moving the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into a Committee on the Report on the Tithes Commutation Bill.

COMMUTATION OF TITHES (ENGLAND).
On the question that the Speaker do leave the Chair,
Sir George Sinclairobserved, that there were two problems connected with this Bill, of which he should be glad to receive a solution from his Majesty's Ministers. He wished, in the first place, to know whether they intended to introduce into its provisions a clause for appropriating the surplus revenues of the Church of England, beyond what was necessary for pastoral superintendence, to secular purposes. The Churches of England and Ireland were brought into a state of intimate and indissoluble connexion by the treaty of Union, and if once a graduated scale of clerical income, and a maximum of clerical emolument, were carried in the one case, it could not fail to be introduced in the other. To apply a different rule to the two Churches, was an act of grievous injustice towards the Protestants of Ireland, and a violation of the promise held out to them at the period of this Union. In order to insure the success of that compact it was necessary to hold out certain advantages to each of the great parties into which Ireland was divided. To the Roman Catholics it was represented, that as they constituted a majority of the Irish population, it would be incompatible with the security of Protestantism to give them eligibility in a separate Irish legislature, where their numerical preponderance would enable them to overthrow the Protestant Church; but that, if they agreed to the Union, they would form a minority of the aggregate
502
population in the two countries, and might, with less danger to the Constitution, be rendered eligible to the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The Protestants, on the other hand, were reminded, that they formed a small minority in Ireland, and" that their Church would be constantly exposed to the assaults of active, powerful, and implacable enemies; but that, if the Union took place, the two Establishments would be consolidated into one, and the Irish Church would derive the full benefit of security and protection from becoming amalgamated and identified with the Church of England. It seems, however, that his Majesty's Ministers pay no regard to such considerations; they altogether separate the two Churches in their legislative enactments; they truckle to the English branch of the Church because it is powerful—they trample upon the Irish branch because it is weak. They leave the Roman Catholics in full possession of the civil privileges which they were led to expect as a consequence of the Union, but they deprive the Protestants of the chief benefit which they anticipated from the same enactment. He wished, in the next place, to be informed, why the Bill regarding English tithes had obtained priority of the measure which was intended to settle the same question in Ireland? Surely, the latter object was the first in urgency, without being inferior in importance. One might infer, from the arrangement adopted, that England was in a state of ferment on the subject of tithes —that the time of the English Court of Exchequer was engrossed day after day by the issue of writs of rebellion—that you seldom took up an English newspaper without learning that some clergyman or tithe—proctor had been waylaid or assassinated—that public meetings had been held at Belturbet and all the principal cities in Ireland for the relief of the suffering English Ministers of the Gospel, and that the Archbishop of Canterbury's chief employment was, to express his gratitude, and that of the Clergy over which he so worthily presides, for the liberal contributions of their prosperous and unmolested brethren in Ireland. We know that circumstances are exactly reversed. The Church of Ireland is like a house actually on fire, ardet Ucalegon, and his Majesty's Ministers, the official firemen of the state, hurry helter-skelter with their buckets and engines to drench with superfluous water an adjoining building, which the

503
flames have not yet reached, and leave the burning edifice to its fate. It is true that they have at last produced an Irish Tithe Bill; they have screwed their courage to the sticking point, after putting off the evil day as long as it could decently be postponed. But clogged as it is with its most obnoxious provision in a still more objectionable form, they know that it can never be sanctioned by the House of Lords, and they quail before the prospect of the fate which awaits it there. If they had intended to act a manly and resolute part, the Irish Tithe Bill would have been brought forward at the earliest period of the present Session, and sent up with as little delay as possible to another place. If its doom was then sealed by the consistent intrepidity of the House of Lords, they might have said to the Royal Master whom they have the honour to serve, "Sir, we are convinced, and we have frequently declared in public, that the immediate settlement of the tithe question is essential to the well-being of Ireland, and to the safety of the Protestant Clergy. We cannot abandon the Appropriation Clause, without sinking to the very nadir of political meanness and degradation; and as the adjustment admits of no delay, we must either obtain leave from your Majesty to create an adequate number of Peers for carrying our Tithe Bill through the House of Lords, or we must resign our places to other advisers, who may try to adjust the question upon a different basis." This would, in his opinion, have been an honest and straightforward course—whilst that of his Majesty's Ministers had been evasive and equivocal. These are not times for sanctioning half-measures, or paltering with great principles, and he was persuaded, that the policy of his Majesty's Ministers on this subject would be reprobated throughout the country.
Mr. Parrottwished to address a few-words to the House. It did appear to him that they were about to legislate upon this question without sufficient information upon it; and therefore, as it also appeared to him, they were firing a random shot. He hoped, however, that the noble Lord would allow a Commission to inquire into the state of tithes, and the practice in reference thereto, in different counties; and that they should get such ample information as they had in the case of the Poor Law Bill. Without this the House would only
504
legislate in the dark. This Bill, if passed into a law, would inflict grievous injury on the payers of tithes, and therefore he would suggest to the noble Lord (though he would not divide the House upon it) the propriety of delaying this measure, if he should be satisfied that such was the feeling of the majority of the House. He was satisfied that if this Bill were carried into effect in the way proposed, it would raise the value of tithes from twenty to thirty per cent. more than they were at present. He believed that in Cornwall and other counties this would be the result; and he felt bound to tell the noble Lord, that if he raised the value of tithes beyond their present amount, it would be considered a most serious injury to the country. He felt equally bound to tell the noble Lord, that in the county with which he was connected the people were all in a ferment. He had himself presented forty-seven petitions against the Bill from different parishes in Devonshire, and this must show the state of feeling in that country. If the noble Lord persisted in this measure, he would drive every Whig in Devonshire and Cornwall from him.
Mr. Chichestersaid, that in the north of Devonshire there was a strong wish to see this question settled. If the House delayed this measure till another Session, they would find themselves in the same predicament as they had been placed in with reference to Irish tithes.
Mr. Humehad stated on a former occasion the objection which he saw to the measure, and which objection he had urged upon the noble Lord, and it was this, that owing to the existence of the corn-laws the value of land in this country had acquired an unnatural height. The more he considered this matter the more convinced was he that there could be no fair settlement of the tithe question until the corn-laws should be abolished.
Mr. Blamirethought that the hon. Member for Middlesex had not applied himself to the proposition of the noble Lord, to fix the commutation with an average price of corn for seven years. Therefore the corn-laws had nothing to do with the question. In the year 1771 a parish with which he was unacquainted commuted their tithes for a fixed corn rent; and the Vicar in that parish now received only 2l. more than was paid to the Vicar in, 1771; the price of wheat having been then taken at 4s. 6d. the Winchester bushel, and the average taken this year was only 14 s. 6¾d.
The House went into a Committee on the first clause.
Lord John Russellthought it would be better to go through the clauses regularly; and the Committee would then be able to judge more correctly of the measure as a whole. He wished the Committee to take the Bill clause by clause. With respect to any alterations, he had only to say, that if the proposals which had been made by the Member for Somersetshire should be rejected he would afterwards introduce clauses to meet special cases which had been submitted for consideration, such as giving the discretionary power to the Commissioners to value the tithe at from fifty to sixty per cent of the estimated value.
Mr. Pembertonwas quite sure that any hon. Gentleman who compared this Bill as it then stood with what it was when it last left the Committee, would find that it differed materially from its former self. He believed that, from the first clause to the last, there was not a single one which remained unaltered—there was not a single portion of the machinery which had not been changed. He did not think it reasonable to suppose that hon. Gentlemen who were not lawyers should compare the Bill clause by clause; but it was not unreasonable to suppose that those who had voted for the second reading of the Bill should, when their attention was drawn to the fact, be ready to examine the alterations which had been made. In the Bill as it had passed the Committee, commutation was to have been either by agreement between the tithe owner and the landowner, or by compulsion when they could not agree. If compulsion were introduced, that compulsion ought to be general, or the whole arrangement ought to be purely voluntary. On the former occasion, the Solicitor-General had dissented from every point he (Mr. Pemberton) had urged and from every argument he had used; but it seemed that the hon. and learned Member did not possess the confidence of Ministers so much as himself, because the very principle then denounced as obnoxious had now found its way into the Bill. Compulsion was now generally adopted. [Lord John Russell— I so stated.] He admitted it, but the Solicitor-General had argued against it. In fact, the measure was so little the same, that the supporters of Government were now called upon to vote for the very measure which on a former night they had repudiated. The provision relating to indi-
506
vidual agreements had been entirely abandoned. As the measure now stood, the apportionment of tithe was to be made with reference to a principle not very distinctly expressed—the rate of the value of produce, which left the matter in a state of uncertainty. There was also this anomaly in the proposed Bill. It imposed a higher rate of commutation with respect to all lands on which hops were now grown, and it did not provide if this crop should be discontinued for a proportionably diminished payment in lieu of tithes; but it stated, that there should not be any higher charge levied on those lands which though not at present under hop-cultivation, might hereafter be subjected to that kind of tillage. Now, if it were just that no diminished charge should be made when hops ceased to be cultivated, it was equally just that upon lands being brought into a more profitable cultivation they should become liable to a higher rate of commutation. By the first Bill the Commissioners were made an independent body, because, though they were appointed by different authorities, they could not be removed without the consent of both. But by this Bill the Crown had the power of removing the Commissioners appointed by it, and the Archbishop of Canterbury was invested with the same right. There were again changes made in the Bill with regard to the distribution of patronage. By the measure as it originally stood, the Commissioners had the appointment of Secretaries and Assistant Commissioners; but in its present shape, the Bill transferred the power of nomination to these important offices from the Commissioners to the Secretary of State. Now it would appear, with respect to the principle on which the compulsion was to be carried into operation, in the machinery by which the commutation was to be effected, as well as the individuals who were to have the management of that machinery, in every point, both in the principle and details of the measure, as it was originally brought forward, the most extensive alterations had been made. He did not complain of the rate at which it was proposed that the commutation should be effected. On the contrary, he considered it perfectly fair, and that the Government acted with great justice when they determined upon it; but he could not help regretting that this measure did not embrace some scheme of the nature of that which the noble Lord, the

507
Secretary of State promised to bring forward at some future time—he meant a plan for the absolute redemption of tithes. However desirable it might be to have the present Bill carried, he was of opinion that it could never be satisfactory until absolute redemption of tithes was established for the commutation which it was now sought to establish.
Lord John Russellcould not understand the meaning of the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, unless it was intended to convey a reproach against the Government of having taken advantage of the suggestions of many hon. Members in order to improve the Bill then under consideration. If such were the intention of the hon. and learned Gentleman, all he could say was, that the Government never desired to arrogate the vain credit of having produced a Bill which required no alteration, and which was at once perfect for the object it was meant to answer, but their wish was to frame such a measure as would work favourably and satisfactorily for the country. Therefore, whether they had the credit of proposing the clauses of this measure originally, or whether they had adopted the clauses and recommendations which were suggested by others, they had pursued a course which was equally conducive to their purpose; and he was ready to take the shame, if it were a shame, of having yielded to the hon. and learned Gentleman, by embodying one of those alterations which the hon. and learned Gentleman had proposed, and which he agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman in thinking was a good and useful one. He did not think there would be any advantage whatever in arguing in favour of the propriety of retaining certain clauses, by laying it down as a principle that, no matter what provisions were introduced into the measure by the Government, no matter how mischievous they might be proved to be, they were still determined to persist in them. There was scarcely one of the alterations which the hon. and learned Gentleman had commented upon that he had not given notice of proposing. He would refer to one or two of them. With respect to individual agreements, that was looked upon by him as a question the settlement of which was left open for consideration; and with respect to the mode of effecting a compulsory agreement, he stated, in answer to the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge, that the provision giving individuals the power of en-
508
forcing a compulsory agreement as to their own particular property, was one of the propriety of which he was the least confident. He did not see what more he could have said to indicate his intention of accepting such an alteration as that which was eventually made. The hon. and learned Gentleman had also noticed the alteration in this Bill by which it was intended that the Crown should have the power of removing the two Commissioners nominated by it, and that the Archbishop of Canterbury should have the same power as to the removal of the Commissioner appointed by him. Now, on reading the first clause of the former Bill, he said that he did not then mean to propose such an alteration as that which was made in this respect in the amended Bill, but he did not hesitate to express his preference of the clause contained in the Bill of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth. The noble Lord concluded by expressing a hope that the House would not for the future consider the Government deserving of obloquy because they were willing to adopt suggestions enforced by such able arguments as those which the hon. and learned Gentleman had used.
Mr. Charles Bullersaid, that it was with great regret that he had allowed the Bill, without opposition, to go into Committee at all, because he was so opposed to the principle on which the Bill was founded, that it appeared to him a mere waste of the time of the House to sanction the Bill in any shape whatever. However, as it was the duty of every Member to make the Bill as perfect as possible, he should object to the first clause. It was objectionable to intrust the appointment of one Commissioner to the Archbishop of Canterbury as reputed head of the Church. The King was the real head of the Church, and should have the appointment. Besides, the Archbishop was not a responsible person, as the Ministers of the King were. Another objection was, that the landowners were not represented in the Commission. The Church had a protection in the Archbishop's Commissioner, but the lay impropriators, a large body, had none.
Mr. Humethought the objections urged by his hon. Friend, the Member for Liskeard, were quite apposite, and he was of opinion that they were worthy the attention of the noble Lord on the Treasury bench.
Clause agreed to, as were the clauses up to the 11th inclusive.
On clause 12th,
Sir Matthew White Ridleysaid, that

509
according to the wording of this clause, he was afraid that the Bill, which he believed it was honestly intended should refer to every species of tithe, would not include all small tithes, or personal tithes. He hoped, therefore, that the noble Lord would introduce an amendment which would have the effect of including small tithes.
Mr. Thomas Duncombehoped the hon. Baronet would persevere in his intention, for he confessed he found it difficult to understand clearly the extent to which the Bill before the House went. They had never yet had a fair discussion of the principle of the Bill, and he would defy any hon. Gentleman to say what was the general feeling of the House upon it. Persons out of the House asked him if he was aware what sort of a measure they were about to give their sanction to, and characterized it as a most advantageous one for the tithe-owners, for by its means one-fifth of every man's property would go into the hands of the great lay and ecclesiastical impropriators. The principle of the Bill was altogether lost sight of. It left vicarial tithes untouched, and small and personal tithes, such as pressed most heavily upon the poor man, were not brought, as it appeared to him, under its provisions. It was not calculated to fulfil the intention of restoring harmony and allaying heartburnings throughout the country, and he trusted the hon. Baronet would move a specific amendment upon the clause under discussion.
The Solicitor-Generaldid not consider the Bill was so framed as to merit such strong language on the part of the hon. Member for Finsbury. He maintained that it did get rid of vicarial tithes, and of all small tithes, with the exception of some personal and mixed tithes, and those on fish. If it did not get rid of those particular tithes, it was because a measure like the present was considered inapplicable to them. He had himself a personal experience of the onerous nature of tithes upon fish, derived from the place which he had the honour of representing. But tithes of such a description could not evidently be affected by a measure commuting tithes into a rent-charge.
Mr. Benettsaid, it was an undoubted fact that tithes taken in kind, did, on an average, amount to one-fifth part of the property from which they were to be deducted.
Sir Robert H. Inglisagreed with the hon. Member for Finsbury that the principle of the Bill required to be debated still. He was one of those who thought the ex-
510
isting system in regard to tithes was much better than any other which could be substituted in its place; and, with that conviction strong in his mind, he should take the earliest opportunity of affording the House means of coming to a decision on the proposition. The right of tithes was anterior to any other in the country; and every landholder in the kingdom held his land upon the terms of paying a certain portion of the value to another person. It was a short-sighted policy of the landholder to set himself in opposition to the Church, or to wish to deprive it of any portion of its rights or property for his own advantage; it was a short-sighted policy, for it afforded a precedent which might be applied to himself on a future occasion.
Mr. Gilbert Heathcotesuggested, that as the understanding at the onset was that the Bill should be permitted to pass through Committee without obstruction, it would be quite as well to defer all debate on it until another opportunity should be afforded.
Mr. Estcourtproposed the addition of the words "all uncommuted tithes," after the words "hereinafter mentioned."
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that in lines 36 and 37 the word "tithes" was defined to mean and include all uncommuted tithes, portions, and parcels of tithes, and all moduses, compositions, real, prescriptive, and customary payments." Now, there were many parishes entirely covered by moduses, and as the Bill as it stood would affect this species of composition as well as all others, he wished to know if it was so intended, or if the moduses which existed were to be left untouched? If they were to be disturbed he considered it would be unjust.
Viscount Howickreferred the right hon. Baronet to the 36th clause of the Bill for the information he required. He would then, find all cases involving moduses, and prescriptive and customary payments, provided for.
Sir Robert Peelhad already referred to that clause previous to putting the question, but he could find no satisfactory solution of the difficulty. He suggested, that to meet it the words "provided all moduses, or prescriptive and customary payments, should not be disturbed," should be added to the clause.
Amendment withdrawn, and clause agreed to. The remainder of the clauses were agreed to, with amendments.
The House resumed—Committee to sit again.

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a third time:—Letter Stealing (Scotland).
Petitions presented. By several NOBLE LORDS, from various Places, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Karl GREY, from Yarm, in favour of the Municipal Corporations' (Ireland) Bill.—By Lord CLONCURRY, from

479
various Places, for the Abolition of Tithes.—By the Marquess of CLANRICARDE, from the Grand Jury of Galway, praying for an Alteration of the Law respecting Grand Jury presentments.—Bythe Earl of RADNOR, from Protestant Dissenters of Tiverton, praying for Relief.—By the Marquess of SALISBURY, from Clergymen of various Places, for the Better Regulation of Factories—By the Bishop of EXETER, from various Places, for an Alteration of the Bill so far as regards the granting of Probate of Wills, for Consolidating the Ecclesiastical Courts—By Lord DACRE, from Gentlemen of Worcestershire, for an Alteration in the New Poor Laws.

CONSTABULARY FORCE (IRELAND.)
Lord Duncannon Lord Duncannon moved the Order of the Day for the House to go into Committee upon the Constabulary (Ireland) Bill.
The Earl of Rodenwas anxious to take the earliest opportunity of addressing their Lordships, in consequence of his having been unavoidably absent during the discussion of the second reading of this measure, which appeared to him most objectiontionable in its principle, as well as dangerous in the details by which it was to be worked out. He would undertake to say, there never was known, certainly within his recollection, to be proposed to Parliament as a permanent law, which gave all at once such immense patronage to the Government, and which was so unconstitutional in its doctrines, and arbitrary in its enactments, as the Bill now upon the table of the House. He conceived it was totally unnecessary, from the circumstances to which it was intended to apply, and would be most dangerous even under any circumstances in which the country could be placed; for he could not help seeing in the whole spirit of the measure an attempt to cast a stigma and an unmerited censure upon as valuable, as independent, and as honest a class of men as were to be found in any country whatsoever—he meant the resident gentry and unpaid magistracy of Ireland. He protested, in their name, as well as in his own, against the provisions of this measure, and he implored the House to consider well, and at all events to pause before they further assented to this measure, either in principle or detail. It would be no argument in answer to his objections to this measure, to be told by his Majesty's Ministers that at former periods Bills of coercion and measures of harshness, fully as strong, and equally objectionable, had been introduced into Parliament, and had also become the law of the land; but noble Lords would remember that these measures were temporary; were to meet a particular crisis; were to extend over particular districts; and were to be removed when the necessity of the case might cease; but here you have a permanent measure not confined
480
to one part or any particular object, but extending its operations over the peaceable province of Ulster as fully and as expensively as over the disturbed districts of Leinster and Munster. You have a power given to the executive unlimited and uncontrolled, to burden the people with taxation for the objects of this Bill, according to the caprice, it might be, but certainly according to the will, of the Lord-Lieutenant. It would be no answer to his (Lord Roden's) objections to this measure to be told that it was not the intention of his Majesty's Government to exercise these powers to the full extent which they sought for in this Bill. That might be or might not be, and however noble Lords now in office might think their minds made up as to the use they would make of these powers, give him leave to say his Majesty's Ministers were not so much their own masters as to be certain of their own future acts. He could not forget that they must be swayed sometimes by the pressure from without—sometimes from the spirit of the age, and at all times, as it respected the Government of Ireland, by the dictates or commands of that Romish faction in that country, which seemed to be the pivot on which they turned. He could not but unite in the general feeling of the resident and respectable gentry of Ireland, who felt as strongly as he did that no confidence was to be placed in his Majesty's Government in that country; therefore, they could not trust such tremendous powers, as were proposed in this Bill, to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. He felt he had a right to argue upon this measure as it appeared before them now on the table, and not as it might or might not be altered by noble Lords opposite in Committee, he would consider it, as it came from the House of Commons, a specimen of the consistent legislation of his Majesty's Attorney-General for Ireland. He would, therefore, take the liberty of examining its features, and he found, first of all an enormous patronage of various offices of different grades, descriptions, and value, but all subservient to the nomination of the Lord-Lieutenant. He found a power given to the executive to appoint 143 magistrates, at a salary of 400 l. a-year each. He was told this was to be limited, but he was speaking of the Bill sent up by the Attorney-General for Ireland. He knew not whether it was the intention, by this power of making so many magistrates, finally to supersede the unpaid and independent magistrates of the country, who lived in the most difficult times, and

481
under the most painful and arduous circumstances, often thanklessly, but always fearlessly and honestly discharging the functions of their important office. He found in this Bill the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland constituted into a very autocrat, little less powerful than the Emperor of all the Russias himself; for, was it to be believed, and one could scarcely credit such legislation, were it not in black and white on their Lordships' table—power is given to the Lord-Lieutenant to raise a standing army of any indefinite number of men, without any application to Parliament, without any sanction of the Privy Council, without any representation of any body of persons with the magistracy, the grand jury, or any functionary whatever, as to the necessity of such augmentation—and he found further power given in this Bill to the Lord-Lieutenant to pay this army one moiety out of the Consolidated fund, and the other moiety by what is called a presentment made by the grand jury; whether they will or not, they are bound to assess these counties for the amount demanded by the autocrat; and to add to the injustice of the whole, this Bill deprives the magistracy of the power they now possess in recommending individual constables who are to fill up the police from the most respectable, and most useful, and trustworthy individuals in their counties. It was true that in some counties the magistracy had handed over the choice of the constables to the inspectors, but that was no argument why the power still being reserved by the magistracy was not a useful and salutary control to insure the important and faithful discharge of the inspector's duty in the selection he may make. This Bill, necessarily increasing the expenditure for this establishment, lays a double tax upon the landed interest of the country; whilst all classes of individuals, both in the towns and in the manufacturing districts, are to derive equal benefit from the protection given under this Bill. But the landed interest alone is to contribute to its support in its double capacity—first, as paying its quota to the consolidated fund, and then its moiety of the whole in the grand jury presentment that is to be made; and to add still more to the injustice of the proceeding, the grand juries of the counties are to have no control over the expenditure of this assessment; nor are they to have a voice as to the necessity of the numbers of that police for which they are bound to pay. Call this a grand jury presentment! It
482
would be much more convenient, instead of troubling the grand jury, that the autocrat of Ireland, whoever he may be, should send his commands to the judge, to order forthwith the payment of the sum required for his troops. The whole of the measure seemed to him to be based upon patronage, injustice, and arbitrary power, inconsistent with the British Constitution, and uncalled for by the circumstances of the country Bad as was the state of Ireland—and nothing could be more deplorable than the situation of the King's loyal Protestant subjects—nothing could surpass the persecution and the sufferings they endured; and not only the Protestants, but those peaceable, quiet, and well-disposed Roman Catholics, who would not bow to the system of terror that was enforced under the machinations of a priesthood who were endeavouring to enslave the nation — he thought the present Police Bill, as a general system, worked well; and he would say, there never was a body of men to whom the country was under a deeper debt of gratitude. In extraordinary cases, and under peculiar difficulties, they were the preservers of the Peace Preservation Bill, which he conceived was fully adequate, in connexion with the common law of the land, if duly and honestly exercised, to meet any emergency that might occur. He could not conceive how any amendment could be made to this Bill, which could deprive this measure of its unconstitutional character, or alter its dangerous complexion. It was indeed a proof to him of those constitutional principles which influenced the mind of its authors. It was a fair specimen of those pares leges which this House had heard so much about in former debates. All he could say was this, and he would leave it to the judgment of any unbiassed man to decide, whether if it were possible to find a minister who would have the temerity and folly to propose such a law for England as a permanent measure, whether the cry throughout the land, from the Land's End to John O'Grote's house, would not be—Nolumus leges Angliœ mutari. He was sure if his noble Friend, the noble Duke (Wellington) when he was in office, had ventured such a measure in all its bearings on the country, there is no language of condemnation which would have been found too strong—there was no charge of ambition which would not have been vehemently urged against him. The partisans of that violent party from without, who now act in concert with noble Lords opposite, would not have hesitated to de-

483
nounce the noble Duke in the public press, and at their Radical meetings, as attempting not only to alter the succession to the throne, as they maliciously, falsely, and wickedly, have laid to the charge of the late loyal Orange Society of Ireland, but they would have declared, that it was the ultimate intention of the noble Duke to place King Arthur on that throne (pointing to the throne) which rightfully belongs to King William. He protested against the Bill as a gross act of injustice to his country, as unnecessary for the circumstances to which it would apply—as laying on the people an additional burden of taxation, for the sake of patronage, which they are little able to afford. He protested against giving such power to any man, be he who he may. We are living in times of great change—we know not who may be called on to rule over the destinies of the country—we know not into whose hands such tremendous powers as are given in this Bill may fall. In the name of the Protestants of Ireland he protested against the measure. In the name of those Roman Catholics of Ireland who desired peace, and who were not under the sway of the tyranny that prevailed, he lifted up his voice against this Bill. It was inconsistent with the doctrines of a free Government—it was decidedly opposed to those most valuable principles of the British Constitution. He should say not content to further proceeding with this measure.
Viscount Melbournedid not wish to detain their Lordships from going into Committee on this measure; but, accustomed as he was, and as the House was, to the loud and hostile tone of the noble Lord— accustomed as he was to his confident assertions and gross exaggerations—he could not, at the same time, avoid expressing his surprise at the tone, manner, style, and tenour of the speech of the noble Earl on this occasion. If their Lordships were not acquainted with this measure, he would ask them, would they not suppose, after the speech of the noble Earl, that he was going to introduce some new and wholly unheard of measure?—that he was going to sanction a power before unknown to the Constitution?—that he was going to establish in Ireland a system that was totally and entirely new—that he was going to make some severe law perpetual, which had been established for a temporary purpose? Ministers contemplated no such thing, and he must, therefore, beg leave to deny all the assertions of the noble Earl. He denied that the measure was introduced
484
for the purpose of increasing patronage— he denied that it would add materially to the expense of the present system of police in Ireland. The Bill would give no greater powers to the Government than they had at present the opportunity of exercising. Every man knew the nature of the establishment of police in that country—every man knew that it was called for by the peculiar circumstances of that country. The noble Earl had given his distinct approbation to one of those Acts which was connected with the police of Ireland—the Peace Preservation Bill. Now, all those powers which the noble Earl had attacked, as being contained in the present Bill, were also to be found in that very measure. It gave the power to the Lord-Lieutenant, with the advice of the Privy Council, to increase the police force in any part of the country—it enabled him, with the advice of the Privy Council, to send into any place where it might be deemed necessary, any number of police that he might think proper, and to charge on the country the payment of that force, exactly in the manner now complained of by the noble Earl, and represented by him as a dangerous, unconstitutional, and oppressive novelty. Ministers having embodied the provisions of that Act in the present Bill, he did think that it was a most unjustifiable mode of proceeding, for the noble Earl to represent a measure consolidating others, and introducing certain ameliorations and amendments, as an unjust measure, thus endeavouring to create a hostile impression against those whom he thought proper to attack, as the supporters of an oppressive measure, unknown to the proceedings of former Parliaments, and contrary to the spirit and practice of the Constitution. The noble Earl had repeated those hackneyed taunts about giving way to the pressure from without, the spirit of the age, and the subserviency to a party. He, however, upon these points would meet the noble Earl with the most decided denial. And he would ask their Lordships, did they mean, in order to conciliate Ireland—in order to maintain the warm and friendly feeling of Ireland—in order to conciliate and secure the affection of Ireland—did they mean to lay it down as a principle, that for the purpose of effecting such an object no Government should receive their confidence—no Government should receive their support, or be looked upon with favour, unless it was visited by the inve-

485
terate opposition of the representatives of that part of the United Kingdom to which the Bill related? Was that what noble Lords opposite demanded? Was it right that such a feeling should prevail? If so, he did not think that those who had such an opinion acted wisely or prudently, or in accordance with the language which they were constantly holding, as to the necessity of consolidating and cementing the Union between the two parts of the empire.
The Earl of Wicklowexpected, when the noble Viscount rose to answer his noble Friend, that he would have given some explanation on the part of his Majesty's Government to justify them for bringing forward this Bill. He expected that the noble Viscount would have taken that course, instead of making an intemperate attack on the majority of their Lordships' House. When the Bill was first before them, it was admitted by noble Lords opposite, and by all, that the police of Ireland was a most useful and efficient force. He had heard no objection urged against that body—he had heard no necessity stated for the total change which was now contemplated in that body. At the present moment, one would suppose that Ministers had sufficient Irish business on their hands. They came forward with a measure respecting the Irish Church—respecting tithes— respecting Municipal Corporations. They proposed to effect improvements in the law of the country on these points, with reference to all of which it was admitted that reforms were necessary. That, however, was not enough; and they came down with a measure to alter a system which was at present in full operation, and with which no fault had been found. He conceived it to be a gratuitous insult to the magistracy and gentry of the country. He did, therefore, expect, that the noble Viscount would have given the House and the country some reason why it was deemed necessary to introduce such a measure now. At the present moment, he could see no legitimate or proper reason for bringing it forward at all. Looking to the evidence, on the subject of the police force, which was given some years ago before a Committee of the House of Commons by a gentleman whom he did not much respect, though, no doubt, the noble Viscount did, he found a few questions and answers which were very much in point, and which he would read to the House. The witness was asked, "Are you acquainted with the mode in which the police in your county
486
are appointed, and how they perform their duty?" And the answer was, "The Magistrates kept to themselves the nomination of the police, and I never heard the least complaint of any outrage committed by them." [Viscount Melbourne: Whose evidence is that?] The next question put to the witness was this:—"Do you know whether the majority are Catholics or Pro-testants?—I believe in my county the majority are Catholics." [Viscount Melbourne: To whom does that evidence apply.] He was asked whose evidence this was, and he replied, it is that of the master of his Majesty's Ministers. The measure was, in fact, contrary to the avowed sentiments of those who introduced it, contrary to the constitutional principles of this country, and certainly had exćited his most unfeigned surprise. In what the noble Viscount said, as to the present Bill only conferring on the Lord-Lieutenant the same power that he now possessed, the noble Viscount confounded the Police Act of Ireland with the Peace Preservation Act. It was quite true that, under the Peace Preservation Act, the Lord-Lieutenant had very great additional power, but then that power was only granted in case of rebellion or dangerous disturbance. That was not the fact with respect to this Bill. Were they, he would ask, to consider the country in a state of permanent rebellion? If Ministers wished them, by this Bill, so to consider it, then they had not done their duty, for in that case they should have brought forward measures even stronger than this. But the contrary was the fact, and a measure was wanted to meet the circumstances of a country where disturbance prevailed, but which was not in a state of rebellion. But the noble Viscount's speech, short as it was, showed to him that the noble Viscount did not understand the measure which he had brought forward. It therefore behoved their Lordships to look carefully to the Bills which Ministers introduced, and in the present instance they should adopt such safeguards and provisions as would prevent a Bill of so tyrannical a nature from operating injuriously.
The Duke of Wellingtonwas surprised to hear the noble Viscount assert, that this Bill was no more than a repetition of the Peace Preservation Act. Let their Lordships look at the Peace Preservation Act, and then examine this Bill. The Peace Preservation Act was the 54th of George 3d, c. 131, and by it the Lord-Lieutenant "is empowered, by and with the advice of

487
the Privy Council, to proclaim any county, city, town, &c, in a state of disturbance, and to appoint one chief police magistrate for every such county, city, town, barony, half-barony, &c, that may be disturbed, and may remove him from one county, &c., to another, as necessity may require." [Viscount Melbourne: The Lord-Lieutenant might send them to any barony.] But in the first instance it was necessary that the district should be proclaimed to be in a disturbed state. But the clause in the present Bill, empowered the Lord-Lieutenant to appoint chief or other constables, and it was as follows:—
"And be it enacted, that it shall be lawful for the Lord-Lieutenant, or other chief Governor, or Governors of Ireland, to appoint, from time to time, at his will and pleasure, in and for each county, county of a city, county of a town, town and liberties in Ireland, except the said county of the city of Dublin, such number of chief constables, head constables, constables, and sub-constables, as may be deemed by him or them to be necessary and sufficient for the preservation of the peace therein, and from time to time, as to him or them shall seem fit, to dismiss any such chief or other constable or sub-constable, and upon any vacancy in any of the said offices by death, removal, or otherwise, to appoint some other fit and able person to fill the same; and all such chief and other constables shall have all such powers, authorities, privileges, and advantages, and be liable to all such duties and responsibilities as any constable duly appointed now has or hereafter may have, either by the common law or by virtue of any statute now or hereafter to be in force in Ireland, but shall be guided in the performance of such duties according to the rules and regulations to be made as hereinbefore provided."
He was one of those who were willing to go into Committee on the measure to amend it, as he conceived it ought to be amended, and to grant to his Majesty's Government such powers, and such powers only, as they ought to have, with reference to this subject. But to give to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, or any other officer, the power mentioned in this clause, as his noble Friend had described it, of raising as many men as he pleased, half the expense to be paid out of the consolidated fund, and half out of the grand jury cess, he never would consent to. It was a power which ought not to be intrusted to any officer, and so far as he could prevent it, it never should be.
Lord Hathertonsaid, that the noble Lord who had spoken last but one had been pleased to observe, that the Government who proposed this Bill had offered no
488
justification or even explanation of its enactments. Now, not only since he had been honoured by being a member of their Lordships' House, but ever since he had been connected with the affairs of Ireland, had he heard of the principles of this Police Bill. Since the year 1822, when it was first introduced, had he continually heard of it, without its having received any alteration whatever, through every succeeding Government to the present day. It had been prepared in the first instance under the Marquess of Anglesey, and had received the approbation of Lord Stanley. It should be understood that he was now speaking of its principles. It had also been prepared during the administration of the Marquess Wellesley. He was not certain whether it had been submitted to the noble Lord (Haddington), who was the last Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland; but he had heard that it had been, and that that noble Lord had given his sanction to it. In point of fact, it could scarcely be said, that the present Bill contained a single principle which was not recognized in all those which had preceded it, and which had been sanctioned by every successive Government. He would detain the House no longer, because he thought that the whole of the observations which had been made by noble Lords at the other side of the House related more to the details than the principles of the Bill.
The Marquess of Londonderryhad received communications from various quarters in Ireland, complaining that the Bill now before the House was of a most objectionable nature, and likely to afford a great deal of dissatisfaction. He could not but feel convinced, looking at the general nature of the Bill, and viewing in particular this circumstance, that no less a sum than 37,000 l. was to be expended for the staff alone, that it would form an instrument in the hands of Government for the distribution of patronage and other purposes. Having no confidence in the patronage of the Lord-Lieutenant, from the manner in which he had seen it exercised with reference to the appointment of stipendiary magistrates and assistant-barristers, he could not give his support to the Bill in any shape whatsoever. A very excellent and gallant officer, Colonel Shaw Kennedy, had been named for the office of Inspector-General, and to such an appointment no one could object; but how long would he be continued in that situation? He should say, that,

489
looking at the appointments made by the present Government since they came into office—looking to their nomination of Mr. Fogarty to an assistant barristership, and Mr. Gore Jones to the office of stipendiary magistrate, he did not know but that in six weeks Mr. Maurice O'Connell might be appointed head of the police in Ireland. Having no confidence in the Government, he should protest against any such Bill passing into a law.
The Marquess of Clanricardeprotested against the mode of arguing a subject adopted by the noble Marquess opposite. Of Mr. Fogarty he knew nothing; but this he must say, that the appointment of that gentleman to be an assistant barrister had nothing to do with this question. And then as to Mr. Grove Jones, he, of his personal knowledge, was able to state this, that Mr. Grove Jones was not appointed by the present Government; that he was now a police magistrate for five or six years. It was not becoming in that House to refer to individual cases, or to make comparisons. He did not see why the name of Mr. Maurice O'Connell ought to be introduced into this subject. He had not the honour of Mr. Maurice O'Connell's acquaintance, nor did he know any reason why he could not be a proper inspector of police; neither could he perceive that the nomination of that gentleman would be an improper one, if he should be appointed. That was not a course of argument that he would consider as proper, becoming, or seemly, upon any question in that House.
The Earl of Haddington, in reference to what had fallen from the noble Lord (Hatherton), begged to say, that during the very short period of his administration in Ireland the question of any large measure respecting the police force of that country had never been entertained by him; but he at the same time had no doubt, that if the Government then in office had been continued, a measure of the kind would have been submitted for his consideration. With regard to the Bills of Lords Anglesey and Wellesley, which the noble Lord (Hatherton) had said differed nothing in principle from that now before the House, he could assert that nothing could be more dissimilar; and if that were the case, he should be glad to know which of them it was, that the present Bill resembled? He would not say, "Not content"; he was for going into Committee, because he was anxious to have preserved whatever portion of the measure their
490
Lordships should deem necessary for the peace of the country.
The Earl of Winchilseaobserved, that there was a wide difference between the statement of the noble Lord (Hatherton) opposite, who had asserted that the present was only some former measure again brought forward; and the recollection of his noble Friend (Haddington), who had declared that it was altogether new to him and to the House. For his own part, he would never consent to intrust such powers as were conferred by the present Bill on the Lord-Lieutenant to any individual. Under this measure the Lord-Lieutenant would have the uncontrolled power of raising an unlimited number of men under the name of public constables, and also of taxing the Irish counties to any amount. These powers ought not to be intrusted by the Parliament to any man. Upon the ground that he hoped the Bill would undergo very considerable amendment, he would not oppose the motion for going into Committee.
Lord Gortwas opposed to the Bill. He would take that occasion to refer to the taxation of Limerick, which he declared, in its present state, was beneficial to a noble Marquess opposite. The Government had altered all things, and established "a piebald education, in which every book was included except the Bible."
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, that the observations made by the noble Baron tended to convert the present discussion into one of a piebald character, inasmuch as nothing that had been said by the noble Baron had any reference whatever to the measure before the House. He should not detain the House to correct the errors of the noble Lord, for they had nothing to do with the present Bill.
Lord Cloncurrycontended that the Bill before their Lordships differed very little in principle from the Act which had been so long in existence for the regulation of the constabulary force of Ireland. Under the Bill before their Lordships the expense would not be greater than existed at present, and the advantage would be that the force would be better managed, inasmuch as it would be officered by persons more qualified to perform the duties to be intrusted to them. Originally the constables were chosen from among old soldiers, but an alteration in that respect took place some years ago by taking a portion of the force from the sons of the cess-payers, but for some reason or other, best known to the

491
Magistrates themselves, they delegated this power of selection to the sub-inspectors; and in some parts of Ireland, particularly in the north, the selection was made in a manner which gave it the appearance of party. The consequence was, that great ill will was the result in those parts of the country where these proceedings took place. After that period such was the state of things that the army were actually let loose upon the people. The right hon. Baronet who now led the opposition in the other House of Parliament, who, to his honour, when Secretary for Ireland, did a very thing in his power to improve the condition of that country, brought in a Bill, which passed the Legislature, adopting a new description of police force for Ireland. They were called "Peelers," and were distributed through the disturbed districts, and were told, that when the disturbances ceased, their pay and emoluments would cease also. And yet these were the people who were to be relied upon to give information as to when the disturbances did actually cease. Such was the system pursued at the time to which he referred. He contended that it was only the ill treatment which Ireland had received from successive Governments which rendered the present mea-sure necessary.
The House then resolved itself into Committee.
The first clause was agreed to.
On the second clause being put from the chair, which enacts, that "Visiting magistrates, inspectors, constables, &c, are to continue until it is notified in the Dublin Gazette that a constabulary force is fully organized according to this Act."
Lord Ellenboroughproposed to add to it a proviso. By this clause the present constabulary force was to continue in existence only until the new was ready to act. It was admitted that it was not intended to remove any members of the present constabulary force, unless they had been guilty of misconduct. He wished that the tenure of their office might be the same under the new Bill as under the old, and that the members of the constabulary force might not he removed, save by some act of the Government. He therefore proposed to add a proviso to the clause to this effect, "that all constables and sub-constables acting under this Act should also be entitled to act under the new Act, without any fresh warrant from the Lord-Lieutenant.
The clause so amended to stand part of the Bill.
On the fourth clause, which gives power to the Lord-Lieutenant to make "rules, orders, and regulations for the general government of the several persons to be appointed under this Act, as well with respect to the places of their residence, their classification, rank, and particular services, the extent and limit of their respective duties, and their conduct and proceedings in the performance thereof, or of any duties imposed on them by law, their distribution and inspection, as to the description of the arms, accoutrements," &c.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid that the amendment which he was going to propose upon this clause was one to which he wished to call the particular attention of their Lordships. Whoever had drawn up this clause had evidently had in his view a similar clause in the Metropolitan Police Act. There were, however, certain words which were not in that Act, interpolated into this clause. The object of that clause appeared to be to give the Lord-Lieutenant power to make general regulations for the government of the police force. To that there could be no objection, but at a recent trial it had been held by the law officers of the Crown, that the power given to the Lord-Lieutenant by statute to regulate the police, overruled the common law of the land, and the effect of certain words in this clause would be to give colour to that assumption of the law-officers of the Crown, which had been repudiated by all the judges; he would, therefore, make this clause identical with that of the Metropolitan Police Act, by expunging from it the following words: —"the extent and limit of their respective duties, and their conduct and proceedings at the office thereof, or of any duties imposed on them by law."
Viscount Duncannonobjected to the omission of these words, as they were most important to the object of the Bill. If their Lordships would take upon themselves the responsibility of all the bloodshed which might occur from the mismanagement of the police when withdrawn from the control of the Lord-Lieutenant, he would consent to the erasure of these words from the Bill.
The Earl of Wicklowwas glad that the object of this Bill was at last avowed. It was to rob the courts of law and his Majesty's subjects in Ireland of the protection to which they were now entitled by the common law. Up to that moment he had not been aware that Government entertained any such insidious intention as was

493
now avowed; he hoped that his noble Friend would persist in his amendment, for a more dangerous and unconstitutional provision could not be introduced into any act of legislation.
Viscount Duncannonsaid, that the object of the clause was entirely misrepresented by the noble Lord. These words were inserted solely for the regulation and government of the police. He likewise added, that when the power for which the noble Lords opposite were contending was given to the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, it was a power which enabled them to call out, not an armed police, but an unarmed body of constables.
The Earl of Haddingtonhad objected to these words on the second reading of the Bill, and nothing that he had since heard had altered his objections. If his Majesty's Government wished by these words to give the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland power to override the common law, let them say so openly and manfully, and give the House the power of deciding whether they would support them in so unconstitutional a proposition.
The Earl of Winchilseaprotested against leaving the life, liberty, and property of every man in Ireland at the mercy of one individual. It was not to be borne that none of the courts of Justice in Ireland should be able to execute their writs with-! out leave from the Lord-Lieutenant. The Court of Exchequer had shown that it had not only the power but also the courage to enforce its process. If that court had not acted with energy and decision, neither life nor property would have been safe in Ireland. Let the country know that the object of this clause was to deprive the courts of justice of all power of executing their writs, and so leave them utterly at the mercy of the Lord-Lieutenant. He hoped their Lordships would reject with scorn this unconstitutional proposition.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, that the words of the clause would not make that difference in the construction of the Act which was contended for by the noble Lords opposite.
The Earl of Harrowbyhoped that the words of which his noble Friend proposed the omission would rouse the House to an extraordinary degree of diligence. Their Lordships were bound to look at the manner in which his Majesty's Government had introduced into a measure which they admitted to be of no great importance, words which, though apparently so simple,
494
effected so mighty a change in the law. Those words would do no more nor less than this—they would set aside a solemn decision of the Court of Exchequer in Ireland of vast importance and magnitude. There was so little to alarm in these words, that one branch of the Legislature had not discovered the meaning couched under them. If the Government intended to set aside the power which was at present given by the common law to the courts of justice, let them not hide the policy under a bushel, let them hold a candle to it and say, "These are the principles upon which we intend to govern Ireland." He hoped their Lordships would look at every clause and syllable of this Bill with the utmost suspicion and caution, after finding the conduct of Government so very slippery upon the commencement of it.
The Marquess of Clanricardedenied that there had been any intention on the part of Government to conceal from the country the object of this Bill. The Bill had long been printed and in the hands of hon. Members, and these words had not escaped notice in the Commons; he had himself conversed with a Member of that House respecting them, and from that conversation he believed the House of Commons to have been perfectly aware of the effect which they would produce. The House of Commons thought the words of no importance, and had passed the clause with the words in it. Their Lordships would do injustice to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, by taking the control of the police force out of his hands if they struck them out.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that the object of the Bill was to place in the hands of the Lord-Lieutenant a more efficient instrument for the preservation of the peace; to that he had no objection. The object of the Bill was not to give the Lord-Lieutenant greater power than before to wield that instrument. If it were proposed to give the Lord-Lieutenant such power, he would refuse it.
Viscount Duncannon: If these words be left out, the omission will prevent the Lord Lieutenant from making proper rules for the regulation and guidance of the police, and will enable any attorney or common bailiff to call out the police, not only without the presence of a magistrate, but also without any necessity for their interference.
The Duke of Wellingtonfelt, that if it were not proper that the constabulary force

495
should be employed in the execution of writs issuing from the courts of justice, it was incumbent on the Government to introduce a Bill preventing the courts of justice from so employing the constabulary force; but so long as there were constables, he thought that the courts of justice should have the power of employing them in the execution of their processes., and at any rate that the power should not be taken away by words introduced as these were.
Viscount Melbournemust be allowed to say, in reference to the observations which had fallen from the noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby), that when expressions were bitter, it was no extenuation of their bitterness to say, that they were delivered calmly and coolly. That did not render them more soothing to the feelings of the parties to whom they were addressed, nor more creditable to the feelings of those from whom they issued. Notwithstanding the taunts of the noble Lord, there was no other object in this clause than to give the Lord-Lieutenant power to make regulations for the government of the police force. Whether these words affected the jurisdiction of the courts of justice was a matter, at any rate, open to dispute. The object of the clause was, not to invest the Lord-Lieutenant with any power which he had not before possessed. The clause was followed by another, containing a long enumeration of those points to which the Lord-Lieutenant's power of regulating the police was to extend, and he had no power to make any rules for anything not enumerated therein. It was quite impossible that these words could give the Lord-Lieutenant control over the common law. The omission of them was not of that importance for which the noble Lord contended, nor was their presence capable of affecting the decisions of any court of justice. Some inconvenience might arise from their omission, as the omission would imply that the Lord-Lieutenant would not make a proper use of the powers intrusted to him.
Lord Abingerwas understood to say, that without throwing the slightest imputation upon any one until after the Bill had been read a first time, he was not aware that there was any provision which could bear such a construction as had been put upon the one now under discussion. He had not thought it possible that a matter of such importance should have been allowed to pass the other House without observation, especially as of late "equal laws for England and Ireland" had been
496
such a favourite topic. Here, then, was a deviation from the English Bill; and what was the purpose of that deviation? He had not, in the first instance, supposed that power was given to make any rules inconsistent with law; but when he found the words "or of any duties imposed on them by law" all doubt was at an end; here was an express provision, giving most distinctly a power superior to the law—a power to free the police force from that authority which the courts of justice, under the common law, possessed over it. So long as the civil law or cannon law remained in force, such a proceeding could not be sanctioned. If they proclaimed military law, then it might be all very well to deprive the civil courts of their power. The effect of the provision would clearly be, that though the courts of justice might continue, they would yet be deprived of all authority if the Lord-Lieutenant only chose to make such an order. The King himself had no power like that; he could not prevent the enforcement of a writ of rebellion, or a writ of equity; and would their Lordships then intrust such a power to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland? In England such a proposition would be at once rejected, as a violation of all liberty. He should decidedly support the amendment.
The Earl of Riponsaid, that the words of the ninth clause threw considerable light upon the words now proposed to be omitted. They were to this effect:—"All such chief and other constables shall have all such powers, authorities, privileges, and advantages, and be liable to all such duties and responsibilities, as any constable duly appointed now has, or hereafter may have, either by the common law, or by virtue of any statute now or hereafter to be in force in Ireland." If the clause stopped there, all might be well, but then came these words, which might seem to exempt them from the operation of the powers of the courts of justice—" but shall be guided in the performance of such duties according to the rules and regulations to be made as hereinbefore provided." He thought that on account of the termination of this clause their Lordships ought not to leave in the fourth clause words which were liable to so dangerous an interpretation.
Lord Ellenboroughhad intended to call the attention of their Lordships to these words in the 9th clause, when that clause came regularly under discussion; that clause was also copied from the Metropolitan Police Act, and there was the same

497
interpolation in it that there was in the present clause.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that when their Lordships recollected that the Attorney-General, who contended for the assumption that the police were not hound to obey or to execute the writs of the courts of justice, was the same person who had introduced this Bill into the other House of Parliament, there could he little or no doubt what the object of this clause was.
Lord Cloncurryobserved, that the police rules and regulations, which had been in existence, for the last ten years prevented the constabulary force from executing any civil bill process, and from interfering in any pecuniary suits, save for the recovery of wages and from interfering in the collection of tithes.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that as a writ of error had been lodged against the decision of the Irish Court of Exchequer, he would not now refer to that subject, but wait until the proper period for discussing it had arrived. He begged to observe, that whatever doubts might be entertained as to the effect of the language of this clause, there could be none as to the fact that the Bill contained a provision for rendering it the duty of the constables to be appointed under it to act in conformity, not merely with this Bill, but with the existing law. This provision, therefore, confirmed to the courts of law all their existing powers.
Lord Wynfordwished to know, whether the rules and regulations prescribed by the Lord-Lieutenant were to be binding on the police; and, if they were, whether they were to be equally binding with the law of the land. If it were intended to take away from the courts of justice the power of employing the police in their ordinary writs, it ought to be openly done, and not to be obscured and mystified as it was in this clause. The Lord-Lieutenant had monstrous power given him by the other clauses of this Bill, and might enlarge that power still further if he chose to adopt the construction which these words naturally bore. Nothing could, in his opinion, be more dangerous than to unite in the same person the power of executing and expounding the law.
Words expunged, and clause as amended agreed to.
On the 5th clause, giving to the Lord-Lieutenant the power of appointing two inspectors of police in the counties of Cork, Tipperary, and Galway, and one in every
498
other county, county of a city, and county of a town, except the county of the city of Dublin,
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that by the law as it now stood, the Government could appoint four inspectors, one for each province, and between these and the chief constables there was no officer whatever. The present Bill proposed to appoint an inspector-general, two deputies, forty-two inspectors, and forty-two sub-inspectors. The appointment of so many officers gave to the force a totally different character from that which it had now. It was at present essentially a civil force, and it was impossible, from the inadequate number of officers, to employ it in a military capacity. With respect to the question, whether the salary of the inspector should be 500 l. or 250 l. a-year, he thought it expedient that it should be fixed at the latter sum. He considered that this would be an adequate remuneration, especially as 70 l. a-year was allowed for age, and as the inspectors were allowed by this Bill to receive half-pay if they were entitled to it, which had not been permitted under any former measure. Then came the question, whether it was necessary to have inspectors at all? He thought it was proper that officers should be appointed to see that the sub-inspectors in command of the police force performed their duties faithfully, and that each should have the charge of an extensive district of the country. In his opinion, four persons would be sufficient to overlook the force, and to maintain it in a state of efficiency. He thought, that if this proposition were adopted, they would be doing all that could be fairly and reasonably asked by his Majesty's Government. Beyond this they were not at liberty to go; they could not create officers for any purpose but that of increasing the utility and efficiency of the force. The noble Lord moved an amendment to the effect, that the Lord-Lieutenant should have power to appoint four persons to be county inspectors of the police force, to be sent from one district to another, as the exigencies of the public service may require.
Amendment agreed to, and clause agreed to.
On clause 9, which empowers the Lord-Lieutenant to appoint as many chief and other constables as may be deemed necessary for the preservation of the peace,
The Earl of Rodenobjected to the appointment of the sub-constables being taken out of the hands of the magistrates, and transferred to the Lord-Lieutenant.
Lord Ellenboroughthought that the

499
Government ought to have the power of naming a chief constable, and a sufficient number of constables, in cities and towns, without the intervention of three magistrates, as was required by law at present. He should move an amendment to the effect, that the Lord-Lieutenant should have the power of naming a chief constable, and any number of constables and sub-constables, not exceeding 100, in all counties of cities, and counties of towns.
Viscount Duncannonhad no objection to the amendment.
The clause as amended was agreed to.
The remaining clauses of the Bill were also agreed to.
The House resumed and the Bill to be reported.