Sitting of 9 June 1837

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By, Mr. SHAW and Mr. Sergeant JACKSON, from the clergy of Cloyne, Boss, and Munster, against the Ministerial Bill for the abolition of Tithes.—By several hon. MEMBERS, from various places, for the total abolition of Tithes.

WIGAN RECTORY.
On the motion of Mr. Brotherton, the Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate on the Wigan Rectory Bill having been read,
Mr. Hindley Mr. Hindley moved a clause providing "that nothing in that Act contained shall in any manner prevent or interfere with any future appropriation by Parliament of any of the monies raised under and by virtue of this Act to the providing salaries for additional ministers of the Established Church in the parish of Wigan."
The Earl of Darlingtonsaid, the object of the Bill was to enable the rector to let a portion of the glebe on building leases; and agreeably to the wishes of the inhabitants of Wigan, the Committee had resolved that space should be left vacant for the recreation and enjoyment to which the townspeople had long been accustomed on these common lands, a part of which should continue to be held on the same tenure as at present, and not be liable to be built upon. The clause, if passed, would, in his opinion, completely establish the right of that House to interfere in the disposition of private property. The parish of Wigan was a large one, but yet he had never heard that additional ministers were wanted by the parishioners. If any such necessity were proved to exist, he should have no hesitation in saying, that the rector ought to pay those ministers out of his own pocket. In his opinion no private property would be safe if Parliament were to give the power embodied in this clause, to which he trusted the House would never be brought to accede.
The House divided on the question that the clause be brought up:—Ayes 29; Noes 84:—Majority against the clause 55.
On the question, "That the Bill do pass,"
Mr. Hindleydid not want to injure any clergyman connected with the Established Church—but when he found a Bill of this nature before Parliament, which sought to double the income of the rector, in a place where 18,000 persons had been proved to be utterly unprovided with

1333
spiritual education, he felt bound to oppose it.
Mr. E. Ellissaid, that there had never been an inclosure of the property hitherto, and there was a well in the centre of the ground sought to be enclosed, which was of great use to the inhabitants of Wigan, who had strongly petitioned against the Bill, and the only person that would be benefitted was the rector.
The House divided:—Ayes 112; Noes 59:—Majority 53.
Mr. Humesaid, that on Monday a Committee was to be appointed to consider of the best means of increasing the value of Church-lands by a different manner of leasing. The Bill then before the House prejudged that question; he therefore moved that the question be postponed till that day six months.
Mr. D. W. Harveyregretted the absence of his Majesty's Ministers. The House appeared to be studiously kept in the dark on the question. It was admitted that the rector of Wigan already enjoyed an income exceeding 2,000 l. a-year—he was informed 2,300 l.; now the effect of the Bill was, to double that income. The Gentlemen opposite had come forward upon a late occasion as the most strenuous supporters of the Church, as the poor man's church. Now that an opportunity presented itself when they could carry out the views they had then only theoretically put forth, every club had been scoured and emptied in order to swell the numbers of the Conservatives against their avowed principles. He trusted the House would, by some means or other, procrastinate the measure even in its final stage, until the Ministry were present to clear themselves from the inference which might be drawn against them, and to give hon. Gentlemen opposite an opportunity of considering the vote they were about to give.
Mr. Hindleybegged to ask the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair, whether it would be in order then to move that the title of the Bill be altered.
The Speakeranswered in the negative.
Mr. Hindley: The question was, whether the House would allow this money to go to the increase of the luxury of any individual.
Mr. Baineshad a return by which it appeared that the gross income was 2.823 l. a-year, and the net 2,330 l. There was a want of church accommodation in
1334
the parish. Where, he would ask, could there be a better opportunity than the present of increasing church accommodation? The question was, whether the House would sanction the proposition for increased accommodation, or would uphold the abuses of an overpaid Church?
Mr. Roebuck: There is a great deal of hypocrisy in this House. I see the right hon. Member for Cambridge opposite. I want to meet that right hon. Gentleman on this matter. I hear very often on the opposite side of the House great statements made about accommodation for the worship of God. I heard this week, on Wednesday night, great statements made about the necessity of worshipping God on the Sabbath-day, and now we have in opposition to the worship of God a certain sum of money to be put into the pocket of the rector. And now we shall find the value of certain protestations by the vote that will be given on this occasion. Which will carry it, worship or the parson's pocket? The parson's pocket, if I understand it. You talk about worship when it is for your own peculiar party purposes, but when there is a question of whether you are to have money or worship, you are all for money. The question is this:—a certain clergyman, having about 2,000 l. a-year, wishes to put about double that sum into his pocket by an improved value given to the estate by Act of Parliament. The real question before us is, are we to interfere by an Act of Parliament so as to increase the value of Church property when there is before the House a measure respecting improving Church property generally? This is nothing more than an attempt by a side-wind to take out of the operation of that Act a particular person, and I am somewhat surprised his Majesty's ministers are not here to defend or resist a specific violation of their measure to a very important extent, and let the country understand to what extent it is.
Lord Stanleysaid, the rector and patron of the living of Wigan applied for powers to build on a certain portion of land connected with a living, and also for liberty to mine for coal under the same land. A complaint was, however, made that there was on the land a public well, and that several public footpaths crossed it, which it would be unjust to shut up. These points were referred to the two hon. Members for Wigan, and an arrangement was made,

1335
whereby not only the footpaths and the well secured to the inhabitants, but twelve acres of land were given to them for recreation. The sole object of the Bill was to allow buildings to be erected and the land to be mined for coal. He admitted that the value of the living was 2,000 l. a-year net; but out of that considerable sums were paid by the incumbent, one of the most liberal men he ever was acquainted with, in stipends to curates, and in supporting minister's chapelries. He believed that he was fully justified in asserting that the rev. gentleman dispersed annually 1,100 l. among his curates and parishioners.
Mr. Wakleysaid, when the question of Church-rates was brought forward, hon. Gentlemen opposite said, they had no objection to Church property being improved, but that the increase should be applied to procure religious instruction for those destitute of it. Now, what were hon. Gentlemen opposite doing? Instead of securing the increased funds for those destitute of instruction, they were handing the funds over to a fat rector.
The House divided on the question of postponement:—Ayes 108; Noes 189: Majority 81.
Mr. C. Bullersaid, if there was a great opposition got up at the last stage of the Bill, it was because the Bill was a job, carried through so privately that those who are not locally acquainted with Wigan, or with the parties, knew that its object was to convert public property—Church property—to private purposes. He should move an amendment to the title of the Bill, in order to show that those who opposed the Bill would not lend themselves to private Committee jobbing. He begged to move to leave out the last four words of the Bill, and to insert these words—"To enable the rector and patron of the same to increase their private property out of Church property, which was much needed for spiritual purposes in districts which were represented to be in a state of spiritual destitution."
Mr. Humeseconded the amendment.
Mr. Hindleywould move that the debate be adjourned to Monday.
The House divided on the question that the debate be adjourned:—Ayes 66; Noes 165: Majority 99
The amendment of Mr. Buller was negatived without a division.
We subjoin the lists of the division only on the question "That the Bill do pass."

List of the AYES.

Agnew, Sir A.

Jervis, J.

Ainsworth, P.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Alsager, Captain

Johnstone, H.

Ashley, hon. H.

Jones, W.

Bailey, J.

Jones, T.

Balfour, T.

Irton, S.

Barclay, C.

Kearsley, J. H.

Barneby, J.

Knightley, Sir C.

Beckett, right hon. Sir J.

Law, hon. C. E.

Longfield, R.

Bethell, R.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Blackburne, I.

Lowther, J. H.

Blackstone, W. S.

Mackenzie, T.

Bolling, W.

Mahon, Viscount

Bonham, R. F.

Maunsell, T. P.

Bradshaw, J.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Brotherton, J.

Mosley, Sir O.

Canning, right hon. Sir S.

Nicholl, J.

Palmer, G.

Cartwright, W. R.

Parker, M.

Chaplin, Colonel

Parry, Sir L. P. J.

Chapman, A.

Pemberton, T.

Clerk, Sir G.

Pigot, R.

Clive, Viscount

Polhill, F.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Pollen, Sir J. W.

Cole, Viscount

Pollington, Viscount

Compton, H. C.

Price, R.

Corbett, T. G.

Richards, R.

Crewe, Sir G.

Ross, C.

Dalbiac, Sir C.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Duncombe, hon. W.

Ryle, J.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Sandon, Viscount

Eastnor, Viscount

Sheppard, T.

Egerton, Lord F.

Shirley, E. J.

Elwes, J. P.

Smyth, Sir H.

Estcourt, T.

Somerset, Lord G.

Feilden, W.

Stanley, E.

Finch, G.

Stanley, Lord

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Sturt, H. C.

Fleetwood, P. H.

Surrey, Earl of

Forester, hon. G.

Tennent, J. E.

Forster, C. S.

Thomas, Colonel

Fox, C.

Townley, R. G.

Gaskell, Jas. Milnes

Trevor, hon. A.

Gore, O.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Greene, T.

Verner, Colonel

Gresley, Sir R.

Vyvyan, Sir R.

Grimston, Viscount

Walker, R.

Hamilton, G. A.

Whitmore, T. C.

Harcourt, G. S.

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Hardy, J.

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

Hayes, Sir E. S.

Wodehouse, E.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Hogg, J. W.

Wrottesley, Sir J.

Hope, H. T.

Hotham, Viscount

TELLERS.

Houstoun, G.

Darlington, Earl of

Jackson, Mr. Sergeant

Patten, J. W.

List of the NOES.

Baines, E.

Bowring, Dr.

Berkeley, hon. F.

Bridgeman, H.

Bewes, T.

Brodie, W. B.

Blake, M. J.

Browne, R. D.

Bodkin, J. J.

Byng, G.

1337

Codrington, Admiral

Macleod, R.

Collins, W.

Mactaggart, J.

Crawford, W. S.

Mangles, J.

Divett, E.

Marshall, W.

Duncombe, T.

Marsland, H.

Dundas, hon. T.

Musgrave, Sir R.

Ellice, E.

Ord, W.

Etwall, R.

Pattison, J.

Fenton, J.

Roche, W.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Strutt, E

Grote, G.

Stuart, V.

Guest, J. J.

Talbot, J. H.

Harvey, D. W.

Thornley, T.

Hawes, B.

Turner, W.

Hawkins, J. H.

Vivian, J. H.

Hector, C. J.

Wakley, T.

Heron, Sir R.

Walker, C. A.

Hume, J.

Wallace, R.

Humphery, J.

Wason, R.

James, W.

Wilbraham, G.

Johnston, A.

Wilks, J.

Lefevre, C. S.

Williams, Sir J.

Lennox, Lord G.

Wood, Alderman

Lennox, Lord A.

TELLERS.

Lister, E. C.

Hindley, C.

Lushington, C.

Strickland, Sir G.

STATE OF THE NATION.
On the Order of the Day being read,
Mr. Roebucksaid, it would be in the recollection of the House that he had given notice of a motion relative to the state in which the Government stood, and he considered the present occasion a fit opportunity for redeeming his pledge. The Order of the Day for the second reading of the Irish Tithe Bill had been put, and it appeared to him that they were about to lose their time by so doing, because even if they passed that Bill it could not become a law, at least under the auspices of the present advisers of the Crown. The circumstances in which that House stood were most remarkable, and required deep consideration. Two bills had been sent up to the other House of Parliament, but they were told the House of Lords would not take them into consideration until something had been done by that House to please them. Of that threat no notice was taken, and particularly none by his Majesty's Ministers; and he was bound to say, from their whole conduct, that they did nothing for the people, though they did much against them; their labours, in fact, were little better than nothing. The House and the country had been told at various times that justice was to be done to Ireland; but what he wished to call the attention of the House to, was the situation in which this House, the country, and the Government were at the
1338
present moment; and he asked the House, and he asked his Majesty's ministers, if they were not in a very extraordinary difficulty? What was the difficulty? There was no Government of the country. The difficulty was, that the time of the House was spent to no purpose; and further than that, the stoppage to business was not only caused by the other House, but also by the House of Commons. But the other night the Government had really suffered a defeat on the Church-rate Bill, when, on a division, they had only a majority of five in their favour. Now, every one knew that was virtually a defeat, and the Bill could not again be brought forward in that House. Ministers were not in the position in which they stood at the commencement of the Session. They stated then they would place their existence as Ministers on the fate of the Corporation Bill for Ireland. The noble Lord the leader of that House stated in his place, that if the Bill did not pass the House, he and his colleague would retire. What had become of that Bill? Why, it had been postponed, and it was distinctly understood that it would be postponed till the Lords knew what that House was about. The other House thwarted and obstructed measures sent up to them and virtually said to the House of Commons, "if you will not do what we like, we will not pass your bill." That was the position of the House of Lords; but obstruction and delay were not confined to the House of Lords. What had been done in that House? Every proposition—every measure brought forward for removing the evil, the noble Lord and the Government had distinctly and unequivocally refused to pass. Every one of these propositions the noble Lord had got rid of by an evasion. In what state, then, were they? Paralysed. And he asked the noble Lord, he asked the House, and, further, he asked the country, what good was to be derived from playing over a farce by discussing the Irish Tithe Bill? Did they not know that, if it passed that House, defeat awaited it elsewhere, and that it could not become a law? Every one said to his neighbour, that it was of no use to discuss such a measure, because it was sure to be lost. He wanted, therefore, to see if the position of the country could be altered he wanted to see if there were any means of extricating the House and the country from the difficulty. Every body knew

1339
the difficulty was great—every body knew that the existence of the ministry hung on a thread, and if present circumstances continued, there would not be a ministry much longer. Now, that was said in private. Why should it not be said in public? Why should the government not admit and give publicity to the fact? But that was the way in which a ministry called liberal and returned to office by the popular voice, rendered the services the people expected of them. They pursued a line of policy which their best friends dreaded and which their enemies admired. They were useless for good purposes—they were of use only for evil, and as far as the people were concerned were only mischievous; and if they remained in that hopeless condition there would be no result but mischief to the people. I am willing to allow, that Ministers have honest intentions, and are desirous to carry out the fruits of the Reform Bill; but still I must ask what has been done? It must be in the recollection of every one that on the passing that Reform Act the unrepresented classes (that is, those who were to remain unrepresented after the passing of the Reform Act) determined to forego their claim to the franchise, upon the representations made to them by their friends of the advantages to be derived from that measure when it became a law. Solemn promises were made on the part of the new constituencies of great reforms to be effected in all departments of the Government, and the public at large entertained great hopes in consequence of these magnificent promises. For example, the people were told that important reductions should take place in the expenditure of the state. Improvements were promised in the administration of the law in all its branches. Justice to Ireland, so long delayed, was now confidently anticipated. It was supposed that by a reformed Parliament effectual means would be provided for the education of the people, and thus the ground laid for getting rid of every objection to the extension of the suffrage to all classes of the people. And, furthermore, we were told that the government of corruption was to be ended for ever, and Tory domination was said to be doomed to eternal destruction. The hopes then raised have been miserably disappointed—the promises then made have been shamefully broken. The expenditure of the country is as wasteful and
1340
extravagant as in the palmy days of Toryism. There has been no actual reduction of expenditure [Oh, oh!]. Hon. Members may cry "Oh, oh!" but unfortunately there are certain o, o, o's at the end of certain figures [Cheers and laughter]. The administration of the law is as disgraceful now as before the days of the reformed Parliament. Now, under the auspices of a liberal Government, there is one law for the rich and another for the poor, and justice is utterly denied to the indigent. Justice has not been done to Ireland. The education of the people is left to the government of chance, and so far from attempts being made to extend the franchise, every nerve has been strained to narrow and curtail it. The government of corruption is not ended, neither are the days of Toryism numbered. A few nights since the so-called liberal Government were defeated—not in the House of Lords—not in the Chamber of hereditary and irresponsible Legislators—but here, in the Commons House, as it is denominated;—here, by the representatives of the people, have the measures of the liberal Government been repudiated. Here, by the very power by whose aid we expected to overawe and control the opponents of the popular will, have all our vain hopes been destroyed; and we have learned, at length, that, before good government can be attained, yet more extensive and searching reforms must be made in the frame and constitution of the Legislature. And, to sum up the catalogue of evil, it is now evident to every one that the present Government is doomed; every one says this to his neighbour in private; I cannot understand why it should not be publicly avowed. We all of us well know that the termination of the present ministry is but a question of small time; and we look upon the early incoming of that party which we were confidently told was for ever destroyed as inevitable as to some it is painfully disagreeable. But, while we are all thus agreed as to the result—while every one knows, and by a sort of instinct feels, that the early dissolution of the present Cabinet is certain—we are far from universally understanding the cause of this disagreeable effect. When it is asked why things are so, few are prepared with any, still fewer with the right, answer. I will at once offer to the House my explanation of the causes of the present embarrassments of the Government, and de-

1341
scribe the only remedy for the disease under which they labour. I will assume, Sir, by way of hypothesis, and for the purposes of the present argument, that the Ministry are honest in their intentions, and that when they came into power they really desired to obtain for the people that which the people believed to be the legitimate fruits of the Reform Bill. The real state of the Legislature at that time ought to be carefully recollected. One branch of the Legislature, viz. the House of Lords, were well known to be bitterly hostile to the popular demands, and the House of Commons also was known very imperfectly to represent the whole population of the country. Working, then, with instruments thus defective, two courses lay before the Ministry seeking to obtain for the nation that good Government which they had long demanded. They might endeavour to win over their opponents by compromise, in the hope of disarming opposition; or they might pursue a bold and determined course, and thus force their enemies and the people's enemies to yield. Unfortunately the present Cabinet determined on the first course; and from the moment of their accepting office down to the present hour their Government, has been a constant see-saw between hostile principles. On no occasion have they laid down a rule on principle and steadily adhered to it, but have always sought to attain their ends by a shifting and evasive policy. For example, they have never hardly laid down and faithfully followed to all its consequences the leading principle of popular Government, viz., that the governors ought to be responsible to the governed. They have, however, constantly hinted at this doctrine, and have sought by side-wind attempts to carry it into practice, while, at the same moment, they have in words done every thing to impugn it. To-day they are liberal; tomorrow the reverse. Aristocratic in principle; democratic in pretence. So far as relates to the manner of their proceedings. The matter of their proposals has been of the same nature. They have come forward with large promises and mean performance. Vaguely liberal has been their talk—ineffective and useless have been their measures. What has been the necessary result? They have to the utmost angered their opponents; they have created an hostility that cannot be surpassed—fierce, bitter, and undying, it is impos-
1342
sible to increase and apparently impossible to allay it. But they have not done anything to inspirit their friends; and they have allowed the great body of the people to become indifferent respecting them; and exceedingly suspicious as to the honesty of their intentions. The people say that their expectations have been deceived, that none of the vaunted benefits of the Reform Bill have accrued to the nation, and that in every important particular the Government is now essentially the same as that in existence before the supposed improvement of the representation. The fatal consequence of this feeling on the part of the public is apathy respecting the present administration and all which may succeed it, while our institutions remain unaltered. And apathy among the people is destruction to a liberal administration. I have stated in this House before, that the existence of any administration which dealt in compromise, and which by this means sought to keep our institutions such as they are, could only be maintained by keeping the people in a state of constant excitement. This I then adduced as a great evil, and I still insist upon my former statement; and I complain now, as I complained then, of the conduct of the Ministry. A wise Government would have understood and properly appreciated the evil, and would have taken the only means of quickly and effectually remedying it. They would have placed before the people a plan of a constitution which would insure peace and good Government in a calm as well as an excited state. They would have told the people that one great effort was necessary; and they would have guided the movement they had created to a definite and certain end. But the present Government has, as usual, done only half of this. They have sought to keep the people excited—but not by hope, but by fear. They have not told them what they ought to desire, but have striven every nerve to point out an evil they ought to avoid. The great terror, the standing hobgoblin, by which they have wrought upon popular fear, has been the return of the Tories to power. This instrument of excitement has at length lost its power. The game of the Whigs has been played to the end, and failure and defeat now stare us in the face. The people are no longer terrified by the cry of "The Tories are coming."

1343
They answer, "If they do come, what evil will follow? Our position under the Whig administration is no better than it was under the Tories, and if the latter come into power we shall be no worse off than now. We, through the instrumentality of the Whigs, have for the last five years lived a life of feverish hope and fear. Our hopes have been bitterly disappointed; we have begun to believe that our fears were as idle as our hopes." Such is now the language of the people; and the Gentlemen opposite who are so eager for power are thought to be strong because the Liberals become weak. They have not a greater hold upon the affections of the nation now than they had a few years since, but the Whig administration has lost its influence, and the cruel position of our Government is such that no Liberal Government can maintain its existence except during a state of popular enthusiasm towards liberal doctrines. The Whig Government has done nothing to take advantage of the favourable moment—they have not strengthened popular institutions, but have, by their neglect and trifling with every great principle, cooled down the enthusiasm that might have rendered them triumphant, and disgust has succeeded to hope. If it be asked why the people feel disappointed, I need only point to three cases in which, amongst others, their hopes have been cruelly disappointed. First, all hopes of justice to Ireland are at an end—at least all hope of justice being peaceably rendered to that country has vanished; second, all hope of justice to the Dissenters of England has also gone to the same borne; and lastly, the unrepresented millions see no chance of obtaining what they desire—a share in that Government which decides upon their lives and fortunes. In everyone of these cases, which I have selected from a mass by way of illustration, the cause of the people's disappointment is the same; and that is the course of compromise, the weak and dangerous trifling and tampering with principle, which the Government has followed and adopted. They were told at the outset of their career that this course would fail, and that such dishonest dealing with principle would lead to defeat. Has not the event justified the prediction? You have tried on your knees to obtain justice for Ireland—your real principles have been cloaked, hidden, shuffled over, distorted, twisted; degradation could not go further
1344
than I have witnessed on the part of the ministerial advocates of justice for Ireland: and what has been your reward? Contempt and scorn. Your enemies have trampled upon your measures; they have contemptuously delayed, changed, or rejected them, as the humour of their insolence suggested; and you have bowed and humbled yourselves to the dust, and with supplicant voice, and crouching, crawling subservience, have prayed them to be moderate in their supremacy. What ought you to have done? What you did not dare to do. You should have raised on high the banner of freedom for England and for Ireland. You should have boldly told the people of both countries justice could not be gained by either while an irresponsible body of hereditary legislators could at will dispose of the fortunes and the happiness of the people. Did you do this? Never. But you did all you were able to bring contempt upon those who pointed out the real seat of the mischief. You said you desired to introduce responsibility into the local Government of Ireland—so far you maintained the democratic dogma. But you scornfully treated all who explained to the people that the reason of the failure of your attempt was the irresponsibility of the House of Lords, and so far you, after the true see-saw or Whig fashion, favoured the aristocratic doctrine. The people looked on—they began to grow angry with the hereditary band of legislators. A word from you—a hand lifted up by one of the Ministerial leaders—would have created a feeling which the Lords could not have withstood. But, then, hereditary privileges would have been in danger, and your order would have suffered. Be it so—let us allow that your conduct was natural. It is plain that you love those exclusive privileges more than you love good government for the people, and that when the two things come into collision you in reality side not with the people, but with their enemies. Let the world know this—be honest in the matter, and do not pretend to be Liberals with such feelings predominant. So much for the way in which you dealt with a great principle when the happiness of Ireland was concerned. Now, let us look at the conduct you pursued when the great doctrines of religious freedom were at stake here in England. The Dissenters have petitioned this House to relieve them from an impost which, they

1345
tell us, presses hard upon their consciences—they tell us, that to maintain a church from whose doctrines they dissent is to them a grievous calamity—and the Ministry listen to their complaints, and they immediately assume the name of Friends of the Dissenters and of religious liberty. How do they manifest this their devotion to the cause of religious freedom? Do they come down to this House and openly avow the doctrines upon which alone these imposts ought to be abolished? No; they assure all those who maintain the supremacy of the Church of England, and who resist this proceeding as an attack upon that supremacy, that they are among the warmest friends of all the exclusive privileges of the Church of England; they say, also, that they are enemies of the voluntary system. Thus far they maintain the doctrines of religious tyranny. But, on the other hand, on the see-saw principle, they bring forward a measure the tendency of which is to support and advance the voluntary principle, and which can be properly supported only by an appeal to that principle: so far they are friends to religious liberty. The consequence of this proceeding has been defeat in this House—ignominious defeat, and disgust out of doors. The people are disheartened when led by such men, whose principles they cannot understand, and whose honesty consequently they begin seriously to doubt. Their conduct concerning the franchise, and the reforms yet necessary in this House, has been in the same way marked by a constant wavering between opposite opinions. The noble Lord who represents the Government in this House, often talks of the control which the people ought to have over their concerns; and at times he speaks the language of one who is really indignant at the vagaries of irresponsible rulers; and yet he does nothing to strengthen the hands of the people in this House, and thus enable them to coerce irresponsible power elsewhere. Every thing yet offered to this House by the friends of popular Government, has met its chief opposition from the Ministerial bench. To the ballot, the Ministry have constantly shown an inveterate hostility; to every attempt to enlarge the suffrage, they have also set themselves in opposition; and even now I am hardly certain whether the noble Lord is really intent on curtailing the mischievous effects of the
1346
rate-paying clauses of the Reform Bill. Thus it is that on every occasion a doubtful course is pursued, no principle is steadily adhered to, none followed to its legitimate and necessary consequences; and the effect of this as regards the noble Lord and his Friends, has been, that the people are now careless of their fate, and will soon view with complacency any event which drives them from power. It is often said, in defence of this conduct, that the Ministry are not to blame, because the people are unprepared for greater liberality. That is the present state of parties; the Cabinet, therefore, have been obliged to shift their ground, and by a side wind to attempt to carry what to attain directly was impossible. I object to this defence, that it is dishonest and foolish, unworthy of men who seek a great and just end—even were it politic—and in the actual state of things utterly ridiculous. It is said, for example, that the people are not prepared in many matters for the true liberal doctrines, and that if we hope to attain our ends, we must keep those doctrines in the back ground; and I often hear it asserted, that the extension of the suffrage is not popular; and then I hear harangues like the following—"Do not shock the feelings of the people by too open an avowal of your doctrines. You must advance step by step. You must not give to babes the food of men. Do not embarrass the Ministry by impracticable proposals, or foolish enthusiasm—let us gain as much as we can, and each advance aids us in going onward." This language I call dishonest; furthermore, it is exceedingly foolish. All this time you suppose your opponents blind or foolish—in fact, you fancy that what you all see plainly they cannot discern. Is not this supremely ridiculous? What! are we to suppose that the right hon. Baronet opposite is not so shrewd as we? Do you believe that he and his party, here and elsewhere, do not, as plainly as we can, understand all the consequences of this proceeding; and do you believe that they will be silent,—that they will not tell the world what they conceive to be the inevitable consequence of any measure you propose? Have they not done it? Have they not accused you of hypocrisy, of pretended tenderness of conscience—and have you not winced under the accusation? for you had no answer to make. I am met, however, with the assertion, that "we cannot carry

1347
our measures if we avow our principles." Had I no other answer I could reply, it is proved that you cannot carry yours, even though you should disingenuously endeavour to hide and distort them. But my real answer is, if you cannot honestly attain your end, forego it. Be content to wait till the people are prepared to admit your principles; labour to convert them—labour to prove your doctrines wise and just; but never seek to attain your object by dishonest subterfuge. I know well, that the timid and the disingenuous will multiply in every shape and form the accusation of imprudence against myself on the present occasion. I shall be said to have unwisely laid bare before an unprepared people, my views and intentions. My answer is, that I have told the truth. I have asserted my principles, and I have protested against the tampering that I have witnessed with the great doctrines of civil and religious liberty. I ask of those who speak against me to look back to the history of all the struggles for freedom. By whom and by what conduct have all our advances been made? Has it been to the wily and trimming politician that we have been indebted for that liberty we now enjoy? Was it any assertion of half principles, of wavering and uncertain doctrines, that won for us, step by step, the inestimable blessings of freedom in thought and action? No, it was the sturdy and uncompromising assertion of great principles, the steadfast adherence to truth, the rejection of all unworthy means, which gained for us this mighty victory. The weapons by which we can advance and defend the great cause of freedom, must also be taken from the bright armoury of truth, and we, like our predecessors in this mighty argument, must watch, with religious caution, that by no unworthy means we cast a shade upon their lustre, or dull the sharpness of their edge. We must wait patiently till we can, by honest means, attain honest ends; and not hope or seek, by wily artifice, to lead the people to acts which they would not perform did they clearly see all the consequences that must flow from them. One excuse may be, and often is, put forward to palliate this conduct. The party of the Tories, it is said, are so unscrupulous, that to meet them with any chance of success you must adopt unfair weapons also. I grant the first assertion, but utterly refuse my assent to the conclusion drawn from it. I allow that
1348
the Tories have been unscrupulous in their conduct, both in this House and out of it. I allow that, for the purpose of gaining an election, or of bringing the liberal party into discredit with the people, they have never scrupled to assert what they well knew to be false, so that it served their turn. It is true that they, knowing such accusations to be untrue, have accused the Ministry of being enemies to all religion; and in the next breath have declared that they sought to set up Popery. They have endeavoured to persuade the people that they, the Ministry, desired to pull down the churches, or convert them into prisons or stables. Unfortunately, this sort of conduct is not confined to the Tories; would that it were! I remember when I was opposed to a Whig candidate, that the very same accusation was brought against myself. And I have seen the super-sublimated pietists even on this side of the House, assert, with bigot self-complacency, "Oh! ye are naught, for ye are not as holy as we." Suppose, however, that the Tories have done all these things, why, I ask, need we be dishonest also? If we look at the matter merely as one of policy, we shall at once perceive, that while they may safely employ dishonest means, we must be ruined by them. Be it remembered that the Tory party represents he sinister interests of this country. Every one that desires to live on public plunder—every one that desires to preserve unjust privileges or irresponsible power—all who oppress the weak, the poor, and the humble—all who seek to maintain ignorance and prejudice among the people, every quack in religion or politics, every one who desires to curtail the power of the many, and to increase the power and immunities of the few, are banded together, and form, what is called, the Tory party. Now, what does it matter to men with these ends, what means they use? Every falsehood propagated, every popular error maintained, is so much in their favour. The errors and the ignorance of the people have allowed these sinister interests hitherto to flourish; by error and by ignorance alone can they continue. Therefore, every means which tends to maintain and increase ignorance, is to them legitimate. But to the liberal cause ignorance on the part of the people is fatal; you seek to give the people power, to make their servants responsible. This cannot be accomplished but by spreading

1349
knowledge among them—by the propagation of truth. Pursue the courses of those opposite, and you will shortly see falsehood triumphant and your enemies in the ascendant. Some there are, however, who say, that the people are not prepared for the truth. This estimate of their feelings I believe to be utterly false. There is now a great and growing feeling in favour both of civil and religious liberty; and it has been a short-sighted policy on the part of the ministry to attempt to establish the one or the other, without acknowledging the principles upon which they are demanded. In the present constitution of the legislature, a liberal government cannot be maintained, in power unless the people be enthusiastic in their favour. This fact I bitterly lament and deem it the most grievous circumstance connected with our present position. The people, to be safe from the inroads of a plundering faction, must be ever on the alert in a state bordering on revolution. A wise ministry would endeavour to remedy this crying evil by one great effort, and, having an enthusiastic people at their backs, would so alter the constitution of the legislature as to render a wise administration as certain in a calm, as in an excited condition of the people. To create this necessary and generous enthusiasm, a bold and determined course is needed. Show the people something to strive for—place before their eyes a prize worth their attainment, and you will quickly have at your command a force which will overawe all opposition. You must not, however, deal with great questions after the fashion of your church-rate policy, or that shewn by you respecting the church of Ireland—or as you have hitherto done in all that relates to the improvement of this House. It is not by compromise or the see-saw statement of conflicting doctrines that you can create enthusiasm; and without this feeling in the people, inevitable destruction in the present condition of the legislature awaits every liberal ministry. As every one, no matter how dull, reluctant, or sanguine, now sees the fate that hangs over the present Government, I may be excused for suggesting for their consideration something concerning the future. The destinies of the liberal cause will be greatly affected by the course which they may pursue, and much of good or evil to their country will be the result of their conduct during the trial that awaits them. For myself, in no
1350
circumstances do I despair of the fortunes of the liberal cause; neither do I permit myself to be blinded as to the dangers which that cause has to encounter. A time of trial is coming; and upon the determinations of the present Government it depends whether we shall fight the battle aided by an enthusiastic people and a majority in this House—or have to stand the encounter in opposition, and in a minority, and with a people disheartened and disgusted. In other cases I do not despair of victory; but it must be evident to every one, that the labours and the dangers of the encounter will differ much in the different circumstances I have described. Without circumlocution, then, Sir, I will state, (what every one knows to be true) that the present ministry will cease to be a ministry in a few weeks, if the people remain in their present apathetic condition. The Gentlemen opposite are strong, not because the public sympathise with them, but because they are indifferent as regards us. They (the people) have learned to feel, that little or no difference to them results from the existence of a so called Liberal or a Tory administration. This House, therefore, unchecked and unimpelled from without, follows the natural bent of its inclination, and that is rather to the Tory than the Liberal side of politics. Every day increases the indifference of the people; every day, therefore, strengthens the opposite party here. But a few weeks will elapse before their minority of five will have swelled to a majority, and then, those hopes which are so plainly evinced in the eager eyes of Gentlemen opposite will be fulfilled, and they will be introduced to the cares and the emoluments of office. Now, the question is, can this be prevented? My belief is that it may. To the ministry, two courses are open—they may yield to their fate and quietly sink into obscurity; or, acknowledging the error of their past plans, they may discard the Whig doctrines of compromise, assume a bolder tone, come forward with an effective reform of the Reform Act, thus inspirit and enlist the masses into their ranks, and put down their opponents by the aid of the enthusiasm of an expectant people. The timid, the irresolute, and the dishonest will say that this is a visionary scheme-—they will say, as they have said, that the apathy and indifference of the people have resulted from their dislike to change, and

1351
from the belief that Ministers have already gone too far. I know this is a favorite doctrine, and no persons have been so sedulous in the propagation of it as the Ministers and their immediate adherents. The doctrine has been applied as a battery against their Radical supporters. It was a natural and useful argument to those who wanted an excuse for inaction, as well as some means of putting a stop to the complaints of those who desired to advance. Much has thus been done to throw odium upon what are called extreme opinions; but one result has followed which the propagators of slanders against the Radical party did not anticipate. Men have reasoned thus: If further changes be unnecessary, and the present condition is the best we can hope for, then, indeed, the toils necessary to effect reforms are not repaid by the results. The Reform Act itself, which cost us so much labour, was nearly a useless task, for the benefits we have hitherto derived from it have not rewarded us for the pecuniary loss which many of us have sustained, for the painful excitements which all have undergone, for the mental and bodily labour which every Reformer had to endure. If so, let us seek quiet—let us turn our minds from political to our mere personal concerns, and leave the business of politics to those who make a trade of it. Such has been one effect of the preachment of the Ministry and their friends respecting going too far; another, perhaps still more injurious to their cause, has resulted from it. The Ministry, and more especially that section of them which is publicly believed to lean to Toryism, have on all occasions been eager to express contempt as well as hatred for the opinions and characters of their Radical supporters. This has led to reciprocal ill-will, and the masses whose opinions the Radical party here represent have been led to believe that the Ministry have really no desire to advance; that their chief object of solicitude is their places, and the next the aristocratic and exclusive privileges of their order. The millions of this country, I mean the unrepresented millions, have no confidence in the honesty of Ministers, and this doubt has been created and fostered by the whole tenour of their conduct respecting the demands of the unrepresented masses. On all occasions they have been repudiated with scorn and openly-avowed disgust. Thus while one large section of the people
1352
have been rendered indifferent, another, still more numerous, have been made active enemies. This has been the effect of your doctrine respecting going too far. They who preached that doctrine have never condescended to take into their consideration the masses who are not represented, nor to understand or appreciate the value of their support. Let it, however, be remembered, that all great reforms have been, and while our Legislature is as faulty as at present, must be, gained by the unrepresented. The Reform Act was gained by them; and every reform that Ireland will receive will be obtained by the overwhelming power of the unrepresented masses. Create enthusiasm amongst them, and it spreads to the constituencies—allow apathy and indifference to prevail, a feeling of caste arises in the constituent bodies, and they become careless of liberal doctrines; Toryism comes gradually into the ascendant, and the dishonest among the reforming ranks keep up a constant clamour about going too far. Whatever may be the confidence of Ministers in their own opinions, or their doubts respecting what I now advance, this much is certain—back they cannot go; if they stand still they are ruined; their only chance of success is by going forward. If they will heartily and cordially co-operate with the Radical party, they may again have the support of an enthusiastic people, may retain their present position as leaders of the liberal cause, and run a brilliant as well as useful career. This charge may be made with ease, and without injury to their character as honest politicians. They may now safely assert, that to obtain for the people that which the people expected from the Reform Bill, by the compromising plan hitherto adopted, has been proved by experience to be impossible. Desiring to fulfil the people's wishes, they may now try another and a bolder course. Their enemies, and the people's enemies, have driven them to this alternative. The headlong obstinacy of the Tory party here, and in the House of Lords, their signal and loudly-declared contempt of the popular demands, their refusal to be parties to any compromise, compel you, as friends of the people, to pursue a new conduct, to adopt as stern and unyielding a principle as their own—and since they will not yield to the mild remonstrance and requests of the people, you must now demand as a right, not to be refused, what

1353
you have hitherto sought as a favour. If the Ministry determine upon this conduct, the result is certain—if they refuse to adopt it, equally certain will be the consequence; but it will be a fatal one to them. And now, as an earnest for a new course of conduct, and a commencement thereof, I would entreat the noble Lord solemnly to consider his position, and grant the inquiry. He may soon, if he pursue this course, contemn the taunts and threats of his opponents, secure in the love and respect of the nation. But if he should determine not to adopt this plan, then his ministerial reign will be quickly over, and he and his friends will be thrown aside as tools worn out and useless, and he and they will very soon be utterly forgotten. Then, in opposition, supported only by a minority, the Radicals will have to fight the battle of freedom with their implacable enemies. The day of our final victory will be distant; but he whose eyes are not dimmed by prejudice, whose courage does not quail in danger, will see in "clear reason" and solemn vision the hour of our certain triumph. Labouring patiently for the great cause of human freedom, we must abide our time, well assured that though our reward in the welfare of our country may be distant, yet it will be finally accorded; and when that happy time arrives, we shall have the proud satisfaction of having, single handed, fought the good fight for freedom, and, single handed, gained for her a glorious victory. In the present state of parties in this House and of the Government, the whole machinery of legislation is at a dead stop. Under these circumstances, does it not behove us, instead of proceeding with a Bill which we know can in no case pass into a law, to endeavour to discover the means of rescuing ourselves from the difficulties in which we have been involved by the conduct of his Majesty's Government? I, therefore, Sir, ask the House to resolve itself into a Committee for the purpose of taking into consideration the state of the nation.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, Sir, I have nothing to do with the motives which may have actuated the hon. and learned Member for Bath in making the speech which we have just heard; nor is the effect which such a speech can have on the country to me a matter of great concern. If, also, the object of the hon. Gentleman's speech had been merely to inculpate his
1354
Majesty's Ministers for the course which they have thought it their duty to pursue, I might well have sat silent, and left to them the task, of which they are fully capable, of making their own defence. But the hon. and learned Member was not content with that. His speech involved a serious inculpation of all those hon. Members who, like myself, have honestly and strenuously supported the present administration; firmly believing that the course they have been pursuing is best calculated to promote the advance of liberal opinions; opinions which I think the speech and the political conduct of the hon. and learned Gentleman tend to repress and injure. The hon. and learned Gentleman claims for himself the merit of an extraordinary attachment to the principles of liberty and of liberal government. Sir, I will not yield to him or to any man in that attachment; but experience has shown me that the cause of liberty, which is that of liberal government, is more practically advanced by other means than by loud professions of attachment to that cause, while the hon. and learned Member at the same time impugns and endeavours to destroy every measure the tendency of which is to carry into effect the very principles which he pretends to hold so dear. The hon. and learned Gentleman has thought proper to put into the mouths of his Majesty's Government when they came into office declarations of the vast economical and other reforms, of their determination to do justice to Ireland, &c., &c. Sir, I do not remember that when they came into power they made any such extensive pledges. I do remember that there was one point on which they insisted—namely, the propriety of adopting certain measures respecting Ireland. The hon. and learned Member says, "You cannot do justice to Ireland, your power as a Government is effete, and you can do nothing to benefit the people of Ireland." Sir, the proper answer to such an assertion is an appeal to the feelings of the people of Ireland with reference to his Majesty's present Government. Have the people of Ireland complained of the conduct of his Majesty's present Government to that country? Have the people of Ireland said to his Majesty's Government, "You came into office full of professions of what you intended to do for Ireland; but either the power or the inclination has been wanting, for you have done nothing for us?" On the con-

1355
trary, have we not seen numerous declarations of bodies of the people of Ireland expressive of their gratitude for what his Majesty's present Government have done for Ireland, and of their conviction that it would be highly conducive to the interests and benefit of that country that that Government should remain in power? How, therefore, can the hon. and learned Member for Bath say that Ireland has derived no advantage from the present Government, when it is evident that the very reverse is the truth? So much, Sir, for Ireland. What more does the hon. and learned Gentleman say? "Mark what you have done; or rather what you have neglected to do. You have not had the courage to come forward like men and effect the overthrow of the Church of England, and therefore you are deprived of the aid and support of a great majority of the people of England." Now, in the first place, if his Majesty's Ministers had come forward with any proposition the effect of which was to overthrow the Church of England, although backed by the hon. and learned Member for Bath, they would most unquestionably have found themselves in a miserable minority, both in this House and in the country. The opinion on the subject which the hon. and learned Member for Bath alone entertains (for although he uses the pronoun "we," I am convinced that he does not speak the sentiments of any man in the House but himself), is one which I have no hesitation in declaring I never could, under any circumstances, be induced to adopt. I never could consent to any measure the object of which was the destruction of the Church of England. "But," says the hon. and learned Member, "if you had taken a contrary course with reference to the Church of England, you would have had with you the whole country—Dissenters and all." Did the hon. and learned Gentleman pretend to assert that there was any body of Dissenters in the country hostile to the measure which was introduced by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer? I tell the hon. and learned Member—and I defy him to contradict me—that among the whole of the Dissenters of England, from those who are the furthest removed in doctrine from the Church of England, to those who most nearly approximate to that doctrine—from the Unitarians down to the Independents—there is scarcely an exception; there is,
1356
in fact, perfect unanimity in favour of the measure of his Majesty's Government, and a perfect willingness to receive it as a measure satisfactory to the most scrupulous conscience, and giving the Dissenters all they ask, wish, or require. Again, the hon. and learned Member for Bath seems to consider it to be the duty of his Majesty's Government to drive on such measures as may lead to a collision between this House and the House of Lords. Now on that point I differ from the hon. and learned Member in toto. It is the duty of his Majesty's Government to propose, and of this House to pass, such measures as they think essentially beneficial to the country; but in considering those measures it is consistent with wisdom and prudence to endeavour so to modify them as to afford the best probability of their obtaining the sanction of the House of Lords. Whoever maintains a different doctrine, is, in my opinion, in the first place, a real enemy to the measures of which he professes to be the friend; and, in the second place, precipitates the production of those great constitutional changes which ought not to be resorted to except in cases of indispensable necessity. If, after a long series of measures, and after the people of England have unequivocally showed their approbation of such measures, they should continue to be rejected by the House of Lords; and if, after ample time and consideration, it should appear to be impossible that the present constitution of the House of Lords should continue compatibly with the welfare of the kingdom, and that something must be done to remedy the evil, I am not one to say, that that something ought not to be done. But, Sir, I am desirous of going on by degrees; I am desirous of avoiding such a proceeding until the last moment; I am desirous of avoiding it until it appears to be a matter of unavoidable necessity, called for by the unanimous, or almost the unanimous, voice of the people. The hon. and learned Member for Bath anticipates the rejection by the House of Lords of a measure in progress in this House. Now, as that measure stands upon grounds different from those of the measure of last Session, I am by no means prepared to say, that if the measure in question meets with the approbation of this House the House of Lords will not give it a fair and candid consideration. But what is the

1357
course advised by the hon. and learned Member for Bath? What is the nostrum which he recommends to his Majesty's Government, to enable them to regain the confidence of the people of England? To go to the utmost extent of his own theoretical notions; without the slightest regard to evils which might flow from such a proceeding!—And what is to be the result of the coquetry which the hon. and learned Member is practising upon the opposite benches? The hon. and learned Member during his speech had, as a consolation for the silence of the rest of the House, the faint cheer of an hon. Member for a northern county, faintly echoed by the leader of the opposition benches. But I must do the right hon. Baronet the justice to say, that I am quite aware of his utter dissent from the hon. and learned Members political doctrines. Sir, I have had much experience in this House; and I have always found that the men who in the commencement of their career professed the most, that the men who boasted most of their singular and extraordinary zeal, that the men who assumed the possession of peculiar correctness of conduct, that the men who treated with contempt the efforts of those who were engaged in the same cause as themselves,—I have always found that in the end such men proved the weakest supporters, and sometimes the bitterest enemies, of the very principles of which they considered themselves the warmest friends.
Colonel Thompsonsaid, a fat soldier once presented himself to a reviewing general, and said, "I am the skeleton of the hundred-and-first regiment." It might have occurred to the hon. and learned Gentleman who just sat down, that the seconder of the amendment, however closely he might approach to the position of that skeleton, was at all events likely to make an exception to the assertion that there was nobody who joined in the opinions of the Mover. He must state, therefore, openly and fairly, that he coincided entirely in the principle of everything that had been said by the Member for Bath. Their complaint was (and he would willingly use the dual number if he was speaking Greek or any language that possessed it), that from the earliest period when it was practicable to form any judgement of the practice of the Ministry, the Ministers had adopted a
1358
course calculated to let down themselves, and every body connected with them, and to bring advantage to nobody but their enemies. They had started with a large stock of popular energy in their favour, and in their terror lest the steam should burst, they had let the fire go out. One of their first movements, was at one swoop to alienate from themselves the hearts of all the working classess, by their proceedings towards the Dorchester labourers; and if those classes had not absolutely gone over to the enemy, they had, at all events, been cooled of any attachment to the Ministerial side. Like Spanish generals, the Ministry had always had one eye in their own camp, and another in their enemy's; every effort for the success of their own side, had been paralysed by the fear of that side being too successful. The situation to which they had brought themselves was plain to all men. If any event in the chapter of human accidents should happen to give them a reprieve, the only consequence would be, that as they dwindled, dwindled before, they would dwindle, dwindle again. There was no stock of good luck, which such conduct would not run out. It was clear what must come at last; the hon. Gentlemen opposite must return to power, and he hoped they would feel no contempt for those who had foreseen it all along. How long they would stay there, was another question; but there coming in was a phasis, a phenomenon, which the conduct of the Ministers had rendered it inevitable to go through. When this took place, we should possibly see the present Ministers renewing their strength like the eagle, and declaring their willingness to set about doing in good earnest, what they had much better have done before. Though the Member for Bath and himself might be dual in these opinions in that House, there was nothing like duality out of doors; they were both of them supported there by masses of men, who, though moved by nothing like original hostility to the present Ministers or their party, agreed with them in believing that the favourable chances had been thrown away, and that nothing was before us but the process he had endeavoured to describe.
Mr. O'Connellwas at a loss to know whether the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was serious or not. He made one allusion—that of letting out the fire

1359
lest the steam should burst the vessel, which all who had heard of a recent dreadful calamity must agree in thinking the hon. Member for Hull ought especially to have abstained from. Did the hon. and gallant Member for Hull wish that the steam should be kept up till an explosion took place, from which calamities more disastrous than those which had occurred at Hull should follow? He learned, with regret, that the hon. and learned Member for Bath had forgotten all those evils which his Majesty's Government of the present day had prevented in Ireland. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman really and seriously wish to see the Tories in power—that party which had for centuries misgoverned Ireland? He wished him to confine himself to the state of Ireland. His Majesty's Government had directed their attention to the cause of Ireland; and, for the first time, they had a Government which regulated their patronage by a sense of the real merits of individuals. There had been two appointments of gentlemen as King's counsel who were not of the party of the King's Government, but who, on the contrary, were opposed to it. The gentlemen who had been appointed King's counsel were Mr. Blake and Mr. Collins, and the appointments had been made within the last few weeks. None could be more just; one of these learned gentlemen was a Roman Catholic and a Tory, and, therefore, his opinions might naturally be supposed to be less favourable to his Majesty's Government than they otherwise would be. The other was Mr. Collins, whose success in his profession not only warranted but called for his promotion. But would the Tories have done this to those who were in the ranks of their enemies? Was such a thing ever done by that Tory Government whom the hon. and learned Member for Bath would support? The present Government, however, had done this, and they had given to the people of Ireland an opportunity of showing the readiness of the people of Ireland to support his Majesty's Government, who, although they were not able to do all they wished for Ireland, yet showed the disposition to maintain the due execution of the law. The people of Ireland were most ready to give up their most favourite objects to give the present Government the means of carrying out a variety of great public measures which they had in
1360
view. Had not the present Government passed the Bill for the regulation of Municipal Corporations in Ireland, which they had sent up to the House of Lords? And was the Government to be blamed for not doing more, when these great measures were denied to them because they were the people of Ireland, and because the Tory faction were delighted to report the sarcastic expressions of the hon. and learned Member for Bath? The hon. and learned Member for Bath blamed the Government for not being stronger; and with equal reason might Sangrado, who was always bleeding his patients, blame them for not being stronger. He felt it his duty, in the name of the people of Ireland, to protest against his Majesty's Government being blamed for not doing more. That Government had the confidence, and had gained the affections of the people, because they had shown a wish to serve the best interests of the country at large. Whatever might be the opinion of others, he, for one, whatever might be the opinion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, hoped his Majesty's Government would long continue to occupy those stations which they at present held.
Mr. Humehoped it would long be the privilege of that House that those who entertained opinions different from others should be at liberty to express them fearlessly. His hon. and learned Friend had said that the hon. Member for Bath accused the Ministry of being weak, and that he likened him to that practitioner of old who, whilst taking blood from his luckless patients, blamed them for not getting stronger. Though he did not feel the justness of the application of this simile, yet he agreed in many of the statements of his hon. Friend, whilst he differed from him in many others. His hon. Friend, the Member for Bath, never said that he wished to see the Tories in power. He stated that the Ministry at the commencement of their career promised to support certain public measures, and to carry out those general principles upon which they received the support of those who sat on that (the Ministerial) side, and that the people out of doors complained that they had not done so. He contended that they had not done so. He thought that they had not taken those measures which the Reform Bill required. Then, his hon. Friend had argued, that by not support-

1361
ing the measure for triennial Parliaments they had not carried into effect the intentions of those who advocated the Reform Bill, and had thereby lost many of their Friends. And in this view of the case he concurred. This, then, was the opinion of his hon. Friend, though he had not expressed it perhaps in so pleasant a manner. He concurred with the hon. Member for Bath in thinking that his Majesty's Government had not supported those great popular principles which he and others contended they might have done. But he should be very wrong if he did not take into consideration the opposition which they had met with; and he could not think with his hon. Friend that their course was so clear or those difficulties so light as he had represented them to be. He could not shut his eyes to the fact that there were 300 persons in that House who were opposed to his Majesty's Government. He knew that his Majesty's Ministers did every thing in their power to secure popular rights, but as often as they did so their efforts were met by a negative. He thought, however, that there was no opposition either in that House or elsewhere which ought to have prevented the Government from taking a bolder course; but he could never agree with his hon. Friend that the country had not derived great advantage from their administration; and though there were many of their measures which had not passed into law, yet depend upon it they ought to persevere in bringing in good measures. So with reference to the Church-rates Bill, if it were again frustrated elsewhere, still, having passed that House, they owed a great meed of praise to the Government for having brought forward that measure, a measure which went to put an end to that state of degradation to which the Dissenters were exposed, to support a religion in which they did not concur. He did not believe that his Majesty's Government ever advocated the voluntary principle; and he was glad to find that they did not intend to do so. True it was that they had been too chary of speaking of the abuses which existed in the Established Church. He had observed, on the part of the noble Lord, a disposition to remove those laws which were oppressive to the Dissenters; and a desire to remove all invidious distinctions, and to promote religious equality. He denied the allegation which had been re-
1362
peatedly made, that the Church-rates regulation measure did not give satisfaction to the Dissenters. He was quite sure that his hon. and learned Friend was not the person to deny every merit to his Majesty's Government for having brought forward and carried the English Municipal Corporations Bill, and for having sent the Irish Municipal Bill up to the Lords, Again, with reference to Ireland, he rejoiced in the appointment of the Earl of Mulgrave as Lord-lieutenant of Ireland. He believed that the Government would be strengthened every day by strengthening the Reform Bill, and by giving protection to every voter in the exercise of his franchise by the ballot. The majorities in that House had decreased; but the reverse would have been the case if the Government had pursued a course more in consonance with the great principles of the Reform Bill. With reference to the Tories, he did not believe that the country would bear with a Tory Government. He was bound to take into account the many difficulties with which the Government had had to contend; and he could not agree in the opinion that it would be beneficial to the country to have Gentlemen on the opposite side vested with the Government of the country. He, for one, wished to see the House of Lords bombarded with good measures. The Lords had told the country that day that all legislation on their part was at an end, and the people of Ireland would soon be apprised of this fact. Their Lordships complained that various measures were not sent up to them. Why, the Irish Municipal Bill was in that House; their Lordships had postponed the Committee on a former day till the 9th of June; and that day having arrived, they had further hung the Bill up till the 3rd of July. Let his hon. Friend reflect on that circumstance. When they should make the House of Commons more completely represent the people, all these acts on the part of their Lordships would be properly treated; and his hon. Friend might rest assured that if that House carried up good measures to the other House which stopped them, and his Majesty's Ministers could not help that, yet by bringing better and better measures before them, every day would they be better supported, and therefore that House should not stop the progress of these Bills. He hoped his Majesty's Government would

1363
not disregard the truths which had been told them.
Lord John Russellsaid, I feel myself compelled to take part in this debate, though I do not admit that there is any necessity for its introduction; and I must observe to the hon. Gentleman who has introduced it, that while I do not find fault with him for any notice on his part, yet that, as a public question, I may be permitted to put in some words of excuse, or palliation, or, it may be, justification, as to the delay which takes place in proceeding with the measures of the Government. Sir, the case is really this—that Gentleman, one after another, bring forward motions of their own, till they have occupied some two or three dozen evenings fixed for the discussion of those measures, and then they all join in chorus, and say, "What a dreadful thing it is that those measures have not proceeded!—what a dreadful delay there is in the public business—we have already arrived in the month of June, and the measures which the Government declared expedient and necessary have not yet passed!" I might say, with regard to the particular course which the hon. Gentleman has adopted to-night, if I were to use his phraseology, that his course had been dishonest, he pretending to one thing while he was doing another. That, Sir, is the charitable supposition which he puts on the course pursued by his Majesty's Ministers—that is the way in which he thinks proper to impute motives to, or invent them for, those whose public conduct he arraigns. What was the course of the hon. Gentleman? He made a speech, pretending to be highly in favour of the principles of liberty—pretending to be very much in favour of an improved course of legislation—an improved course of public action more favourable to popular power and popular control in this country; and in the whole of that speech he never got a cheer of assent, except from those whom he represents as the most decided enemies of that public liberty, and from whom he totally dissents in political opinions. I say, then, Sir, that if I were to judge of motives as rashly and as wantonly as the hon. Member, I should declare that in taking the course which he has taken, he was, while he pretended to be aiding public liberty, in fact, endeavouring to obstruct the course of those who were striving to do what they possibly could in its behalf, and
1364
that in proposing for attainment an object which he knew to be either impracticable or impossible, he was aiding a course and bringing about a system of policy less favourable to public liberty than that which is now adopted, and which he now arraigns. But, Sir, I attribute no such motives; and he will allow me, as an older if not a better soldier in this House, to say that different parties may entertain totally different political sentiments in this House, whether going to the extremes of democracy or ultra-toryism, or whether, being moderate Tory or moderate Whig—that they may all honestly and consistently hold those opinions respectively, and at the same time be endeavouring to do that which they think is for the public good. He will allow me also to say that it neither tends to the preservation of good temper in this House, nor is conducive to the public interest, to be throwing out motives of hypocrisy and of attempts to do one thing while intending to do another; and that the imputation of all such motives, unless the hon. Gentleman wishes them to be retorted on himself, had better be restrained. The hon. Gentleman has introduced a serious subject to this House a subject which indeed is of so important a nature, that if I were to attempt to go through the various considerations belonging to it, I should altogether lose the hope of being able this night to proceed with the measure before the House, and give rise to a much longer and more protracted discussion than I think desirable. I will, however, touch on two or three topics on which the hon. Gentleman's accusation is founded. He says that the course of the present Ministers has no effect—that it ends in nothing for the public. Now, Sir, I will mention first that subject to which he adverted, and to which it is necessary to advert, because it is the immediate subject which stands for consideration to-night, and on which the hon. Gentleman has moved his amendment—I mean the questions respecting Ireland. I must declare my opinion, that whatever it may be proper or necessary to do with respect to England, either in regard to legislation or administration, the evils of Ireland are far more deep, far more crying, and that more attention is necessary, both on the part of the Legislature, and on the part of the administration, to act wisely and generously towards Ireland, than to introduce any improvements which may be yet wanting

1365
—and there are, no doubt, many yet wanting—in England. I will say, therefore, that I do think that if we utterly fail with regard to Ireland—that if our administration be culpable with respect to Ireland—if it be weak, inefficient, or remiss, and that if we do not succeed in establishing those principles of legislation generally which we hold ought to be established towards Ireland—we do fail in the main purposes of a Government of this United Kingdom. But with respect to the administration of Ireland, do we really stand in that situation? What has been the voice of the people of Ireland? Have they denounced us? Have they entreated his Majesty to accept our resignations when offered? Have they not, on the contrary, sent up petitions with an opposite prayer?—Is not the opinion of the people of Ireland—of a great portion, at least a great majority—favourable to the present administration of affairs in that country?—The opponents of that administration have not refrained from accusations and charges of great weight and importance, respecting its conduct: but have they proved those charges? On the contrary, what has been their course? In the one House of Parliament they have brought forward a petition embodying those charges, which has been ordered to lie on the table of that House, but upon which no further proceedings have been taken. What has been their course in this House? A similar petition was presented here. Is there a day fixed for its consideration, when the charges shall be brought forward, and a motion made, declaring that the Government of Ireland has lost the confidence of this House?—Has any such motion been attempted—or is it likely to be made? I see no chance of it at present; because I know that a motion, of which notice was given for the consideration of that petition, has been allowed to drop. I think, then, that I may infer that the wealthy and powerful minority, who disapprove of the conduct of the Government, do not feel their disapprobation to be sufficiently well grounded to proceed with the charge against it. And is it to be left to the hon. Member for Bath, and the hon. Member for Hull, in the dual character which the latter hon. Member had attributed to them, to be the only persons to say, "The majority in Ireland are satisfied, the minority show no complaint; but we denounce
1366
your Government, and on that denunciation that Government is to be condemned." With respect now to legislative measures:—we are about to have before this House to-night, a Bill relating to a question which has unfortunately been the subject of long discussion in Parliament, which has been the subject of difference in this House, and between the two Houses of Parliament. We have likewise under discussion a Bill of very great importance, to which this House has paid great and laborious attention—I mean the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill, respecting which I may say that this House has generally approved its provisions and negatived the propositions of its opponents. There is another measure which has already gone to the other House of Parliament—I mean that respecting Municipal Corporations. I need not go into the nature of that measure now. But I will say that I do not think that a Government, which has brought forward in a single Session a Bill for Municipal Corporations, approved of by a considerable majority of the House, a Bill for the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland, and a Bill for the settlement of tithes and the regulation of ecclesiastical revenues, is a Government which can be stated to be remiss. But then, says the hon. Gentleman, "Oh! these measures will lead to nothing, and I am quite sure that they will not pass." Sir, I think that the hon. Gentleman is rather premature in his prophecy.—My opinion is, however I may very often disapprove of the course taken by the majority of the other House of Parliament, that upon subjects of this deep importance there is not a disposition in that House to refuse to consider and deliberate seriously on those measures, with the view to some settlement on the subject. They say—which I do not say—that these measures ought to be taken together and not separately. That is not my view; but, at the same time, I can well conceive that that view may be taken. I say that we ought to pass the bills before us in the best form in which we can, and send them to the other House of Parliament; and in leaving them for deliberation there, I see no cause to despair that that House will take them into consideration, and that we may be able to come to some agreement respecting them. The hon. Gentleman says, we may, perhaps, perceive the object which

1367
he may have in view in making this motion—an object, be it remembered, in the whole course of policy which he recommends—that the other House of Parliament is an irresponsible body—that you cannot trust to an irresponsible body, and that we abandon popular principles in making a compromise with that irresponsible body. Sir, those are the doctrines of the hon. Gentleman; but I think that it does not follow that I ought to adopt those doctrines, because I cannot adopt them without abandoning all the principles which I ought to maintain—namely, the principles of the British constitution. I do not agree that the term "irresponsible body" is a term that can be applied to the House of Lords. My opinion is, that they must feel, and that they will feel that they are persons acting in the sight of the whole public of the United Kingdom, and that if they are once aware and persuaded that the mass of intelligence, and the mass of opinion are in favour—as I think they will be—of a course of justice towards Ireland, the House of Lords will feel that they would be undertaking a responsibility, which they never could wish to undertake, if they attempted to thwart and control that opinion. I know nothing at present which prevents me from entertaining that expectation, which I know to be in conformity with the former history of this country; but if I did not entertain it, I cannot come to such opinions as the hon. Gentleman entertains, that we ought not to agree to any amendment, any changes proposed by the House of Lords—that our object ought to be to ruin that body in the public opinion, and to place some elective body in its place. That, I conclude, from the hon. Gentleman's speech, and from what he has said at various times, to be the object at which he aims—[Mr. Roebuck was understood here to intimate that it was to abolish the House of Lords]. I beg pardon for misunderstanding the hon. Gentleman; I was not aware that such was his opinion. But I beg to declare frankly, that I as totally dissent from his opinion for abolishing the House of Lords, as I dissent from the opinion of making them an elective body. I do not look upon the abolition of the House of Lords as the millennium which we are approaching. My opinion is that there is nothing—I hope that there will be nothing—in the aspect pf public affairs to induce us so to abandon
1368
the principles of the British Constitution. The hon. Gentleman says, that men of moderation and compromise never succeeded in establishing anything useful in this country. My opinion is so adverse to that, that I think the moderate and prudent course pursued by Lord Somers, and the great leaders of the Revolution, when there were some for keeping James the Second on the throne, and others for appointing a regency, and others again, like the hon. Gentleman, for abolishing the House of Lords, with the addition of abolishing the monarchy. I say my opinion is so adverse to his that I think the prudent course of Lord Somers in establishing the Government of the Revolution to have been one of the main causes of the prosperity of the country. With these feelings, therefore, I am not likely to concur in the views of the hon. Gentleman. But the hon. Gentleman has said that, with respect to Church-rates, and some other measures, we had not conciliated the Dissenters of this country—that we ought to have adopted the voluntary principle, and that we should thereby have conciliated the popular favour. On that subject I must declare, for one, that my opinion is not in favour of the voluntary principle, and, therefore, though that were to conciliate popular favour, I should not adopt it. But I totally disagree that any such course would conciliate the popular feeling. My belief is, that the people of this country are in favour of an established Church and not in favour of the voluntary principle. My opinion is, likewise, that the Dissenters are generally satisfied with the measure which we introduced respecting Church-rates; I have not heard from them any complaint that that measure did not go far enough. But the hon. Gentleman also finds fault with us, because we had a majority of no more than five on that question. Why was it that we had not more? If we had introduced a measure less agreeable to the views of the Dissenters we might have had a much larger majority; and here I may mention that that majority of five might have been a majority of six, had it not been that the hon. Seconder (Colonel Thompson) was absent from the House. My opinion, Sir, concerning the policy which we ought to pursue is, that we ought to bring forward measures which we think calculated for the good of this country, and that having produced them to Parliament we must

1369
then rely on the support which we meet with in this House, and the support which we meet with in the public opinion, to carry those measures; if we meet with a large support in this House, and if we are still further supported by the general opinion of the people of this country, then I do not doubt that those measures will come to a triumphant issue. But if we do not meet with that support, I do not think that we ought to be blamed, because the measures which we have thought right have not immediately become acts of the Legislature. The hon. Gentleman who has not been long a member of the House, of Commons, has thought it proper to taunt us sitting on this bench with a narrative of the acts which we have been unable to carry; with the failure in point of performance after we had produced measures of considerable importance. I will take the liberty of mentioning to him, that during the time which we have sat in this House, for the greater part of us have sat in it during the last few years, we have carried the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, which made a degrading separation between Churchmen, and Dissenters.—We have carried the Reform Act.—We have carried the Poor-law Act. We have carried the Act for the Reform of Municipal Corporations, the Act for the Commutation of Tithes in England, and the Act for the total and entire Abolition of Slavery—With respect to administration, I will not go into details of expenditure and taxation; we have kept up to that promise of retrenchment which Lord Grey gave when he took office. It is a glory on which I shall always pride myself, that I have acted with Lord Grey first, and since with Lord Melbourne in carrying these important measures; and if some other measures have not reached their consummation, I do not see that it justifies the hon. Gentleman. When only two-thirds of the Session have been gone through, and many of their measures are yet coming to their completion, I say I do not think that it justifies him, who has never done any thing for his country—who has never carried any act, or, as far as I know, proposed any measure by which the liberties or interests of this country might be promoted.—I say I do not think that it becomes him to come forward now to arraign us, he having so little of his own performance to place in the balance against ours; to make himself
1370
the accuser, with bitter and ironical sarcasm, and seem to be aiding the cause of liberty, which, in fact, if his reproaches had any effect, they could have no effect but this—to mar the calm and steady progress of reform, and, making many despair of that calm and steady progress to induce them to go back, or at least if not to lead to a retrogression, to lead to a stoppage—a standing still under the guidance of those who have always felt that reform was dangerous, and that we ought to go no further.—Motion negatived.
The Order of the Day was then read.

TITHES (IRELAND).
Lord Morpeth Lord Morpeth moved the second reading of the Tithes Ireland Bill.
Mr. Sharman Crawfordobjected to the Bill, upon the ground that it did not go sufficiently far to meet the wishes or the expectations of the people of Ireland, who, as their numerous petitions strongly intimated, would not be satisfied with any thing short of a total abolition of tithe. They would not be content with any measure unless it completely released them from all assessment for the support of the Established Church. They were told indeed by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny that he would accept of this measure as an instalment. He (Mr. Crawford) wished to know whether it was to be an instalment or not? Was it to be a final settlement of the question, or was Ireland to be agitated again upon the subject? In opposing the second reading of the Bill he was acting conscientiously, and from a deep sense of duty, and not from any desire to impede the measure of his Majesty's Government, whose great services to Ireland he most readily acknowledged. He considered that the Bill was unjust in all its principles, and delusory in all its details. He begged, therefore, to move as an amendment that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.
Mr. D. Brownefelt that it was a duty he owed to himself and to his country to second the amendment of his hon. Friend. He did it reluctantly, not because he denied the justice, or the policy, or the practicability of a total abolition of tithes, for he was a strenuous advocate for their total abolition, although he denied that this Bill would abolish tithes, or would in any way tend to allay the angry feelings of the people of Ireland, but he did it

1371
reluctantly because, for the first time, he felt himself compelled to give opposition to his Majesty's Government on a measure which seriously affected the interests of Ireland. He was grateful to his Majesty's Ministers both as a Reformer and as an Irishman. Lord Mulgrave's Administration was the only Administration that ever existed in Ireland that was founded upon the principle of recognising popular rights, and of doing justice to all. It was, therefore, with reluctance that he was opposed to this Bill. But there were provisions in it to which it was impossible he could agree. He considered that the Bill, instead of relieving the people of Ireland from an unjust impost, tended to rivet that impost upon them, and to increase discontent and promote agitation in that country. He might be asked why he opposed this Bill, when he did not oppose the Bill of last Session. His answer was, that he considered the omission of the appropriation clause in the present Bill to make it essentially a different measure from the Bill of last year. He might be told that in the money provisions of the Bill now before them there was an equivalent for the appropriation clause; but having considered those clauses well, he certainly could not find anything in them equivalent to the principle of the appropriation clause. He considered that by the adoption of the appropriation clause they would be putting in the point of the wedge and taking the first step towards the application of church property to purposes of a public nature other than merely ecclesiastical purposes. He would openly declare that he was an advocate for the voluntary system, and it was upon that principle that he opposed this Bill. It was not the pecuniary inconvenience that the people of Ireland complained of in respect to tithes. If it were, then, inasmuch as rents exceeded tithes in pressure, they would feel rents to be a grievance. It was from a political feeling that their complaint arose. It was the national dishonour of being compelled to support a Church with which they held no communion, from which they derived no benefit, but the existence of which was hostile to their interests. The Bills which had been successively introduced into this House in reference to Ireland had become successively worse. The hon. Gentleman concluded by declaring that he was opposed to the tithe system, because as a
1372
Christian he conceived that it could not be defended upon any human or divine principle.
Viscount Morpethsaid, it was obvious that the Bills which the present Government had successively introduced upon the subject of the Irish Church had had to stand between two classes of objections—between the objections of those who thought that too much was taken from the Church, and of those who thought that too little was taken away, or at least, that too much was left. It was obvious—without stopping to inquire which of these respective parties were most in the right—whether those who thought that too much was taken away, or those who thought that too little was taken; or whether it was for the Government, at least upon this subject, to indulge itself in the opinion that it had happily pursued the "just middle"—it was obvious, he said, that the struggle on this question was not between the Government and the friends of the voluntary system, or the "sons of liberty," which it seemed was the right way to term them, but between the Government and those who were entirely opposed to any alteration of the church revenues. For this struggle, probably, before very long the stage would be cleared, and a decided course taken. For that occasion, whenever it should arise, he thought himself justified in reserving the discussion of those points which appeared to be the serious and really practical part of the matter they were called upon to consider. With respect, then, to the other side of the question—that which was represented on this occasion by his two hon. Friends, the mover and seconder of the amendment, and which rested, as it appeared to him upon the ground that tithes ought to be completely abolished, that no form of religion in Ireland ought to receive a preference from the State, and that the voluntary system ought to be established—he had only to observe, that whether that system possessed any merits or not, or whether the arguments by which it was defended were sound or not, such were not the views and intentions with which his Majesty's present Government had entered upon office. Such were not the views and intentions which they had ever professed, or which they now entertained; and such above all, were not the views and intentions with

1373
which the present state of public feeling, either in this House or in the country, sympathised, or which made it possible or practicable for the Government to act upon. On former occasions it had been stated, but on no occasion more than on the present did he wish more distinctly and clearly to state, on the part of his Majesty's Government, that it was their object, their intention, and their hope not to destroy, not to subvert, but to strengthen, extend, and perpetuate the Protestant Establishment in Ireland by those means, which, however questioned and condemned in some quarters, they conceived to be best calculated to obtain that end. His hon. Friend the Member for Dundalk had objected to this Bill on the ground that it was not the same Bill which he had previously supported. He admitted it was not the same Bill. He should have been very glad if the Legislature had passed any one of those previous Bills. His hon. Friend must be perfectly aware that it was not the fault of the Government that none of those Bills were carried into a law. His hon. Friend made two objections to the Bill in its present character—first, that the clauses now introduced would not be so efficient to prevent sinecures in the Church as the former Bill; and also that under the present Bill the farmers of some districts would feel a grievance in having money taken out of their pockets to benefit those in other places. He contended, however, that the object of the Bill was to prevent sinecure livings, and it would attain that object by promoting a better apportioning of Church property. The hon. Member for Dundalk said that it was a hardship on the clergy to impose a tax of ten per cent. on the present incumbents; but he (Lord Morpeth) could not help feeling that his hon. Friend was a little inconsistent. His hon. Friend said, he was in favour of the voluntary principle, but he would not be able to carry that principle into effect at once. His hon. Friend out of doors stated that he would attain that end by not bringing in any measure for the settlement of the tithe question, and to be consistent he had proposed that the Bill should be read a second time that day six months. He, however, did not think that this would be consistent with the interests of religion not merely the Protestant or Catholic religion, but that religion which taught peace on earth and good will towards
1374
men, and which was so necessary for the well-being of Ireland. He thought that the House would most improperly abandon its duty, notwithstanding the difficulties they might have to contend with in the way of any settlement of the tithe question, if they did not do all in their power to put an end to those unhappy differences which now distracted Ireland, and which grew out of the unsettled state of that question. In what he had already stated he believed he had sufficiently explained the objects the present opposition to the measure had in view. As to the motives of those hon. Gentlemen, he had no right to inquire into them; but no doubt they were dictated by a sense of duty. But as to the fact of the present proceedings, the hon. Gentleman seemed to be impelled by a wish and feeling to promote the success of a cause which could not now by possibility succeed; and if it were successful it would be the source of irreparable mischief.
Mr. Shawadmitted, that it was desirable that there should be a transfer of the payment of tithes from the occupiers to the owners of land; but he thought that it was too much to take thirty per cent. from the clergy for the additional security they would obtain under the altered arrangement. This, however, was rather a matter of detail than principle. That part of the Bill, however, which opened all commutations of tithes that had been entered on during the last thirty years, was most objectionable, as it would lead to the most expensive, and, indeed, endless litigation. He also thought that it was an act of great injustice to the Irish clergy to make them pay the loan of a million and the arrears of interest which were proposed in this bill; for the money was given to them with the sanction of the House in lieu of the tithes. He also objected to the Commissioners being enabled to reduce the value of benefices below 300 l. per annum. The truth, however, was, the Government had been completely driven by those by whom they were supported, to adopt courses which were contrary to common sense, common reason, and every principle of justice.
Lord Stanleywould make a few remarks with respect to his taking a different course from the hon. Member for Dundalk, and also state the chief points of objection to the Bill on which he intended to take the sense of the House when in Committee.

1375
He agreed with the hon. Member that many of the clauses and principles of the present measure were founded on the enactments of a Bill introduced by Lord Grey's Government—a Bill intended to establish the security and strength of the Church; because he believed those clauses would have that tendency, he would support them whilst on these grounds the opposition of the hon. Member was founded. He must congratulate the House on the altered tone of the Government who declared themselves resolved to defend the essential principle of an Established Church—a declaration equally satisfactory and unexpected. He must particularly congratulate his noble Friend, the Secretary for Ireland, who formerly spoke of the rottenness of that establishment, and the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, who spoke of the friends of the Church as a "miserable, monopolising minority," on their conversion. He that evening had heard his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) speak of the "respectable minority;" and his other noble Friend, (Lord Morpeth) instead of alluding to the rottenness, declare it his fixed intention to support the Church, and by this measure establish her interests on a sure footing. Whenever Government brought forward measures with that intention, they could claim the support of his side of the House, a support which he believed they did not at present undervalue; but if ever they introduced a Bill of a different tendency, then, with equal frankness and determination, they should be opposed. He had been asked, why he had voted in favour of this measure, and he would candidly confess, that he was not perfectly satisfied with the present state of Church property in Ireland. He thought it would be advantageous to the Church to have the Tithe Question speedily settled, and to have all the danger removed that might result from a collision with an excited Roman Catholic peasantry. He supported this measure, in order to place on a basis of security the future income of the clergy; at the same time, he would not consent to the robbery and plunder of the Church under the plea of giving an allowance to landlords, for burthens they had not to endure, and risks to which they were not subject. He would not consent that more than a fair equivalent be given for the small burthen and risk of transfer; how-
1376
ever, that was a question of detail and of time. He had, during Lord Grey's administration, carried through the House, which he was proud to say was year by year and day by day, diminishing the risk and giving security to the establishment. Although he was then willing to sacrifice 25 per cent he would say, that if it were not immediately accepted, and that still an opposition was continued against this fair offer, no inducement or plea would hereafter tempt him to forego that amount. He wished a speedy, safe, and satisfactory settlement, he offered a fair compromise, and claimed a relief which would lessen the burthen and diminish the risk. "On this principle," said the noble Lord, "we do rest, we have rested, and we shall continue to rest." However Government may decide, he would support that deduction and resist any further, and on this principle he would take the sense of the Committee. His noble Friend had introduced into this Bill several clauses of a measure which he had the honour of bringing before the House. That measure was objected to, and not allowed to pass, but he had now the gratification of finding some of the clauses inserted, verbatim et literatim in the present Bill. He, and hon. Gentlemen who acted with him were reproached with upholding sinecures. They were unfairly charged; they were prepared to introduce a clause for new distributions; this clause was stigmatised as useless, evasive, and a mockery; but now he found it copied verbatim et literatim in the Bill. Indeed, he heard that hon. Gentlemen opposite had discovered some verbal inaccuracies; but such was their respect for the measure's having passed the House of Lords, that scarcely a word was altered. There was, however, one alteration of a principle in the clause which he was determined to oppose in Committee. He undertook to prove last year, that when the revenues were distributed amongst clergymen not possessing large incomes there would be no surplus. It was resolved in the Bill brought forward by him, that upon benefices becoming vacant, the clergyman appointed should have an income of 300 l. per year, a bare sufficiency for a person educated as a gentleman, associating with gentlemen, and obliged to keep up a proportionate dignity. This was fixed as the minimum, but the present Government, with the petty paltry ambition of working

1377
out a surplus, have not adopted the principle, but left it to their Commissioners to fix the salary at 60 l., 40 1., or 30 l., as they thought proper. It was that clause, with respect to which he entirely concurred with the hon. Member for Dundalk—with (he believed in his heart) nine-tenths of the Members of the House, imposing a tax to the amount of ten per cent. on the incomes of the clergy, for the purpose of national education, in alleged conformity with a statute of Henry 8th, which had really no more to do with this question than any other law on the Statute-book, but which served conveniently to enable Ministers to slide gently out of the principle of appropriation, while at the same time they maintained the objectionable parts of it to their fullest extent and in their most offensive character, aggravating their injustice and oppression by calling them into action immediately on the passing of the Bill. To that cause he declared no circumstances would ever induce him to give consent. Whatever wish he might have to support parts of this Bill, however cordially he might vote in favour of the second reading, with the earnest desire and not without the hope, that its mischievous provisions might be corrected either in Committee or in subsequent stages of its progress, and however anxious he might be to see this measure carried as the basis and ground-work of a great national settlement of the important questions which agitate the public mind, he should not discharge his duty if he did not frankly say, that no consideration whatever with reference either to this or any other Bill—no asserted probability of a settlement—no profession of acquiescence in its provisions—would ever lead him to consent to a taxation of the clergy for this unjust and illegal purpose. And he thought it right to say, for though solicitous to occupy no more of their time than was necessary, he wished broadly to lay before the House the principles by which he was content to abide, and the details to which he mainly objected—that as this question must be brought before them in a distinct and substantive form, he would not offer his opposition to it when the first clause was proposed in Committee, but when the noble Lord should move his preliminary resolution in Committee of the whole House to enable him to levy this tax on the clergy—on that occasion, as separate from all others, he would take the sense of
1378
the Committee on the principle of the tax. And, moreover, he must say, that if he should not succeed in making in that House such amendments as seemed to him absolutely indispensable for safely carrying into effect an equitable and wise arrangement under this measure, he should then, however reluctantly, feel it imperative on him, if no other Member undertook the task, to take the sense of the House on the third reading.
Lord J. Russellhad no wish to continue a debate which did not seem to have been conducted with the view of leading to any general discussion of the principles of this Bill; but he could not avoid remarking on the course pursued by the noble Lord—a course not dissimilar to that which he had followed on other occasions—on the anxiety he had shown, but which he felt no wish to indulge, to excite contention, and raise acrimonious debate. The noble Lord reminded him somewhat of a gentleman with whom he (Lord J. Russell) was formerly acquainted, who was rather fond of disputing in conversation, and in the habit of throwing out opinions strangely paradoxical. Anxious to avoid lengthened altercation, he used sometimes to say to the gentleman, "Well, then, I'll dispute no longer, I'll agree with you;" on which his disputatious friend would turn round and exclaim, "What! agree with me? now tell me why you agree with me." The noble Lord seemed to think it a shocking matter that his Majesty's Ministers had embraced some opinions which the noble Lord formerly entertained, and had even adopted some clauses to which he assented verbatim et literatim; and complained of the agreement in a tone of anger and indignation, which only left room to suppose, that he felt it like some severe personal reflection. As the noble Lord talked in this tone of matters on which they agreed, he would not go into those on which they disagreed. He would only congratulate the noble Lord, that there still remained so much matter of difference between them. He was really forced to think, that a source of great satisfaction to the noble Lord, who would, no doubt, rejoice that there was not only the difference between twenty-live and thirty per cent., but the proposal of taxing the clergy, to which he had proclaimed uncompromising hostility, against which he might prepare his arguments for a future occasion, and which might whet

1379
his indignation at their agreement on some points to a still higher pitch. Again, he would beg to felicitate the noble Lord on the spirit he had displayed, and which he was likely to have many more opportunities of displaying, as there were many points connected with the government of the country, and particularly the government of Ireland, on which they entirely disagreed. His opinion had always been that the government of Ireland ought to be conducted for the benefit of the Irish people. The noble Lord, on the contrary, looked only to the interests of a small part, not of the people of Ireland, but of the clergy of Ireland. He thought that was the chief ground of difference between them, into which he did not now wish to enter, but which would be excellent matter for dispute between them on a future occasion.
The House divided:—Ayes 229; Noes 14: Majority 215.

List of the AYES.

Acheson, Viscount

Chalmers, P.

Adam, Sir C.

Chapman, L.

Aglionby, H. A.

Chetwynd, Captain

Ainsworth, P.

Chichester, A.

Alsager, Captain

Clayton, Sir W. R.

Andover, Viscount

Clements, Viscount

Angerstein, J.

Clerk, Sir G.

Anson, hon. Colonel

Codrington, Admiral

Astley, Sir J.

Cole, hon. A. H.

Baines, E.

Collier, J.

Ball, N.

Cookes, T. H.

Bannerman, A.

Corbett, T. G.

Barclay, C.

Crawley, S.

Baring, F. T.

Crompton, S.

Barnard, E. G.

Curteis, H. B.

Barron, H. W.

Curteis, E. B.

Barry, G. S.

Dalmeny, Lord

Bentinck, Lord G.

Denistoun, J.

Bentinck, Lord W.

Divett, E.

Berkeley, hon. F.

Donkin, Sir R.

Bernal, R.

Dunbar, George

Bewes, T.

Dundas, hon. T.

Blackburne, J.

Dundas, J. D.

Blackstone, W. S.

Dunlop, J.

Blunt, Sir C.

East, J. B.

Bridgman, H.

Eaton, Richard J.

Brocklehurst, J.

Ellice, E.

Brodie, W. B.

Estcourt, T.

Brotherton, J.

Estcourt, T.

Buller, C.

Etwall, R.

Buller, E.

Evans, G.

Bulwer, H. L.

Fellowes, hon. N.

Bulwer, E. L.

Fenton, J.

Burrell, Sir C.

Ferguson, R.

Burton, H.

Fergusson, rt. hn. R. C.

Byng, right hon. G. S.

Fitzgibbon, hon. Col.

Cave, R. O.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Cavendish, hon. C.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Cayley, E. S.

Fitzsimon, C.

1380

Fleetwood, P. H.

O'Brien, W. S.

Folkes, Sir W.

O'Connell, D.

Fort, J.

O'Connell, J.

Fox, Charles

O'Connell, M. J.

French, F.

O'Connell, Morgan

Gillon, W. D.

O'Conor, Don

Gordon, R.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Paget, F.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Palmer, General

Grattan, H.

Palmerston, Viscount

Grey, Sir G.

Parker, J.

Grey, hon. Colonel

Parnell, rt. hon. Sir H.

Guest, J. J.

Parrott, J.

Gully, J.

Parry, Sir L. P. J.

Hale, R. B.

Pease, J.

Hallyburton, Lord D.

Pinney, W.

Handley, H.

Ponsonby, hon. J.

Harland, W. C.

Power, J.

Hastie, A.

Poyntz, W. S.

Hawes, B.

Price, Sir Robert

Hawkins, J. H.

Pryme, George

Heathcoat, J.

Pusey, P.

Heathcote, G. J.

Rice, right hon. T. S.

Hector, C. J.

Roche, W.

Heneage, E.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Hillsborough, Earl of

Rooper, J. Bonfoy

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Rundell, J.

Hodges, T. L.

Russell, Lord John

Houstoun, G.

Russell, Lord

Howard, P. H.

Russell, Lord C.

Howick, Viscount

Sanford, E. A.

Hume, J.

Scott, J. W.

Hurst, R. H.

Seale, Colonel

Hutt, W.

Seymour, Lord

Ingham, R.

Shaw, right hon. F.

Irton, Samuel

Sheil, Richard L.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Sheppard, T.

Jermyn, Earl of

Shirley, E. J.

Jones, Wilson

Smith, J. A.

Jones, T.

Smith, R. V.

King, E. B.

Stanley, E. J.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Stanley, Lord

Lambton, H.

Stanley, W. O.

Lee, J. L.

Stuart, V.

Lefevre, C. S.

Strangways, hon. J.

Lemon, Sir C.

Strickland, Sir G.

Lennox, Lord G.

Strutt, E.

Lennox, Lord A.

Talbot, J. Hyacinth

Loch, J.

Talfourd, Sergeant

Longfield, R.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Lushington, C.

Thompson, Colonel

Lynch, A. H.

Thornley, Thomas

Mackenzie, T.

Tooke, W.

Macleod, R.

Townley, R. G.

Mactaggart, J.

Tracy, C. H.

Maher, J.

Trelawney, Sir W.

Mangles, J.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Marshall, W.

Tulk, C. A.

Melgund, Viscount

Vere, Sir C. B.

Milton, Viscount

Vigors, N. A.

Moreton, hon. A. H.

Villiers, Charles P.

Morpeth, Viscount

Wakley, T.

Moyston, hon. E.

Walker, C. A.

Mullins, F. W.

Wallace, R.

Musgrave, Sir R.

Warburton, H.

Nagle, Sir R.

Ward, H. G.

Nicholl, J.

Wemyss, Captain

1381

West, J. B.

Winnington, H. J.

Whalley, Sir S.

Wood, C.

Wilbraham, G.

Worsley, Lord

Wilde, Sergeant

Woulfe, Sergeant

Williams, W.

Wyse, Thomas

Williams, W. A.

Young, G. F.

Williams, Sir J.

TELLERS.

Williamson, Sir H.

Maule, hon. F.

Wilson, H.

Steuart, R.

List of the NOES.

Blake, M. J.

Polhill, F.

Bodkin, J. J.

Power, J.

Conolly, E. M.

Ruthven, E.

Dick, Q.

Trevor, hon. A.

Dowdeswell, W.

Williams, R

Fielden, J.

Finn, W. F.

TELLERS.

Hindley, C.

Crawford, W. S.

Martin, T.

Browne, R.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of DEVON, from various places, for the better observance of the Lord's-day.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND.)
Viscount Melbourne Viscount Melbourne moved the Order of the Day for the House going into Committee upon the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill.
Lord Lyndhurst: I rise my Lords, for the purpose of opposing the motion submitted to your Lordships by the noble Viscount. When the question came under your Lordships' consideration upon the last occasion I beg to state my entire concurrence in the course that was then pursued by your Lordships. It appears to me that when your Lordships concurred in the propriety of that proceeding, it is perfectly impossible for us now, if we wish to act consistently, and as we ought to act, and in accordance with the proceeding which was then adopted, not to see that there is no other course to be proposed than a further prolongation of the consideration of this Bill. On the former occasion ray noble Friend (the Duke of Wellington) moved the postponement of the committee, for the purpose of giving an opportunity for other bills—depending in the other House of Parliament to be sent to your Lordships. It was supposed, when these bills should come before your Lordships, that means might be found for so regulating and modelling the bill before this House as to deprive it of most of the objections to which it is exposed in the opinions of your Lordships. Your Lordships concurred in that view of the case, and accordingly the committal was postponed to the present day. Noble lords considered, and they went upon the assumption of the fact, that the two bills should be in the House at the present time. It appears that in this respect the noble Duke and other noble lords miscalculated, as the second reading of one of those bills is appointed only for this day. The noble Marquess has informed us—that this is purely accidental—that it arises from the state of business in the other House. I am willing to assume this as the fact. I am bound to believe it is the fact;

1309
and if it be so, then, if that had been anticipated by the noble Duke, and foreseen by you, instead of fixing upon the 9th of June for going into Committee, a more distant day would have been appointed. How, then, can we consistently with our former proceedings pursue any other course than that of resolving that the Committee be further postponed? If the purpose for which it was postponed was that of looking to these subjects, and taking them into your consideration at the period to which I refer, then it appears to me that you have but one course to pursue, and that is, the prolongation of the time. I am aware that the postponement upon the former occasion was opposed by many noble Lords on the other side of the House. By some it was stated that a postponement was equivalent to a rejection of the measure. It is quite clear that his Majesty's Ministers have not so considered that postponement, because they pledged themselves, and in no equivocal terms, that they would deprive the country of their services if the Bill were rejected. The postponement, my Lords, has not led to that calamity, and I am entitled to assume that that view has not been taken by the noble Viscount and the rest of his Majesty's Ministers. I have no disposition, my Lords, to refer to the arguments which took place in the last Session, and of the views taken of the question upon it. But permit me to say, that I still entertain the opinions which I then held, and which I felt it my duty to express, that the best and safest course to be followed with a view to the tranquillity of Ireland was to pursue those measures which I then submitted to your Lordships. I believe in my conscience that at this time no wiser course can be adopted. If I am asked why I am now inclined to depart from that course, I answer because I am desirous, and am most anxiously desirous, that the question should be settled—because I am convinced that in matters of legislation you should not only attempt what is best, but you ought also to legislate in such a manner as will be satisfactory to those upon whom your legislation is to operate; and if I can be satisfied that this Bill can be so modelled and so framed—that it may become the law in Ireland, consistently with the tranquillity of that country, consistently with the safety of the Protestant Establishment, and consistently with the interests of the Protestant people in that country, then I shall be desirous of
1310
seeing it pass into a law, for the purpose of having the question settled, and of conciliating the feelings of the people of Ireland. But I agree with what was stated on a former occasion by the noble Duke, that unless it can be framed in such a way—unless it be made consistent with the maintenance of the Protestant Establishment, and consistent with Protestant interests—no consideration ought to induce us to pass it; because I am convinced that in the maintenance of that establishment, and in the preservation of these interests, mainly and entirely depends the union between the two parts of the empire. If that establishment be broken down, if those interests be trampled upon, you lay the foundation for the severation of the two countries. What are the objections that I have to this measure? It is not my intention to go into the details of the Bill; this is not the time for doing so. My main objection is this:—Looking to the provisions of this Bill—looking to qualification, especially of the electors, contained in this bill—I am satisfied that it would in effect hand over the Corporations of Ireland to the Roman Catholic agitators in that country. There is no person acquainted with Ireland—there is no one who goes over the evidence given before the Committees of the other House on the subject of the elections—but must come to the same conclusion I have stated—that if you pass this Bill in its present shape and form, you hand over the Corporations in Ireland at once to the Roman Catholic agitators in that country. What has been the complaint against the corporations as they exist now? Over and over it has been urged against them—and it is that which induced me to acquiesce in what was proposed last Session—that they were exclusive—that they were exclusively composed of Protestants, and yet it ought to be remembered for what these Corporations were formed, and what they were in their original establishment—that they were formed for the very purpose of supporting the Protestant Establishment and Protestant interests. Still, considering the changes that have taken place in society, in manners, and in other circumstances, I was willing to go as far as the measure of last Session contemplated. What is proposed by this measure, and what would be its inevitable consequences? Instead of Corporations liable to the same objections which are now made against

1311
them—instead of their being composed exclusively of Protestants—that which they were originally intended to be—they would become exclusively Catholic, and under the domination of the Catholic agitators of that country. I know and I am sensible that with many this is a strong argument in favour of the measure. I am sensible that this will be a strong recommendation of the measure with some persons; it is the object they aim at; it is to that we are to ascribe so much zeal and perseverance and labour upon their parts. It is for the purpose of accomplishing so immediate an object, and through the attainment of that object, they hope to attain another which they keep steadily in view, and which they avow—the destruction of the Protestant Establishment in that country. Allow me now to say, that I cannot help thinking that his Majesty's Ministers share in the feelings that I have stated. That they should share in the feelings I have stated is not unnatural, when we consider the language that has been held by them with respect to Ireland. I say that it is not unnatural for them, because they look to the support of that party as of the utmost importance to the continuance of their political existence. It is not unnatural that such a circumstance reconciles them to the sentiments of that party. That is a circumstance which to me affords the strongest objection against them. If I wished for a striking illustration to press upon your consideration, it would be this—it would be the conduct of his Majesty's Government with respect to the General Association in Ireland. Never at any period in this or in the history of any other country was there to be found a body of men so formidable in their character, so extensive in their combinations, and so desperate in their designs, established in any regular Government. That Association is composed of men from every part of Ireland—composed to a great extent of the Roman Catholic priesthood of that country—in communication with the whole of the Catholic priesthood. It has in every parish in Ireland an agent under the name of a pacificator, for the purpose of assuming to itself the power of levying money—"voluntary contributions,"—as they are stated to be, but, in fact, forced contributions—and levying money upon the public at large for the accomplishment of their own objects. They take upon themselves the superintendence of registry matters, influencing and overawing the electors; nay, more, in many instances of overawing the Government itself. They
1312
take upon themselves to denounce, and to proscribe Members of your Lordships' House, and, more than that, if you look to their objects—for you will find they do not scruple to avow them—there is the organization of such a body, and with such tremendous means of mischief; and what are the objects to which they are directed? This is not mere speculation; it is not mere matter of conjecture; it is what is stated in their resolutions. Their objects are the overthrow of the Protestant Established Church—they tell us they will never cease from agitation, never will dissolve their body, until they have accomplished their object—that object they call "justice to Ireland;" and in case they do not succeed in that, then they tell us that their next attempt will be to repeal the Union. Have I overstated the character of this Association?—have I overstated the nature of its organization?—have I overstated the mischiefs that it is combined to accomplish, and to which all its energies are directed? Well, my Lords, what have Ministers done with this Association? What have they attempted to do? Have they attempted to dissolve it? Not one step has been taken by them for that purpose. I am satisfied that so far from any step being taken to dissolve that body, or for the purpose of abating such a nuisance, that they themselves have directly supported and encouraged it. My Lords, I am aware that, on a former night, the noble Viscount told us that he disapproved of this Association, but he did so in a manner peculiar to himself, as if with a view of lessening as far as possible the effect of what he said, and of placing himself still well with his supporters among that body. The noble Viscount likened its proceedings to those dinners which the Conservative party celebrated at different periods of the last autumn, those meetings being held for the purpose of supporting the authority of the Crown, upholding the institutions of the country, and maintaining the Protestant Establishment. These meetings were likened by the noble Viscount to the proceedings of an Association whose objects were to interfere with the prerogative of the Crown, to destroy Protestant interests, to pull down the Protestant Establishment, and to confiscate its property, and apply it to purposes for which it never was intended. I am quite aware that the noble Viscount threw out something like a doubt that the law could reach that association. I think, if I recollect right, that I saw something like a smile upon the face of a

1313
noble and learned Friend opposite when it was declared that the members of that Association could not be prosecuted for a conspiracy, as none of its proceedings were secret. It struck me that such an observation was somewhat singular as proceeding from one who was formerly a member of that profession to which I have the honour to belong. But has any attempt been made by the noble Viscount to prosecute the Association? Has he taken the opinion of the law-officers of the Crown? I never heard of such a course having been taken. I never heard even that it was surmised. But supposing that the law as laid down on the opposite side is correct—supposing that the members of that Association could not be prosecuted for a conspiracy—why has there not been an application made to Parliament on the subject? Why has not the attempt been made by his Majesty's Ministers? There has been no suggestion even of such a course being adopted. I pass by all these matters because it is in the recollection of your Lordships, that in the early part of this Session a noble Lord, who is a Member of this House, and who is also a member of that Association, declared in the hearing of your Lordships that if his Majesty expressed his desire that the Association should dissolve, it would at once submit to the expression of such a wish. Have we any intimation of the expression of such a wish by the noble Viscount? Has he intimated a desire on the part of Government that the Association should be put an end to? I never heard of any intimation of such a wish; but there is an anxious desire upon every occasion to defend the proceedings of that body. I have stated that not only have his Majesty's Ministers not shown an anxiety to dissolve the Association, but they have directly countenanced it. I beg leave to state in confirmation of this the facts which are now notorious to all, and which have been discussed over and over again in another place, and which have been established on the clearest possible evidence. To what is it I allude? Ministers have selected members of that Association, assembled in the manner I have described, and for the illegal objects I have mentioned to fill public offices. From that society they have selected stipendiary magistrates—nay, more, one of the objects of the Association being to superintend the registration of voters, they have selected from that Association persons judicially to determine upon the registration. Nay, more, to show the
1314
countenance that has been given to that Association, they selected from that Association one of the most influential members of the body, one who was employed to draw up the rules, and they placed him in one of the most confidential offices that a person could be intrusted with under the Government—an office of that description in which he may be called upon to pronounce an opinion with respect to the legal character of the Association itself. His Majesty's Ministers have done nothing to discountenance that Association; but everything to uphold and encourage it. I wish now to draw your Lordships' attention to the conduct of the Government in reference to another Association of a widely different character, and to contrast the conduct of that society with that of the body in question. I never did approve of the manner in which the Orange body was organized. There was a defect in their constitution; but they were assembled, with what views? Their object was, to maintain the prerogative of the Crown, to uphold the laws and institutions of the country, and, above all, to protect the Protestant establishment. As soon as his Majesty intimated a desire that these Associations should be put an end to, by their own voluntary act they were put an end to. But look to the conduct of the Government in reference to that Association. Not a member of that society was to be appointed to any office or situation. Upon that principle his Majesty's Government acted. They not only acted upon it, but in their regulations for the police in a Bill which passed your Lordships' House last year, they were directly excluded. That was what was done with that society; it was at direct variance with what was done with the other body. In the first instance, it was declared that parties were incompetent to hold any office or situation, though the object of the society to which they belonged, was the maintenance of existing institutions; but with reference to the other Association, with objects directly the reverse, there has been no disqualification of its members for any office of trust. Am I, then, warranted in the statement which I have made, that the increase of the power of the Roman Catholics in Ireland, is not viewed altogether with distaste by the noble Viscount? I do not say that this is not natural. The Association is a formidable engine of power. It is exercised at present in the support of the

1315
Government, and I do not say, that the Members of that Government should not view it with as favourable an eye as possible. But, my Lords, what is the situation in which his Majesty's Ministers stand? In no former period of our history has the Government of this country been placed in such a position. To whom do they look for support? To the enemies of the Protestant establishment. In Ireland their supporters are composed of the declared enemies of the Protestant Church of that country. In England, the political Dissenters are their main stay and support. Deprive them of the aid of the one or of the other, of those, and what becomes of the Government? They feel that their power is gone, and that they have no means of supporting themselves. I repeat, that this is the first time in the history of this country when the Government has depended almost exclusively for support, on the declared enemies of the Protestant Church. My Lords, where is this to stop? Concession, we know, leads to still further concession, according to the natural course of events. Give these men a part of the spoils of the Church—yield to them what they ask for now, and you encourage them to make further demands. My Lords, when will the noble Viscount pause in his downward career? This is no speculation. These reasonings are generally speculative; but, unfortunately, this is a matter of fact. What are we told by those persons? They say that they will receive all you offer, but that they will take it only as an instalment, and that they will never cease agitating—that they will never cease convulsing the empire until they strip the national Church of its property. There objects are distinct and clear, this principle is avowed, too, to a certain extent, by the Members of the Government themselves. We are told, "How will you govern Ireland? how will you regulate that country and restore tranquillity to her? Concede every demand, and if she is not contented, go on conceding; give her more, and go on conceding till she is satisfied." This, my Lords, we are told by a noble Lord, one who is not the least able, or the least influential member of the Cabinet of which he forms a part. What are the supporters of the Government asking for now? The prostration of the Church of Ireland. This Bill conceded to them, they gain that object. What is their next demand? They tell you that
1316
you must repeal the union. Such, then, is the course which his Majesty's Ministers have adopted. Now, my Lords, allow me to call your attention to the Bill itself. I have stated on a former occasion that nothing should ever induce me to acquiesce in passing this Bill as it stands. In the first place, I see that a 5l. qualification is the basis of the Bill. I am not so insensible to what is passing around me, as not to know what a 5l. qualification is. My Lords, I know that a 5l. qualification is no qualification at all, and that if we act upon this principle, the constituency by which these Corporations are to be regulated, will be composed of persons who will be goaded and driven to vote under the absolute direction and nomination of the Catholic Priests. What is the cry? Justice for Ireland, and a demand that her municipal institutions be placed on the same footing as those of Scotland. Well, my Lords, how is it in Scotland? The very smallest qualification, is a 10 l. qualification, and that secured, in a variety of ways, a substantial qualification; and yet the supporters of the Government demand a 5l. qualification for Ireland, although they say that Ireland ought to be put on the same footing with Scotland. The qualification, alone, continued the noble Lord, would induce him never to agree to the Bill. Then there was this inconsistency in the Bill. Last Session an act had been passed which took from the magistracy in Ireland the appointment of police constables and transferred it to the lord-lieutenant, and yet this measure gave the appointment of the constables to the town-councils; and the jurisdiction of these was extended all over the counties in which the boroughs were, and in some instances, to the adjoining counties. There were three objections that he entertained to the Bill. First, there was the extraordinary patronage which it would confer. It intrusted the town-council with the power of appointing officers at their discretion. The town-council were also to have the power of giving salaries at their discretion, and of levying rates to defray the expense of those salaries, and for other incidental matters. He had another objection, and a strong one, to urge against the measure. First, he considered the mode in which the town-council were to be chosen which he had already pointed out to their Lordships. Then he considered the views which were enter-

1317
tained by the parties, to whom was to be intrusted the local authority, and the probability that the individuals who thus obtained the command of the public purse would be thereby enabled materially to extend their influence. Let their Lordships conceive what the state of Ireland would be, with bodies of that description in the possession of power, with political agitation spread over the whole face of the country, combining together, corresponding with each other, and thus forming their corporations into formidable engines for furthering the objects of the parties who were the patrons of this Bill. The noble Viscount, who was sometimes disposed to philosophise in his observations, had more than once said that bodies which assumed a power which did not legitimately belong to them, so far from being formidable, only rendered themselves contemptible and ridiculous. That remark might be applicable to a country like this, where there were countervailing forces. Here there was a powerful magistracy and an influential clergy—here, there were institutions of various descriptions to control and check any body of men who usurped functions to which they were not entitled. The case was widely different in Ireland. What controlling power existed there? If they set up these bodies in that country, arrayed them in legal authority, gave to them the forms and insignia of office, the power of commanding the constabulary, and in making use of the public purse, as they might do, under this Bill—if they did this, would any one tell him that they would not thereby crease a power of a most formidable character? In cases of this kind, he was unwilling to rely on his own general observations, or on his own experience; but there was a witness on this subject, who was appealed to on a former occasion by a noble Friend of his, whose evidence appeared to him to be decisive—a witness, whose testimony, he thought, he noble Viscount could not object to, because he considered him the patron and protector of his Majesty's Government. A witness, who was more schooled in the arts of agitation than any other individual who had ever lived—who was more experienced in keeping alive popular excitement, and who better knew the means of moving the people of Ireland in conformity with his own views than any other individual whom he had ever known. He called the evidence of that individual
1318
in aid, who told them that all he was anxious to obtain was a measure of municipal reform; he said, give him that and he would make himself responsible for their obtaining the rest. Without this evidence he should have come to the same conclusion at the dictation of his own reason; but when he found himself so supported—when he found himself supported by evidence which the noble Viscount could not controvert—he felt that he was placed in a situation that was altogether impregnable. In a question of this kind, above all others, the aide-toi principle was that on which they ought to act. Let them look to the state of Europe, and compare it with what was its state about 200 years ago, when the reformed religion was extensively established throughout the continent. He regretted to say, that in Europe now there were large masses of the population by whom the reformed religion was no longer acknowledged. Let them not deceive themselves on this subject; let them see what was going on in this respect in Ireland, and let them not altogether shut their eyes to what was passing in England itself. The noble Viscount on a former occasion, in arguing this Bill, was pleased to tell them how admirably the Municipal Act had worked in this part of the United Kingdom. The noble Viscount told their Lordships as it had been so successful here, notwithstanding the anticipation of their Lordships to the contrary, he felt sure that any one looking fairly to the subject must see that they might safely confer the same privileges and powers on Ireland. The noble Viscount alluded in support of his views to some communications he had received as to the working of the Municipal Act in different parts of this country. The communications to which the noble Viscount referred, formed, indeed the greater portion of his speech. The noble Viscount referred, among other corporations, to that at Bristol. Now, having himself formerly held the office of recorder of Bristol, he knew something of that city; and he begged to state that he had received a communication in reference to the Bristol Corporation which was directly at variance in every particular with the statement of the noble Viscount. He would just touch on one or two of the points of his communication in answer to the observations and statements so much relied on by the noble Viscount. One of these was as to the better administration of the corporate

1319
property. A sum of 30,000 l. was to be raised by rates on the inhabitants of part of Bristol, for the purpose of making good the loss occasioned by the riots and disturbances which had occurred in that city some years ago. One of the first measures of the new town council was to provide for that loss out of the corporate property. Thus they applied 30,000 l. of the capital of the corporation—of that corporate property which was to last for all time—to relieve the individual subject to the payment from the charge. It was said by the noble Viscount that the administration of justice had been greatly improved by the Municipal Corporation Bill. He had observed how much better it was for offenders to be tried by the judge of assize than by the recorder of that city. Now, what was the operation of the measure in this respect? Why, that every man who committed a crime was subject to the jurisdiction of the judge of assize, before whom be was tried at a distance of thirty miles from his friends or his witnesses. The effect of such a system must make it impossible for persons to bring their witnesses before the judge of assize, because they were not able to bear the expense. He entertained great respect for the judges of assize; but he begged to say that, in his opinion, those individuals who had filled the situation of recorder for upwards of 100 years were in no respect inferior to them. It would be enough for him to say who those individuals were. There was Sir Michael Tooke: then, at no long interval, Lord Ashburton. There were also Lord Thurlow, Sir Vicary Gibbs, Lord Gifford, and, after a short interval, Sir Charles Wetherell. These were all men highly gifted, and as capable as any other men, well, faithfully, and satisfactorily to discharge those duties incident to the criminal jurisdiction of this country. The noble Viscount had said, that party animosities and disputes were comparatively put an end to by the operation of this Bill. With respect to that representation he begged to refer to the statement with which he had been furnished. The noble and learned Lord read the following extract from the document:—
"The perpetual recurrence of elections for representatives of wards excites a feeling, perhaps, inseparable from any contest, but rendered more bitter and more vehement from the narrow circle in which it is confined, which makes the matter personal to every one who
1320
partakes in it, and brings almost every neighbour into personal collision. For the purpose, or under the pretext, of guarding the franchise, and preventing the intrusion of improper votes, a system of espionage is kept up; and in the interval between the annual elections the ferment is enlivened by the contest for the registration. We live, therefore, in a constant fever. If by the abatement of sectarian violence is to be understood the unnatural union between the body of Dissenters of the most opposite opinions with the members of the Roman Catholic Church—a union intended only to effect a common purpose, and which must most assuredly terminate when that purpose is answered (if answered it shall ever be) in increased hostility to each other—then, indeed, such an abatement has taken place. In any other respect the assertion is unfortunately as little true as the other averments of the statement."
The noble Viscount, besides referring to Bristol, alluded to Cambridge, Leicester, Norwich, and several other places. He would therefore read a statement from Cambridge, which was communicated to him on an authority quite satisfactory, and that statement, like the one from Bristol, was completely at variance with the statement made by the noble Viscount, and which he wished to be taken as the foundation of a similar system in Ireland. He had thought it his duty to say thus much with respect to the measure before the House, and thus much with respect to the conduct of his Majesty's Government. But the people of Ireland were desirous that a Municipal Bill should pass. He was desirous, as he had already stated, that a Bill should pass, provided, as he had also said, such a Bill could be so formed as to be consistent with the tranquillity of that country and the safety of those interests to which he had adverted. He was desirous that that Bill should be founded on the principle of election. He was desirous it should be founded on the principle of election, so as to ensure responsibility among those persons who were to be elected, and to whom the administration of the different towns was to be intrusted. Being desirous that that object should be accomplished, being desirous that this question should be set at rest, being desirous that as far as was possible the wishes of the people of Ireland should be complied with, he came to the conclusion originally of supporting the motion of the noble Duke, and he was only acting consistently now in praying for an extension of the time that was ori-

1321
ginally granted. He wished this measure postponed till the time when the Irish Church Bill might come before them, which he supposed would be at no very distant period. It was possible, that the provisions of that Bill might be such, either in the form in which they would reach their Lordships, or as their Lordships might frame them, as to put the Church of Ireland, as far as its property was concerned, on a safe and secure foundation. When that was accomplished, one great impediment to the passing of this Bill would, in his opinion, be removed. There was another Bill in the other House of Parliament, establishing the principle of rating which was to be extended to the whole of Ireland. When that Bill came up to this House, they might find that it afforded materials for the settling of the qualification on a secure basis, so that they could establish not a mere nominal qualification, but a qualification tried by the best possible test, that of bearing the public burthens of the country or of the place. Should that be the case, and he anticipated that it would be, they might then be able to model an important part of the Bill so as to free it from those objections to which it was ex posed. It was on this ground—it was because he hoped to be able to pass the measure in a manner that would be satisfactory to the people of Ireland, instead of voting for its rejection on the present occasion, or at any future stage, that he was desirous of having another opportunity of forwarding, or of framing it, in conformity with the principle he had mentioned. For the accomplishment of that object, and in furtherance of those views, he should propose, as an amendment to the motion of the noble Viscount, that the word "now" be struck out, for the purpose of substituting "the third of July." He named that time, because he concluded that the bills he had mentioned could not be before the House at an earlier period: but if any assurance were given by the noble Viscount that they would come up at an earlier date, he was willing to alter the day to the earliest possible period.
Viscount Melbourne: Judging from the commencement of the noble and learned Lord's speech, though I was well aware he was going to make the motion with which he concluded, yet I must own that, judging from the commencement of the noble
1322
and learned Lord's speech, I did hope that, on the general subject at least, he was about to adopt a calm, cool, and dispassionate tone; that he was about to adopt a tone which would not be altogether, otherwise than conciliatory; a tone exhibiting that fair and proper feeling to which I beg to declare myself not at all insensible. I am sorry to say, that my hope has been disappointed. The noble and learned Lord has, in the course of his speech, used expressions and uttered sentiments which, in my opinion, are very little if any less objectionable, which are very little if any less offensive, which are very little if any less likely to have a prejudicial effect on the feelings of the two countries, than was that speech which he delivered on a former occasion in this House with such eminent success—with so much success in exciting indignation and passion—with so much success in accumulating every difficulty and obstacle possible in the way of a fair and conciliatory conclusion of this subject. What does the noble and learned Lord say on the present occasion? In the course of that invective in which he has thought proper to indulge, he has said, that those who compose the Conservative meetings, are the friends of the King and Constitution; while we, the Ministers, are supported by none but the enemies of the Constitution. What right has the noble Lord to make that assertion? What right has the noble and learned Lord to make that charge? Be they Roman Catholics or be they Dissenters, by what right does he assume that superiority of character? What entitles the noble and learned Lord to assume that right to censure and condemn? Is his character so high? Is his character so far above theirs as to justify him in setting himself up as the censor of others—as the censor and condemner of such large masses of his fellow subjects? I mean to speak nothing but what is respectful of that noble and learned Lord. I have always expressed a great respect for his abilities; and I repeat what I have more than once in this House stated, that I confine my respect strictly to his abilities. Having that respect for his abilities, I say it is not fitting—I say it is not becoming the station which he has filled in this country—that he should cast this bitter censure on so large a body of his fellow countrymen and fellow subjects. But with respect to the question which the

1323
noble and learned Lord has brought before the House, I stated on a former occasion that I could not concur in the grounds which the noble and learned Lord has submitted for the postponement of the measure; and having objected to them on the 5th of May, it is not likely that I should concur in them now on the 9th of June. I do not think the reasons urged are at all sufficient. I think it is unusual, I think it is most imprudent, I think it is most unwise, to make the operations of this House depend on anything passing in the other House of Parliament. I say, first, that the course proposed is a new mode of proceeding; I say it is an inconvenient mode; I say that it cannot tend to advantage between two co-ordinate Assemblies, each being a House that is the guardian of its own powers and privileges, and acting one on the other; I say, that proceeding on this principle is not likely to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion. My Lords, I see no reason why your Lordships should not go into Committee at present. The noble and learned Lord has stated objections to the details of the bill; he has objected to the jurisdiction given to the corporations; to the extent of patronage they will have at their disposal. These, however, are all questions for the Committee into which I now move your Lordships to go. But though the noble Lord stated these objections to the details, the greater part of his speech went to the principle of the bill—it referred to the state of Ireland—to the state of the population of Ireland—to the power to be given to those who form the greater portion of the population of Ireland. The noble and learned Lord said the bill proposed to confer on them a power which cannot, with safety to the Protestants of Ireland be trusted to them. Yet he says the people of Ireland are desirous of the bill; and he also is desirous that the bill should pass. He is desirous, too, that it should be founded on the principle of election. Why, is it not extraordinary that he should be desirous of passing this measure, entertaining the opinions he has expressed respecting the majority in Ireland, and the motives by which they are actuated? But the noble and learned Lord would have the bill founded on the principle of election. New, I will answer for it, that be his ingenuity and skill what they may, he will not be able to escape from the difficulty of the majority of the
1324
population of Ireland being Roman Catholics. If that really unfits them to possess the privileges which this bill would confer on them, no skill or ingenuity of his can ever contrive an escape from it. I therefore, beg to say, that, in my opinion, he has acted most inconsistently in giving any countenance to the bill whatever. The noble and learned Lord, having been unfortunately absent during a considerable portion of the session, has come forward on the present occasion, and raked up all the topics of the Roman Catholic Association, and the appointment of persons who were members of that Association to office in Ireland, those topics having been discussed over and over again. It was what the session began with, and, according to the noble and learned Lord, it seems to be that with which he intends the session shall close. The noble and learned Lord appeals to his own consistency and to the consistency of the House on the present occasion. He says you cannot, consistently with what you have already done, adopt any other course than that of postponing the bill on the grounds on which you postponed it before. I beg to claim for myself, and for the noble Lords beside me, the privilege of paying some attention to our consistency, and we feel that we cannot give our consent to any further postponement, having objected on a former occasion to the reasons advanced in favour of the delay as insufficient. I stated that to act on the grounds which were then proposed would be most dangerous, and to postpone the forwarding of one bill till some other bill comes down from the other House is a course of great difficulty and delicacy. I put it to the noble Duke, than whom there is not, I believe, one of your Lordships who is more capable of taking a sound practical view of any question, whether it is not so? I ask him whether he thinks it practicable for the two Houses to proceed in this manner—whether some accident is not likely to occur—whether some temper may not be excited—whether some difficulty would not probably arise which would render it impossible to bring the matter to a satisfactory termination. The course proposed is one more refined and subtle, I will venture to say, than any which the sound sense of the noble Duke ever suggested, or which has come within the range of his experience. With great bodies of men you cannot act in that manner, and if that be the object which we

1325
have in view we shall fail. Then why not go into Committee? What is the reason why you will not go into the consideration of this Bill—why you will not go into Committee, and then take into consideration all the practical suggestions of the noble and learned Lord, rejecting all the general objections with which he has chosen to accompany them, and which, if allowed to take effect, would be fatal to the whole measure? The noble and learned Lord has alluded to Gentlemen whom he has pleased to call the patrons and defenders of the Government. He says we are entirely supported by the Roman Catholics of Ireland, and we are therefore willing to assist and promote their interests every way in our power to the prejudice of the Protestants at large. I say that is not the case. I beg to deny that imputation altogether. I beg to say, that we are no more willing to see the Protestant interest in Ireland trampled or trodden under foot than he is—not in the slightest respect. We are determined to assert the rights, liberties, and properties, and all that belongs to every class of his Majesty's subjects, whether they are of the Church Establishment, or whether they are not of it—whether they are of one description of faith or of another. The noble and learned Lord has adverted to the Roman Catholic Association of Ireland. I have said what I think of that Association, and I do not consider it necessary to repeat my remarks on the present occasion. But the noble and learned Lord says, was there ever such an Association before? In reply, I think I might endeavour to recal to the noble and learned Lord's recollection, whether, when he sat on the woolsack from the year 1827 to the year 1829, there did not exist such a body in the country? The noble and learned Lord then called to his aid neither the common law, if that was sufficient, nor did he introduce any new statute on the occasion. [Lord Lyndhurst expressed dissent.] I know what the noble and learned Lord is going to say, he would tell us that he did introduce a new statute; but though he did so, was it not under cover of the Concession Bill—of that Bill which was to confer equal civil rights and privileges on the Roman Catholics? I will not inquire now whether what was done on that occasion was prudently or wisely done, nor will I express an opinion as to
1326
the observation which accompanied the measure, because I do not wish to stir up matters which formerly created great differences of opinion; but I cannot help saying, that I think, unless it had been the intention to concede to the Roman Catholics all they required as regarded equality of civil rights, that concession never would have been made. The noble and learned Lord has stated, that we gave way to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, and speaks of the Association in Ireland as a Roman Catholic Association. Unfortunately that Association is not a Roman Catholic association; and if there is any thing dangerous and formidable in that Association—if there is anything which makes it more dangerous and formidable than the former one, it is, that a body of Protestants belong to it, and that it has a more general character than any that ever before existed in that country. With respect to persons who have been members of that Association having been appointed to office in Ireland, I must say, most distinctly, that when an Association comprises amongst its members many distinguished individuals—when it has grown up to be of considerable importance—when it has excited a great deal of enthusiasm in the minds of young men, and many young lawyers have been induced to enrol their names in it—I think it would be unwise, I think it would be exceedingly imprudent, on the part of the Government to pronounce against all connected with it a ban of exclusion from office. But, says the noble and learned Lord, that is what you have done with respect to the Orange societies. Now I beg to say, that though that course was proposed by the Government, I entertained doubts as to its policy; I will even say, that I never came to a decision with greater doubt; but I yielded to the proposition on account of the peculiar character of those societies. They were entirely secret—the members were bound together by secret oaths, I never have been initiated in their mysteries, but they were similar, I believe, to those of freemasonry. I have understood that rites were observed of a very solemn nature; that they were of an awful devotional character. Certainly the members of the Orange lodges sometimes were bound by illegal secret oaths and awful ceremonies.
The Duke of Cumberlandhaving been

1327
much connected with those societies, he begged to observe, that there never was any thing of the sort described by the noble Viscount, or he certainly never would have countenanced them.
Viscount Melbourne: If there were not secret oaths, nobody could go in but members; the proceedings were secret.
The Duke of Cumberland: The meetings of every club in London are secret. I never would have belonged to a society in which any oaths were taken of the sort mentioned by the noble Viscount, or in which there were any proceedings contrary to the spirit of the laws and constitution of the country.
Viscount Melbourne: The members of the Orange societies were, as I believe, bound together by oaths of secrecy; and that induced me to adopt, with respect to them, the policy of excluding them from office under the Government. The noble and learned Lord, in speaking of the Roman Catholic Association, made it a ground of charge against them that they took on themselves to levy money, to nominate candidates, and to influence the elections. Will the noble and learned Lord allow me to ask him, is there no club in London which does that. Does he know of no club in which money is raised, and that has been instituted for the very purpose of carrying such objects as the influencing of elections into effect? If that is to be a complaint against the Roman Catholic Association, there are other bodies that must share it. I deny that any encouragement of the General Association has been given by his Majesty's Government, and I say, that to appoint a professional man to office under the Government, who has been a member of it, is not to afford it undue encouragement. The noble and learned Lord had observed, that 100 years ago the number of Catholics in Europe was not equal to the number existing at present. I do not know to what countries he alludes; but if it be a fact that the Protestants are diminishing, or that the Roman Catholics are increasing, I am sorry to hear it. I am sorry to hear that the Roman Catholic religion is gaining anywhere on the Protestant religion. I have seen a statement to that effect in the writings of men of ability, but I hoped that it was not accurate, and I regret to hear a similar statement made on the authority of the noble
1328
and learned Lord. But, if it be true, that don't alter the present case at all. If the Catholic religion be winning and gaining—if it be increasing and drawing on the reformed religion—it is not by refusing to impart to the Roman Catholics the rights and privileges belonging to them, it is not by objecting to their number, that we shall correct or remedy that which we regret. The noble and learned Lord had adverted to one or two of the arguments which I used when I had the honour of submitting this Bill to your Lordships' consideration, and he has more particularly adverted to the proofs I furnished of the successful working of the English Municipal Bill. That, perhaps, was an imprudent argument to use, it certainly has had the effect of raising more discussion than I intended, and might tend to prevent that very good which it was my object to show existed. What I have always said, was, that it would be, and I now say, it is evident that the Bill has worked better—that it has worked more smoothly—that it has worked more tranquilly in the second year of its operation than it did in its first. I expect it to work still better next year. As evidence of the success of that fact, I appeal to time, which tries and passes judgment on all measures. With respect to the operation of the Act at Bristol, and the counter statement of the noble and learned Lord, I have only to remark that I have been intrusted with a large petition from Bristol, agreed to at a public meeting, which confirms everything I stated on this subject on a former occasion. That petition I shall have the honour to present to your Lordships, and I do not wish to excite any further discussion on the subject, because I know it is one on which parties might be found who would make assertions on the one side, which would be denied on the other, without coming to a satisfactory conclusion. My Lords, I again declare that I cannot agree to the proposed postponement of the Bill. I must say, "not content" to that postponement. Having made these observations, I shall pass by all the more violent parts of the noble and learned Lord's speech. His long absence will perhaps account in some degree for the violence in which he has indulged, it may be the result of his opinions having been for a considerable period pent up. In conclu-

1329
sion, I must say, not only "not content," to the postponement of the Bill, but also "not content" to the recurrence of any of the warmth which has been allowed to exhibit itself in these discussions.
Their Lordships divided on the original motion:—Contents 74; Proxies 119; Not-Contents 128; Proxies 77–205; Majority 86.

List of the CONTENTS.

DUKES.

Barham

Argyle

Bateman

Grafton

Brougham

Norfolk

Byron

Somerset

Cottenham

Sutherland

Crewe

MARQUESSES.

Dacre

Clanricarde

Denman

Conyngham

Dinorben

Headford

Falkland

Lansdowne

Foley

Queensbury

Gardner

Tavistock

Glenelg

Westminster

Godolphin

EARLS.

Hatherton

Albemarle

Howard of Effingham

Burlington

Howden

Camperdown

Kinnaird

Cork

Langdale

Ducie

Lilford

Fingal

Lynedoch

Fitzwilliam

Mostyn

Leitrim

Poltimore

Meath

Portman

Minto

Saye and Sele

Morley

Seaford

Oxford

Strafford

Radnor

Suffield

Roseberry

Templemore

Scarborough

Teignham

Shrewsbury

Torrington

Spencer

Vernon

Thanet

BISHOPS.

Uxbridge

Chichester

Yarborough

Durham

VISCOUNTS.

Ely

Duncannon

Kilaloe

Melbourne

Ripon

BARONS,

Salisbury

Arundel

Proxies.

DUKES.

EARLS.

Bedford

Besborough

Cleveland

Carlisle

Devonshire

Charlemont

Hamilton

Derby

Leinster

Durham

Marlborough

Errol

Sussex

Essex

MARQUESSES.

Ferrers

Anglesea

Gosford

Breadalbane

Granard

Sligo

Granville

Winchester

Huntingdon

1330

Ilchester

Cloncurry

Ludlow

Dorchester

Mulgrave

Dormer

Ranfurly

Dunally

Shannon

Dundas

Suffolk

Erskine

VISCOUNT.

Glenlyon

Bolingbroke

Holland

BISHOP.

King

Lichfield &c Coventry

Plunket

BARONS.

Sherborne

Auckland

Western

Belhaven

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

DUKES.

Wicklow

Cumberland

Wilton

Dorset

VISCOUNTS.

Newcastle

Canterbury

Northumberland

Combermere

Rutland

Exmouth

Wellington

Gordon (Aberdeen)

MARQUESSES.

Hawarden

Bute

Hood

Camden

Hutchinson (Donoughmore)

Cholmondeley

Hertford

Melville

Salisbury

St. Vincent

Thomond

Sydney

Westmeath

ARCHBISHOP.

EARLS.

York

Abingdon

BISHOPS.

Bandon

Bangor

Beauchamp

Carlisle

Brownlow

Chester

Caledon

Exeter

Carnarvon

Gloucester

Dartmouth

Llandaff

De Grey

Lincoln

Devon

Oxford

Digby

Rochester

Doncaster (Buccleugh)

Winchester

Falmouth

BARONS.

Glengall

Abinger

Graham (Montrose)

Alvanley

Harewood

Ardrassan (Eglintoun)

Harrowby

Bagot

Hillsborough

Bayning

Jersey

Bexley

Leven

Bolton

Limerick

Boston

Liverpool

Braybrooke

Lonsdale

Camden (Brecknock)

Macclesfield

Carteret

Manvers

Churchill

Morton

Clanbrasel (Roden)

Orford

Clinton

Orkney

Colchester

Plymouth

Colville

Ripon

Cowley

Rosslyn

Delamere

Selkirk

De Saumarez

Shaftesbury

Dunmore

Stamford

Dunsany

Tankerville

Ellenborough

Vane (Londonderry)

Feversham

Verulam

Fitzgerald

Warwick

Fitzgibbon

1331

Forester

Ravensworth

Gage

Reay

Hay (Kinnoul)

Redesdale

Heytesbury

Rolle

Kenyon

Saltersford (Courtown)

Kerr (Lothian)

Loftus (Ely)

St. John

Lyndhurst

Sondes

Manners

Southampton

Maryborough

Stewart of Garlies (Galloway)

Meldrum (Huntley)

Melross (Haddington)

Stuart de Rothesay

Monson

Tenterden

Montague

Wharncliffe

Penshurst (Strangford)

Willoughby de Broke

Rayleigh

Wynford

Proxies.

DUKES.

VISCOUNTS.

Beaufort

Arbuthnot

Buckingham

Beresford

Leeds

Canning

Manchester

Doneraile

MARQUESSES.

Gort

Aylesbury

Hereford

Bristol

Lorton

Tweedale

Sidmouth

EARLS.

ARCHBISHOP.

Airlie

Canterbury

Aylesford

BISHOPS.

Bathurst

Cloghe

Belmore

London

Beverley

St. Asaph

Bradford

BARONS.

Buckinghamshire

Arden

Cardigan

Carbery

Clancarty

Carrington

Dela Warr

Clanwilliam

Elgin

De Tabley

Enniskillen

Douglas of Douglas

Guildford

Dynevor

Home

Farnborough

Hope

Farnham

Lindsey

Forbes

Lucan

Harris

Malmesbury

Hopetoun

Mansfield

Oriel (Ferrard)

Mayo

Ormonde

Mount Cashell

Prudhoe

Mount Edgecumbe

Rivers

O'Neil

Rodney

Onslow

Sinclair

Pembroke

Sheffield

Powis

Skelmersdale

Sandwich

St. Helen's

Somers

Thurlow

St. Germain

Tyrone (Waterford)

Talbot

Walsingham

Westmorland

Wigan

Winchilsea

Paired off.

CONTENTS.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bishop of Hereford

Viscount Maynard

Lord Lovat

Lord Wallace

Earl Sefton

Earl Poulett

Earl of Lichfield

Marquess of Exeter

Amendment carried, Committee put off.