Sitting of 10 July 1838

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a third time:—Vagrants Acts Amendment.
Petitions presented. By Lord FRANCIS EGERTON, from Manchester, Salford, Oldham, Birmingham, and other places, for an Alteration of the laws regulating the Sale of Beer.—By Captain GORDON, from the Shipowners and Shipmasters of the port of Aberdeen, and by Sir C. STYLE, from Scarborough, against the Bill for the regulation of Pilotage.

TITHES (IRELAND).
The Order of the day having been read for Committee on the Tithes (Ireland) Bill,
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that before the House should resolve itself into Committee upon this bill, he rose for the purpose of moving an instruction to the Committee, which he considered to be an indispensable preliminary, and without which he saw no chance whatever of the successful working of the bill. He would not for a moment delude the House by the supposition that this bill was calculated to work well: on the contrary, he thought, that it would increase the existing amount of dissatisfaction and disturbance in Ireland, unless they agreed to the resolution which he was about to propose, and which he should most certainly feel it to be his duty to press to a division. He felt, that the House must listen with natural reluctance to a renewed discussion upon Irish affairs, a lengthened discussion having not long since taken place upon this particular subject; and he (Mr. O'Connell) would gladly omit any fresh allusion to those topics, if he were not impressed with the deepest sense of their importance. It was for the House to take into consideration the present state of Ireland, to examine how far the proposed remedy was applicable, and to see whether in the attempt to amend a mischief they did not positively increase the evil. At the present moment the affairs of Ireland were pregnant with the utmost danger. It was true that for the last three or four years a system of conciliation had been carried on by the Government of that country; that the policy of that Government had been that of vigilance in the detection, united to firmness in the suppression, of crime, accompanied by a soothing and conciliatory spirit towards the mass of the people. For the first time in the lapse of centuries the people had become reconciled to the administration of an English Government. Great, however, as were the advantages of that novel system of policy, it had by no means cured the evil, the substantial evil—which consisted in real unmitigated oppression, and in the deep-rooted conviction of the people that they were suffering under downright injustice. So long as the fact existed that nine-tenths of the Irish population consisted of Roman Catholics and Presbyterians, it was idle to think of forming any scheme for reconciling them to pay for maintaining the re-

85
ligion of the other tenth. It was undoubtedly true, that the resistance to tithes had of late assumed more of a passive than an active character; but no man could dispute the fact, that the opinion of the people of Ireland on the subject of tithes still remained unchanged. He devoutly believed it to be unchangeable. When he last addressed the House upon this subject he had spoken of ten anti-tithe meetings which were advertised as about to take place within a few succeeding days. Since that period no fewer than thirteen of these meetings had taken place. At each of those meetings from 50,000 to 150,000 of the people had assembled, and recorded their immutable hostility to tithes. A striking circumstance at all these multitudinous assemblies was, that they were neither characterised by disturbance, nor by the slightest violation of the peace; and the expression of their determination not to pay tithes was only rendered the more emphatic by this total absence of tumult. The resistance to tithes might, therefore, be fairly assumed to be now as great as ever. Government proposed this measure as a soother, as calculated to diminish the existing mischief. It had intended to strike off thirty per cent. of this burden, which was dwindled down, however, by a vote of that House to twenty-five per cent. It had been said, forsooth, that this was not a question of pounds, shillings, and pence. But was it not made a question of pounds, shillings, and pence? A miserable contest had been carried on upon this wretched remaining five per cent, and a paltry party triumph had been gained—640,000 l. of the tithe million remained unpaid, and arrears had accrued since that period. By their new system the landlords of Ireland were to be made tithe proctors. Was this a system calculated to promote peace and that tranquillity in Ireland? Did they think they were establishing friendly relations between the landlord and tenant by making the landlord sue his tenant for tithes? Why, it was self-evident that they would convert into hostility to the landlord, the odium which had been hitherto directed exclusively against the clergy. The odium would now be shared by both, or rather the burden of it would be borne by the landlord. He asked any man who knew Ireland whether that was a system calculated to produce tranquillity there? Whether, on the contrary, there could be any more fertile source of agrarian dis-
86
turbances, of the most horrible crimes' with all their fearful consequences, including the punishment of the innocent for the guilty? Was the house prepared to inflict that mischief upon Ireland? He (Mr. O'Connell) would take the arrears as hey stood; and he would ask of the House whether they should look for the payment of the arrear of 640,000 l. Who were they that owed that arrear? Must lot the answer be, that they were the most lenient and forbearing of the Protestant clergy in Ireland—men who preferred the peace of their neighbourhood to the chance—perhaps the certainty—of disturbing it by enforcing their claims—who chose the course of Christian like meekness and forbearance in preference to violence and tumult? If there was any class of men who deserved in an especial manner the kind consideration of the House, it was this set of peacefully disposed Protestant clergy. It was not to be expected that these men should pay back that arrear without having recourse to those who were the original debtors; and, having been made the victims of their ow forbearance, to call upon them now for payment of this money was to make a continuation of that forbearance impossible. He could not conceive anything more mischievous, anything more likely to be productive of serious consequences, than the idea of applying for this 640,000 l. to men, many of whom could ill afford to pay it. When this tithe million was first proposed, he had announced that they would never get it back, and he told them now that they would never recover it. Was not the House aware of what had happened to the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, who had lent 60,000 l. or 70,000 l. to be distributed among several parishes? He had since tried every means to recover it, but found it impossible. To be sure, the sum of 12,000 l. was recovered, but at an expense of 29,000 l. Did they wish to make a similar experiment by way of conciliating Ireland? But in order to enforce legal proceedings, the assistance of a military force would, in almost every case, be necessary. Did any man dream of introducing horse, foot, and artillery into Ireland for this purpose? He implored the House to look calmly and dispassionately at the question; and if their object really were, to produce quiet in Ireland, and to make the burthen of tithes as lightly felt as

87
possible, he asked them whether they should leave this festering sore—this national blister—this canker—preying upon the vitals of the country? Instead of conciliation, increased disturbance must result from any attempt to levy this 640,000 l. If they persevered in the proposed system, with reference not only to that sum, but to the arrear which had since accrued, they compelled the parties to do all they could to recover every farthing of the money. It would be better to leave matters as they were, than, under the flimsy pretext of conciliation, to make it not only the interest but the duty of every tithe-owner to look for his arrears. They urged the tithe-owner, in fact, no longer to forbear. They might take this course if they pleased; but let them not remain for a moment under the delusion that they were establishing a system of conciliation in Ireland. They might talk as they would of the impropriety of allowing men to set the law at defiance; they might talk of submission to the constituted authorities, and of the necessity of enforcing the majesty of the law—all admirable phrases, truisms of the most perfect and undoubted excellence, but utterly inapplicable to any statesmanlike attempt at governing Ireland by the policy of conciliation. What did the people care for such phrases? The more they talked of abstract justice and abstract law, the more would the people recur to the abstract injustice of making one, and that the greater, portion of the inhabitants of a country pay for maintaining the religion of the remainder. When they came out with these fine phrases, the people of Ireland would say in reply, that they saw the church in England supported by the people—a church which was the church of the majority of the people; that the church of Scotland was paid by the people—a church which was the church of the overwhelming majority of the people; while in Ireland the church of the people had no connexion whatever with the state—and God forbid that it ever should—while the state establishment (of which he did not at all mean to speak disrespectfully) was the church of a miserable minority. Under these circumstances, what was it that he proposed? The House had drawn the line; tithes and tithe composition were now to disappear for ever. They were entering on a new plan, and he (Mr. O'Connell) proposed
88
to enter with them; but he called on them in the first instance to blot out all the encumbrances which had embarrassed the former system. He called on the House to remit the 640,000 l., of which they ought never to have demanded payment; and with respect to the remainder of the arrears, he proposed that a committee should have the power of diminishing it at least to the extent of the diminished rent-charge. He proposed that they should strike off twenty-five per cent. Let there be a committee or commission to investigate how much was due to each of the clergy, and by whom. Wherever solvent persons were discovered, let them be obliged to pay their arrears, and let the arrears be remitted in those districts in which there were likely to be disturbances. In the meantime let the operation of the law be suspended. As to the residue, the arrears which had since accrued, he proposed to remit no more than twenty-five per cent. to any solvent person; but there should, at all events, be an inquiry as to the places in which the suing for these arrears would give rise to disturbances. The report of the commission might be completed by the first day of next Session. Two or three intelligent men would be sufficient to conduct the inquiry. By this means they would remove the irritating process of litigation, they would be enabled to ascertain with accuracy in what districts disturbances were likely to take place, and in what districts it was probable, that they would be unable to levy the tithes under the present system. By the first day of the next Session they would be enabled to devise proper means for recovering all the solvent arrears. If it were to be a new system, let it be altogether new. Let it not be a partial and piebald system, with so much of the old system as would tend to produce vexation, and so much of the new as would create embarrassment and confusion. He had trespassed at greater length upon their attention than he had originally intended; but he could not help conjuring the House to make this concession in a spirit of genuine conciliation. Let no man taunt him with desiring to take English money. It was true that he did; but, when they looked to the advantages which would result from the sacrifice, they would not hesitate to make it, if they were actuated by a sincere desire to win over the people of Ire-

89
land by conciliation. Notwithstanding all the veneration in which the Marquess of Normanby was held in Ireland—notwithstanding the perpetual counsels which the people received from the clergy, and their commands, where that was possible—not, as it were, to tarnish the administration of the noble Lord by offence or outrage—it should still be remembered, that as yet the people of Ireland had obtained no real measure of legislative relief. The Municipal Bill they had not yet passed. All that they had given them was a poor-law. He had seen it reported that the noble Lord at the head of her Majesty's Government had stated it in another place to be the great objection to the Poor-law that it would become a burthen on the landlords of Ireland. There never was a more fatal mistake. The real objection was, that the burthen was imposed upon the occupiers of the land, who must pay in every case one half of it. From placing the burthen on the shoulders of the landlord he should not be at all disposed to shrink. What he did shrink from was, placing it upon the occupying tenant; and he denounced it as another ingredient in the cup of Ireland's misery. It was also proposed under the new system of tithes to levy these arrears; and here was another source of discontent and disaffection. He knew that insurrection in Ireland would be put down. He should be sorry to think, that it should not be suppressed. No undisciplined force could resist the mighty army of this country; but since they talked of their wish to conciliate, he took them at their word. He called on them to do so, and to agree to their resolving themselves into a Committee with an express instruction to take this matter into consideration. He hoped that his plan was wide enough to embrace the opinions of hon. Gentlemen at every side of the House, and he should therefore move, "That it be an instruction to the Committee to provide for the means of discharging the arrears of tithes now due in Ireland."
The Speakerobserved, that the motion appeared to him to be informal, inasmuch as it was, in point of fact, asking for a grant of public money.
Mr. O'Connellreplied, that he did not want the House to make any grant of money. All that he wanted was a receipt for money which had been already granted. As there was an objection to his motion
90
in point of form, he would give notice of his intention to move an address to her Majesty for the remission of the 640,000 l., and would now move, that it be an instruction to the Committee to make arrangements for the diminution or discharge of the arrears of tithes now due.
Lord John Russellwas very doubtful as to the formality of the hon. and learned Gentleman's motion, and, even if it were carried, he did not think that it would obtain for him the object which he proposed. His right hon. Friend near him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had a proposition to make with regard to the arrears of tithes, and when that proposition was submitted to the House would be the most proper time to take the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal into consideration.
Lord Stanleysaid, that if the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite pressed his motion to a division, and if it were consistent with the forms of the House, he should feel it his duty to support it. He wished to guard himself against more than expressing an opinion, in which he fully concurred with the hon. Gentleman, that the bill would fail in a beneficial result, even in a larger degree than was anticipated, if it did not involve some provision for the settlement of the arrears. The immediate object of the acts which had been already passed was, to promote the peace and tranquillity of Ireland, by substituting a payment to the clergy from the landlords, the majority of whom were Protestants, for a payment by the occupying tenants, who he was ready to admit were very little able to bear the burden, and were, besides, of a religion different from that of the Established Church. In his opinion the whole benefit to be derived from the bill must depend on the condition, that from the period when the bill shall have come into operation there shall be no more demands made by the Protestant clergy upon the Roman Catholic population. The bill, he repeated, would fail in its object if the House either allowed or compelled the clergy, in vindication of their rights, to proceed against the occupying tenants for the arrears now due. The question for the House to consider was a grave and serious one—namely, in what manner, doing justice to all parties and injustice to none, it was possible to provide for the payment of those arrears. His right hon. Friend opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had

91
stated to the House the other day the outline of a plan for remitting to the clergy the arrears, if they would consent to remit to the people the whole of what was due to them. But it was not fair to the clergy, who had waited with exemplary patience for the fulfilment of the hopes which were held out to them of a final and satisfactory settlement of the question, and who had upon the faith of these representations forborne to put their claims in force; it was not fair to them to say, that the condition of remitting the arrears or debt due by them should be their remitting to the occupying tenants not only all the arrears due to them up to 1835, but also those which had since accrued to the present year. To exact such a condition was imposing upon the clergy terms grossly and manifestly unjust. His right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) proposed to relieve the occupying tenant at a grievous expense to the clergy, and none to the landlords, and without any assistance from the state. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin proposed to relieve them and the clergy to a certain extent at an expense charged to the State alone. He (Lord Stanley) knew the difficulty of dealing with questions like the present in such a manner as not to give occasion for invidious observations or irritating discussion. This he was most anxious to avoid, but he must say, that there was one consideration which both his right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Dublin should not leave out. There was this additional objection to both plans, that those who pertinaciously resisted the law would obtain a benefit which those who had complied with the law would be deprived of. He admitted the force of all the arguments against calling upon the occupying tenant for the payment of those arrears, which for a long time they had been taught to hope they would not be called upon to pay. He saw the importance of the case, and he thought that the State ought to make a sacrifice if the peace of Ireland was to be obtained by it. As an Irish landlord, he would say, that they had no right to call upon the State to bear their burdens. He would say, that although the Irish landlords might not have derived any pecuniary advantage directly in their own pockets, they had yet derived an advantage to some extent. In those districts where the opposition to tithes was greatest, and none were paid,
92
the landlords received their rents better and more satisfactorily than before. That such was the fact was notorious. He said, then, that they had derived some advantage from the state in which the law had been left by the tithe agitation and the non-payment of tithes by the occupying tenant. Having derived this benefit, the Irish landlords had no right to call upon the clergy to make a large sacrifice upon their parts, nor upon the State to make a sacrifice of the public money, and contribute nothing themselves. He understood his right hon. Friend to say, that until he knew the amount of the arrears due and payable by the occupying tenant, he could not tell whether the 360,000 l. remaining would be sufficient or not. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin proposed to make the landlords liable to a certain per centage of the arrears due by the tenants. [Mr. O'Connell: Due by themselves and all solvent tenants.] He was afraid the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposition would lead to a general declaration of insolvency throughout Ireland if insolvency were to be the exemption from the payment of the arrears. He thought that where the arrears were due from the landlords themselves, they ought to be paid without deduction. He hoped he understood his right hon. Friend to say, that the arrears should be paid partly by the landlord and partly by the State; that the landlords should pay a portion, say 20 per cent., of the arrears due to the clergy upon their estates, and, that in consideration of the sacrifice thus made by the clergy, a discharge be given to them by the state of the amount of arrears now due. Without some such provision, which it was the duty of the Government to propose, and of Parliament to agree to, with a view to the peace and conciliation of Ireland, the bill would fail to produce any beneficial results. His object in supporting the motion was, to express his opinion, that without these arrangements the measure would not succeed. It was most material, that after the bill came into operation, no levy should be made by the clergy upon the occupying tenants. In justice, the House could not deprive the clergy of this right, nor refuse to assist them in the exercise of it, unless they made with them some fair and reasonable compromise. He felt confident, that the clergy would not be found hard or unreasonable in the exaction of this compro-

93
mise, and he hoped, that Parliament would do everything they could for the settlement of this painful and embarrassing question.
The Chancellor of the Exchequeragreed entirely with his noble Friend opposite (Lord Stanley), that the present measure would be defective, unless they made some provision for the payment of the arrears. He also agreed with his noble Friend, in thinking the question one of great difficulty and importance. Before he explained his plan, he wished to meet an objection made by his noble Friend, but which applied to his noble Friend's suggestion as well as to his own plan. Nothing could be more plausible than to say, that the House ought not to countenance a principle the effect of which conferred a reward upon those who had pertinaciously resisted the law. He felt strongly (none could feel it more) the inconvenience of calling upon the House to affirm by Act of Parliament a measure producing such a result. He must say, however, that every plan for the settlement of this question was open to the same objection, and they could only get rid of it, by rigidly enforcing all the arrears from all the parties. His noble Friend had come to a conclusion which had certainly surprised him very much. His noble Friend had stated, that the plan which he proposed, involved no sacrifice from the state. Why, it involved no less a sacrifice by the state than giving up the right to the recovery of a sum of 640,000 l. That perhaps might not be considered any very great sacrifice, but to say, that there was none, was altogether a misapprehension. He was prepared at the proper time fully to explain the proposition which he had thrown out. At the risk of anticipation he would do so now. He wished, however, first to call the attention of the House to the principle of the present bill. That principle was this—that with respect to tithes, they ought to relieve the occupying tenant. From the owner of the land they ought to collect whatever Parliament should determine he ought to pay. He admitted, that there was a difficulty, amounting almost to an impossibility, to recover the tithes from the occupying tenant. This difficulty arose partly from his being of a different religion from the minister, partly from his poverty, the smallness of the sum, and various other causes. With respect to the owner of the
94
land, however, the case was different. He was assumed to be a person of intelligence and education, of the same religion as the clergyman, and therefore identified with the Church establishment, so that in respect to him, there could be no difficulty about the collection, or the effectual service of legal process. Let them apply this principle in respect to the arrears due by the clergy. In considering the settlement of this question, were there any grounds of public expediency or public policy, to require from the occupying tenant the arrears due to the clergy? It was utterly impossible to collect these arrears from the occupying tenants, without endangering the peace and tranquillity of the country. There were two inquiries to be made—first, what was the amount of the proposed sacrifice? and secondly, what was the nature and extent of the compensation given for it? If it should turn out, that the sacrifice was not great, while the compensation was considerable, he did not think there ought to be much difficulty about the adjustment. They had heard it stated by several hon. Gentlemen at the other side, that the great bulk of the tithes was paid by the owners of the land, who were Protestants. From the owners of the land the clergy could and ought to recover the full amount due to them; but did any one believe, that if Parliament left to the clergy the full power which they now possessed, they could recover the arrears from the occupying tenants? No; past experience taught them the impossibility of such a thing. For this sacrifice of those arrears Government was willing to give them compensation by the remission of 940,000 l., while they would have in future to look for their payments to a new rent-charge upon the landlord. The first equivalent for the sacrifice was, in point of fact, the better security of the property created by the statute, and while the sacrifice was transitory the benefit was durable and permanent. He said, further, that there were cases in which, if the House acted with rigour, the clergy ought to be made to pay the whole amount of the advance, and get the money due to them from those who owed it. It was for the benefit of the clergy themselves, and the peace of Ireland, that the claims against the occupying tenant should not be pressed. There was a modification of his plan to which he saw no objection; he proposed the

95
remission of 640,000 l., if the clergy consented to abandon the amount, not of the whole tithes, but of those due from the occupying tenant. The modification to which he alluded was, to allow the recovery of the quinquennial instalments under the Million Act, so far as they were due, from the owners of the first state of inheritance; and this, not for the benefit of the state, but as a further consideration to the clergy for the sacrifice of their arrears.
Sir Robert Peelobserved, that this discussion related to arrears due to the Irish clergy, which might be considered under different heads. First, as to the arrears which were covered by the advance of 640,000 l.; next as to the arrears which had occurred subsequently, and for which no provision had yet been made by Parliament. Singular as it might seem, he was disposed to give his support to the proposition made by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. He had no hesitation in saying, that as far as the proposition referred to the 640,000 l., he entirely agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman. He conceived it to be utterly impossible to exact from the clergy of Ireland that 640,000 l.; because exacting it from them would give them a corresponding right to recover the arrears. He, fo the sake of peace, and to avert the ill consequences that might arise from an attempt to recover the arrears, was prepared to say, that any attempt now to recover these arrears would be fraught with injustice. They ought on that point to relieve the occupying tenants and the clergy: there could be no question about it. The clergy of Ireland saw successive Governments bring in bills for the remission of the 640,000 l., and the occupying tenants were placed under the impression that it would be remitted. Could it, then, be possible, after a delay of three or four years, to say to the clergy that they must proceed for the arrears? It would be absolutely impossible. An immense majority of that House thought that it was absolutely necessary for the treasurer to remit the claim of 640,000 l., and also to deprive the clergy of recovering the amount of arrears covered by the 640,000 l. He must also say, that where the clergy had recovered the amount of the arrears, they ought to repay the amount they had obtained. He was prepared, then, to defend this course, not merely as a favour to the clergy, but as one of justice to the
96
occupying tenants of Ireland. Whenever, then, the question was brought forward, he should be prepared to vote with the hon. and learned Gentleman for an absolute remission of the 640,000 l. They then came to other arrears, which were not covered by the advance of 640,000 l., and the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman was to waive the 640,000 l., if the Irish clergy abandoned all claims on the occupying tenants, not only as to the arrears covered by the 640,000 l., but also all arrears that had occurred since. He thought the proposition a manifestly unjust one, and he for one would never give his consent to it. The Irish Tithe Bills brought in, in 1835 and 1836, by Governments of opposite political opinions agreed in this, that they remitted the 640,000 l., and deprived the clergy of the right to recover the arrears, and they made a provision as to the arrears which had subsequently occurred by applying to them the remainder of the million. Both bills agreed in giving 640,000 l. for the former arrears, and 307,000 l. for the arrears which had occurred in the intervening time. What was the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Why, that, upon the remission of the 640,000 l., the whole of the arrears covered by that advance, as well as the whole of the arrears for the intervening period, should be remitted by the Irish clergy. What pretence was there for making a proposal that the whole burden should fall upon the clergy of Ireland? They had not been the cause of the failure of the bills proposed, for whomsoever the blame rested, they were not to blame. He was not about to censure the course which the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had so manfully taken, a course which he thought the best that could be taken, looking at the difficulties with which this great question was surrounded in Ireland. He believed really and conscientiously that they had taken the best course for the general interest of the country and the peace of Ireland. But the clergy had not been the party to obstruct the settlement of this question, and why should they bear the whole penalty of the delay that had taken place? This would be a manifest injustice. It would be just that the clergyman who had received a part of the 640,000 l. in lieu of his tithes should remit the arrears to the amount received, but to expect the clergyman who never received part of the advance to give

97
up his arrears was gross injustice. The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted, that, if his proposal were adopted there might be acts of inequality and injustice; but he thought, that the Legislature ought to take care not to commit crying acts of individual injustice. It was perfectly just to say, that with respect to those who had received part of the 640,000 l. they should not repay that advance, nor yet recover the whole of the arrears; but those parties who had never received any pecuniary advance, who had been forbearing, who had not pressed hard upon the tithe-payer, and who had not yet recovered their tithes, to say to them, "You owe nothing to the treasury, and the tithe-payer owes you a great deal; you shall remit the whole of your arrears, but we shall not give you a farthing for the remission," was manifest injustice. It was impossible, that the House of Commons could sanction such a proposition. This 640,000 l. had not been spread equally over the whole of the clergy of Ireland. The benefit of the 640,000 l. was confined to a certain particular class. They might ask those parties to remit their arrears; but there was no pretence for saying, that those who had never received anything, and to whom a great deal was due, should not be paid their debts, because others had been paid already. Again, they offered, in 1835, the sum of 307,000 l. to cover the arrears, and now not only were they going to take back that, but they were going to punish the parties who had not taken it. It was impossible for Parliament, which protected the right of all classes, to take a course which would involve the committal of such gross individual acts of injustice. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his ingenious way of conciliating the clergy of Ireland to the adoption of his plan, said, that they would not be making a great sacrifice, that they could not get much of the arrears that remained due, for that the moment they passed this bill, which transferred the obligation from the occupier to the landlord, they would throw such discredit on the old mode, that the occupying tenant would not pay the arrears. Why, would not this be a very good reason for indemnifying the parties? Would it not be a good reason for saying, that the motives of state necessity compelled them to pass a measure which in-
98
volved existing claims, which deprived the parties of the means of recovering, and which, therefore, they must make good? But to compel a person, by the strong arm of power, to remit a debt that was due to him, involved a principle of such shameful injustice that he thought it impossible to consent to it. Those men, in the eye of the law, had a positive claim for the debts due to them, and they had a right to enforce that claim; but to step in by the aid of an Act of Parliament, and to throw such discredit on the old system, as to make it impossible to recover these claims, without, at the same time, making any compensation, was so monstrous, that he was sure, that nothing but the being accustomed to the injustice of the right hon. Gentleman's first proposition could have reconciled him to the enormity of the second. But, said the right hon. Gentleman, the clergy should consent to remit all these arrears, because they would have a better security for the payment of the rent-charge. What had the clergy given up the twenty-five per cent. for? Surely it was the hope, that they had a tolerably valid security for the payment by the landlord of the sums due to them. Why should the clergy be called upon, by the remission of an existing debt, to fortify their security for the payment of the seventy-five per cent? With respect to the course proposed to be taken for the remission of the 640,000 l., if he thought that the remission of that sum, or of double that sum, would secure peace to Ireland, would confirm the rights of the Irish clergy, would prevent agitation, and facilitate the regular payment of tithes, he was quite sure, that the British people were prepared to make any reasonable sacrifice for bringing about the cessation of agitation, the acquiescence in just demands, and the wholesome operation of the laws. But the language of the right hon. Gentleman made him fear future concession. The right hon. Gentleman complained now of tithe agitation, and of those parties who encouraged that agitation, but did not place themselves in the front of the danger. He must say, that after the example of those whose influence in Ireland was very great, and who had withheld their tithes for five or six years, professedly on religious principles, it was not to be expected that the mere readiness to pay off arrears would calm that agitation. The hon. and learned Gentleman

99
opposite (Mr. Sheil) had so refused the payment of his tithes, and he must ask, if Gentlemen of his station and influence refused payment, what effect would such refusal produce on the ignorant? It was very well to throw the blame on the occupying tenants, and to complain of their meeting in large assemblies; but when they saw the hon. and learned Gentleman promoted to a civil office, the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Government must bear some share of the blame of tithe agitation. With respect to the question of thirty and twenty-five per cent., the hon. and learned Member for Dublin said, that it was a miserable question of pounds, shillings, and pence. Now, he thought, that a great principle was involved in it. He thought, that they had no right to make a greater pecuniary remission to the landlord than he was fairly entitled to. He knew it was impossible to follow out this principle fully, and that some individuals must be benefitted to a greater extent than they ought, and that others must fall short. But the reason why he required, that the remission should not exceed twenty-five per cent. was, that he thought twenty-five per cent. a full indemnity for the burthen that was placed on the landlord. He did not think, that the landlord had a right to expect a greater remission than was offered, as he thought the indemnity corresponded with the burthen. They were throwing upon the landlord the payment of tithe, and they were making him a liberal allowance on that account. There were many who thought the existing allowance of fifteen per cent. sufficient. He, however, thought, that as they were about to place, by a law, an obligation on the landlord to which by law he was not subject, the indemnity ought to be liberal. He was, therefore, willing to consent to the allowance of twenty-five per cent., but he could not consent to give thirty per cent., because he thought, that that would be an unjust bonus, and he thought, also, that it was too much, and that it, therefore, involved the question of the appropriation of church property to secular purposes, and the very worst of secular purposes, the benefit of the landlords of Ireland. He, therefore, would certainly not consent to any such reduction of the payment due on account of tithe, as it was one which would manifestly be for the peculiar benefit of Irish landlords, and one which the
100
justice of the case did not require. It was on these grounds, and because it did not involve the principle of appropriation, that he consented that the reduction should be twenty-five per cent. But, although he was ready to consent to the reduction of twenty-five per ecnt. at the present period, he must remind the Houte and the noble Lord, that he was not to be bound, on any future occasion, by this admission. He was perfectly ready now, against the wishes of many of the Irish clergy, to consent to the reduction of twenty-five per cent., but he was not bound to consent to that reduction hereafter in case the proposal was now rejected. He said nothing about the future: all he meant to say was, that his offer of reduction extended merely to the present period, and that offer was made in the hope of peace and of procuring a final settlement of this question. With respect to the important question of the existing arrears, he must say, that with his view of the injustice of the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer it was impossible for him to consent to it. The effect of that proposal would be, to inflict a penalty on those who had obeyed the law. If they meant to administer equal justice, they ought to return the money that had been paid to those who paid it; but it was not only contrary to justice, but an invasion of justice, to make no repayment to the man that had obeyed the law, and to remit to him who had disobeyed the law to the whole amount of his obligations. At the same time he admitted, that if they allowed difficulties of this kind to interpose insuperable obstacles, they would never effect a settlement of the tithe question. He must contend, for the sake of the peace of Ireland and the just rights of the clergy, that in any arrangement for the remission of the arrears due to the Irish clergy, independent of those covered by the 640,000 l., it was not the clergy of Ireland, but the public, who ought to bear the chief part of the expense. Whether they should abandon all the arrears he was not prepared to say. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin proposed, that the clergy should abandon all claims to existing arrears upon receiving seventy-five per cent. upon them. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would guarantee seventy-five per cent. upon the existing arrears due to the clergy, he would venture on behalf of the clergy to accept the proposal; and if the hon. and learned

101
Member for Dublin was empowered to make that proposal, and had the means of performing it, he should feel very much disposed to agree to it. But he could not consent to impose on the clergy the whole of the pecuniary penalty on account of those arrears. His noble Friend (Lord Stanley) proposed, that part should be borne by the landlords. With the utmost respect for the opinions of his noble Friend, he doubted the justice of throwing upon the landlord part of the payment due on account of arrears. As far as the gentlemen of Ireland were concerned, upon whom this burden was thrown, he would not remit one shilling. He would recommend, that they should be all brought before the Court of Exchequer and compelled to pay. He was perfectly convinced that the Irish landlords, who had felt the inconvenience of encouraging agitation to resist a due legal demand would not give much trouble, if the clergy civilly enforced their demand. And as to remitting one shilling, nothing, in his opinion, could be more fatal. They had, therefore, to deal only with the occupying tenant. If the Treasury would advance to the clergy, out of the public funds, seventy-five per cent. upon the amount of their arrears and if they would be content to recover fifty per cent. from the tithe payer, he would consent to such an arrangement. The only evil attending it appeared to him to be the necessity of recovering it from the occupying tenants. But upon the whole he decidedly objected to making the clergy solely responsible for the amount of the arrears. He doubted the justice of imposing any part of the liability upon the landlords. And if he were sure that the bonus of twenty-five per cent. would insure the peaceable settlement of this question, he doubted whether it would not be the best course to meet the difficulties of the case.
Mr. Sheilsaid, that the right hon. Baronet had, in the course of his speech, adverted to him in rather a pointed manner. He should not be provoked in consequence of this, more than to suggest to the right hon. Baronet himself, that perhaps some appointments had been made, when he was in power, of Gentlemen as distinguished for the vehemence of their partisanship, at least, as he was, not perhaps upon the question of the Church, but upon others quite as exciting in Ireland. But he would not, by pursuing this subject, interfere with the just and whole-
102
some spirit that appeared to prevail. It appeared to him to be agreed upon by all sides, in the first place, that the sum advanced to the clergy should be remitted to them, and that, to the extent of that remission, a remission by the clergy should be granted. The next point for consideration was, whether the surplus of the sum which had been originally granted for the pacification of Ireland, should be applied to the purpose for which it had been originally intended? The right hon. Member for Launceston (Sir H. Hardinge), proposed, in 1835, that the surplus should be appropriated to the payment of all arrears, and when the Whigs came into office they adopted the proposition, not of remitting what had been advanced, but of giving up the surplus of the million, amounting to 307,000 l. to the settlement of arrears. Thus were the Whigs and Conservatives agreed upon these two most important points, namely, the remission of the money that had been advanced and the further grant of 307,000 l. He could not conceive why the Whig Government should recede from that point. No name had been suggested; not a single individual connected with the Government had ventured to state any reason for the difference in the course taken in 1835, and that proposed to be taken now. He thought he had made out a case, founded on the conduct of the Whig and Conservative Governments, for the grant of the remainder of the million; but as to the liquidation of the arrears that had accrued beyond this, he was not insensible to the difficulty of inducing English Members to agree to a further grant. He thought, that when they were applying this balance to the liquidation of arrears, they ought to distinguish between the various classes of arrears. He was of opinion, that the landlord who had received his rent, and with it the tithe, ought to be allowed no remission, not a single farthing. Supposing he let his land at 40 s. the acre, and that 3s. were to be paid to the parson, and he received the 40 s., only 37 s. of it belonged to him, and he was bound to pay the balance to the clergyman. He thought this was but common justice, and he was not liable to the imputation which the right hon. Baronet had insinuated against him without the slightest foundation, namely, that he had refused to pay his tithes. He had been unable to recover his tithe, as was the case with other pro-

103
prietors greater than himself, and in support of this he might refer to the statement of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley), who was a landlord in Tipperary, and who had made considerable abatements to his tenants. Every body knew, that there was not a better landlord than the noble Lord. He would not be so unjust as to withhold his testimony to the high merit of the noble Lord on that point. The noble Lord had stated, that he had made an abatement to his tenants, and that he had fixed the rent with reference to tithes, at a certain sum; and that he had great difficulty in enforcing payment. But others had not the same means of enforcing payment as the noble Lord, because the noble Lord gave a beneficial interest to his tenants, who were also tenants at will. He had, therefore, the power of removing them, and of course he had the power of obtaining the balance due to him for tithe, whilst others had not that power. But what was the condition of other landlords? A noble Earl in another place (Earl Roden), had given a description of the condition of a Protestant gentleman, one of the olden time, with an income nominally of 5,000 l. a-year, who, however, never got more than 700 l. a-year for his support. The Earl of Roden had declared, that many men of this class would be crushed by the operation of the poor-law. If the poor-law would crush such men, how much more would the compelling them to pay tithes which they had not obtained, crush them? Suppose land to be let at 20 s. the acre, and supposing, and he spoke from experience, that the tithe was 3s., the tenant paid 17 s. to the landlord, but refused to pay the tithes, and the landlord, who had to pay the 3s. to the clergyman, would in fact receive only 14 s. the acre for his land. This was a statement of facts, and every Gentleman who belonged to that part of Ireland (Tipperary) could corroborate this statement. There were three classes of persons whom the House ought to consider. There was the landlord, who received his tithes; there was the proprietor of the fee-simple in possession of the fee-simple. Let them pay their tithes; it was but fair, because they received it; but the landlords who, in point of law were liable, who de jure were liable, but who de facto had not received their tithes, were entitled to the indulgence of the House. Let them remember
104
the state of the south of Ireland; let them recollect the meetings that had taken place. He thought he had made out a case for the landlords of Ireland which that House ought to take into account. He was throwing overboard those who had got their tithes—he was throwing aside those who had got possession of the land; but he thought the House ought to take into account those landlords who were liable for tithes, and who had not received one farthing of them. It might be said, let those landlords sue their tenants, and compel them to pay. But he would ask, would not the landlords find it hard to recover these tithes which the state found it so impracticable to obtain with the aid of the police, the military, and all the machinery which the Government could bring to bear upon the recusants? Had not the Government said, that they found it almost impossible to recover the arrears of the million, and if they could not, how could the landlords recover them, surrounded as they were by an excited and hostile peasantry? It was untrue—he begged pardon for using so strong a phrase—it was a mistake to say, that he had not paid his tithes. He had paid a large portion on the simple application of the clergyman to him, and he had in his possession a letter from a clergyman in which he returned him (Mr. Sheil) his thanks for asking him for his account in order that he might discharge it. He was, in fact, willing to pay every farthing of tithes incurred by himself, but he objected to be made responsible for those of his tenants who refused to pay him. But enough about himself—enough of individual cases. What he wished to impress upon the House was this—if they were to have the balance of the million applied to the extinction of the arrears, let them not confine it to the occupying tenant, but grant a portion of it to the landlords who were in the predicament to which he had alluded.
Mr. Humesaid, that in his opinion the people of England were about to be defrauded of a large sum in order to support an Establishment which ought to have been reduced long ago, but, at the same time, Ireland and England were in such a situation that every friend of peace must desire to see an end put to agitation. Did the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, mean to say, that the sacrifice of 307,000 l. would restore peace to Ire-

105
land? He begged to remind the House of what had passed a few days ago. His opinion was, that for a while the money might put down agitation, but in a short time agitation would arise again. In his opinion, the interests of England were about to be betrayed. He saw no reason why they should remit arrears of tithe to the amount of 640,000 l., with the additional sum of 307,000 l., unless upon the conditions which were pointed out on the Ministerial side of the House, when they succeeded in 1835 in ousting the Government. Let the Church be reduced, let the reforms that were then pointed out be adopted, and let the surplus arising, after the purposes of the Church should have been provided for, be applied to the repayment of the million, and he should be willing to consent to it, but beyond that he did not think, that the House of Commons ought to go, and he doubted much whether the people of England would sanction the giving up of a million of money to the landlords of Ireland. The Church of Ireland was rotten at the core—it was an incubus, which ought not and could not maintain its existence in spite of the feelings of the people. He could promise the right, hon. Baronet opposite, that all his expectations of peace would be disappointed unless he agreed to the appropriation clause and the abolition of sinecures in the Church. Until this was done he would never agree to give one shilling of public money to the clergy of Ireland.
Mr. Sergeant Jacksonsaid, that there was not a more laborious and conscientious body of men than the clergy of Ireland. He denied, also, that they were overpaid; their incomes did not average more than 250 l. a year. He took the liberty of saying a few words in explanation of what appeared to him to be the meaning of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, in reference to the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary. In touching upon this point he must frankly bear testimony to the gentlemanly deportment which invariably distinguished the part which the hon. and learned Gentleman took in their discussions. The hon. and learned Gentleman never allowed his political feelings to carry him out of the strict line of straightforward and gentlemanly dealing. As the observation struck him, however, the right hon. Baronet had not objected to the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary, on au-
106
count of his being a partisan; but had complained of her Majesty's government that they had promoted parties who had been engaged not only in the violation of the law themselves, but in encouraging others to violate it. The hon. and learned Member fell under this description, for he surely could not forget the speeches which he had made in Tipperary and elsewhere invoking resistance to the claims of the Church, and calling for its entire abolition. It had been declared by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin that Ireland never was in such a state of imminent danger as at the present moment—that she was like a charged volcano ready to burst forth at any moment. And was this the state to which Ireland was reduced in spite of all the kind and healing measures, all the popular proceedings, of the new Government of that country? He feared, indeed, that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin spoke truly, when he said, that Ireland was in a bad state. But why was it so? It was because the Government had not taken the proper and obvious means to enforce obedience and respect to the law; on the contrary, they had not only winked at repeated violations of it, but had actually from time to time promoted the very men who had been guilty of them. He knew of two parties who had been foremost in resisting the law in the matter of tithes, and who had subsequently been promoted to offices in the Exchequer Court. He could assure the House, that in consequence of such proceedings as these it was a received opinion in Ireland that the Government of the country was merging into the hands of the hon. and learned member for Dublin, that at his bidding the magistracy was cleared out, and the police made use of, not as the legitimate means of protecting the peace of the country, but as a ready source of patronage in the hands of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Lord John Russellsaid, the first proposition made by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin was, that some arrangement should be made respecting the arrears due upon the advance made on account of the tithe properties, in order to their total discharge. Another question had since then been started respecting the portion of the million which had been actually advanced to the tithe-owners, and not repaid, Now, upon this subject he

107
must say, that, considering the time which had elapsed since the advances had been made, and that these advances were made on account of tithes due as far back as the year 1831, he did not think, that it would be either reasonable or expedient to insist in future upon the payment of the instalments. To do so would not only embarrass the clergy but inflict a hardship upon the occupiers. The hon. Member had made a proposition to which so much opposition had been shown, that he (Lord J. Russell) thought it better to go back to the proposition which had been made by Government, and introduce a clause for the total remission of the instalments due, whether from the occupiers or from those who held for the tithe owners. But the question was very different with regard to the arrears since incurred. He quite concurred in the opinion, that if by the advance of a small sum of money, it was likely they would put a satisfactory termination to this very harassing question, it might be well to pay the money. But the question even then became one of amount. On this point, the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, seemed to consider, that the remainder of the million advanced in 1835, would not be sufficient; that is, if they were now to give up the remainder of the million, and forgive the arrears due on account of the 640,000 l. already paid, the present difficulties of the case would not be met. Nor had he yet heard from any hon. Member, any definite sum proposed which was sufficient for the object in view. The only statement which he recollected to have heard made tending to this point, was by the hon. Member for Tipperary, who stated the arrears due upon tithes to be about two millions sterling. Under these circumstances, and with no better information on the subject, he owned, that on being called upon for an advance of money, he did not feel disposed to acquiesce in it. Supposing, that the arrears due were two millions, then, if only 75 per cent. were paid, a million and a-half of money would be required. But even supposing they were to make such an advance of public money, would it, in the opinion of the House, lead to a final settlement of the question respecting the Church of Ireland? On the contrary, the hon. and learned Member for Dublin asserted, that the question now was, and he was supported in this view by the reso-
108
lutions passed at the public meetings held in Ireland—whether the Church of Ireland should remain in existence at all, or whether its revenues should not be appropriated to other and far different purposes. Therefore, when the hon. Gentleman called for a sum of money in order to procure a settlement of this question, he, at the same time, told them, that it would not lead to a settlement at all; but, on the contrary, that the money would be given to those who had already violated the law, and were determined still to violate it. If, under these circumstances, the House were to acquiesce in such a grant, they would not have the consolation that they were making such a sacrifice with a likelihood of ensuring the future peace of the country. He came now to a third question for consideration, namely, whether such a grant would tend to the future good working of the present bill. In this point of view, as well as in the two which he had just stated, he did not consider it expedient to adopt this proposition. The hon. and learned Member for Tipperary had stated, with great appearance of reason, that considerable hardship was suffered by landlords who became subject to payments on account of tithes, which they were unable to recover from their tenants. But that was exactly the hardship which would still be liable to occur under the bill which they now proposed to pass; and he believed, that if the proposed advance were agreed to, the landlord would have to pay the 75 per cent. under this clause, which he could not, for some considerable time, be able to recover from his tenant. But he thought, that the landlord should look to his tenant for the future for the reimbursement of the rent-charge which he was called upon to pay. Some amicable arrangement might eventually be expected between landlords and tenants which would prevent the former from being losers in the end. But if the House were to say, wherever payment has not been made, we will advance a further sum in order to meet it, this would be a direct inducement to landlords to say, "We will not harass our tenants for the payments, because their not paying them will be a sufficient ground for us to make out a case of hardship which will ensure us the payment of any sums required for the purpose." On all these grounds, he thought, that it would not be advisable to make any further advance from the state

109
towards the settlement of this question. At the same time, however, he thought it would be hard to call on the landlords for the payment of arrears already due. He should, therefore, advise the entire remission of the 640,000 l. already advanced; but should oppose the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin.
Mr. Lucashad never heard a discussion with more pleasure, and he had no doubt that the debate of the three last hours would do more to the settlement of the Irish tithe question than all parties had been able to effect in the last four years. He hoped there was very little difference between the two parties composing the House on this question; at least, it appeared to him clear, that no hon. Gentleman desired to recur to the clergyman for the collection of the money advanced to him. His belief was, they would not be able to recur to that petty warfare between the clergy and the occupier. It would be utterly impossible for any government to carry out any bill with such a blot in it as a proposition for recurring to the occupiers of the soil for the recovery of tithes. If a recurrence were had to the occupiers of Ireland, the great difficulty would be with respect to a final adjustment of this measure. The noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire had said, that it was the duty of the State, for the purpose of procuring peace by an adjustment of this question, to make some concession; that the clergy should, on their part, make some sacrifice, and that a sacrifice should also be made by the landlords. In this opinion he fully concurred, and as far as he was acquainted with the clergy and landlords of Ireland, he was sure they would be satisfied with any reasonable arrangement which held out a prospect of a successful and satisfactory adjustment of the question. The hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Dublin, had not, in the observations which he had addressed to the House, stated any definite plan. As a sacrifice had been mentioned, he would venture to assert, that there would be no sacrifice—there would be no absolute loss incurred. It was merely a loan, and the thing was, to take care that there should be sufficient security for its repayment. The question of difficulty was not so much as to whether the amount should be moderate or otherwise, but as to the chance of recovering, and whether it was necessary,
110
under the present Bill, to recur to the occupiers of the land. Surely, if the rent-charge was a security for the clergy, it would be equally so for the Government. One observation had fallen from the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, which had not been characterised by his usual sagacity, namely, that the collection of rent had been benefited by the non-payment of the tithe. This was not the case; for though there had been an improved payment of rent, it arose out of the improved condition of the country and the increased communication between England and Ireland.
Sir R. Peel: The importance of the subject is my only excuse for trespassing again on the indulgence of the House. I do not despair, that some settlement of this question, consistent with justice, may be arrived at; and I beg to submit to the consideration of the Committee, a proposal offered with that view, and the main grounds of which I shall now state. In the first place, as you can do nothing without a commission, let one be appointed. It is impossible, unless you mean to act blindly, that you should proceed in this case without intrusting to some such body the necessary powers for carrying the plan, which I mean to submit, into operation. Do not guarantee to pay the amount of the arrears, but place at the disposal of this commission 307,000 l., I should rather say half a million. Ascertain, then, the total amount of the arrears of the occupying tenants, and determine what proportion the defined sum which you place at the disposal of the commission, bears to the whole amount of the arrears. Supposing the sum fixed upon for disposal by the commission to be 307,000 l., and the whole amount of arrears to be 640,000 l., of course you can only meet fifty per cent. of what is now due. Then introduce an optional principle into the plan—offer to purchase the arrears by a tender of fifty per cent, the Government standing in the position of the tithe-owner in respect to the arrears. Give the parties two months, or a certain definite period, to decide. In my opinion, a great number will be found ready to sink their right to arrears in consideration of the immediate payment of the sum which you offer. The State will then be in possession of the existing right of the tithe-owner to the arrears. You will thus be enabled to look at the particular cir-

111
cumstances of each place, and to see where it is right to enforce the law, and where it would be more expedient to avoid its enforcement. Let you, the State, be the party to enforce to the utmost the claim of the tithe-owner, and to make such arrangements as that you can say to the landlord—"There are 100 l. of arrears due to me by your tenants; let a portion of this be paid, and we shall remit the remainder." This plan would do no injustice to the clergyman, because he is to remain in possession of his remedy for the recovery of his tithe, in case he refuses the offer made him by the commission. I venture to say in nine cases out of ten he will accept your offer. In the few cases in which he shall decline, there remains the objection, that the tithe arrears are to be recovered by the clergyman from the occupying tenant; but how infinitely smaller will that proportion be than when you leave the clergyman altogether to the enforcement of his own rights, without any interference on the part of the Government. By this course you introduce an optional principle; you place yourselves in the position of the clergyman; where the circumstances of the opposition given by the occupying tenant are such, that you do not think it right to enforce the claim to arrears, you can abstain from doing so; but where, on the contrary, the tenant is solvent and refractory, and you seek to make a public example of enforcing the law, then you have the means of compelling payment. But, above all, do not bring into collision the clergy and the occupying tenants. Do not levy for arrears extending over an indefinite period. Some allowance should be made for bad debts and other circumstances, and, therefore, I think you should limit the arrears to those which have occurred within two years. See what an advance we have made by this preliminary discussion. All have agreed, that the sum of 640,000 l. must be remitted, and I cannot help thinking, that if we address ourselves with earnestness to the remainder of the question, we shall be enabled to devise some plan by which the offer of a defined sum may be combined with an optional principle as to the enforcement of claims for arrears.
Mr. O'Connellthought there was a great deal of truth in what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, and that his
112
proposal might form an admirable basis for arrangement. When on a former occasion, the million was advanced, it was found, that 640,000 l. sufficed; which proved, that the arrears had been greatly exaggerated, and he believed, that to be the case now. He entertained a sincere hope, that the 307,000 l. would be enough to defray them; and he was happy to see the feeling which seemed to pervade the House for an amicable settlement of the question; with the exception, indeed, of a little anger on the part of the learned Sergeant, the Member for Bandon (Mr. Sergeant Jackson). In cases where the landlord had received tithes from the tenantry and not paid to the clergy, undoubtedly, punishment and not encouragement, should follow. But he believed such cases to be very rare. He had never heard of one. It had been rightly said of him (Mr. O'Connell) that he did not expect this measure would settle the question of tithes as regarded time to come. He should have acted with great injustice insincerity, and criminality if he had said any such thing, for he did not feel it. He had no objection, however, to give the measure every chance of success; but though, for his own part, he had no hope of it, he would aid them in the trial. The hon. Member for Bandon had alluded to him, and said, that the police force were under his control. So far from that being the case he had not made a single nomination to that force in any instance. With regard to the spread of Ribbonism in Ireland, it was completely strangled. It did exist to a considerable extent in the vicinity of Dublin, but had been suppressed more by the exertions of the new police force than anything else. He now came again to the spirit in which this discussion had taken place, and he hoped, that enough had been done to induce the Government to pause and consider whether they might not adopt some plan for getting rid of the arrears, for if they attempted to enforce them they would do anything but conciliate. He trusted they would consider the proposals thrown out on both sides. It might be a sacrifice to be made by England, but it was an arrangement which would tend to a salutary result, and he trusted the House would consider it fully in committee.
Lord Stanleybegged to say a word with respect to the amount to be required. He understood his right hon. Friend did

113
not intend to enter into the arrangement any portion of the tithe composition at present leviable from the landlord. He differed, however, from the hon. Member for Kilkenny and the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary in thinking, that there were no circumstances, under which the landlords of Ireland were entitled to any indulgence. Because in no case could they have become liable for the tithe composition without entering into a new arrangement with their tenants. The landlord let the land tithe free to the tenant, and the hon. and learned Gentleman complained, that landlords were not able to make a corresponding increase on their rents. He could not consider very deeply the case of persons who had charged more for their land than their tenants were able to pay. He meant to apply himself merely to the arrears of the last two years. Now how was it possible, that the amount of these arrears could come near what was stated by the hon. Member for Kilkenny? Why, the amount of the tithes altogether was not above 500,000 l., and it was notorious, that considerably above 100,000 l. of that sum was payable by the landlords. In his opinion 307,000 l. would be a very large amount; but it was clear, that the amount paid even by the occupying tenants was 50 or 75 per cent. He hoped the hon. and learned Member would see the propriety of not pressing his instructions to a division.
Mr. O'Connellhad much pleasure in agreeing to the suggestions of the noble Lord.
The Chancelor of the Exchequerhoped the House would treat the matter as a grant of public money. One thing he would object to was, the Government undertaking to levy the tithes from the occupying tenant. To that proposition he had very great objections. He thought it was also worthy of consideration whether the House in its generosity would relieve the landlords from that liability which they were under, having partaken of the loan. The question, though it appeared to have the concurrence of both sides of the House, was well worthy of grave deliberation. As to the 640,000 l., it should be recollected, that there was a portion of it for which not the occupier of land, but the owners of the tithes were liable.
Colonel Percevalwas happy that an
114
arrangement was made likely to be entered into, and would throw no obstacle in the way. He would, however, reserve to himself the right of hereafter giving deplorable proof in contradiction of the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. He should feel it his duty to call the attention of the House to the distracted state of Ireland.
Lord J. Russellagreed in the proposition made by the right hon. Baronet, but the matter required to be gravely considered. He would give the subject his best consideration, and hoped to be able to propose something to the House which would prove satisfactory. As to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, with respect to the loss which would accrue to the revenue, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would in consideration thereof, do his best in any future debates which might take place on the question of tithes to render the proposed adjustment a satisfactory one.
Mr. O'Connellwithdrew his motion.
The House went into a committee pro forma, and resumed. Committee to sit again.

CAPE OF GOOD HOPE.
Mr. W. E. Gladstonerose to call the attention of the House to a petition from the inhabitants of Albany, in the colony of the Cape of Good Hope, presented by him on the 15th of June last. That settlement had been founded as a frontier post, for the protection of our colony against occasional predatory incursions of the Caffre tribes, previously bordering on the inlands of our ancient settlements. The tract of country inhabited by these advanced colonists had received additions from time to time and was denominated the ceded territory. It was peopled by British subjects of an honest and industrious character, who conveyed thither their skill and capital during the Government of Lord Charles Somerset, and they remained there on the faith of receiving protection and support from the British Government. The colonists complained that faith had not been kept with them, and made various representations of the losses they sustained from being immediately in contact with a barbarous enemy. These representations had been neglected by the Government at home, and the interests of the colonists had been sacrificed, so much so that the ceded territory had been entirely given up

115
to the Caffres, who now mingled with the farmers, to the great prejudice and injury of the quiet and peaceable subjects of Great Britain. Feuds and contests were of frequent occurrence, sometimes attended by bloodshed and consequences of the most lamentable character. The feeling of insecurity thus generated among the colonists caused many of them, and particularly the Dutch boors, to emigrate. The resources of the colony were thus left without employment, and great part of the land remained uncultivated. Agricultural produce had greatly risen in price, and, as regarded the great staple of corn and meal, to the extent of 300 per cent. Fatal collisions with the natives constantly occurred, and in 1837 from this cause the colonists sustained a loss of twenty-two of their own number, besides 384 horses and 2,800 head of cattle. The Dutch boors, disheartened by their misfortunes, withdrew from the colony into the desert, and placed themselves beyond the pale of society. Such was the precarious and unsafe position of the eastern portion of our South African territories, the evils attending which it was the bounden duty of Parliament to remove. He should, therefore, move an address to her Majesty praying her Majesty to appoint a commission of inquiry to investigate on the spot the past and present state of the relations of our colonists on the eastern part of the Cape of Good Hope with the Caffre tribes, together with the best means of preventing a recurrence of the recent emigration of the population beyond the frontier.
Sir George Greysaid, the case before them had already been sufficiently gone into by means of the inquiry instituted, and the documents submitted in consequence of the inquiry to the consideration of the House. It was a lamentable fact that the state of this part of the colony could hardly be worse than it notoriously had been for some years past, owing in a great degree to the aggression of British subjects upon the aboriginal inhabitants, and their endeavours to extend their territory in this quarter for selfish and interested purposes. The pretext for these enlargements of territory from year to year had been, the presumed necessity of increasing the security and safety of the colonists, by placing an intermediate territory between them and the Caffre tribes. The result was aggression on the part of the colonists often causeless and unpro-
116
voked, and, on the part of the aborigines, irruption and massacre. Bloodshed had been the feature of this attempt at acquiring that which the aggressors had no right to, and it was not till within the last two years that measures could be taken by the colonial government there, with a chance of success, to put a stop to this sanguinary contest. Having said thus much, he might also confess he could not see, that any advantage could be derived from instituting a fresh inquiry into the causes of these transactions, so disgraceful to the British name, and prejudicial to British interests. A full investigation had already taken place, the report was before the House, and the colonial government had taken steps which encouraged Lord Glenelg to hope, that there must be a speedy end put to a state of things so much to be regretted. Where, then, was the necessity for the Government to incur heavy expense by consenting to a fresh commission of inquiry? For his part, he must express the most perfect confidence that no measure in the colony would be left untried to carry into effect the recommendation of the colonial government for establishing a system of broad policy in this colony which might prevent a recurrence of the evils which had taken place by a departure from such a line of policy hitherto. General Napier had been sent out to this portion of our territories, with full instructions and ample powers to restore the affairs of the colony to a wholesome condition. He trusted he had said enough to convince the House this was not an occasion upon which the British Parliament could be induced to sanction, under any pretext, the application of persons who had placed themselves in trouble and peril by means of their aggressions. The charge against the Government, that it had surrendered the track called the ceded territory to the Caffres, was a charge which, though true, redounded to the credit of the colonial government, which had insisted upon the relinquishment of a territory acquired by arms and unauthorised hostilities. The prompt cession of the ceded territory was calculated to show that, whatever had been the conduct of individuals, its subjects, the Government of Great Britain would be just when appealed to, and respect the rights of property, fully conscious that by so doing it must inspire a confidence as to its future conduct in the minds of the

117
brave though barbarous people who had been encroached upon; and also that the cession must add to the security and inviolability of the property which had been fairly acquired by the colonists at this part of our settlement at the Cape of Good Hope. He must, on the grounds he had stated, oppose the motion.
The House divided. The numbers were—Ayes 32: Noes 41; Majority 9.

List of the AYES.

Bagge, W.

Knight, H. G.

Barrington, Viscount

Lascelles, hon. W.

Bateson, Sir R.

Lefroy, right hon T.

Blackstone, W. S.

Litton, E.

Bolling, W.

Mathew, G. B.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Packe, C. W.

Darby, G.

Packington, J. S.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Palmer, R.

Dungannon, Lord

Palmer, G.

Egerton, W. T.

Powerscourt, Ld. Vis.

Egerton, Lord F.

Richards, R.

Ellis, J.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Estcourt, T.

Thompson, Alderman

Fitzroy, H.

Wood, T.

Gibson, T.

Grimsditch, T.

TELLERS

Hughes, W. B.

Gladstone, W. E.

James, Sir W. C.

Praed, W. N.

List of the NOES.

Ainsworth, P.

Parker, J.

Alston, R.

Pease, J.

Barnard, E. G.

Pechell, Captain

Blackett, C.

Phillips, M.

Brocklehurst, J.

Rice, E. R

Brotherton, J.

Rundle, J.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Salwey, Colonel

Campbell, Sir G.

Scholefield, J.

Crawley, S.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Duke, Sir J.

Slaney, R. A.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Smith, B.

Fergusson, Sir R.

Style, Sir C.

Grey, Sir C.

Somerville, Sir W.

Hawes, B.

Tollemache, F.

Hobhouse, Sir J.

Turner, W.

Howard, P. H.

Vigors, N. A.

Hume, J.

Warburton, H.

Hurt, F.

Williams, W.

Lushington, C.

Wood, Sir M.

Lynch, A. H.

TELLERS.

Paget, F.

Grey, Sir G.

Palmerston, Lord

Stewart, R.

SALE OF BEER.
Lord F. Egertonrose to call the attention of the House to the state of the law affecting the Sale of Beer. Various petitions had been presented on the subject; especially one from upwards of 6,000 inhabitants of Manchester and Salford, among whom were nearly fifty clergymen, thirty-five of whom were
118
members of the Established Church, the churchwardens, overseers, &c., complaining of the evils which had been the result of the new law respecting the sale of beer, many remedies had been proposed for those evils; that which, after much consideration, he was disposed to recommend was, to expunge the clause which provided for the consumption of beer on the premises; and he was quite sure, that, even if there were a fuller attendance of Members, he should have a general concurrence of opinion in favour of that proposition. It was thought by some, that that part of the act had worked better in large towns, where there was a compact population more immediately under the inspection of the police, than in rural and thinly-peopled districts. He confessed, that, from the information which he had obtained upon the subject, he was not of that opinion. Of the enormous evils of the present system he had abundant proof in representations from Huddersfield, York, Portsmouth, Sheffield, Leeds, Rotherham, &c. He had received, among others, a letter from Mr. J. F. Forster, chairman at the quarter sessions at Salford, a gentleman remarkable for the liberality of his character and the capacity of his understanding, who expressed himself strongly opposed to the measure, from the experience of its pernicious consequences he had had as a magistrate. This gentleman stated, that he had been not unfavourable to the experiment at first, from a wish to supply the labouring classes with a wholesome and refreshing beverage at a cheap rate, and to extend to them every advantage which their station permitted; but he was now quite satisfied that the introduction of beer shops had been productive of consequences bad in every respect among the working classes, destructive of their habits of foresight and economy, subversive of moral feeling, and ruinous, in many instances, to their families. He was quite aware, from long experience, how difficult it was to predicate the consequences of any measure introduced into Parliament; but, on looking back to the debate on the introduction of the Beer Bill, he must say, that it appeared to him that the results of the measure had been more correctly anticipated by its opponents than was usual on such occasions. It had been maintained, that the consumption of spirits would be materially diminished by the new bill. It

119
appeared, however, that no bill had ever been more productive of drunkenness and immorality: Under these circumstances, however late in the session, he was induced to bring the subject under the consideration of the House; partly with a view to prepare the way for some change in the law which, in his opinion, was inevitable; and, as far as he was concerned, with a view to repeal that part of it which related to the drinking of beer upon the premises. He had not the slightest intention to do anything calculated to distress the present Government. The existing law had, indeed, been introduced under the Government of those individuals in whose political opinions he concurred; although the duties of the office which he had at that time the honour to hold, prevented him from paying the attention to the subject which its importance demanded. In justice to his constituents and to others, who, on the faith of the Act of Parliament, had entered into the beer trade, and whose interest he was anxious to protect, he thought it his duty to take the earliest parliamentary opportunity of warning them that it was not probable the law would exist long. All these objects conjoined would, he hoped, be a sufficient justification to the House of the motion he was about to make. He repeated, that he had received innumerable representations of the evils which had resulted from the multiplicity of those receptacles of every kind of vice and depravity, the beer-shops. Without interfering more than was necessary with the enjoyment of the poorer classes, it was the duty of Parliament to protect them from such evils as these. He regretted, that the subject had not fallen into the hands of one more practically acquainted with the facts of the case than he was: but he would now move, that there be laid before the House copies of certain passages in the presentments of the grand juries of England and Wales, bearing reference to the state of the law affecting the sale of beer, in the years 1836, 1837, and 1838.
Mr. Ayshford Sandfordseconded the motion. He was one of those who, at the time of the introduction of the new law, anticipated the evils that would flow from it. It had been introduced in consequence of the grievances to which the licensing system had given rise. Now, although he was hostile to the existing law, he by no means wished to re-introduce the licensing
120
system to which that law had put an end. One of the great evils of the existing system was, the creation of small beer-houses of the lowest description, kept by men without capital, and who obtained credit from the large brewers for three-fourths of their stock. As one means of obviating the evil it might be advisable to provide that no man should sell beer who was not the brewer of it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequergave full credit to the noble Lord for the motive which had induced him to come forward with the present motion, but, at the same time, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was bound to confess, that he was not yet convinced by any facts or any arguments which had been advanced, that an invasion of the principle of the law, as it now stood, would lead to such an improvement in the morals of the people as the noble Lord and those who thought with him supposed. He had always been of opinion that the measure of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Cambridge, which destroyed the old monopoly and opened the trade in beer, was one of the wisest and most prudent acts of the Legislature that he had ever in his time seen introduced into Parliament. He believed, that the benefit conceded to the public by that measure was much greater than any loss that might have resulted in a financial point of view. He believed, too, that the relief which it afforded to a great trade from vexatious interpositions of the Excise was another very great benefit. With respect to the increase of crime, which had been so much relied on, he could not at all admit that increase to be a consequence of the Beer Act. Nor had he any more faith in the allegations which were made of a greatly increased consumption of spirituous liquors. Where were the proofs of it? Gin-shops in London were not on the increase, but quite the reverse. What would be the effect of any alteration of the present law that should put an end to the sale of beer in those houses? Would it not be to bring on again the old monopoly, and all the evils of the licensing system? He did not mean to say, that the existing law was incapable of improvement, but he wished most earnestly to deprecate any return to the old system? Therefore, though he had no objection to this return, and though he was aware that no proceedings were to be taken upon the motion

121
during this Session, yet, differing as he did from the noble Lord as to the facts which he had stated, as well as from the arguments which he had deduced from those facts, he felt it his duty to implore the House and the public to consider well the inconvenience and evil which must result from a change of the law as it stood; to discuss dispassionately both sides of this question; to compare objection with objection; and to determine at length to legislate only upon general principles, in case, as generally happened, facts were found to agree with those general principles, which they ought to look to on this very important question; and having done this, then let them proceed to apply police regulations, not to one class only of these houses, but to all indifferently.
Mr. Pakingtonexpressed his gratitude to the noble Lord for having brought this subject forward. It was almost impossible to over-rate the seriously prejudicial effect which this measure had had upon the morals of the people.
Mr. Humecould regard the object with which such motions as the present were brought forward only as meddling interferences with the comforts of the poor. He did not understand why the poor man should not be allowed to drink his pot of beer where and when he chose, and where he could get it best and cheapest, whether within the doors of a beer shop or in the street. It was melancholy to see those who were in possession of the highest luxuries so anxious to deprive the poor of every little comfort. In his opinion they did not look high enough for the evils of which they complained. He attributed much of the crime to the want of education. Ignorance was the root of the evil. The people were brought up like brute beasts. What education was given to them? There were a few charities, but the people had a right to be educated. They had as much right to education as as they had to a provision for the sustenance of the body. He begged the hon. Gentlemen opposite to inform him what education was afforded to three-fourths of the agriculturists? The noble Lord said he had received information from some one in London of the demoralization caused by the Beer Bill. Would the noble Lord state who the party was? He (Mr. Hume) knew that the licensed victuallers had been very busy in getting up an opposi-
122
tion to the beer shops, and perhaps the noble Lord had had some communication with them. According to the returns on the table of the House, it appeared, that within a certain period during which 514 licensed victuallers had been charged by the police with offences, only 240 keepers of beer shops had been so charged. He was prepared to show, that the allegation that the morals of the people were injured by the beer-shops was quite unfounded. While they heard so much of the demoralization of the poor, no mention was made of the misconduct of other classes. Who were the parties who disgraced themselves by gross misconduct about the period of the coronation? Were they not gentlemen and noblemen? He deprecated the disposition which exhibited itself year after year to meddle with the indulgences of the poor. Nothing had for a long while pleased him more, than the declaration of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that if they were driven to put down the beer shops, he should consider it necessary to take into their serious consideration the propriety of establishing a free licensing system, giving every man the power of taking out a licence, subject only to certain police regulations. It would give him very great pleasure to see such a principle acted upon. He should move to-morrow fo returns which would show a very different result from that anticipated by the noble Lord. Inquiry could not fail to show how completely unfounded were the representations of hon. Gentlemen opposite on this subject. He thought some good would result from the present discussion; it would go far to counteract any effect that might have been produced by the extraordinary declaration of a noble and learned Lord in another place, that a sentence of condemnation had gone forth against the beer-shops. He should oppose, to the utmost of his power, any attempts that might be made by new legislation to interfere with the comforts of the poor.
Viscount Dungannonsaid, that in his neighbourhood it was found, that most of the crime that was committed was concocted in the beer shops. He trusted the return moved for, would make out such a case as to induce her Majesty's Ministers to take the matter up. Hon. Gentlemen opposite might look with jealousy to these complaints, because of the quarter from which they came, because they proceeded

123
from the magistrates, and from the clergy; but the families of the labourers, and farmers, and others, were amongst the complainants. So strong was his impression as to the effect of the beer shops, that he had strictly forbidden any man to set up such an establishment on his estate.
Mr. Warburtonsaw no doubt, looking at the source from which the invitation to petition came, there would next Session be, as the noble Lord had said there should be, a very large number of petitions sent to Parliament against the beer shops. Ever since the act passed authorising these establishments, they had been exceedingly unpopular with the magistrates and the clergy. He thought if they had a committee to inquire respecting the conduct of the beer shops, they ought to have a committee of the labouring classess to inquire into the effect of the houses of entertainment generally. No doubt their report would be, that at clubs and such places there was much drinking of champagne and other wines, that people spent time there which they had much better spend elsewhere, that there was not a little gambling, &c. He did not deny the necessity of police regulations, but let them apply equally. The last committee appointed recommended certain regulations respecting the closing of the beer shops, but that committee said, those regulations ought also to be enforced against the licensed victualling houses. The report of the committee had remained a dead letter. So much for the impartiality which a certain party was disposed to deal out.
Mr. Darbysaid, there was scarcely a respectable labourer in the country that did not set his face against the beer-shops. He denied, that the new beer-shop system was either a comfort or an advantage to the poor. On the contrary, his belief was that it tended only to demoralize the lower classes, and he, for one, felt much obliged to the noble Lord for having brought the subject forward. When they found that, instead of doing good, it only produced evil, he thought the best thing they could do would be to get rid of it altogether as a nuisance, which ought to be discontinued as speedily as possible.
Mr. Haweswas perfectly willing to admit, that the motive which actuated the noble Lord was a good one; that the only object which the noble Lord had in view was the amelioration of both the
124
moral and physical condition of the people. The whole case, however, as it stood at present, rested on mere allegation that crime had increased since the new beer act had come into operation. Now this was a matter which ought not to depend on individual opinion, but upon facts; and he was prepared to show from authentic documents that, so far from having increased, crime—he meant that species of crime which was said to result from the beer-shops—had materially diminished within the last three years, especially in the counties of Middlesex and Surrey, where not only the population, but wealth had increased, and the inducement to crime also. No doubt they had in these counties a better description of police than formerly, and likewise a more prompt and speedy gaol delivery; but as a commission had issued to inquire into the state of the rural police he thought they ought to wait until the report of that commission was presented to the House, before they took any step in this important matter. No doubt that report would be laid on the table of the House early next session, and then it would be time enough for them to determine as to the course they ought to pursue. The hon. Member read a calculation which had been officially made as to the state of crime during the last three or four years, and from this document it appeared that although forgery and some other crimes had increased within that period, there had been a very considerable diminution of those crimes which were said to be engendered in beer-shops. On this evidence he did not hesitate to say, that they ought to arrive at any conclusion rather than that of requiring the repeal of the act under which the beer-shops had been established. He was well aware that there were persons who sought its repeal from mercenary motives, because it deprived them of advantages which they enjoyed under the old licensing system; but at all events the present complaint came with rather a bad grace from the hon. Gentleman opposite, who resisted every effort that was made to have the people properly educated. He did not look to the repeal of the new Beer-law Act, or any other measure of the kind, for the moral improvement of the people; but he looked for it in the diffusion of knowledge, and that extension of the suffrage which would oblige the upper classes to identify their own interests with the welfare of

125
the poorer classes of the community. He thought that before the noble Lord came forward with any measure on the subject he was bound to show, that he had made out his case, and that, in point of fact, the crime which he attributed to the beer-shops had resulted from them.
Mr. Slaneysaid, it was his misfortune very often to disagree with the opinions on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Lambeth denied, that there had been any increase of crime, but in this statement the hon. Gentleman was clearly mistaken. Crime had increased fearfully throughout the country, and it was, therefore, the duty of that House to institute inquiry as to the cause, and how the evil could be best remedied. He admitted, however, that the cure for the evil would not be obtained by a return to monopoly in the article of beer. It was to be remembered, that beer-houses were very different in towns from what they were in the country. In London, for instance, they heard the effect of beer-shops was by means of competition to reduce the price of beer to a moderate sum, while, in the country, beer-shops were established in obscure places, and were on that ground very objectionable. It was his opinion that they ought to require a criterion of some property before a beer-shop could be established. It was his opinion, that there ought to be some improvement in the mode of granting licences to beer-shops. It was plain that the increase of beer-shops had not prevented an increase in the consumption of spirits. Within twenty years the consumption of spirits had risen from 9,000,000 of gallons to that of 27,000,000 gallons. He attributed a great deal of the consumption of spirits to the negligence on the part of the police. He thought the police were on this point scandalously negligent in their duty, for any hon. Gentleman going home at two o'clock in the morning could see, that the spirit-shops were open at that hour.
Mr. M. Phillipsadmitted, that there were just grounds of complaint against the new beer-shop system, and it was his intention next session to move for a committee of inquiry on the whole subject. He was prejudiced in favour of neither one party nor the other, and therefore when the facts were really ascertained he should be prepared to concur in any measure that the House might deem expedient to remedy the existing evil.
Lord Ingestriesaid, that the beer-shops in his part of the country had been productive of the worst possible consequences. They were the resort of the ill-disposed, and crimes of all kinds were concocted in them. So far from being hostile to the education of the people he had always done all in his power to promote that object; but, as he could not see what connection there was between education and the beer-shops, he must press upon the House the necessity of adopting some step, and that speedily, for getting rid of the evil, which throwing open the sale of beer indiscriminately had given rise to.
Mr. Wallacesaid, that if there were no licensed victuallers he was sure there would be no complaint against beer-shops. All they were doing was this, making the beer-shops bad, by giving them a bad character. What they ought to do was to encourage men of the best character to enter into competition in this business. His opinion was, that the people in his country were much better conducted than they were in this; and yet in his country he could produce to them a village in which every other house was a public-house, and where he was quite sure the people were more sober than they were at Crockford's, or at any club-house or public-house in London.
Mr. Villierssaid, the noble Lord, the member for South Staffordshire had said, that a large portion of his constituents, and some of them must also be his (Mr. Villiers's),had given it as their opinion that every crime and every vice committed in that part of the country, was to be attributable to the beer-houses. Now, he must say, he had not received any information of that kind. He was disposed to support the proposition of the hon. Member for Manchester, (Mr. M. Phillips), that no steps should be taken this year, that the inquiry should be postponed until the next, and by that time the House could have petitions or facts upon which to proceed. No allegations had been made in this debate on which the House could place credit—nothing had been brought forward but hearsay evidence. He for one, denied, that the Beer Act had done any mischief. What was the case the very year before the bill passed? Why, the southern counties of England were all but in a state of insurrection, neither life nor property was safe, and that occurred the very year before selling beer to be

127
consumed on the premises in these houses were allowed. He thought the measure had been productive of good and not of evil; but when the Legislature had neglected to educate the people, and had done everything to demoralise them, was it to be expected, when a restraint was removed, that at first some excess was not to be expected? The act ought to have a fair trial, and if it had been proved, as it had, that crime had diminished since its passing, why was the subject now brought forward? The Beer Act had, at least, had one good effect, it had diminished the evils arising out of the licensing system; but if the act were repealed, would not the old evils again arise? Was there not on the part of magistrates, and those who made them, a desire to invest them again with the power and influence which they had formerly so improperly enjoyed?
Sir J. Guestsaid, that in his part of the country he knew the new beer-shop system was much condemned, and that an alteration of it was loudly called for, not only by the better classes, but by a great portion of the poor. In one village, that he could mention, there were at least one hundred beer-shops, and their existence had led to every species of disorder and immorality.
Mr. Brothertonfully concurred that the subject ought to be inquired into, as exposing men to temptation was not the best mode of checking evil. There could be no doubt that the new beer-shops had led to intemperance—that intemperance led to poverty—and that poverty led to crime. He must say, that the noble Lord was entitled to the thanks of the country for the attention which he had bestowed on this important subject. He would not undertake to point out what the remedy was that they ought to apply, but still it was his opinion that, as evil existed, it should be removed with as little loss of time as possible. He had no wish to do injustice to those who had invested their property in this trade, but he, at the same time, thought that any system which occasioned intemperance on the part of the labouring poor, ought to be put an end to at all risks. He was an advocate for free trade, but where the particular article produced demoralization, he fully concurred in the propriety of imposing restrictions. It was well known that many of the beer-shops were kept by disreputable persons—that they were the resort of the ill-disposed, and that
128
no police could by possibility keep them in proper check. This was his opinion, and therefore he should support any proposition for inquiry, with a view of ascertaining the real facts, in order that they might see what course it was expedient to take.
Mr. Aglionbywas afraid that the country would think the feelings of that House was in favour of monopoly, and against the wishes of the public at large. He did not think, that they had any evidence before them which would justify a committee of inquiry; but still he was obliged to the noble Lord for moving for returns which under any view of the case would be valuable, inasmuch as they would show whether the evils complained of existed or not. In large towns, where there was a good police, throwing open the trade in beer was attended with no danger what ever, and he doubted whether any was to be apprehended in the remote or rural districts. He thought, that it was a great advantage to the poor to be able to obtain good and wholesome beer at a cheap rate, and therefore, although he agreed that some attention should be paid to the character of the parties keeping beer-shops, he hoped that Government would not deprive the poor of this advantage.
Mr. Parrottsaid, that so far from the magistrates of his part of the country finding fault with the New Beer Act, their opinion was, that it had been productive of very great benefit to the poor. For the magistrates of his part of the country he could say, that they had no wish to return back to the old licensing system, but, he was at the same time aware, that there were parties who were anxious to have the present law repealed. Instead of paying 4d. or 5d. a pot for beer, it was a great benefit to the labouring poor to be able to obtain it for 1½d. or 2d., and, therefore, even if there were some disadvantages in the present system, the advantages greatly preponderated. The only effect which restrictions could have, would be to cause a considerable defalcation in the revenue, and reduce the price of barley; and his opinion was, that it was to the interest of the country at large that there should be a free trade in both cider and beer. While, however, he supported free trade, he was prepared to support any motion for a better system of police.
Mr. Hindleywas not favourable to the beer-shop system, because it threw temp-

129
tation in the way of the young which led to demoralization. He thought, however, that the evils complained of might be remedied by an improved police. He was opposed to the old licensing system, and certainly had no wish to return to monopoly. He agreed, however, that the subject ought to be investigated by a Committee of that House.
Returns ordered.

PORTUGUESE AUXILIARY LEGION.
Viscount Sandonsaid, that the motion with which he meant to conclude was one to which he did not think, that the noble Lord (Palmerston) would object. It was for a copy of a letter, signed by Sir John Milley Doyle, and other officers of the auxiliary legion, complaining of the commission which had been appointed to investigate their claims. This body of men were induced to go out to Portugal, not with the direct encouragement of the Government, nor as in the case of Spain, by the repeal of an order in council; but it was notorious, that the expedition took place with the knowledge of the Government, and without any discountenance on their part. The service which they had rendered to the cause of Donna Maria was never disputed, the establishment of the present government of Portugal being mainly owing to their defence of Oporto, and their gallant exploits in other parts of Portugal. Their reward had been the greatest suffering and distress. For four years their claims had been kept in abeyance; commission after commission had been appointed, but with no satisfactory result to those ill-used persons. Even the present commission, which was of a more respectable character than those formerly appointed, must decide in a manner unfavourable to the claimants, if they wished their decision to be final; for, otherwise, the government of Portugal declared their intention of referring the question to another tribunal. The noble Lord concluded by moving for a copy of a letter to which he had adverted.
Viscount Palmerstonwas perfectly ready to state his concurrence in the opinion that this body of men had rendered very important service, and were entitled to the liberal consideration of the Portuguese government, because it was unquestionable that, if they had not defended Oporto, n all probability the result of the siege would have turned out differently from
130
what it had done. So far as our Government was concerned, though they took no part in encouraging these persons to go out, he was perfectly ready to admit, that their going out promoted objects which the Government approved of, and, so far from throwing any censure on their conduct, they had entitled themselves to the support and attention of Government. Their claims had been left standing for a considerable time; but, for the last two years, the government of Portugal had been in such a state of uncertainty and periodical change, that the irregularity in not disposing of these demands was not so wonderful as it might be considered if the circumstances were different. He could assure his noble Friend, that the British Government had not been indifferent to those claims, and that our Minister at Lisbon had, from time to time, been instructed to afford every assistance, and had frequently been in communication on their behalf with the Portuguese government. He believed he might say, that, without his (our Minister's) interference, the commission now in force would not have been established. The present commission was appointed in December last. The Portuguese who belonged to it were unobjectionable, and it also comprised General Stubbs, an officer whose high character was a guarantee that his influence would be used for the proper consideration of these claims. He could not say, that he had any recent accounts of their proceedings. At the same time he could undertake to say, that they had not made the progress in the investigation which the claimants had a right to expect; and he was aware that the question pending before it was, whether a certain contract, on the observance of which the claimants insisted, was binding or not. He could assure his noble Friend, that he should not fail to pursue the matter, and that whatever influence the Government possessed, should be put in force to bring about a just settlement of these claims, and as early a settlement as might be consistent with the circumstances of the Portuguese government.
Motion agreed to.

STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES (IRELAND).
Sir Robert Batesondid not wish, at so late an hour, to enter into a full discussion of this subject, but, in moving for the return of which he had

131
given notice, he must say, that he thought there had been a strong disposition of late years, on the part of the Irish Government, to run down the unpaid magistrates of the country, and to establish stipendiary and paid magistrates in their place. Hitherto the magistrates had been selected from amongst the resident gentry, and he wished to know why those powers should now be taken out of their hands. He complained that, in many parts of the north of Ireland, stipendiary magistrates had been introduced where there was no occasion for them, and that, in several places, tumult and constant broils had been the consequence. The conduct of the Irish Government had, in this respect, been marked by great partiality, as was also the course they had adopted in putting down and oppressing the Protestants in that part of the kingdom to which he had before referred. Towards the Protestants and Orangemen of Ireland, the Government had acted in a most irritating and insulting manner; but he hoped, that those persons would soon show their enemies that they were not the lawless set they were described to be. He complained also of the partiality which had been shown in the last revision of the magistracy, and of the lord-lieutenants of counties not having been properly consulted. It was true, that they had been consulted, but it had been done so hastily as not to allow them time to give a proper opinion. Now the act, which was called the Lord-lieutenants' Act, had been extended to Ireland by Earl Grey, for the express purpose of the lord-lieutenants being enabled to recommend to the Lord Chancellor, persons whom they considered fit to be appointed magistrates; but that act had, in many instances, been unattended to. He did not attribute this to the noble Marquess who was now at the head of the Irish Government, but he had thought that it had been occasioned by a power greater even than that of the Lord-lieutenant. That, however, had been denied, and he must, therefore, consider it to have been produced by the Jesuits, who were not only numerous in Ireland, but also in England. The hon. Member moved for a return of all the stipendiary magistrates in Ireland, specifying their names, salaries, and emoluments, the date of their appointment, their residence, and the districts under their charge, and for what counties they hold commissions of peace.
Viscount Morpethwould not offer the slightest opposition to the motion of the hon. Member. There was nothing in the system of the Government of Ireland which required concealment, and he had, therefore, no objection to produce the accounts which had been moved for. He would just explain that, as to the revision of the magistrates having been made hastily, it had entirely arisen from the necessity of the commissions being issued by a certain day, and that with respect to consulting the Lord-lieutenant, he held, that the right of appointing persons to the magistracy rested exclusively with the Lord Chancellor.
Motion agreed to.

OUDE.
Mr. Winthrop Praed, in rising to make the motion of which he had given notice for papers respecting the Government of Oude, wished to ask the right hon. Baronet opposite two questions connected with it. It was, he believed, an acknowledged fact, that on the death of the late King of Oude, the British resident, at Lucknow, had interfered with an armed force to place the third son of the deceased King on the throne; and that that interference had caused the loss of a thousand lives. The questions which he wished to put to the right hon. Baronet were, first, whether the steps which had been taken by the British resident at Lucknow, or by the East-India Company, with respect to the succession to the throne of Oude, had any connection with the payment of the debts due by the government of Oude to the Company; and, secondly, whether the despatches which had been sent to Lord William Bentinck, authorising him to take possession of the territory of Oude, had any connection with the steps which had been taken with respect to the succession to the throne of Oude? The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for a number of papers connected with the succession of the government of Oude.
Sir John Hobhousesaid, that he had no objection to give the best answers that he could, to both the hon. Gentleman's questions; and he hoped, that those answers would prove satisfactory. To the production of the papers, also, with some slight alterations, he had no objection; and when they were produced, the hon. Gentleman and the House would be as well able as he was, to form a competent opinion of the conduct, which had been

133
pursued on the occasion, by the East-India Company and their agents. As far as he had hitherto been able to look at the returns, he had not the slightest doubt in his own mind, that the president at Lucknow, and the Governor-general had come to a correct conclusion on the question; and that the person who was now on the throne of Oude, was actually the legitimate successor to it. As to the bloodshed which had attended the transaction, it had been greatly exaggerated, the number of lives lost having been only 35 instead of a thousand. To the first question which had been put to him by the hon. Gentleman, his answer was, that there had been no stipulation, and, as far as he knew, that there had been no intention in taking the steps relative to the succession, to make any arrangement with respect to the pecuniary claims of the Company to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded. To the hon Gentleman's other question his answer was, that in placing on the throne of Oude the individual who now sat there, there had been no stipulation, nor, as far as he knew, any intention to take that step for the sake of giving the East-India Company a greater right than they already possessed by treaty for the assumption of the territory of Oude. He would add, that so far was the course which had been pursued with respect to the succession, from adding to the chance (if it was a desirable object, which he did not believe it was) of enabling the Company to take possession of the territory of Oude—such was the character of the reigning Prince, that there was little probability, that he would afford us any pretext for assuming possession of the territory. Subject to some slight omissions and modifications, he had no objection to the hon. Gentleman's motions; and he could only say, that if, when the papers in question were laid on the table, they should appear to be incomplete, he would readily furnish any supplementary documents, that might be deemed necessary, being perfectly persuaded, that in the whole of the transaction in question, the East-India Company, both at home and abroad, had behaved with singular moderation, and had done nothing inconsistent with the high character which they had hitherto maintained.
Returns ordered.

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a second time:—Dean Forests Encroachments; and Dean Forests Mines.
Petitions presented. By Lord GLENGALL, two, from Westmeath, against the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill.—By the Earl of RIPON, from Tamar, to take into consideration the state of the Established Church in Upper Canada.—By Lord SEGRAVE, from Medical Practitioners, for a revision of the laws for regulating the Medical Profession.—By the Duke of CLEVELAND, from a Public Meeting it the county of Durham, for Negro Emancipation.

BLOCKADE OF THE SPANISH COAST.
Lord Broughamrose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of their Lordships to certain Admiralty instructions or orders which he understood had been issued, if not authorising the capture of Sardinian vessels, at all events framed for the purpose of preventing the access of such vessels to the coast of Spain. He had, on a former occasion, asked whether there would be any objection, on the part of her Majesty's Government, to produce those instructions, and he was then told, that it would be more regular for him to make this motion. He was anxious, in the first instance, to obtain the papers, if such were in existence, and to defer any statement on the subject until they were produced. But, that having been refused, he was obliged to take the course which he now adopted. The subject, their Lordships must be aware, was one of extreme importance, as it was intimately connected with the law of nations. In support of the doctrine, that all fictitious or paper blockades were contrary to the law of nations, he had the concurrent authority of all the jurists and all the judges who had ever written or delivered an opinion on the subject. That had been held to be the true and sound doctrine by all governments, with the exception of the Government of France, under Buonaparte, when intoxicated with power, he had ful-
48
minated his Berlin and Milan decrees, which, however, had led to a confirmation of the general doctrine for their illegality had long since been avowed and stigmatised. He should deplore extremely if this country ever, in the slightest degree, countenanced by her conduct such a system; for nothing could be more disparaging to her fame, nothing could more tarnish her national character, nothing could be more calculated to compromise her real interests, or what, above all things, he should lament, nothing could be imagined more likely to shake the peace of Europe and of the world. As he was willing to avoid any lengthened statement or argument on the subject, he would state the three points on which he wished to receive information, which might readily be met by three short answers. If those answers were given in the way he wished, it would preclude the necessity of his uttering another word on the subject. If his first question were answered in the negative, that question being, "Had any such instructions or orders as he alluded to been issued?"—if the answer "No," was given to that question, then away went one third of the points on which he desired information. If, then, his second question were answered in the affirmative (supposing the first to be answered also in the affirmative, and it being admitted that such instructions or orders had gone forth), that second question being, "Have you made the regular and requisite notification of the issuing of these instructions to all neutral states and powers?"—if that were answered in the affirmative, then much of what he wished to learn would be obtained. But if both of these questions were answered in what he took to be the wrong way—if the first were answered in the affirmative, and the second in the negative, so that it should appear, that although such instructions were issued, yet that no warning had been given to neutral powers, then came his third question, "Can you produce the opinion of the adviser of the Crown on such matters, her Majesty's advocate, that this conduct, on the part of the Government, is not a gross outrage on, and a monstrous infraction of, the law of nations?" If that third quest on were answered in the affirmative, then he must decidedly say, that he was at issue with that high law authority. If he were wrong—if the doctrine were now otherwise than he had stated it to be—then had the

49
law of nations undergone a total and radical change, a new code had been established, and that which was formerly acknowledged to be the law of nations was no longer so. He was now in the hands of the noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty, who would answer or not as seemed fit to him.
Viscount Melbournedeclined answering the questions of the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Broughamcontinued. When a noble Lord declined to answer questions of such a nature as he had propounded, it must be clear to the meanest apprehension, it must be evident to any one possessing even the smallest particle of capacity, that the refusal was given because those questions, if answered at all, must be answered in what he called the wrong way, and not in the way in which they ought to be answered. This being perfectly evident to him, he should assume, 1st, that some such instructions as he had referred to had been issued; 2nd, that no warning had been given to foreign powers (for if such warning had been given, it was easy to produce it); and last, that no opinion of any law authority was to be cited for this total violation of, or total change and alteration in, the most fundamental principles of the law of nations. Now, in the argument he was about to raise, he would first assume, that we were at war, he would take it for granted that we stood in the posture of belligerent, that we were parties to a conflict, that we took part with one side, and were at war with the other, and, therefore, that we were justified in claiming and exercising all belligerent rights. He would first ask, then, whether the authority which we had exercised was or was not one of those rights? The case was a very short one, it lay within a very narrow compass. If there were one principle of the law of nations better established than another, it was this—namely, that no belligerent could blockade the port of another belligerent for the purpose of preventing the access, the free ingress and egress, of all neutral nations to such port, unless that belligerent had a force stationed on the coast amply sufficient to prevent the entrance of those neutral powers—a force not only perfectly efficient, but constantly sustained in point of time, so that, at no part of the circle, there should be any way to escape the blockade, and that it would
50
be totally unsafe for any vessel to go in or out of the port so blockaded. That undoubtedly was the law. But they would, perhaps, be told, that our orders in council proceeded on a different principle—that they constituted merely a paper and fictitious blockade. The answer to that was, that the necessity of the case called for them, and that their principle was never justified by us. The French Government had placed this country in a state of blockade by their Berlin and Milan decrees, and the orders in council which followed, had always been held by Sir William Scott as purely retaliatory measures. On the subject of blockade he begged to cite the opinion of Sir William Scott, which was to be found in the sixth volume of Sir Christopher Robinson's Admiralty Reports. Sir W. Scott distinctly said, "It is illegal, and no blockade, unless the belligerent has the means of drawing an arch round the mouth of the port, and effectually securing it." Now, why should such a master of the law talk about "drawing an arch," and not a circle, round the port? That was explained afterwards; because, "if one point or iota of that arch failed, if the prevention were not perfect and complete, the whole blockade was useless, and crumbled to nothing." It was also necessary, to perfect a blockade, that there should be, not only an efficient force, but that there must be, in point of time, a stay and continuance of that force in the neighbourhood of the place blockaded. He would ask, had they, in this instance, any such arch marked out? There was nothing of the kind. The blockade extended from the Pyrenees to the gut of Gibraltar. Those instructions directed the stoppage of vessels laden with warlike stores on the coast of Valencia as well as of Catalonia. Had they a force afloat in those seas sufficient to maintain such a blockade? He apprehended not. If, therefore, they even were belligerents, the blockade, according to the doctrine laid down by Sir W. Scott, was illegal. In 1689, after the Revolution, when this country was in alliance with Holland, we entered into a treaty with that power, by which it was directed that vessels carrying stores to any of the ports of France, should be seized by British or Dutch cruisers, and made prize of. This was acted on for some time; but, on the 15th of March, 1693, two northern powers (Denmark and Sweden) entered into a counter treaty, protest-

51
ing against the course adopted by Great Britain and Holland, and binding themselves to take efficient steps for their mutual protection. Vattel and other great authorities on the law of nations supported their view of the case, and what was the consequence? Why, the representations of those powers produced the desired effect. Great Britain and Holland yielded at once to the representations made to them. They withdrew their notice, and made reparation to the injured parties. Now, it was worthy of remark, that we were then at war with France—Holland was at war with France, and, of course, every right appertaining to a belligerent power then belonged to us. But even in that state and posture of affairs we admitted, that in resorting to such a measure we had done wrong. But how were we situated in this case? We were no belligerents, and therefore had not a shadow of ground for this proceeding. Was it ever before known or heard of, that because a state wished well to one of two hostile parties, was in alliance with one of them, but not at war with the other—was it ever before heard of, that in such a state of things they were authorized to issue an order to prevent a neutral power from entering the ports of the country where the contest was going on? Since the law of nations was first established amongst civilized men—amongst whom alone it was known—such a monstrous, such a preposterous proceeding, was never before heard of. The noble Earl (Minto) was not well pleased when, on a former occasion, a noble Lord introduced this subject. The noble Earl could not conceive where the noble Lord had procured his information on a matter which was of a purely confidential character. He wished the order had been of a private and confidential nature, as private and confidential as the Oxford and Cambridge libels which were mentioned last night. It ought to have been so confidential as never to have left the desk; such an abortion ought never to have seen the light. But it was something new to hear of a confidential order, addressed to the captain of a frigate, not to be opened until he arrived at a certain degree of longitude and latitude, but to be acted on immediately. Why, the moment the order was notified to the captain of a frigate, with 500 or 600 men on board, it became a matter of notoriety to every one of them
52
—it became a matter of public notoriety, the instant an attempt was made to carry it into execution. But why, he wished to know, for be must assume the fact, were these confidential orders kept back from the neutral powers? Why were not the Sardinians, why were not the Dutch (for it was levelled at them), made acquainted with this order? Why was that knowledge withheld from them? They were, in consequence of their ignorance, induced to freight vessels with stores, for no human imagination could ever suppose that orders and instructions of such a description could emanate from any mortal being who had ever presided over the Admiralty or had occupied a seat at the board. So it was, however; individuals were induced to freight vessels with stores, they fared forth, they crossed the seas, only to reap disappointment when they approached their destination. He must express his satisfaction that no accident should have happened in consequence of those instructions during the last two years. But, notwithstanding, these instructions were an aggression upon neutral rights, which violated the law of nations, and put in jeopardy the peace both of this country and of Europe. These were the reasons, thus shortly stated, which would make him deeply lament that the question which he had ventured to ask should be unsatisfactorily answered. For these reasons he rejoiced that an opportunity was given them of arresting the Government in this bad course, when otherwise it might be too late to interfere, except for the sake of precedent. These were the reasons which made him apprehensive that mischief would still happen unless these instructions were revoked. He would suppose a case. He did not know what ramifications of treaties might exist between the Italian and German states. The parties who had entered into the quadruple alliance, to which he himself had been a party, had never dreamt of any thing in the slightest degree resembling any interference with neutral states; so far from that, one party to the treaty, the King of the French, bound himself to prevent any arms or ammunition being furnished to Don Carlos from the French territory, but not one word was said about stopping any neutral powers from giving their assistance to Don Carlos. He would just put this case; it was a known truth, that certain Powers were not parties to the

53
quadripartite alliance. He never yet saw the case of a treaty on which other Powers looked with a jealous eye in which that treaty did not give rise to other treaties. Nations, like individuals, acted in the spirit of Mr. Burke's aphorism—"When bad men combine, good men must associate." The Powers who did not unite with us in forming the quadripartite alliance naturally looked upon that as a combination for bad purposes, and said, "We must associate for our legitimate purposes;" from which reasons he argued, that it was eminently probable that some treaties had arisen out of the quadripartite alliance. He would suppose Sardinia to be a weak state; but no—he would not suppose Sardinia to be weak, for he remembered that when he had urged the noble Lord to put a stop to the slave trade, and had pointed to the manner in which Portugal connived at that iniquitous traffic, the noble Lord's answer was, "Oh, we must not interfere with Portugal; we could immediately put a stop to the slave trade if we chose, but Portugal is under our protection, and is a weak power; nothing could be so indelicate as such a proceeding; but if it had been France, or Prussia, or Austria, or Russia, it would have been a different thing." This was a line of policy closely approximating to the conduct of a sovereign of the house of Bourbon, in the southern part of the Peninsula, who was distinguished by all that firmness of character which seemed an hereditary qualification of that illustrious house, and who being one day out hunting was observed to change colour and run away as fast as he could from some small animal, a dog or something of the kind, which happened to come through a gap in the hedge. Some surprise being expressed at this unusual exhibition, his Majesty replied with great energy and emphasis, "Oh, if it had been a lion, you should have seen what a reception I would have given him." Just so, her Majesty's Government could not think of coercing a poor little thing like Portugal; but if it had been Russia, or France, or Austria, or Prussia, then indeed we should have seen what they would have done. Therefore he had no right to assume that Sardinia was a weak power. But he would suppose a case. He would suppose, that Sardinia had put herself under the protection of Austria. He would suppose, that a defensive alliance subsisted between
54
Austria and Sardinia in viridi observantiâ. What if that were the case? What, if he knew it to be true that there was a defensive alliance between Austria and Sardinia, which bound Austria to make common cause with Sardinia in any case in which Sardinia was involved in war. It was possible that that treaty had been made since those instructions were issued, but their production would at once put a stop to any surmise about the date. He must say, that according to the law of nations Austria was perfectly justified in entering into a defensive alliance with Sardinia. An offensive alliance was another thing. An offensive alliance was an aggression in itself; it led to war, and was therefore abhorred by the law of nations. But defensive alliances were objects of peculiar favour with that law; they threw the shield of the strong over the weak, and were therefore highly favoured by the law of nations. A defensive alliance did not lead to the great national felony of war, and no one had a right to complain, because the aggressor only was injured. The fate of this motion rested with their Lordships, but he certainly thought that unless strong reasons were shown against the production of these instructions they ought to be laid before their Lordships. He should therefore move—
"That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she would be graciously pleased to direct that there be laid before this House copies of any orders issued by the Admiralty touching any warning or prohibition against an entrance into the Spanish ports by Sardinian or other vessels; and of any warning or notification addressed to neutral Powers accordingly."
Viscount Melbournesaid, that in answer to the question of the noble and learned Lord, on the former occasion, when the noble and learned Lord stated, that he requested him to make this motion, he begged to observe, that what he meant to say was, that he could not produce the papers referring to this matter, unless they were called for by the House, but he denied, that he recommended the noble and learned Lord, to move for these papers, or gave him to understand, that they would be produced on such a motion being made. What he said, was with the view of leading the noble and learned Lord to the conclusion, that the more he considered the subject, that the more calm deliberation he gave to it, the more he would

55
be convinced, that it would be better not to stir the subject; for, by doing so, he might give rise to some of those inconveniences which were so likely to arise from mooting it. He had declined to answer the questions put to him by the noble and learned Lord, not because he was incapable of doing so, nor because he believed, that any great inconvenience would arise from his doing so; but he submitted to the calm deliberation of noble Lords, whether the noble and learned Lord had laid any grounds for his motion, or advanced any reasons why their Lordships should call for the production of papers? He knew, that for some time the greatest facilities had been afforded in the production of papers, so that any man, with a view to the discussion of anything that he thought proper, might get almost any information that he required; and that he might have also any documents that he desired, in order that he might search for, and find charges in them; and this was conceded, in order that they might save debate and trouble, and in order to save topics from being discussed prematurely. The practice, however, had been attended with great inconvenience to the public officers, and had been accompanied with a great increase to the public expenditure. The rule of Parliament had hitherto been, that no papers should be laid on the table of either House, unless some sufficient reason had been previously stated, why they should be produced, and why they should be laid before Parliament. He begged the House to recollect on what foundation this motion rested—it rested on an observation of the noble and learned Lord opposite, who, in winding up his very eloquent attack on the conduct of the Government, with regard to the policy they had pursued in Spanish affairs, said, "if it was true, that an order was issued from the Admiralty, to attack certain vessels from Sardinia with stores for Don Carlos, all he could say was, that it was owing to good fortune, rather than to the prudence of our Government, that we were not now involved in a war of a far more serious and extensive character, than he was sure had been contemplated by her Majesty's Ministers." This remark of the noble and learned Lord opposite, was founded on public rumour, and the noble and learned Lord's speech, that night, was founded on the extract which
56
he had just read. Was this a sufficient basis on which, to give rise to a judgment against the Government, with respect to the affairs referred to by him, namely, those of Spain? He, however, also protested against the motion in a high degree in consequence of its impolicy and inexpediency. He said, that it was an impolitic, inexpedient, and imprudent motion, because it might tend to excite a jealousy and suspicion against the Government for the time being administering the affairs of this country. Let noble Lords condemn the present Government as they pleased or wished—let them remove it as soon as they were willing to do so—let them take a division at once to remove it from power, but while it had the control of public affairs, in God's name do not sanction any motion, which would lessen its influence in its transactions with foreign powers. Supposing, that anything had taken place, such as had been described by the noble and learned Lord, and supposing, that it had been successful for the object in view, was it the wish of any noble Lord, and was it the part of any prudent man, to state to foreign powers, that if the matter had been called in question in the Parliament of this country, the subject would not have been approved of in it? Would this have been a wise or prudent course to pursue? Was it promoting its duties to the nation, the administration of whose affairs it was charged with, to allow such a course to be pursued? The noble and learned Lord had entered upon a learned argument, respecting the law of nations and the law of trade as regarded neutrality in time of war, and the principles which he stated, were no doubt sound; but whether this was the proper law applicable to what had taken place, he could not answer until he knew what had taken place. The noble and learned Lord's motion was of a searching nature, and he trusted whether there were or were not existing instructions of the kind now moved for, they would not require the production of these instructions. It struck him, that no ground had been urged sufficient to justify their entering into an inquiry; or to their calling for these papers. He did not feel called upon to state, whether the facts which the noble and learned Lord had stated were well founded or not; but he held, that it would be most impolitic and imprudent to assent to the motion.
The Earl of Riponheard the observations of the noble Viscount with very great surprise, for he appeared to leave out of consideration, the whole merits of the case. The whole object of the noble Viscount seemed to be, to wish to show, that the whole case of his noble and learned Friend, rested on some antecedent observations which had fallen in a former debate, from another noble and learned Friend of his. But was it not notorious, that the observations which the noble Viscount would have the House believe were founded only in popular rumour, had been treated as real facts by the noble Earl at the head of the board of Admiralty? What was said by the noble Earl on that occasion? "That if he had received information, that any foreign state was about to send succour in the way of arms or men to Don Carlos on the coast of Spain, he would have issued instructions to the officer at the port to prevent the landing of the troops." Was it not as clear as daylight, from the noble Earl's observations, that orders had been issued of the nature which he had described? The noble Earl stated, that if there were a hundred ships on the coast of Spain, he would have given such orders. This was sufficient to create great alarm in the minds of any parties as to the course that would be pursued. If, however, they attended to the arguments of his noble Friend at the head of the Government, and abided by the rule laid down by him, their Lordships never would get any information, nor would the Ministers ever give any to either House in any transactions whatever connected with foreign affairs. If they had been told, that negotiations were going on, and that the adoption of the terms of the motion would lead to a failure of the treaty, and that it was impolitic for Parliament to interfere with the Government, under the circumstances of the case, he could imagine that a sufficient reason had been stated for withholding the papers; but if the House believed what had been stated, namely, that the instructions issued had been successful in their object, and had prevented Sardinian vessels entering the ports in the north of Spain with supplies for Don Carlos, it was a by-gone transaction; and, therefore, it was a question open to discussion. If the House consented to restrain the discussion of that question on the ground stated by the noble Viscount,
58
namely, the possibility of displeasing a foreign power, on the same ground no question of foreign policy should be discussed, because it involved the possibility of displeasure, and war with the world. He did not mean to say, that Parliament should act with unreasonable jealousy on these questions, but still they were questions well worthy of the attention of Parliament. He did not see what there was worthy of praise in these instructions, for they were as likely, as anything could be, to engage us in a war with all the neutral powers in the world. He approved of the acknowledgment of the Queen of Spain, and he thought that the quadruple treaty was a wise and expedient measure; but it should be remembered, that it was framed with the view to promote the interests of Portugal, and not those of Spain. He denied, however, that the additional articles were any necessary parts of the treaty—they were added long afterwards, and were not a necessary consequence of the treaty. He could not conceive, that it was part of the original treaty that they should risk a war with all the neutral governments in Europe for the sake of the Queen of Spain. He could hardly tell what vote he should be induced to give, but he trusted that their Lordships would receive a more satisfactory explanation than had hitherto been presented to the House. If the noble Lord at the head of the Government said, that the public service would be injured by the production of these papers, he hoped that such was his sense of duty that he could not, for one, consent to press the Government for papers which the Minister declared before Parliament, could not be produced without detriment to the public service. But not a single reason had been given as an argument for the non-production of these documents. Of one thing, however, they might be quite certain; and this from the speech of the noble Viscount, that the instructions were sent to the naval officers on the coast of Spain; secondly, that they had had the influence and produced the effect intended; and, thirdly, that there had been no necessity to act upon them in any case whatever.
The Earl of Mintosaid, that notwithstanding the able and eloquent manner in which the noble and learned Lord made his statement to the House, and in which he was supported by the noble Earl, on the ground which he had just stated, it

59
was clear that the motion was nothing more nor less than a fishing motion, to see what could be got from them. The object of it was not to get any instructions which had been acted on, but to call for contingent instructions which had only been framed for temporary and not for permanent objects. He believed, that this was the first time in which such a demand had been made; and should their Lordships agree to the motion, it would certainly be the first time such a demand had been successful. It appeared to him, that there was nothing in the noble and learned Lord's speech which was in opposition to the quadruple treaty and to the additional articles, to which the noble Lord had also been a party, and that they had been faithfully executed. What were the additional articles? The first was, that steps should be taken to guard against the introduction of arms and warlike stores into Spain. It was, therefore, clear what was the object of the second article. The words of the article were—"His Majesty, the King of Great Britain and Ireland, engages to furnish to the Queen of Spain, such supplies of arms and warlike stores as the maintenance of her cause may require, and, if necessary, to furnish a naval force." In what way, then, were they to lend assistance by means of a naval force? It was only by preventing the invasion of the country by other states, that efficient aid could be afforded. Might they, therefore, not say, then, that these instructions were framed with the view to restrain those who were hostile to the Queen's Government, and that this was the only effective mode in which they could hope to render assistance? The noble Earl said, that the instructions might involve us in a war with Spain. The noble Earl was no party to the additional articles, but the noble and learned Lord was; and, by the second of these articles, as he had shown, they were required and bound to give the assistance of a naval force to Spain. This was framed on the presumption that some other countries would send; not merchantmen, but men-of-war, to the coast, to take part with Don Carlos against the Government. Their ships appear on the coast of Spain, and the Government then begs aid of its allies, and says, "This is the time of want; you can now be of service to us; will you not give us all the aid in your power?" These were, as nearly as possible, the facts of the case;
60
and he did not see how it could be said, that they gave the co-operation of a naval force if they refused such aid. He contended, that they could not be released from their obligation of preventing the cruisers of the friends and supporters of Don Carlos landing on the coast; and this could only be done by means of armed ships. The noble Earl adverted to the danger which was likely to result from taking such a step; but this was a matter to be considered in reference to the policy of the treaty, and the additional articles and the objects of that treaty had been strictly and faithfully carried out at the time the noble Earl was Secretary for the Colonial Affairs, and in a manner in which he trusted that treaties would always be carried out in this country. If this country was distinguished for one thing more than another, it was for its strict observance of the obligations of treaties with fidelity, and more than fidelity; it had ever been remarkable for a full and entire observance of them, and for never attempting to escape from the obligations of treaties by any verbal quibbles, or nice or technical distinctions. The noble and learned Lord had dwelt at great length on the rights of neutrals, and on the question of blockade. Now, he did not suppose that the Government was charged with issuing orders for a blockade of the coast of Biscay, but the charge was, that certain armed ships belonging to Sardinia, being about to invade the coast of Spain, that he attempted to prevent it by instructions to the naval officers.
Lord Broughamdenied, that he had said anything respecting the invasion of the coast by the Sardinians and Dutch, but merely of ships carrying arms and stores, and other contraband of war.
The Earl of Mintohad no wish to misrepresent the noble and learned Lord, but he would proceed to another topic. He was most anxious to pay all attention to the rights of neutrality; but they had no intention to institute a blockade against the trade of other countries. The noble Lord argued as if a gross attack had been made on the rights of neutrals, and yet the whole subject matter of the charge that he brought was, that orders had been issued or warning had been given, to the Sardinians not to send ships laden with arms and other warlike stores to the coast of Spain for Don Carlos. He must say, that if he had thought it to be his duty to issue such

61
orders, he should have also felt it to be his duty to give other persons full intimation of their existence, and he would not issue them without giving full notice of such orders to all persons likely to be affected by them. The noble and learned Lord then made some observations on defensive treaties, and said that there existed a defensive treaty between Sardinia and Austria, and that if we committed an assault or aggression on the former, that we should compel the latter to come to her assistance. If there was such a treaty, and Austria was bound to come to the aid of Sardinia, he would say that our treaty with Spain was much stronger than this general defensive treaty. He could not sit down without referring to one topic more; he meant what he had intimated on a former occasion as to certain communications supposed to have been made by an officer serving in her Majesty's navy on the coast of Spain, relative to those instructions. He did not wish to allude more particularly to this subject, as he had no wish to denounce individuals, but the practice. And he felt bound to say, that notwithstanding the opinion of the noble and learned Lord was so unhesitatingly expressed, it was felt by the highest officers in the service that the proceeding alluded to was a gross breach of that confidence and trust which should exist between the officers of the service and the Government. He trusted, that he should never hear of another example of such a proceeding. If it was not for the high sense of honour and perfect confidence which always had been found to exist between the Government and the officers of either service, whatever their political opinions might be, it would be impossible to carry on the affairs of the Government with any degree of satisfaction; or it must necessarily lead to the employment of officers of the same shade of political opinions as the Government. Since he had been at the head of a department he made as little distinction as possible in the selection of officers as regarded their political opinions. He could mention the names of several officers who had been appointed to important stations chiefly through his instrumentality; and these were men of the highest respectability; and although they differed from him in political matters, there was no want of cordiality or confidence as far as regarded the public service, and they were quite as much in his confidence as those
62
officers whose political opinions coincided with his own. For instance, he could mention the names of Admiral Sir R. Stopford, Admiral Ross, Sir George Cockburn Sir P. Halkett, and above all, the officer with whom he was more immediately connected as regarded this question—he meant Lord John Hay; and notwithstanding what had taken place, his communications were carried on with that honourable man with that perfect degree of confidence and sincerity as if Lord John Hay altogether agreed with him in political opinions. He need not say, that almost as a matter of course, orders and instructions were issued to officers which it was intended should not be communicated to the public. This was the character of the communication which the noble and learned Lord had thought it proper to avail himself of for a political object. Such was not, however, the opinion of the gallant officers whom he had named as belonging to this honourable profession, and such had been the result of his communications with them. He greatly regretted, that this proceeding should have occurred, and he was quite willing to believe, that it would not have occurred if the gallant Officer who sent the communication to the noble and learned Lord had taken a little more time for reflection before he did so. In conclusion, he felt bound to designate this proceeding as one of the greatest acts of indiscretion that he recollected, and if repeated would do more than anything else to impair that confidence which should always exist between officers in the naval service of the country and the Board of Admiralty.
Lord Broughamcontended that he had repeated usque ad nauseam that he had not had any communication with any naval officer on this subject. If there had been any breach of confidence that had been committed by the noble Earl himself, for he it was who had stated in that House what he was surprised that others were acquainted with. It was nothing more nor less than a creation of the noble Earl's brain for him to assume that any officer had told him of these instructions. He was, however, confident that such instructions had been issued, and this arose from the language of the noble Earl himself. He once more denied, that there was any breach of confidence. The noble Earl had stated that a noble and learned Lord had alluded to a person in the naval service. Now, no allusion of the kind was made to

63
any such person; but the person alluded to served on shore, and had nothing to do with the sea.
The Duke of Wellingtoncould assure their Lordships no man felt more strongly than he did, that if any officer in high command had betrayed the confidence reposed in him by the noble Earl opposite, or by her Majesty's Government, such officer was not one of those who deserved the just reputation which belonged to her Majesty's navy. But he did not believe, that the noble Earl would find in that service, at least, as far as he was acquainted with it, one single man capable of betraying whatever confidential instructions were delivered to him by the noble Earl opposite on the part of the Crown. But it should not be forgotten, that such instructions might occasionally come to be known without any participation on the part of the officer to whom they were delivered, and he believed the officers in her Majesty's service to be as incapable of betraying their instructions as any Member of her Majesty's Cabinet. Having said thus much, he must observe, that the present question was not exactly one of blockade, and he confessed, that he was much surprised, from what he knew of this subject, that any question as to blockade should arise on the second article of the treaty. If he was not mistaken, he had a discussion with the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Melbourne) somewhere about twelve months back, and he had then stated, that there could be no such thing as a blockade under this treaty, and in that opinion the noble Viscount, after inquiring into the matter, concurred. Therefore the motion of the noble and learned Lord opposite did not originate, as had been contended, in a question of blockade, but it originated in the first instance upon a statement made by his noble and learned Friend who spoke from the benches behind, (Lord Lyndhurst), and next on a statement made by the noble Earl opposite himself, the First Lord of the Admiralty, a statement which the noble Earl had again repeated to-night, that he should consider himself justified if he had issued the instructions in question, in case it was found, that any foreign Power was about to send arms to Spain, and then to-night the noble Lord came forward and endeavoured to justify his instructions in reference to the second article of the treaty. The noble Viscount at the head of the
64
Government deprecated this motion, and had entreated their Lordships not to agree to it, on account of the inconvenience it would produce to the operations of her Majesty's Government with regard to the proceedings now carrying on in Spain. The noble Viscount said, that the present motion would stir up a question that was exceedingly inconvenient to her Majesty's Government. Now, certainly he was not disposed to create any inconvenience to the Government on a question of this kind, but he begged to ask, was the country to be drawn into a war on the score of the words of a treaty which were stated by the noble Earl to mean, that this country was bound to give the aid of a naval force under this article as under a treaty of defence? That he was sure was never intended to have been the meaning of this article. It had never been so construed, and had never been so acted upon by any Government, or by any of the noble Earl's predecessors. Now, these were the words of the article. First of all there was a preamble, that recent events in the Peninsula made new measures necessary; then it states, that the King of the French engaged to take such measures as would prevent succours of men and arms entering Spain from the French territory, and the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain engaged to supply her Majesty, the Queen of Spain, with such arms as she might require, and further to assist her Majesty, if necessary, with a naval force. From this article could it be said there was any engagement to furnish the Queen of Spain with a naval force under all circumstances, and to defend her against invasion? No, certainly not. The naval force there mentioned intended no blockade at all, for there being no war at the time, there could be no blockade; but it was intended to aid the Queen of Spain (as it was first used) in the transport of troops and succours from one part of the coast to another. In short, it was required for the purposes for which a naval force in time of peace was usually employed; but the object of the treaty never was to involve this country in a war; it had never been so taken by Parliament when it was communicated to them; it had never been so stated until the noble Earl, the First Lord of the Admiralty, had done so this evening. It was, therefore, he thought, necessary for their Lordships to intimate, that the, words of the treaty meant a naval

65
force to carry troops, &c., for the Queen of Spain, but for no other purpose. He also thought the House ought to have some further information, in order precisely to know in what position the country stood, before any further proceedings were taken.
The Earl of Carnarvonwas understood to say, that the noble Viscount had observed, that the noble and learned Lord who had brought forward the present motion had laid no sufficient grounds for the production of these papers. Now, he thought, that after what passed in the course of conversation, even if the motion were founded on mere report and rumour, still the information required ought to be furnished. It had been said by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Minto) that the danger that might have been anticipated from those instructions passed away, and, therefore, the papers were not necessary; but how did their Lordships' know, that the dangers were passed? Might they not still exist, and be as great as they were two years ago? He thought the country had to thank a sort of chapter of accidents, that with such instructions, the peace of Europe had not long since been broken. He was therefore, for the production of these papers. It might be inconvenient to the Government, but he thought there was much less of evil in the Government being taunted with their lamentable policy in the Spanish affair, than that this country should be dragged into a perilous war, the end and results of which no man could foresee. What security was there but that the humble Sardinians, on being interfered with under these instructions, might read this country a much severer lesson than had the Basque mountaineers? The noble Earl at the head of the Admiralty had inferred from the article of the treaty, that his course had been sanctioned, because by that article Great Britain had agreed to assist the Spanish Government with a naval force, but from the absolute want of information from her Majesty's Government no one could know whether the orders of the noble Earl were applicable only to Sardinian vessels, or applicable also to the vessels of all other foreign nations. If her Majesty's Ministers had issued these instructions against nations of greater power than Sardinia, they had exhibited a strange infatuation; but their course, even
66
as to Sardinia, had been extremely impolitic. It was a maxim that Austria had for the last 150 years been the constant ally of this country. Sardinia had always followed the policy of England and of Austria, and to Great Britain had ever been steadfast and true. Before the last general treaty of peace, she had been considered so friendly to this country, that she received a large addition of territory, and acquired increased importance. It was not wise, therefore, for the sake of serving—a miserable party he would not call them, but a party in Spain, from which this country, did not reap either gold or gratitude, thus to sacrifice Sardinia, to which England had been so long attached. He would not further trespass on the House than to entreat her Majesty's Government not to betray her foreign allies one after another, and not to alienate from this country the conservative feelings which in foreign minds was now very considerable. He implored them not by wild acts, which since the wretched conflict in Spain had characterized their policy, to risk the loss of a tried and steadfast friend to gain a new political ally, in whom he much doubted whether they could place the least possible reliance.
The Marquess of Lansdownewould not attempt to follow the noble Earl who had just sat down, through a history of treaties and alliances, for that was not the question now before the House. The question now under consideration narrowed itself simply to this—whether the supposed instructions known only, or alleged to be known only, by public rumour and report, and which had been supposed to have been issued two years ago, which it was admitted had never been acted upon—which it was also admitted were only applicable to contingencies that never had arisen, should be produced and laid before the House. In applying himself to state the simple and obvious arguments why the House should not entertain a proposition at once so new, so inconvenient, and so destructive of the policy of the country towards foreign nations, he should not allow himself to be betrayed by any anxiety which he might personally feel, to state what those instructions were, and to remove the great errors upon which noble Lords had in this matter proceeded, because he was aware that if he went into such a statement of facts, it would be alleged that he was laying grounds for the

67
production of those instructions. He would consent to lay no such grounds, because he felt it would be detrimental to the public service if these instructions were produced. The noble and learned Lord who had brought forward this motion had said, that the person who had made the revelation on this occasion, who had stated to the House what ought not to have been stated, was his noble Friend, the First Lord of the Admiralty, for, observed the noble and learned Lord, the noble Earl had admitted, that he had issued an instruction. But his noble Friend had undoubtedly added, that the instructions he had issued, were instructions to meet contingencies. Was that a revelation inconvenient to the public service, or was it a revelation which constituted a ground for the production of those instructions? His noble Friend had not stated the actual instructions issued by him; it would be wrong for him to do so, as it would be wrong for any public officer to reveal and lay before, not only the House and the country, but before the States of Europe, that course of policy which on a certain contingency the Government, for the defence of the nation, and the maintenance of its best interests, were prepared to recommend. His noble Friend, on a former occasion, had even put the case hypothetically, that if an event had taken place, he would have taken a particular course; but he had not stated, what that particular course would have been. In like manner he was debarred, by what he owed to the interests of his country, from going into a discussion of those matters into which, if this was a vote of censure, he should be entitled, as he was prepared, to enter. At present, he was not justified in doing so; but it was still his duty to beseech their Lordships not to come to a vote on the present motion, without considering what the consequences of its adoption practically might be, here and elsewhere, with regard to the policy of this country towards foreign States. The noble and learned Lord had talked of the interests of peace, and he did not dispute the interest which the noble and learned Lord had long taken in that subject; but the noble and learned Lord had talked of the dangers to peace arising from supposed instructions which had never been executed. What danger would there not be to the peace of Europe, if, following the principle now laid down for the first
68
time, it should be said, on mere suspicions entertained and picked up from public rumour, or from an officer who had betrayed his trust, that on these things being alleged, an immediate revelation was to be made to the world of the course of conduct which, when these circumstances which suspicion had entertained had happened, the Government would be prepared to pursue, to state in what sense they would be prepared to construe, and to execute existing treaties, and to inform the world how far they would step beyond the line of the treaties in force, in vindication of the first interests of the country. But would it be proper, on such mere rumours, for the Government to step forward, and state the vigorous and commanding tone of policy which particular circumstances might call for and require? He would maintain, that no Administration could stand such a course—no foreign policy could be maintained, if such were the temper of this and the other House of Parliament, as to require information on the principle sought to be established, for the first time, by the noble and learned Lord. He would appeal to the noble Duke opposite, who had been at the head of the affairs of this country, who had presided over the foreign Department, whether, being in that high station, he should have thought himself treated with that confidence which he might justly ask and demand—if, on an unfounded rumour, that Russia was taking a particular situation which would affect the whole interests of the nation—if, on a mere suspicion of that kind, Parliament had stepped forward and desired to obtain from him a revelation of the course which in such case he should advise the Sovereign to pursue. He did not believe, that during the Administration of the noble Duke, nor at the present time, would Parliament be prepared to call for any such information. He well knew, that if the information were granted, it might excite more jealousy and rivalry, and more surely bring into activity those elements of war (which it was the duty of all governments to allay), than all those events alluded to by the noble Earl on the cross benches (the Earl of Carnarvon), which had produced from time to time interruptions to the public tranquillity. The noble and learned Lord had ridiculed the idea that the instructions contained anything of a confidential character. The noble and learned Lord was under the delusion that

69
the instructions had been executed by a frigate with 600 men in one place, and by 700 men in another place. If that were so, of course, the instructions once acted upon ceased to be confidential, for they were then made known to the world. But before executed, as in this case, the instructions were confidential; they were so while they remained in the cabinet of the statesman prepared to meet uncertain events, and to be produced if the evil occurred, but involving risks, dangers, and uncertainties, about which it was unwise to inquire. Were not these the most confidential transactions that took place? and both the Government and those whom they employed in the matter were charged with the sacred duty of concealing from public knowledge those arrangements, the promulgation of which, might endanger the peace of the world. He maintained, that the present motion, if adopted, would lay the foundation of a most dangerous precedent. If it was the pleasure of the House to call for these instructions, he begged to wash his hands of the precedent which hereafter might frequently be brought into play and made to bear upon the nicest operations of all future Governments, but, at the same time, he claimed the right hereafter of saying, that the precedent had been made this night.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, it could not be denied, that for some time past the conduct of this Government, and that of other countries, had contributed to cast doubt on the principles and practice avowed and recognised by the laws of nations. On several occasions the practice had been doubly odious, because these acts of violence had recently been always committed against the weak and powerless, whilst this country had buckled to the powerful and the strong. The noble Earl opposite (Minto) had justified this under what he termed the obligations of the treaty; the noble Viscount at the head of the Government was too prudent to do so, and the noble Marquess who had just sat down had not ventured to justify this proceeding on any such grounds. But the position taken by the noble Earl, the first Lord of the Admiralty, had given to the subject an interest tenfold greater than he had anticipated could be connected with it. He had always objected to this treaty; still, if the noble Earl opposite could make out that this country was bound by the articles of the treaty to the extent for
70
which he had contended, then, in that case, bad as the treaty was before, in his judgment, it was made still worse, for it brought the country to the very verge of a state of war at any hour. The noble Earl had stated, and he thought had stated truly, that this country was distinguished and eminent for its fidelity in the maintenance and execution of treaties to which it was a party. That, however, had not always been the opinion of the noble Viscount (Melbourne), for he well remembered, some years ago, the noble Viscount, then sitting on the Opposition side of the House, on making a motion for a long list of papers connected with the Peninsula, entered into a review of the treaties which England had violated, the allies she had deserted, from the treaty of Utrecht down to the time at which the noble Viscount spoke, and he made it clear, that no country was so disgraced by a want of adherence to treaties, as was Great Britain. He then differed from the noble Viscount, and now concurred in thinking, that in this respect, the noble Viscount's colleagues was right; nay, he would go further, and say, that the more democratic was the country, the less binding and scrupulously were treaties held and observed. Be that as it might, if this country were strict in the execution of treaties, the more important it became, that the country should know what the obligations of its treaties were. Now, the second article of this treaty was binding upon Great Britain to furnish the Queen of Spain the assistance of a naval force if necessary. And the history of that article was, that at the time the treaty was concluded her Majesty's Government believed, that under it they would be able to exercise the right of blockade. Further inquiries, however, served to prove to them, that they were unable, except in a state of war, to exercise the right of blockade or to stop a British, or any entering ship. When this was discovered, they exercised their naval co-operation in another manner—namely, by conveying troops and succour to various ports on the coast of Spain. The noble Earl opposite had said, that the naval force was instructed so stop the Sardinian vessels with all possible politeness, but could it be supposed, that a Sardinian officer, in no respect different from those of this country, would be put out of his course with impunity? Knowing the character of that military

71
nation, could it be supposed, that a Sardinian commander would tamely submit to be stopped by an English force? The result, therefore, would have been, that the Sardinian frigate might have been sunk, and then the Sardinian people, though feeble in comparison with this great nation, but still possessing a high military spirit, would have sought reparation, and the peace of Europe been disturbed. Now, this state of things was entirely, he thought, to be attributed to the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of M into). He had seen reports in the public papers of her Majesty's Government having given orders to stop the approach of Sardinian frigates to the Spanish coast; but he did not believe it possible, that as had been stated by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst), on concluding his speech some time ago, this had been the case, and that it was matter of good fortune that this country was not now at war. And what, had the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Minto) said since? Why, that if the instructions did not exist, yet that if such a state of things had arisen as to call for their being issued, he should immediately have issued such an order. The noble Earl had then asked if the knowledge of those instructions had not been acquired through a breach of confidence on the part of an individual. Did not that inquiry prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that such instructions did really exist? And now to-night the noble Earl said, that not only would he have issued them, but that this country was bound under the articles of the treaty, which it was said could not be deviated from. It had been said, that this motion was injurious to the policy the Government were pursuing, but he thought that after what had taken place the House and the country had a right to know what the course of the Government was. Was it war or not? They might flatter themselves that they could exercise a domineering spirit over weak powers, such as those of Sardinia and Don Miguel, and of other feeble States; but what would be its effect on the opinions of other and more powerful nations? He, however, hoped still to see Sardinia attached to Austria, a circumstance of the highest possible importance to this country. The noble Marquess opposite had opposed the motion as injurious to the public interests. But how had the question arisen? Why,
72
if the noble Earl who presided over the Admiralty had taken no notice of the remarks of the noble and learned Baron (Lord Lyndhurst) the other night, the subject would have passed by as a mere rumour. But it had been otherwise, and hence this discussion. The noble Marquess also had appealed to the noble Duke near him (the Duke of Wellington), and asked how, upon the suspicion of any supposed encroachments by Russia, he would feel if asked the course he would pursue upon such and such contingencies. But that was an hypothetical case, not at all resembling the present. Here the fact was not only created, but still existed—not only existed but the noble Earl stated, that he had been bound to create this state of things under the treaty. His noble Friend (the Duke of Wellington) might justly, therefore have declined to give information as to what he might intend to do; here the case was different, for the act was done, and had been promulgated by the noble Earl himself. He, the noble Earl, praised the act done but he complained of its having been found out; and that made him desire accurate information to enable the House and the country to know the situation in which it stood. It was too much for the noble Earl and his colleagues to bring the country into jeopardy, and then tell the House they ought not to interfere. But if any one of the noble Lords opposite would get up and state that these supposed instructions were of non existence, the matter would be at an end. Failing that, he thought they were bound to the House and the country to state the condition to which their policy, as they called it, had brought the country. Whilst he (the Earl of Aberdeen) protested against the spirit of the quadruple treaty, still he wished to see its letter honestly carried out, and not extended to suit the caprice, the passion, or the prejudices of any noble Lord. The King of the French had interpreted it as a wise and honest man ought, and yet the noble Lords opposite, who had taken credit for limiting the extent of interference in the affairs of Spain, now availed themselves of the vagueness of the treaty to extend to any degree the nature of their interference. But, according to the interpretation of the noble Earl opposite (Minto), the second article was a treaty of defence; defence against whom? The Queen of Spain was no enemy, it was

73
true Don Carlos had not been recognised as an independent state, and most undoubtedly this treaty, so far from being defensive, was offensive against all the world. He was one of the first to say, that he thought the noble Lord opposite did right to recognise the Queen of Spain; but still it was a question of great doubt even to the Spanish nation, and what was there to prevent other nations from taking a different view, and under that view to assist the rival claimant of the Crown? Nay, some time ago the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs admitted, that other powers had a right, not only to acknowledge Don Carlos, but to assist him. That might, perhaps, be done without bringing us into collision with those Powers which took a different part from ourselves, but it was a state of things which could not long exist. The treaty, then, was really an offensive treaty with the Queen of Spain against the whole world; but the King of the French was much too wise to put such an interpretation upon it. The engagements of such a treaty appeared to be all on one side. The Queen of Spain was to endeavour to govern Spain pacifically, and that was all. But if this treaty was binding in the way the noble Lords opposite interpreted it, then it would bind us to interminable interference with the affairs of Spain so long as any cause of trouble or dispute remained, because the preamble set forth that the pacification of Spain was the object of the treaty. The noble Lord opposite said the first treaty was completed by the expulsion of the two princes from Portugal. But this treaty proposed, not the expulsion of Don Carlos, but the pacification of Spain; and, therefore, it could have no termination. It appeared to him, that the interests of this country required that it should come to an end. He had not looked at the treaty with all the attention he should have looked at it if he were obliged to interpret it as the noble Lords, and still more as the noble Earl at the head of the Admiralty had interpreted it. He thought, that if those noble Lords would examine the treaty more closely, they would not find any difficulty in bringing it to an end. He should support the motion, because it would enable their Lordships to understand precisely the position in which the country stood in relation to this subject.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid,
74
amidst repeated cries of "Question," that the noble Earl had himself only to thank for a motion which it was his duty to support.
The Duke of Wellingtoncould not permit the House to come to a division on this subject without addressing a few words to their Lordships, in consequence of what had fallen from the noble Marquess opposite, who had stated, that this was a question of policy upon which addresses had been moved which were very improper and very inconvenient to the public service. But this was a question of treaty. The noble Earl at the Admiralty had stated it to be so. The noble Lords opposite ought to make themselves clearly understood on this point; and he entreated them not to send the House away with the notion that they were calling for papers which it would be inconvenient for the Government to make public. They ought to explain what they meant by the obligations of the treaty. If there was a defensive treaty, as stated by the noble Lords, let it be shown to be so. Were they, by words or by implication, to be involved in a treaty either offensive or defensive, and have no power to ask the question as to the obligation of the treaty, let what would happen? In the case of a quarrel between the Queen of Spain and the King of Sardinia, we might be bound to go to war. The noble and learned Lord had given sufficient notice of his motion, and of the very terms of his motion, and the noble Lords opposite ought to be prepared with an answer. They ought to say something which would make the House avoid putting the Government to any inconvenience, and to explain what was the meaning of this treaty with respect to this paragraph, of which the noble Earl had thought proper to give something.
The Earl of Mintowished, in explanation, to prevent any misunderstanding arising in the mind of the noble Duke as to what his opinion was with regard to the obligations of the treaty. In the first place he begged to observe that in stating what he had said, and what he now repeated, he was delivering not the deliberate opinion of the Government, collected after consultation, but his own individual opinion. Now let their lordships permit him to state what was his own opinion, whether it was upheld by others or not. The obligations of this treaty went to this; that if any power—not if any power had a

75
quarrell with the Queen of Spain, that we were to make war, as the noble Duke had supposed—but if any powers combined with Don Carlos in warlike operations, he did hold, that the obligations of the treaty were to be strictly enforced. He did not understand that this treaty would apply to any other case except that which might arise in the contest between the Queen of Spain and Don Carlos.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, the noble Earl was at the head of the Admiralty, but he could not have given his instructions without first receiving them from the Secretary of State. The noble Lord might come down to the House and give what version he pleased with respect to the obligations of the treaty; but when he came to the instructions, he ought to look twice at the subject, for he must be quite sure that he had received them from the Secretary of State before he gave them.
Viscount Melbournesaid, he wished to say a few words after what had passed. In the observations he had advanced before, he had studiously avoided discussing any of the matters which had been brought forward by the noble and learned Lord, because, notwithstanding the powers, the eloquence, and the talents of that noble and learned Lord, he had so much confidence in the patriotism, and wisdom, and experience of their Lordships, that he flattered himself that in a few sentences he could convince them that it was in the highest degree imprudent to enter into such a discussion. In that hope he had to a certain degree been disappointed, and it was not now his intention to depart from that resolution which he had made before, and to go into any parts of the question for the purpose of considering what had been done, or what was supposed to have been done, or what should yet be done or whether what was done was demanded by the treaty, or was beyond its boundaries, and entirely removed from its meaning and not authorized by it. He would not enter into that, because he should be departing from the rule which he had laid down. If this question ought to be discussed at all, it ought to be discussed fully; the whole case ought to be investigated, and the discussion should be carried on with an accurate knowledge of the whole case. With respect to the treaty, he entirely agreed with the noble Duke in the interpretation he had put upon it. He
76
agreed that a naval force should be employed to carry into effect the objects of the treaty, as they were to be collected from the preamble, and that it was not in any respect a treaty of alliance, offensive or defensive, with the Queen of Spain against the rest of the world. He agreed with the noble Earl opposite with respect to the opinion of his noble Friend, the Secretary for Foreign affairs, delivered in another place, that any power had a right to assist Don Carlos. But whether that would lead to a war was another question. With respect to the instructions, he had considered that matter was set at rest, because those instructions were confidential, and the question of their having been carried into effect not having arisen. He still held the opinion which he had held at the commencement of the debate, that the production of those instructions would be most inconvenient, and tend to embarrass the policy of the Government; it would encourage those who were opposed to that policy, and discourage those who were inclined to assist it.
Lord Broughamsaid, amid loud cries of "Question," he would not detain the House a moment. He defied the oldest individual in the world to find in the history of Administrations down to the present time, a parallel case to that of the present Administration. Could any mortal man have thought to see such a display as they had made of themselves? Could it have been expected that such a display would have been made by the First Lord of the Admiralty? The very thing which that noble Lord had used against him, as an argumentum ad hominem, the noble Viscount in a moment of extreme pressure, in the utmost exigency, had got up in a second speech to disavow. But when the noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty said it was not disavowed, he was supported and cheered by two Members of the Cabinet. Now the noble Viscount disavowed it and would go no further than to say, that we were bound to give naval assistance to the Queen of Spain. Whether the treaty was offensive or defensive, one thing was clear—her Majesty's Ministers were thrown into a defenceless situation—in fact, they were in a most awkward position, in a most helpless condition. The noble Viscount's speech was entirely destitute of argument from the beginning to the end; it had not a single rag to cover its

77
nakedness. The Government felt they were in an awkward situation; but they said to themselves, after some hours' debate, "This is a troublesome business! If we had only happened to have thought of the suggestion of the noble Duke which he has thrown out as a plank to save us, like many others which he has thrown out to us in a moment of difficulty, we might have avoided all this." The noble Viscount had appealed to the patriotism, and prudence, and love of justice of their Lordships, but be ought to have added, that he trusted to their Lordships' gullibility. For the noble Lord must have thought, that he was addressing the weakest, and feeblest, and most gullible of all gullible minds, if he hoped to persuade their Lordships not to vote for this motion without assigning any just reason or convincing proof that they ought to reject it. He hoped their Lordships would not abstain from voting for the motion, and thereby doing their utmost to undo all the mischief that had been done.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that after what the noble and learned Lord had said, it was impossible for him not to address a few words to their Lordships before they came to a vote on the motion of the noble and learned Lord, which was founded on the question of blockade.
Lord Brougham: It really was not founded on the question of blockade. The noble Duke has mistaken my argument. I said, that even had there been a blockade, it would have been illegal; but there was no blockade.
The Duke of Wellingtonresumed: The noble Lord had stated, that the instructions were founded on the treaty, and he had said, that it was impossible that they should not call for the papers to see whether the instructions were connected with, or founded on, the treaty, and whether, in fact, we were bound by the treaty. The noble Viscount had since stated, that he did not concur in that view of the case; that the noble Viscount considered the view which he and his noble Friend near him had taken of the nature of the treaty, to be a correct view; and that the Government was not bound by the terms of that treaty to issue such instructions as those adverted to. The noble Viscount had declared, that it would be detrimental to the public service to produce those instructions. Now he did not approve of
78
the policy of those instructions; and, except what he had heard in the debates of that House, he knew nothing of those instructions; but, as far as he understood, they never had been acted on, and he thought it most likely that they never would be. Under these circumstances, he confessed, that he felt induced to ask their Lordships not to call for the instructions which the noble Viscount had declared, would be detrimental and inconvenient to the public service to produce.
Lord Broughamsaid, he was not at all surprised at this. He had somehow, from the first moment he had entered the House, thought the case was so strong and irresistible, and though the noble Viscount's speech proved it ten times stronger, still he had some suspicion that the saviour of her Majesty's Government, the saviour of the present Ministry over and over again, the true friend, indeed, because the friend in need, he whose friendship rose in generosity exactly in proportion as their necessities pressed upon them, that he would once more be more or less encouraging, and more or less intelligible or unintelligible, and come down with his powerful assistance to defeat the motion, and undo the good which that motion would do. But let not the noble Duke go away laying the flattering unction to his soul that this treaty had not been acted on. It had been acted on to a certain extent; that had been bragged of, and the noble Lord at the Admiralty could not help letting it out.
The Earl of Mansfieldsaid, it had not been his intention to say any thing on the present occasion, but the noble Duke had made a recommendation to the House in which he could not concur. He should not make any observations that he would not have made in the presence of the noble Duke,—[the Duke of Wellington had left the House]—who had been obliged to retire on account of another engagement. He had heard with great pain, though not with surprise, the statements and recommendation of the noble Duke; but grieved as he was to hear them, he did justice upon this, as he had done upon every other occasion, to the purity of the noble Duke's motives. Not only did he believe in the purity of the noble Duke's motives, but paid all deference to his judgment, the superiority of which could never be sufficiently extolled or ap-

79
preciated by those who had held frequent intercourse with him. The noble Viscount and the noble Earl had different opinions on this subject, and it was rather strange that they were not yet in possession of the opinion of the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. It might be fairly inferred, he thought, that the noble Lord was of the same opinion as the First Lord of the Admiralty. He should support the motion.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, he should certainly vote with the noble Earl who had spoken last, in consequence of the speech of the noble Earl at the head of the Admiralty. It was clear to him that the noble Earl's understanding of this treaty was incorrect, and that his instructions founded on that incorrect view, might lead us into a situation in which we should not be able to avoid a war. Therefore, he considered it to be the duty of their Lordships to call for the production of the papers, in order to ascertain what were our obligations in reference to Spain, and how far any misinterpretation of the treaty might run us into danger.
The Earl of Harewoodsaid, his decision as to whether he should vote for the motion for the production of these papers was contingent upon this one circumstance. If any one of her Majesty's Government would get up in his place now, and state that those orders, or supposed orders, or interpretations of the treaty, as given by some of the noble Lords belonging to her Majesty's Government, would not only not be acted on, but that those orders would be withdrawn, in that case he should not vote for the motion. If, on the other hand, no such declaration was made, he should feel it his duty to vote for it.
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 57.

List of the CONTENTS.

DUKES.

Warwick

Newcastle

Talbot

Rutland

Mansfield

Buccleuch.

Caernarvon

MARQUESSES.

Wicklow

Londonderry

Bandon

Hertford

Wilton

Salisbury.

Harewood

EARLS.

Bradford

Devon

Glengall

Abingdon

Falmouth

Jersey

Ripon

Dartmouth

Charleville

80

Kinnoull

LORDS.

Hadddington

Saltoun

Sheffield

Reay

Dalhousie

Sondes

Morton.

Montagu

VISCOUNTS.

Rolle

Strangford

Carberry

Arbuthnot

Clonbrock

Sydney

Ellenborough

Hawarden

Sandys

Hood

Churchill

St. Vincent

Colchester

Exmouth

Glenlyon

Canning.

Forrester

BISHOPS.

Rayley

Gloucester

Bexley

Carlisle

Heytesbury

Oxford.

Alvanley

Brougham.

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

DUKES.

Vernon

Cleveland

Lilford

Argyle

Foley

Leinster

Howard de Walden

Sutherland.

Stourton

MARQUESSES.

Belhaven

Lansdowne

Lovat

Headfort.

Plunkett

EARLS.

Mostyn

Minto

Dacre

Camperdown

Gardner

Burlington

Portman

Leitrim

Hatherton

Effingham

Langdale

Carlisle

Barham

Uxbridge

Vaux

Lovelace

Petre

Albemarle

Carew

Radnor

Howden

Fingall

Say and Sele

Scarborough

Seaford

Ilchester

Glenelg

Ducie

Denman

Mountcashel

Cotlenham

Lichfield

Segrave.

Cork.

BISHOPS.

VISCOUNTS.

Durham

Melbourne

Derry

Falkland

Hereford

Lismore.

Salisbury

LORDS.

Chichester.

Holland

Motion lost.

CHARITABLE ESTATES ADMINISTRATION BILL.
Lord Portmanmoved the Order of the Day for the House going into Committee on the Charitable Estates Administration Bill.
Lord Broughamobjected to the motion, as the bill was only a part of a great measure relating to charities generally, which had been introduced by him at an early period of the Session.
Lord Portmanwas willing to put off his motion, and to withdraw the bill, if their Lordships thought proper, till next Session; but, before doing so, he wished to have their Lordships' opinion on the subject. He could assure the noble and learned Lord, that he was doing a great wrong to the little charities of the country. The noble and learned Lord had brought in a bill on this subject, but no person had seen it, for the proof print of the bill was still in the hands of the noble and learned Lord, who had not yet returned it to the proper officer; and it was not fair, he contended, to lock up the administration of charitable estates in the hands of one noble and learned Lord, more particularly if that noble and learned Lord was unwilling to proceed with his measure. This was a case of a most particular nature, and in regard to which, some measure was absolutely necessary. There was a mass of small charities throughout the country, which could get no person to administer them; and why? Because, when the Municipal Corporations Bill was under consideration, the noble and learned Lord had contended for alterations being made in that bill, so as to admit of a general bill on the subject of charities being introduced, and the noble and learned Lord said, that that bill ought to be carried through the House along with the Corporations Bill. The Municipal Bill provided for the administration of those charities; but by the alterations which were made, the subject was left untouched, and no bill had been passed for administering the affairs of charities up to the present time. The object of the bill under consideration was, to provide for the proper administration of the affairs of small charities, and the noble and learned Lord objected to the bill because it was introduced by a layman; but he had followed the example of the noble and learned Lord, and had adopted the provisions of the noble and learned Lord's bill. He felt, that it was hazardous for him to undertake a measure of this description, but as the noble and learned Lord had not thought proper to proceed with his bill on the subject, he had felt it to be his duty to bring forward the present measure, which he would leave entirely in the hands of their Lordships.
Lord Broughamwas not, till that moment, aware that his bill had not been printed and distributed; but the bill was,
82
in fact, the very same bill which had last year been before their Lordships. He could assure the noble Baron, that he felt no jealousy whatever as to his interference with this particular subject, and he should have been delighted if any person possessed of adequate power and discretion, had taken up the question. He did not consider, however, that taking a bit out of a most important measure, in order to meet a particular case, was the proper way of proceeding on a subject of so much consequence as the administration of the different charities throughout the country. The bill which he had introduced, was framed on the report of the learned commissioners who had investigated the subject. It had been approved by them, and in fact almost the whole of its enactments, were prepared by them; and the only chance he had of carrying that measure, was by retaining in it the urgent part to which the bill of the noble Baron was directed. The present bill was very different from the first bill brought forward by the noble Baron, which went to make the guardians of the poor the trustees of those charities, and which contained a provision which empowered any two of those trustees to grant a receipt for any debts clue to those charities. That bill containing such monstrous provisions the noble Lord had withdrawn; and this was the second bill which had been introduced, so that it was clear the matter had not undergone that full and mature consideration which the importance of the subject demanded. It was his intention to proceed with the bill which he had introduced, and his noble and learned Friend, who was not then in his place (Lord Denman, we understood), agreed with him, that it was not advisable to pass a partial measure on the subject. As to passing the bill at that advanced period of the Session, they might as soon expect to get a piece of the moon. If the noble Lord persisted in his motion, he reserved for himself the power of giving the bill all the resistance possible during its future stages.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the object of the bill before the House was to remedy a very great evil which existed in regard to those charities. By the Municipal Bill, all the charities of the country were deprived of their trustees, and the consequence was, that they had to apply, as a temporary expedient, to the Court of Chancery for the appointment of new

83
trustees. Now, there were in the country, many charities which could not afford the expense of an application to the Court of Chancery, and the poor were in consequence deprived of that advantage which those charities were calculated to yield. This evil was very general; and it was absolutely necessary that some arrangement should be made to renew the trustees without the necessity of applying to the Court of Chancery. The only question was, whether it was advisable to apply the remedy proposed by the noble Baron; and if the bill of the noble Lord was likely to prevent the passing of a general measure on the subject, he would suggest to the noble Lord the propriety of withdrawing it, at least for the present.
Lord Portmansaid, that his great anxiety had been, not so much to pass the bill as to get the noble and learned Lord to declare, whether he intended to proceed with the general measure which had been introduced by the noble and learned Lord; and as he understood the noble and learned Lord to express his intention of proceeding with that measure, his object was accomplished, and he should bow to the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and withdraw the bill which he had introduced.
Lord Broughamsaid, that if he had the assistance of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and of his noble and learned Friend who had left the House, he had no doubt of being able to carry his measure; and he was most anxious to proceed with as little delay as possible. He wished it, however, distinctly to be understood, that he was not to go on because of the proceeding of the noble Baron in reference to this subject, as it had always been his intention to proceed with the measure he had brought forward, and to proceed with it with as little delay as possible.
Lord Portman withdrew his motion.