Sitting of 21 June 1839

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Loan Fund (Ireland); Payment of Rates; Ecclesiastical Courts (Ireland); Admiralty Court; Borough Courts.—Read a second time:—Registration (Court of Appeal).

CITY OF LONDON POLICE.
The City of London Police Bill was read a third time.
On the question that the Bill do pass,
Mr. Fox Maulesaid, that there were several clauses which he intended to propose should be added to the bill by way of rider, but he wished to move, that they be read a first and second time, and then be referred to the Committee to which the Metropolitan Police Bill was referred, in order that the Committee might report that they were proper clauses to be inserted.
Mr. T. Duncombeobjected to this course. The hon. Gentleman had proposed, after the bill had been read a third time, to bring up about thirty-four clauses, and to refer them to a committee. He should like to know whether this could be done according to the forms of the House. The clauses were of the most objectionable nature, and he should object to their being referred to a Select Committee, thinking that if the clauses were good they ought to be discussed by the House.
Lord John Russellsaid, that it had been considered, that what was law without Temple-bar ought to be law within Temple-bar, and, therefore, his hon. Friend had proposed to introduce the same clauses which had been inserted in the Metropolitan Police Bill into the City Police Bill.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, if they were to adopt the course proposed by the hon.
702
Gentleman (Mr. F. Maule), they would establish a dangerous precedent, and he thought, therefore, that it would be better to adhere to the rules of the House in regard to the insertion of clauses after the third reading of a bill. Would it not be better to withdraw this bill for the present, and discuss these clauses in committee of the whole House on the Metropolitan Police Bill? This measure could, after that discussion, be again brought forward.
Clauses to be printed, and to be taken into consideration on a subsequent day.

PERSIAN MISSION.
Mr. Mackinnonwished to put a question to the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, relative to the Persian Mission. Her Majesty, in her Speech from the Throne, stated, that circumstances had caused the withdrawal of the British Envoy from Persia. It appeared, that Sir John M'Neill had been a resident in this country for some time, and had also bad an audience of her Majesty, and he begged, therefore, to ask whether the mission had not concluded? It appeared, that the Secretary to the Embassy, together with an attaché, was still in Turkey, in Erzeroum, within eleven days' journey of Teheran, though there was a difference between this country and the Court of Persia, and the British Government had refused to receive the Ambassador of the Schah of Persia. The sum of 12,000 l. a-year had been allowed by the East India Company for the purposes of defraying the expenses of the diplomatic mission; but though the money was paid by that company, it was under the control of that House, because the mission was under the control of the Government. He wished to ask them in what manner that sum of 12,000 l. a-year was expended, and did the individuals of which that embassy had been composed, continue to receive their salaries?
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, the hon. Gentleman had made rather a long exordium to a short question, which he might answer at once, but that he was anxious to set the hon. Gentleman right in reference to some statements he had made. Everybody knew, that when a difference arose between Governments, it frequently happened that an envoy might be withdrawn without a cessation of amicable communications, though there might be

703
extensive differences, very little short of an absolute rupture, causing the temporary retirement of the ambassador. That was the state in which this country now stood with regard to Persia. Sir John M'Neill was at home on leave of absence, which was given to him before the differences between the two Governments took place. It was true that he had had an audience of her Majesty—not, as the hon. Gentleman supposed, because of the conclusion of his mission, but on leave of absence from his post. The Chargé d'Affaires and another member of the mission had withdrawn from Persia on account of the disputes with the Schah of Persia, and they had intended to return, but they were ordered to remain at the nearest frontier point, Erzeroum, for the purpose of receiving communications. In reference to another point adverted to by the hon. Gentleman, he would state that the Persian Government had sent an ambassador to this country, who, although he had been told before, that he could not be received in his official character until the differences between the countries were arranged, had, nevertheless, considered it his duty to come to this country in a private capacity, and was now in London, and he (Viscount Palmerston) had had some private communications with him. In reply to the question of the hon. Gentleman, he had to state that it had happened, as it had in all similar cases wherein the mission was not at an end, Sir J. M'Neill was at home, but he had returned only for a time, and he was still subject to all the customary regulations like all other ambassadors. Colonel Shiel, the Chargé d'Affaires, who was on duty abroad, was receiving his emoluments, and the mission went on just as it would go on if Sir J. M'Neill were still in Persia.
Mr. Macleansaid, perhaps the noble Lord would allow him to ask, if we were not at war with Persia, whether any reparation had been made by the Schah for the insult offered to the servant or messenger of Sir J. M'Neill? And he begged to put another question to the noble Lord at the same time, in relation to the explanation of Count Nesselrode respecting the conduct of Counts Simonitch and Viscovitch? He begged also to ask him whether any accounts had reached this country of an outrage on Sir Frederick Maitland and the crew of the Wellesley,
704
at Bushire? It had been announced that Admiral Maitland was about to land at the place of honour, when he was told that he would not be allowed to do so, but that he must go to the Custom-house, which he would not do, and the consequence was, that the soldiers of the Schah fired on the boats, and bullets passed through the hats and clothes of some of the crew of the Wellesley, who returned the fire, and some of the individuals who perpetrated the outrage were wounded. That was the rumour, and he wished to ask the noble Lord if he had received any intelligence of the affair.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, in reply to the first question of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he had to state, that no sufficient reparation had been made by the Schah of Persia for the outrage committed on the messenger of Sir J. M'Neill. With regard to the explanation of the Russian Government with regard to the conduct of Counts Simonitch and Viscovitch, he could only refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the papers already laid on the table of the House, which contained the answer of the Russian Government to the applications made on the subject. Then with regard to the other question, we were certainly not at war with Persia, though there was a very serious interruption of our communications. He had received accounts of the circumstance to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, but they were not exactly as he had stated them. There had been no difficulty about the landing of Admiral Maitland at Bushire, for he had landed without interruption, and friendly communications afterwards took place between him and the Governor, but the dispute arose on his embarcation. The Governor insisted that he should embark from the Custom-house quay, instead of the usual place near his residence; and he being informed by those in the service that such a course was not usual, and that in fact it was an indignity to which he ought not to submit, he refused to comply with the regulation, and insisted upon embarking from the quay opposite his residence. He took the necessary precautions; the boats of the Wellesley were got ready, and during the embarcation shots were exchanged between the parties. This circumstance and subsequent differences led to the departure of those in the service of the East India Company, who settled

705
at the island of Karak. From the last accounts it appeared that Admiral Maitland was returning to Bushire to have some communication with the Governor on the subject.
Subject dropped.

PRISONS BILL.
Lord John Russellmoved the third reading of the Prisons Bill.
Mr. Pakingtonhad already stated the strong objections he had to the 14th clause, enabling the Dissenting ministers to visit the gaols, but as that clause against which he had already recorded his vote might form the subject of a specific motion by the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord Teignmouth), he would not now trouble the House with any observations in support of his objection to that particular provision of the bill. His further objections were to the second and third clauses, which gave magistrates the power to order separate confinement without any limitation or restriction whatsoever. He assured the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department that in objecting on that ground to the further progress of this bill, he had no intention or wish to get up a vexatious or groundless opposition; he gave the noble Lord every credit for a desire to improve the prison discipline of the country; but he submitted that this important change in the principle of the prison discipline throughout the kingdom admitted of very considerable doubts as to its propriety. The noble Lord, he believed, relied in support of this measure on the results which had been shown to attend the system of separate confinement in the Penitentiary at Philadelphia, and in the report of the inspectors of the prison at Glasgow. That being the case, he (Mr. Pakington) must be allowed to refer to authentic returns in reference to the results of the system in the Penitentiary at Philadelphia; and in doing so, he did not trust to persons who might be supposed to be led away by their prejudices or private bias, but to documents the authenticity of which could not be questioned. In page 334 of the book he held in his hand, and to which reference on a former occasion had been made by the hon. Member for Lambeth, he found it distinctly laid down that the system of separate confinement in the Penitentiary at Philadelphia had not produced those effects in the suppression or diminu-
706
tion of crime which its early friends had anticipated, and that for the last three years prior to 1837 the mortality in that prison had regularly and constantly increased, thereby showing the injurious effects of the system upon the health of the prisoners. Again, in page 241, the letter of a medical gentleman showed that its injurious effects were not confined to the bodily but extended to the mental health of the prisoners, for it was stated, that while seventeen out of 318 prisoners had died, there had been no less than fourteen cases of insanity within a very short period of time. Indeed the returns showed the important fact that the mortality in the Philadelphia Penitentiary had been twice as great as in the prison of New Hampshire and other states where the separate system was not practised. The first proposition then he laid down was, that whatever degree of punishment might be fixed, the Legislature had no right to adopt any system which might incur danger to the bodily; still less to the mental, health of prisoners whose offences brought them under the lash of the law, and he opposed this bill because he thought, and he was justified in the opinion by the results he had stated, that it would produce both those effects. Objecting also to the provisions of the bill with respect to the discipline of persons committed for safe custody, and not convicted—provisions which had been left in a most unsatisfactory manner, and having his strong feeling against the system fortified by the results which had risen from it in America, he felt it his duty to resist the adoption (at a large expense) of the system throughout England, and he should, therefore, move that the bill be read a third time, this day six months.
Mr. Darbyseconded the amendment The bill would impose large expense on the country, with very little chance of success. Neither the results from Glasgow nor Philadelphia afforded sufficient evidence to show, that the system was practicable throughout the country, and on that ground he must support the amendment.
Lord J. Russellsaid, the objection of the hon. Member opposite, was directed to the system of separate confinement, though that system had been approved by persons of the highest authority, who had seen it in operation in America. What was proposed by this bill was to enable the proper authorities in each county to introduce

707
this system into the prisons under their superintendence, if they so thought fit. The hon. Member, however, seemed determined that the system should be totally excluded from the prisons of this country. He had reduced the powers conferred by the bill to the lowest possible degree; and now, after the question had already been so much discussed, he did not think it necessary to prove facts which had already been as much made matter of demonstration as anything could possibly be.
Viscount Dungannonexpressed his entire concurrence in the humane and considerate view which had been taken of, this question by the hon. Member behind him (Mr. Pakington), and must also express his disapprobation of the principle of intrusting to individuals connected with the government of prisons the power of inflicting solitary confinement.
The House divided on the original Motion: Ayes 126; Noes 21: Majority 105.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

Duncombe, T.

Aglionby, H. A.

Easthope, J.

Aglionby, Major

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Anson, hon. Colonel

Eliot, Lord

Archbold, R.

Ewart, W.

Baines, E.

Fenton, J.

Baring, F. T.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Barnard, E. G.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Barry, G. S.

Gibson, T. M.

Beamish, F. B.

Grattan, H.

Bellew, R. M.

Greenaway, C.

Berkeley, hon. H.

Grey, Sir G.

Bernal, R.

Hawes, B.

Bethell, R.

Hector, C. J.

Bewes, T.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Blair, J.

Hoskins, K.

Blake, M. J.

Howard, P. H.

Blake, W.J.

Hughes, W. B.

Bodkin, J.J.

Hume, J.

Bowes, J.

Hutt, W.

Bridgeman, H.

Hutton, R.

Broadley, H.

Kemble, H.

Brodie, W. B.

Langdale, hon. C.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Buller, C.

Lemon, Sir C.

Burroughes, H. N.

Macleod, R.

Butler, hon. Colonel

Marshall, W.

Callagan, D.

Marsland, H.

Campbell, Sir J.

Melgund, Viscount

Chalmers, P.

Miles, W.

Chester, H.

Morpeth, Lord

Clive, hon. R. H.

Murray, A.

Collier, J.

Nagle, Sir R.

Dalmeny, Lord

O'Brien, W. S.

Davies, Colonel

O'Connell, J.

Donkin, Sir R. S.

O'Connell, M. J.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

O'Connell, M.

Duke, Sir J.

O'Conor Don

Bill read a third time.
On the question that the bill do pass,
Lord Teignmouthrose, to move the omission of the 14th clause. That clause had been hurried through the House without sufficient discussion, and the division was pressed on in the absence of many hon. Members on that side of the House, who would have voted against the clause. After the postponement of the discussion upon the clause upon a former stage of the measure, at the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, who objected to so important a discussion taking place at eleven o'clock at night, it could not have been expected that the clause would be afterwards disposed of in so summary a manner. Many hon. Members had been induced to support the provision by the argument, that as prisoners were deprived of the means of obtaining such religious instruction as they themselves

709
might wish to receive, and such as they might if at liberty have been able to procure, it was right that means should be provided of supplying that which was thus taken away from them. But that was a perfect fallacy, because, in point of fact, religious teachers of all persuasions were permitted to go and did go into gaols. Besides, if the principle were worth anything, it would apply with much greater force to sailors in the navy, who were shut up in ships, and utterly deprived of the power of resorting to religious instruction of their own choosing, and it would also apply to soldiers serving on foreign stations. The real question was this—did there really exist any grievance? He had communicated with the chaplains of several gaols in different parts of the country, and particularly in London, Manchester, and Bristol, and he had learned from them, that complaints were never made by prisoners on account of their religious scruples being interfered with. By the introduction, therefore, of this clause, the House would not remedy any practical evil, and would establish a precedent which he could not but regard as one fraught with danger to the Established Church. He had thought it his duty to make these observations, but at the same time he would not put the House to the trouble of dividing.
Mr. Fox Mauleprotested against the statement of the noble Lord, that any attempt had been made to smuggle this clause through the House. It had been fully debated on no less than four different occasions, and every opportunity had been afforded for the public consideration of it. With regard to the noble Lord's observations in reference to spiritual instruction for the army, it should be recollected that persons who entered the army did so voluntarily, and knowing to what extent they could avail themselves of spiritual instruction; whereas persons who were incarcerated in prisons were forcibly removed from society, and being thereby deprived of the ordinary means of obtaining that instruction, it became their duty to provide it for them.
Mr. Prymesupported the clause. Although he respected the noble Lord's motives, he could not agree with him, that even supposing Roman Catholic prisoners had shown an indifference to religion, they were, therefore, to be refused the advantage of moral and spiritual instruction.
710
He maintained the very contrary. Where the lives of individuals were at variance with the precepts of religion, it became the more necessary to teach them the value and importance of those precepts.
Mr. Langdaleobserved, that in two long debates, in which the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, and the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Tamworth had taken part, this question had been fully discussed. The noble Lord, therefore, had nothing to complain of on that head. The noble Lord had said, that by this clause a blow was aimed at the Established Church. Now, that he had never attempted and never would. He had been informed, that in districts where Roman Catholics were numerous, the Roman Catholic clergymen were obliged to leave their congregations to attend to prisoners in the care of the State. It had, therefore, appeared to him just that the State should make provision for the religious instruction of those prisoners. It was now proposed to separate the inmates of prisons in order the more effectually to give them moral and religious instruction. That being the case, he would ask, could the House refuse to furnish them with that instruction which alone they would be willing to receive?
Mr. Estcourtobjected more particularly to that part of the clause which stated that whenever Dissenters of a certain denomination should amount to a certain number, a chaplain should be provided for them, than to the particular sect for which such chaplain was required. He saw no reason why fifty prisoners should be regarded, in this respect, of so much greater importance than five prisoners. Was the soul of one of the fifty more valuable than one of the five? Besides, the chaplain to a gaol was a very important officer, whose authority would be considerably diminished by the introduction of other chaplains. He regretted the noble Lord would not divide the House on this clause, against which he protested, as calculated to lead to very great inconvenience, and as being highly injurious to the prison discipline of the country.
Mr. Morgan J. O'Connellthought it rather singular, that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken should have reserved his objections in point of detail, while he advanced none against the principle of the clause, for this stage of the bill. If the hon. Member would move, that the

711
number of persons to whom a chaplain should be allowed, should be reduced, he would support him; and, if in the operation of the bill fifty were found to be too many, he was sure no objection would be made to reduce it. The noble Lord had said, that danger to the Church would result from the principle of this clause. Surely the noble Lord, who belonged to the Irish peerage, must be aware that that principle was acted on in the gaols of Ireland; and if it did not endanger the Church there, he saw no reason for supposing it would in England.
Motion withdrawn, bill passed.

METROPOLITAN POLICE
Mr. Fox Maulemoved, "That the House resolve itself into a Committee on the Metropolis Police and Metropolitan Courts Bill (advances out of the Consolidated Fund)."
Mr. Goulburnrecommended, that the vote of the Committee should have reference to one of the bills only. If the proceeding were confined to the Metropolis Police Bill, the subject would still remain open, and he, therefore, should not object to the Speaker's leaving the chair.
Mr. Fox Mauleobserved, that he merely required an increase of the grant for the purpose of enabling the House to decide upon the propriety of increasing the salaries of Commissioners and Magistrates.
House in Committee.
Mr. Fox Maulemoved, that a sum not exceeding 1,200 l. be the annual salary of the Commissioners appointed to carry into execution an act for improving the police of the metropolis.
Mr. Wakleyobjected to moving such a resolution in so thin a House.
Mr. Humeapprehended the resolution was a mere initiatory proceeding to enable the Government to introduce a clause in the bill. When that came to be discussed, the proper time would have arrived for deciding whether the salaries of the Commissioners should be fixed at 1,000 l., 1,200 l., or any other sum.
Colonel Sibthorp, although a rigid economist, had no objection to give the larger salary to those two very valuable officers for their most meritorious public services.
Mr. T. Duncombecould not but think the whole of the bills which had been introduced for the improvement of the metropolitan police very clumsy and bungling pieces of legislation. Already had the
712
House been favoured with no fewer than three or four editions of these bills. The first was scarcely intelligible, and the resolution they were now called upon to sanction partook largely of the same character.
Mr. Wakleysaid, that although it might be considered matter of form in that House to vote away money, the people considered it matter of extortion. Although he admitted there were some good provisions in the bill, there were many bad ones of which he disapproved, and which he should oppose. He objected to the salaries of the magistrates, which were too large, and he could see no reason for increasing the salaries of the Commissioners of police. It should not be proposed to increase the salary of the Commissioners to 1,200 l. a-year each. When their salary was appointed at 800 l. each, the interest of money was 3 per cent.: now it was 5½ per cent., and really he thought that with our enormous debt, and in such a distressed state of the country, the House ought to proceed on a principle of the strictest economy. He really thought the House was more reckless of expense than the Ministry. When it was proposed, the other night, that 70,000 l. should be allowed for the building of stables at Windsor, he moved an amendment of 50,000 l., and not one Member on either side seconded him. But two Members of the Opposition gave the proposition their highest approbation. The Government would not be so extravagant if the House would insist upon economy. He would not vote for the resolution, unless it were distinctly understood that the House should not be pledged to the 1,200 l. salaries.
Mr. Humebore testimony to the very efficient manner in which the Commissioners performed their duties. No man in London, even the county coroner himself, ever devoted more time, energy, and talent to the public service, he would say, "from daylight to sunset, and during the night."
Resolution agreed to.
House resumed, and went into Committee of

SUPPLY—EXPENSE OF CHARTERS.
A vote was proposed for a sum not exceeding 70,000 l. to enable her Majesty to defray the civil contingencies of the year 1839.
Mr. Humeobjected to one of the items in the vote, for the expense incurred in granting the charters to Manchester and Birmingham.
Mr. Courtenaywas also opposed to it. In his opinion the parties applying for the charters ought to defray the expense attending them.
Mr. P. Thomsonsaid, that it was necessary to make inquiries before any charters were granted, and how could they be paid for but in this manner? It was on account of these inquiries that the present sum was to be voted.
Mr. Goulburnthought, that the expense of these inquiries ought to fall upon the parties applying for the charters, and not be defrayed by the public money.
Viscount Howicksaid, it was of the utmost importance, that municipal institutions should be granted to all the great cities in the kingdom, and no difficulty, therefore, ought to be thrown in the way. It was absolutely necessary, that inquiries should be made, and, as persons could not be compelled to subscribe for that purpose, the expense must be paid by a public vote.
Sir T. Fremantlethought, that the money ought not to be paid by the public. The Privy Council was a court before which the parties came. Let them, then, pay their own expenses, and do not let the Government say, "If you cannot make out a case, we will send down commissioners to make out one for you."
Mr. Brothertonsaid, the vote was properly asked. He knew that in the case of one application for a charter, a great many forgeries were committed with respect to the names of the petitioners, and the Privy Council found it necessary to send down commissioners to inquire. The Government was bound to pay the expenses of those commissioners.
The Attorney-Generalsaid the expenses under consideration were not the expenses of the parties petitioning for or opposing a charter, but of the Privy Council. That body had to decide, not merely for the different parties, but for the public, and it was impossible for them to know whether they should grant a charter until they had investigated all the circumstances of the case. It was more economical to send down a commission to the country, than to bring all the witnesses up to London.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that if the expenses
714
to the parties were lessened by sending down a commission, that was another reason why the diminished expense should be paid by them.
Mr. Williamsfelt so strongly the impropriety of the vote, that he moved its rejection. If Manchester acquired a charter, Manchester ought to pay for it, and not expect all the other cities in the country, which were not benefited by the incorporation of that town, to contribute to the expense.
The Solicitor-Generalreminded the hon. Member, that Manchester and Birmingham had been obliged to contribute to the expense incident to inquiring into the state of the corporation of Coventry. Nothing but a necessary expense had been incurred, and if the House refused to sanction this vote, it would be tantamount to a declaration that no more charters should be granted.
Mr. W. Williamssaid, that Coventry had enjoyed a charter for 400 years, so that the cases were not analogous.
Mr. Wakleysaid, they were told, that there would be a great number of these applications for charters, and he thought, that if they were to sanction this expenditure, they would be only opening a fruitful source of patronage for the Government. These expenses were for objects purely local, and to make the public pay for such objects was neither fair nor just. The Government had sent down commissioners to the various towns, but they had not been told what those commissioners had done, and he would call upon any hon. Gentleman to show any other body of men acting judicially who were entitled to send out persons at the public expense to make inquiries relative to the cases that came before them for decision. He really did not understand these estimates, for in one place, he found a sum of 11 l. 5s. 2d. for conveying the Prince and Princess Hohenlohe from Woolwich to Ostend, If his Highness had come over to this country in order to work some miraculous cure, he mi surely pay the expense of the journey back.
Sir S. Canningsaid, he had been formerly in possession of the committee, but had yielded his right in order to allow hon. Gentlemen to run down the hare which they had started. He had allowed the discussion relative to the corporation charters to go on for an hour and a half,

715
but the hon. Gentleman had started a new hare, and he thought it was now time to assert his right.
Mr. Wakleysaid, the right hon. Gentleman was completely mistaken. It was not a hare he had started, but a Prince and a Princess. In regard to the expense of obtaining charters, he thought the burden ought to be borne by the parties who applied for them, and he hoped the hon. Member for Coventry would divide the House against the vote.
Mr. C. Bullerthought the establishment of corporations in large towns was of great importance to the public, as well as to the towns themselves. The Bristol riots had shown the effect of a want of a good police and a good municipal executive. These riots had cost the country many thousand pounds, and had a good municipal executive existed, all that expense might have been spared.
Mr. Pringlesaid, every town requiring a police force was obliged to come to that House and bear the expense of obtaining a bill, and he thought in the same way that they ought also to pay for a charter of incorporation. In his opinion, it would be introducing a bad precedent if the House were to consent that the public should pay for those charters.
Mr. W. Williamswould not divide the Committee on the question.

SUPPLY.—DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS.
Sir S. Canningrose to direct the attention of the Committee to that part of the estimates which was under the head of "Special Missions." He was perfectly aware, that these estimates had reference rather to the future than to the past, but, as the past was in some degree an indication of the expense to be incurred in the future, they would not be doing their duty if they allowed any portion of these estimates, in regard to which there might be any doubt, to pass without observation. The first thing to which he would call attention was, the charge for the mission of Sir Charles Vaughan to Constantinople, and he would beg the Committee to recollect the peculiar circumstances connected with that embassy. The amount charged in the present estimates was only a part of the expense which it was said had been actually incurred, and when it was considered, that the embassy had not succeeded, that, in fact, the ambassador had never reached his destination, he thought
716
the amount was such as to call for some explanation. There was another head to which he wished to call attention, and which related to the excursion of Mr. Macgregor and Dr. Bowring. Under that head he found a charge of 2,579 l., and how and for what object so large a sum had been expended, he was unable to ascertain. Some explanation on this point, he thought, was also necessary. There was another item to which he would briefly call the attention of the Committee. He alluded to the expenses of the Earl of Durham in the mission to Canada, the amount of which required explanation. In making this remark, he was anxious to guard himself against any chance of misconstruction, for he was aware of the delicacy of objecting to what might be called personal expenses. In speaking of those of Lord Durham, he felt it necessary to say, that that noble Earl had not drawn on himself any, even the slightest, ground for a charge of misapplication of the expenditure of his mission. Nevertheless, he thought that the great amount of the expenditure of that mission required explanation. The Committee would scarcely believe, unless they saw the estimate, that the expenditure of the noble Earl was on a scale, and at the rate of about from 50,000 l. to 55,000 l. a-year. Was it to be contended, that the representative of the Crown sent out to a republic, or he should rather say to a colony with republican habits, and more particularly with habits of republican plainness and frugality, should be required to live in the style of the first nobleman in his own country, and that in a country where there was no nobleman.
An Hon. Member: How can the right hon. Gentleman make out that the expenses of Lord Durham's mission amounted to 50,000 l. or 55,000 l.
Sir S. Canningsaid, that with some deductions, he found that the personal expenses of the noble Earl were 32,000 l. or 33,000 l. These, it should be observed, were not for a whole year, but for a period of only eight months; and then it should be recollected, that the noble Earl had generously applied 10,000 l. out of his own private funds for his personal expenses. This sum, it was true, was not paid out of the public money, but it served to show the great amount of the other expenditure for the period he had mentioned. The noble Lord must, in fact, have carried on

717
the mission at a rate of oriental expenditure, and this appeared the greater, when they recollected who and what the noble Earl was before he was called to the House of Peers—and that he had been a Member of the House of Commons, and that he had been a distinguished member of that party which had almost arrogated to itself exclusively the merit of economy. When it was recollected that noble Lord had, when a Member of the Commons, denounced, and almost from the very spot on which he then stood, the expenditure incurred by the mission of a right hon. Gentleman, now no more, (the late Mr. Canning) in the embassy to Lisbon—when these circumstances were borne in mind, it was impossible not to feel surprise at the great amount of the noble Earl's expenditure in the Canada mission. When he alluded to these circumstances, let it not be supposed, for a moment, that he was influenced by any personal feelings with respect to them. Nothing was further from his thoughts. His right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, seemed by his cheer to cast a doubt upon his statement. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean by that cheer to impute to him any personal feeling towards the noble Earl on the present occasion? From the silence of the right hon. Gentleman, he inferred, that he did mean to impute to him personal feeling in this matter. If that were so, all he would say at present was, that the right hon. Gentleman did not know him; but, whatever might be the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman, they should not deter him from discharging his public duty, and he would again say, that there were good grounds for calling the attention of the House and the country to those items, and for requiring some explanation respecting them.
Mr. C. Bullerregretted, that this question, which certainly deserved the attention of the House, should have given rise to any personal feeling. If any party or personal motives had been attributed to the right hon. Baronet when making a temperate inquiry, there might hare been some reason for his heat.
Sir S. Canningmust throw himself upon the House. The hon. Gentleman behind the Chancellor of the Exchequer was mistaken; he had not complained of what had been said, but what he had seen.
Mr. C. Buller: If such an imputation had been made, it might have accounted
718
for the right hon. Baronet's natural warmth. But who mentioned the case to the House, who attributed a motive, who cast a suspicion? Why, no one; but it was the speech of the right hon. Gentleman himself which insinuated it; he recurred to the part Lord Durham had formerly acted—to the part which the noble Earl took with respect to Mr. Canning's mission to Lisbon; he (Mr. C. Buller) was sorry to see the introduction of topics into this discussion which were calculated to revive bygone animosities, that he had hoped to have seen slumbering in the pages of Hansard's Parliamentary Debates. He was sure, that the right hon. Gentleman only meant that these were not proper topics to introduce. The noble Earl was compelled to make a large expenditure; but what was the nature of that expenditure? The right hon. Gentleman surely would not maintain that the Earl of Durham was sent out as a pattern for an independent republic—["A dependent republic."] Well, a dependent republic, then, if hon. Gentlemen liked, for a republic they would have it some way or the other. Republican forms of government in Canada! He hoped that no report of the debate would go forth, to show that the hon. Gentlemen opposite sanctioned the idea that there were, or ought to be, in Canada, republican forms. Lord Durham did not go as the representative of the Sovereign to what might, perhaps, be a hostile nation; but he went as Governor: it was necessary that he should keep up the state of a Governor. All the House was asked to allow, was the necessary expenditure of the Governor-general of a colony; under peculiar circumstances, and no more did Lord Durham require. It must not be supposed, however, that in Canada living was cheap. The expenditure in many parts of the United States was large, and in Canada it was greater than it was here. It should be recollected also, that Quebec was suddenly filled with a large population, and that the price of commodities was consequently raised. Then a sum for building was expended for a house for the Governor-general, and he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman, with all his love for republican institutions and fashions, if he were shown the rooms occupied by Lord Gosford, would think them unfit for a Governor with a family and household; they were formerly the rooms of the aide-

719
de-camp of Lord Dalhousie. The House of Assembly was vacant, and it was fitted up for the Governor-general, and there was no improper expense. It was necessary to lodge the suite in houses. Now houses were usually let in Canada by the year, and in Montreal by the two years; so that the houses must be taken for one year. There was in this branch an annual expenditure, and it was not right to multiply the actual sum expended, as if it were a proportional part of the annual expenditure. A house at Montreal was necessary for the Governor to pass the winter in; and to show how proper this was, Sir John Colborne, since he had been Governor, had occupied the very house hired by Lord Durham. The expenditure was for colonial purposes generally, and did not refer solely to the noble Earl. There were a great many other expenses. The staff was larger than in other missions; it was necessary to incur greater expense in carrying on the whole government of a country, the constitution of which was suspended, than in a mere mission of diplomacy, where there was one supreme person and only a few others who acted as clerks. Then there were the expenses of the commissions of inquiry, which no one would say did not produce great good. Indeed, there was one from which no Gentleman, on eitherside, said had not been derived great benefits: he meant the waste lands commission. He hoped, in consequence of that commission, that the system of disposing of the Crown lands would be so altered, that the whole system would be a source of wealth to the community, and that there would be no jobbing. The Governor-general was also directed to summon the governors of the other colonies, and it was necessary to entertain them and their suites. There was also the expense of travelling, which was important. Lord Durham had travelled between 1,500 and 1,600 miles, and it was necessary to hire steam-boats, which were very expensive. The hon. Gentleman was quite right in supposing, that the noble Earl had paid the whole of his personal expenditure, which was generally borne in such missions by the public, out of his own purse; and if the expenditure on the part of the public were large, it was not the fault of the noble Earl, but arose from the nature of, the service on which he was sent. He was as much opposed as any one to a lavish expenditure; but he believed, that
720
this did not exceed the limits of the ordinary expenditure of a Governor-general of a British colony under such circumstances.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, it would be better to give the Governor-general a specific amount for his expenses, than to allow him an unlimited power of expenditure; for, however well his discretion might be exercised, the other plan would be more satisfactory to the country.
Mr. Labouchererelieved from the necessity of entering into any explanation respecting the expenses of the Earl of Durham's mission, by the statement of the hon. Member for Liskeard, but must state that in the opinion of his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Department, that expenditure had not been by any means extravagant. With regard to the expense of his passages, to and from this country, much misrepresentation had gone abroad. The fact was, Lord Durham had not interfered in that matter at all—he had merely sent to the Admiralty a list of persons for whom he required passages, leaving the whole of the details to them. With regard to the missions of Dr. Bowring and Mr. M'Gregor, he was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say, that the Ambassadors possessed sufficient knowledge to enable them to do without such services. The right hon. Gentleman himself had admitted the merits of Dr. Bowring, and he was happy in that opportunity of bearing his testimony to the talents, acquirements, and industry of Mr. M'Gregor. No public servant had ever rendered greater services than that gentleman.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerbegged to offer a few words to the Committee, by way of explaining away a misapprehension which seemed to have arisen in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir S. Canning), with reference to his having cheered. He disclaimed all motives of which the right hon. Gentleman could reasonably complain, and denied any intention of expressing the slightest improper feeling towards him. He had no wish to mix up old recollections with the present vote. Suppose he had been in the House at the time Lord Durham made his motion about Mr. Canning's mission to Lisbon, and suppose he had voted with Lord Durham (then Mr. Lambton) upon that question, what on earth could that have to do with the present discussion? He had to apologize to the right hon. Gentleman for any re-

721
ference to former transactions and feelings by his cheer; but the right hon. Gentleman was himself responsible for the first allusion to them. His wish was to have this question discussed upon its own intrinsic merits.
Vote agreed to.
Committee to sit again.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Protection against Bankruptcy; Common Pleas Regulation; Bills of Exchange.
Petitions presented. By the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Lord Wynford, from several Clerical Bodies, against the Church Discipline Bill.—By Lord Brougham, from West India Planters, and by Lord Lyndhurst, from Mr. Burge, to be heard at the Bar, the first by Counsel, the second in person, against the Jamaica Bill.

CHURCH DISCIPLINE—EXPLANATION.
The Archbishop of Canterburycomplained of a passage which he had read in one of the morning papers (the Morning Post) contained in what purported to be a report of a speech made by a right hon. Gentleman in another place which he would not more particularly name. The passage ran thus:
"He was the last man in the House to undervalue petitions; but he could show the House, on better authority than his, that there were occasions on which petitions were got up, particularly on religious matters, in which neither the character of the getters-up or the suggesters would stand inquiry. There had been, for instance, a petition got up by bad clergymen of the University of Oxford on a subject relating to the Church. Now, that was a petition in which, above all others, they would expect to find truth, learning, and conclusive reasoning; but no such thing; it appeared, on high authority, that the bishop of the diocese could command from his clergy as many petitions on any subject as he might choose to call for. The House would ask on whose authority he stated this. He would tell them, but would read a letter more first:—' On the subject of petitions generally bearing on church subjects, I must say, that if the parties who oppose the bill (it was the Church Discipline Bill) are no better informed than the clergy of Oxford on the subject, I trust their opposition will have very little weight.' He concluded with the following words: 'I entertain the strictest conviction that the petitions which come before you on this subject
690
are full of misstatements, but certainly misstatements made without a disposition to deceive. I give these petitioners credit for a wish to support the Church, but it will be for the House to judge of the allegations and to judge also of the expediency of complying with the prayer of persons who betray total ignorance of the real facts of the case on which they petition.' These were the petitions presented from clergymen of the University of Oxford against the Church Discipline Bill; they came from men of respect able character and authority; and the person who thus characterised them was his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury. This was the character he gave of petitions got up on a religious outcry. He stated that they might be well intended, but that they betrayed the greatest ignorance."
Nothing (said the most rev. Prelate) could be more inconvenient than for a Member of one House—and more especially a Member who stood very high in station, and who was deserving to be respected on account of his station, talent, and other qualities—nothing, he said could be more inconvenient, or indeed more irregular, than for a Member of the House of Commons to cite by name what had passed in their Lordships' House. This very statement showed the inconvenience of that practice, for a more incorrect statement—not intentionally so, he was perfectly certain, because he knew the candour of the right hon. Gentleman sufficiently well to be convinced that he would not say anything which he did not believe to be true—but still a more incorrect statement never was made. The right hon. Gentleman had been misinformed as to what he (the Archbishop of Canterbury) had said on the occasion to which reference was made. When was it, he would ask, that he ever said, any such thing as that "neither the character of the getters-up or the suggesters of the petition would stand inquiry? When did he ever make any reflection on the character of the gentlemen and clergy of Oxford? It so happened that he only knew the name of one of the persons who were concerned in getting up the petition in question; and of that one person, and of all who were connected with him, he might say, there were none more respectable for character, for learning, or for piety; and that it was absolutely impossible he (the most rev. Prelate) could have said that their characters would not stand inquiry. Then it was said that "the petition was got up by bad clergy-

691
men of the university of Oxford." Who those "bad clergymen" were, he was greatly at a loss to know. There must be a misprint, a misrepresentation here. Those words never could have been used by the right hon. Gentleman.
Subject dropped.

THE MILLION LOAN (IRELAND) EXPLANATION.
Viscount Duncannonwished to state that, of the million advanced for the clergy of Ireland, only the sum of 640,000 l. had been claimed by the clergy, there, therefore, remained a surplus in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, of 360,000 l. Of that sum, 100,000 l. had been lent by the commissioners to the Board of Works in Ireland, and the remaining 260,000 l. was to be applied to payment of tithes due to the clergy, on the coming into operation of the late Tithe Act. The sum of 100,000 l. advanced to the Board of Works, would, of course, be repaid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
Subject dropped.

DUBLIN AND LIVERPOOL STEAM-PACKETS.
The Earl of Wicklowwished to say a few words to their Lordships on the subject of the steam-packets between Liverpool and Dublin. Captain Chappel, the commander of the packet station at Liverpool, had addressed a letter to him, complaining of what he (the Earl of Wicklow) had stated on this subject last week. He stated, "I do not know whether this censure was intended to apply to Mr. Purcell or to me, or to both; but, as it was calculated to be injurious to me, in my character, I feel persuaded that your Lordship will do me the justice to remove such an impression when I assure you that Mr. Purcell asked for the appointment entirely without my knowledge, and that no complaint was made to me about his charges." If it were any satisfaction to Captain Chappel, he (the Earl of Wicklow) would state, that so far from wishing to make any allusion to him, he had never heard of him before, or that he occupied such a situation, or that he was alluded to in the appointment, This statement of Captain Chappel contradicted, however, what had been said by the noble Earl. The statement of the noble Earl had been, that he knew nothing of the politics of Mr. Purcell whatever but that the appointment took place on
692
the recommendation of a most distinguished individual, namely—that of Captain Chappel. He (the Earl of Wicklow) never meant to cast any imputation on that gentleman, nor on Mr. Purcell, who had also written to him. Mr. Purcell was perfectly justified in accepting the situation, if the Government thought fit to give it to him. His observations were directed against the Admiralty, who had not sufficiently considered the interest of the public when they had appointed an agent with the sole right of making what charges he pleased. He hoped the noble Earl would not create a monopoly for the benefit of any one individual, but open the carrying trade to competition. If no arrangement were made to remedy this evil and system of overcharging, he should submit a motion to the House on the subject.
The Earl of Mintothought it would be extremely inconvenient to introduce a variety of agencies and competition. The returns showed that a very large proportion of the packages were sent by other conveyances, the income derived from this source having decreased. An inquiry had been instituted on the subject, and whatever might be the result of it, he should take care that the agency was so conducted, whether in the hands of Mr. Purcell, or any other agent, that the public should have no cause to complain.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, it was quite evident that the noble Earl totally misunderstood him. He did not bring any charge against Mr. Purcell for overcharging: what he complained of was, that the Government gave Mr. Purcell the power of making exorbitant charges, and that there was no competition.
The Earl of Mintosaid, the only profit Mr. Purcell got, was by the land-carriage of the parcels; he got none other. If he took advantage of that to divert parcels from their proper route, in order to have them sent by his own coaches, he was guilty of an abuse, but there had been no such complaints.

ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF ACT.
The Earl of Winchilseasaid, that in pursuance of the notice which he had given yesterday, it now became his duty to present to their Lordships a petition signed by 3,000 persons, praying for the repeal of the statute, 10 Geo. 4th, commonly called the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act. If this petition had related to any mea-

693
sure now under consideration before their Lordships, he would have declined, in obedience to the usage of their Lordships' House, to present it; but as it related to an Act that was passed long ago, and as it was very numerously signed, there being attached to it signatures to the amount of 3,000, all belonging to persons filling respectable situations in life, he thought that the sentiments expressed in it were certainly deserving of the notice of their Lordships. The petitioners were anxious for the repeal of the Relief Act. So was he, and he declared that he believed this feeling was rapidly increasing in this country; he believed, he said, that the people of England were fast becoming desirous for the repeal of the act which was falsely called the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act. The professed object of passing that act was to give peace and tranquillity to Ireland. Now, he did not think that there was any individual either within their Lordships' House or without it who had supported that measure on its passage through Parliament who could now honestly lay his hand on his heart, and say that he did not feel that the results which were then anticipated from it had been realized. It might be in the recollection of those who did him the honour of attending to him at that time, that he then stated his conviction that there were two distinct bodies belonging to the Roman Catholic Church—namely, the Romanists and the Papists; and that though he was totally opposed to any measure which should go to alter the Protestant form of this Government, yet to certain concessions of a civil nature to the Roman Catholics of this country he was not wholly opposed. The Roman Catholics of this country, he did think, used the power they had acquired by this act in a very different manner from the Roman Catholics of Ireland. With respect, however, to the means which had been taken to induce their Lordships to agree to the concession of that power, he would say, that though it was stated in evidence on oath before a committee of their Lordships' House, that the most objectionable doctrines of Catholicism were no longer held by British Catholics, yet he believed those doctrines had been only suspended for the time, and were now again in force; he believed, if he had a committee of their Lordships, he should be able to show that all those doctrines which were most ob-
694
noxious and reprehensible in the Catholic creed had been revived and re-embodied about the year 1836 in a manual of theology published for the use of the Roman Catholic clergy. There were to be seen all the most obnoxious doctrines that Rome ever held. There it would be found that some of the most obnoxious Papal bulls were still in force. The publication of this book he believed to be the signal for reviving the doctrines to which he alluded, and from that moment the Roman Catholic Church had put forth the whole of its power to destroy Protestant government and undermine Protests ant authority in Ireland. The consequences of this had shaken the Protestant church from its centre to its foundation; [hear, hear!] he said from its centre to its foundation, because if the Church, as by law established, were upset in any single part of the empire, the whole; must fall altogether. After the concession of the Roman Catholic claims in, 1829, the ingenuity of man could not conceive a scheme so well calculated for the overthrow of Protestantism in this, country, and the re-establishment of the Roman Catholic religion in its stead, as was the late scheme for national education contained in the minute of Privy Council. He said this because he was prepared to contend that the Roman Catholic religion only flourished where ignorance and superstition reigned, and that where a system of education prevailed in which only general instruction was to be given in religion, ignorance and superstition must be the result. Would to God their Lordships, at the time of considering the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, had not listened to the voice of that individual whose evidence before their Lordships' committee had weighed so much in inducing many of them to side with the supporters of the bill; would to God they had not listened to the voice of that individual, who had called him a furious and intolerant bigot, although he; could put his hand on his heart and say, that he was sincerely attached to the cause both of civil and religious freedom, and, therefore, was not liable to the charge of intolerant bigotry. He believed he was as tolerant in his disposition as any man in the House. He opposed the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, not from intolerance, but from a belief that, if passed into a law, it would be found inconsistent with Pro-

695
testant security; and he felt safe in stating that a similar feeling was at length aroused throughout the country. When, however, the measure passed into a law, he had said that he should be the last man who would seek to shrink from upholding it. From that day to this he had never made an observation tending to elicit any thing of a feeling in the country which might interfere with the due operation of the measure. He had by no means flattered himself that the power then conceded to the Roman Catholics might have been used by all of them without attempting to trench on the rights of the Established Church, without attempting, as a considerable body were now desirous of doing, to take measures for the destruction of every thing dear to us. He stated at the time, that the power granted would be so used, and that the Protestants would be obliged eventually to unite, and that the time might very possibly arrive when England would see him the greatest agitator on earth. Power given to Roman Catholics, their Lordships might depend upon it, would always be exerted against the security and interests of the Protestant Church; but this the Protestant people of England never would suffer; this the Protestant Dissenters to a man would join the members of the establishment in preventing, in defence of the rights of conscience and of that happy constitution which had given to us individually and nationally a greater share of liberty than had ever fallen to the lot of any other nation under the sun. That the people were rapidly approaching to a conviction that England must retrace her steps in this matter, he was fully convinced. He would only add, that though he was not at present prepared to make any motion on the subject of the petition, still he would say, that if this went on as it had done, he should certainly bring the matter under their Lordships' notice by a substantive proceeding at a future day.
Lord Broughamwas anxious to offer some answer to that which formed the substance of the eloquent and impressive speech of the noble Earl; he said eloquent and impressive, for such must everything be that comes from the feelings, and he fully believed that the noble Earl always spoke from his feelings; for a more conscientious, fearless, and honest mind than the noble Earl's, he was persuaded, did
696
not exist. The appeal which the noble Earl made to all who had any concern in carrying the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act was substantially this—that of those who assisted to pass the measure, he believed there was not one, who, if he had known then what he knew now, would now agree to the measure; or would now lay his hand on his heart, and say he did not repent of his share in it. The idea of the noble Earl was, he took it, that, as now informed, the then supporters of the bill would support it no longer if it was to do over again, and that, better informed as they were now, if they did not repent of their share in passing it, they at least felt, great discontent and distrust in respect to its operation. On examining his own heart, and considering all the public events which had happened since 1829, when the Act was passed, with the large experience subsequent to that time which he had had of its working, and with some little acquaintance with the question, having supported Emancipation from the first period of his entrance upon public life, he should now, if it were to do afresh, advocate the same opinions as he advocated then, and up to 1829, when the measure was carried, with his characteristic firmness by the noble Duke. Some men, it was true, there were who now professed themselves disappointed with the effects of the measure; but why was this? Because they had entertained the most extravagant notions of the good this measure was to effect, if they believed that a benefit withheld for years, could do so much good, when, at length, it was conceded, as if it had been passed at first. They that had thought much was to be expected from a measure passed in such circumstances, had no right to be disappointed, if the results at present fell below their extravagant anticipations. If any one thought that it was in the course of a few years that centuries of misgovernment could be rolled back, and the people of Ireland placed in the same condition all at once as if such misgovernment had never been—if any one was so extravagant and romantic as to think this, that man would by no means be justified in complaining of the disappointment of his anticipations. Why, it was all along the very essence of the argument of those who supported the measure, that delay would be most injurious to the success of the measure, and most detractive from the benefits which, if it were passed

697
in season, might reasonably be looked for from it. What else was the argument of Mr. Pitt, when he quitted the Administration upon this question? What was his argument again in the famous declaration with which he armed Lord Cornwallis, and by which the Union was virtually effected. What else was the argument to which, in 1805, Grattan lent the aid of his masterly eloquence? What else was the essence of Mr. Canning's argument from 1809 down to 1827—what, but that it would be dangerous to the peace of the country that it should be thought they were withholding justice from the Roman Catholics, and that such a delay of justice could not fail to produce in Ireland that discontent which is a gangrene in its society, and which all that good government could do for years to come, would be unable to eradicate from that ill-fated land? What was it they insisted upon, year after year, but that the longer a people were kept out of their rights, the less was the gift of them effectual and beneficial? And this was the truth. If he gives twice who gives quickly, he halves and quarters his gift who only gives after delay and perpetual delay. He, therefore, was most extravagant andromantic who expected from a measure delayed as this had been, the same benefits as if no delay had happened. Thus much for the first part of the noble Earl's observations. In reference to the second, he would say, that when they had gone on year after year withholding from the people of Ireland the rights of conscience, and the liberty of worshipping God in the way each man thought right, "no man making them afraid;" withholding too the removal of disabilities, because those on whom they pressed were of a different belief from ourselves; he said, that if there was one man who could expect that when at last the thing was granted as a boon, and the pressure removed which had fixed discontent in the minds of a party forming the great bulk of the people, until hatred, opposition to law, and dislike of English rule became a part of their second nature—for custom was second nature—if there were such a man, for he was not deserving the name of statesman, as to think that the people should all at once forget all that was past, and totally and at once change the character which for ages they had been acquiring, forming, and fixing, such a man had no right to be
698
disappointed, if the result fell below his expectations. It would be unwise to expect that such things could be accomplished by any act of human legislation; it was unjust to complain that the measure had failed, if it only failed to answer such wild and chimerical expectations. None of the friends of Catholic Emancipation ever expected that that measure alone would be sufficient to correct all the calamities of Ireland. They had always said, that nothing could be done without that foundation, but they had never said, that the foundation was all that was required. It was just as if any one, knowing a supply of fresh air to the lungs to be necessary to sustain the life of man, should argue that that alone would be sufficient to keep him in health and strength. So with regard to Ireland, it was clear that the removal of the great obstruction to improvement in the habits of its population was the chief requisite; but this was not enough; it was necessary, in order to introduce a better state of things, to remove other grievances that pressed heavily on the people. Thus much had he said of the injustice done to the great measure of emancipation by the one-sided and partial views of the noble Lord. But he should much misstate his own opinion if he did not add, that he thought the habitual factious dispositions which had grownup under the old system were equally inveterate on both sides; they existed not only in the minds of the Orangemen towards the Catholics, but in the minds of the Catholics towards the Orangemen. He deeply lamented that Ireland should thus be made the prey of faction in its worst shape, that of religious rancour combined with political animosity—that the spirit of dissension should mix itself with the ordinary relations of society, and with all the affairs of life, eating as it were like a foul ulcer into the body politic. All unprejudiced persons must see that it would require a long course of firm, paternal, equal, and impartial administration of the law, as well as much improvement of the law itself, to eradicate this spirit and make Irish society resemble that happier state of things to be found in this country. He had no manner of doubt that the task would be a difficult one, that the government of Ireland was a load too heavy for almost any shoulders, that it would be a hard thing to carry out fully the intentions of the Legislature in grant-

699
ing Catholic emancipation, and thus restore tranquillity to Ireland. But he was comforted by seeing that considerable progress towards these results had been made within the last nine or ten years; and if those principles which had generally guided men's conduct during that period should still prevail, and the Legislature should persevere in aiding the efforts of the Government by improving the laws, he would entertain, in spite of the apprehensions of the noble Earl and the petitioners, confident and sanguine hopes of a successful issue. Having been all his life a firm supporter of emancipation, he had been unwilling to allow this opportunity to pass without addressing these few observations to their Lordships.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that the first act of his political life had been to give his support to the Roman Catholic Emancipation Bill. His noble Friend having appealed to all the advocates of that measure, to say whether the good they had expected from it had been obtained, he (the Earl of Wicklow) was ready to lay his hand on his heart and declare that it had produced all the good he ever expected from it. If he were again called on to give a vote on the question, he would give it in the affirmative. All the additional information he had acquired since 1829, the more confirmed him in his view. It was very easy to assert that all the evils of Ireland were to be ascribed to this Act, but it was very difficult to prove the assertion. It was not easy to say how much those evils might have been aggravated at the present moment had that measure not passed. For his part, looking at the spirit which had been afloat for some time, not only on the continent of Europe, but in this country, he was induced to think that most disastrous consequences might have ensued, had Government refused to concede the measure to the unanimous wishes of the people of Ireland, and to the wishes of the great proportion of the people of this country. [The Earl of Winchilsea: No, no.] It was asserted in Parliament when that measure was under discussion, and the opponents of the bill did not venture to deny it, that the great proportion of the people of this country were favourable to it; and the fact was proved by the circumstance that a majority of the representatives of the people demanded the measure, Session after Session, till at last no Government could have carried on
700
affairs without conceding it. He had always considered that the Government of the day acted in the most prudent as well as in the most honest and manly manner, in consenting to wave the objections they had previously entertained to the measure, and declaring that they could not administer the affairs of the country unless it were carried. He agreed with his noble Friend in regretting the evil influence of the Irish Roman Catholic clergy, but he differed from his noble Friend's opinion that that influence was increased by the Emancipation Act. Before the passing of the Act, that influence was exercised in interfering with the elections to as great an extent as now, and he was as satisfied as he was of his own existence, that but for that Act it would have been, at this moment, much more formidable.
The Earl of Rodendiffered widely from the views of his noble Friend who had just spoken. Never could he forget the words of that great man who had so long filled the Woolsack, that the sun of England would set on the day when the Catholic Relief Bill passed. He looked upon the present condition of this country as far inferior to its condition before that measure became law. He lamented the increase in the number of Jesuits both in England and Ireland. He believed, that an under-current was now going forward in England, which would extend very widely the Roman Catholic religion. The noble Lord then proceeded to quote a passage from the 2nd chapter of the Secreta Monita of the order of Jesuits, a copy of which he said had lately been found in the library of the University of Dublin. It was to the following effect:—
"Princesses and women of quality are easily to be gained by the influence of their women of the bedchamber. Therefore, by all means, pay particular attention to their women, by favour of whom you will easily gain access to the family, no secret of which will remain hid from us."
The Protestants of this country, he was happy to see, were now awakening from their late apathy, and he hoped that the people of England, and above all the people of Scotland, who loved the religion of Protestantism, and had defended their Bibles with their swords, would not be deterred from expressing their sentiments on the important subject that now engaged their lordships.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, that

701
he for one did not charge upon the Catholic Relief Act all the evils that now desolated Ireland. He charged them on the Irish Reform Act, which was by an injudicious Government flung into the hands of the democracy of that country when they did not seek for it. That Act had given the priesthood such power, that three-fourths of the representation was now as completely in their hands as the nomination boroughs had been in those of their owners.
Petition to lie on the table.