Sitting of 21 March 1839

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a second time:—General Cemetery.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENTS IN CANADA.
Mr. O'Connell, seeing the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary to the Colonial Department in his place, would take the liberty of repeating a question to him, which he had been already asked, and which was whether from any information received by the government, it appeared that the capital executions in Canada were about to cease?
Mr. Laboucheresaid, that dispatches had been received from Sir John Colborne and from Sir George Arthur, and that both of those gallant officers stated that they had great satisfaction in being able to inform the Government that it would not be necessary to carry the capital punishments any further.

HOUSEHOLD SUFFRAGE.
Mr. Humesaid, that in rising to submit his present motion, he hoped that the House would consider it to be as it appeared to him one of great importance which it was necessary they should soon entertain. He had en-

1049
deavoured, though in vain, in the course of last Session, to obtain an opportunity of introducing this question to the House. It was one which he had been most anxious should have been considered in the last Session, because if the House had then entertained the principle of household suffrage, he was satisfied that the very general demand for universal suffrage which had lately been made by the working classes, might have been avoided; and it was important, for the satisfaction and peace of the country, that the people should now obtain an acknowledgment, on the part of the House, that further reforms in the representation were not only necessary, but would be granted. It was essential to peace and harmony in the country that the people should be satisfied; but, could that be expected under existing circumstances, where millions of the working classes were unrepresented? If her Majesty's Ministers did not now consent to the change which he proposed, and use their best endeavours to effect it, he feared Parliament might be called upon, before long, to give a much larger extent of reform, and in a manner that they would find it difficult to resist. He had no hesitation in stating to the House, that, in bringing forward this motion to extend the suffrage to all householders, and also to all persons occupying parts of houses, who should qualify as rate-payers, he did not go to the full extent of his own opinions. He was prepared to grant to the people more than household suffrage, if he could hope, in the present state of opinion in this House, and in the country, to obtain their sanction to his views; but as he knew, that many honest reformers from unfounded prejudices, and some from equally unfounded fears, were of opinion, that the Constitution could not be preserved, if more than household suffrage were granted, he would only, at present, propose to take that step towards attaining the confidence of the people. He desired to see the present limited monarchy, consisting of King, Lords, and Commons, still preserved; and he was confident that it would be most secure when based on the friendly affections of the great mass of the people, which, he feared, was not the case at the present time. To secure those affections, he submitted to the House, that the best means were to give them a participation in the election of the Representatives in this House, by whom their sentiments, their wishes, and their wants, were to be
1050
expressed. The system of representation was adopted for that express purpose; it was a plan, well suited to afford the people the best security for honest legislation in Parliament. He demanded an extension of the suffrage, because the Constitution of England was based on that representative principle. Before he proceeded to the motion, he begged to offer some general remarks on representation The right of voting for Members of Parliament, according to our ancient and best historians, was exceedingly extended; and, he believed, that no general taxation had taken place in this country in ancient times, until the people had met in districts, and had chosen Representatives to meet in Parliament, to deliberate and to decide upon every question that affected the general interests of the community. By our Constitution taxation and representation were formerly inseparable in this country; they ought to be, but were not so now. Many good authorities could be stated in support of that opinion, but he would only offer that of Lord Camden, who, on the 22nd February, 1766, on the motion for the Stamp Act Repeal, said, "My position is this—I repeat, "and will maintain it to my last hour, "taxation and representation are insepar- "able. This position is founded on the "laws of nature. It is more; it is itself an "eternal law of nature. For, whatever "is a man's own is absolutely his own. No "one has a right to take it from him with "out his consent. Whoever attempts to "do it, commits an injury: whoever does "it, commits a robbery." The existing system of taxation in this country was grinding, and unequal in its bearingss, for it pressed heavily on the poor and lightly on the rich; and its severity was often in proportion to the poverty of the individual. The laws imposing this unequal and unjust system had been passed by the rich, for their own advantage; and he could not be surprised that men, unrepresented in this House where those unequal laws were made, could be satisfied with the existing unjust state of things. Attempts had for many years been made to induce the aristocracy to extend the suffrage; but it was only when the people, by an almost unanimous call, demanded Reform, that the Reform Bill had (in 1832) been introduced. That measure of reform was calculated to give satisfaction to the people, if the original provisions and intentions of the Act had been carried out; and he now contended that as they had not succeeded in sufficiently extending the

1051
suffrage, and in giving that satisfaction to the people which they had promised, it was the duty of the Reform Government to consider, without delay, in what way they could now best promote the objects which they had originally in view. The principal object of the Reform Act was to take away the nomination of Members to this House from the borough-mongers, and to give the election to the people. The practice under the old system was equally injurious to the independence of the Crown, as to the House of Commons; for it was notorious, that the Crown was dependent for a Ministry on those borough-mongers who packed the House of Commons. He should hereafter shew, that the system of nomination, so odious in former years, and so unfair to the people at large, was, at this moment, almost as bad as at any period previous to the passing of the Reform Act. If the object of that Act was, as the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had stated it to be, to procure "a full and fair representation of the people," he would ask any hon. Member, whether he could honestly say that that object had been secured? The noble Lord was reported to have said on the introduction of the Bill in that House on the 24th of June, 1831:—
"When I propose a reform of Parliament, I propose that the people should send into this House their real Representatives, to deliberate on their wants, and to consult for their interests—to consider their grievances, and attend to their desires. I propose that they should possess, in fact, that which they have hitherto had only in theory—the vast power of holding the purse-strings of the monarch. I feel convinced that I am laying a foundation for the most salutary changes in the comfort and well-being of the people. Laws will no longer be passed in such an assembly for the benefit of Government, or classes, or individuals; they will be no longer passed by men roused at twelve o'clock at night to vote for what they know not, or against that of which they have not heard a single syllable, merely because the leader of their party tells them so to vote. Laws in a reformed Parliament will he cautiously proposed, and seriously and deliberately considered. I say, then, that if we identify this House with the people of the three kingdoms, we may hope, however slowly it may be accomplished, or however impatience or faction may complain of us for not hurrying our steps—we may hope, I say, that by extending to a great and powerful and enlightened people, the rights of having their legitimate Representatives assembled within the walls of Parliament, we furnish the means for the future carrying on unimpaired the Constitution, without
1052
diminishing the prerogatives of the Crown—without injuring the authority of either of the Houses of Parliament, and according to the rights, liberties, and interests of the nation; those rights being duly protected by the faithful Representatives of a free people, and the loyal subjects of a generous Sovereign,"
That such was the intention of the Cabinet which proposed the Reform Bill, may be also inferred from the words of the noble Earl, (Lord Grey) in his address on introducing the Reform Bill to the House of Lords, on the 3rd of October, 1831. He said,
"I believe the present to be a measure of peace and conciliation; I believe that on its acceptance or rejection depends, on the one hand, tranquillity, prosperity, and concord on the other, the continuance of a state of political discontentment, from which these feelings must arise, naturally degenerated by such a condition of the public mind." "On one or two different occasions I have originated motions on the subject, believing, as I do, that a change is necessary to infuse new vigour into the Constitution, to unite the estates of the realm in the bonds of a sacred and happy union, and to make the House of Commons that which it was intended to be, and professed to be, and ought to be,—the full, vigorous, and efficient Representative of the people of England."
Was this House, he would ask, the full and efficient representation of the people? When, under the provisions of the Reform Bill, so many millions of our adult population, are excluded from participation in the suffrage, how can it represent the wishes of the majority of the people of this country? How can it unite the people in bonds of peace and contentment, when so few were admitted into the pale of the Constitution? This House did, indeed, represent the opinions of the few, which had been so much objected to in the unreformed Parliament; but it, certainly, did not represent the opinions of the millions, as was expected from the Bill. The objects of the Reform Bill were to extend the basis of our elections; to give satisfaction and confidence to the people, and security to the Government. He (Mr. Hume) only sought, by his motion, to obtain those most desirable objects. The people were entitled, by ancient institutions, to a suffrage more extensive than what he now proposed; it was admitted by the most eminent men who had spoken or written upon the subject, that household suffrage was the right of the people, and quite consistent with the ancient constitution of the country. That

1053
opinion was ably expressed by the promoters of the Reform Bill; when it was before the House of Lords on the 9th April, 1832, the noble Earl (Grey) by whom the measure was introduced, quoted a passage from a work of great authority, "Whitelock's book on Government," in order to show the nature and extent of the ancient right of voting. Mr. Whitelock said—
"Whenever any question about elections was brought before the House, the inclination of the House of Commons always was, to favour popular elections, observing, that the more free they were, the more they w ere for the interests of the community. At this day in many boroughs the election still remains popular, being exercised by all the inhabitants, except alms-men, and such like."
"I contend, then, said Earl Grey, that the right of voting in inhabitant householders is the ancient right of voting under the constitution of this country. By the present bill this right is re-introduced. The bill confers the right of voting upon the resident householders of the borough; but then it limits that right to resident householders of 10 l. a-year. Thus, then the bill, so far from introducing a new right, does, in fact, merely restore, with a limitation, an old acknowledged right. It is, in truth, nothing but the present scot and lot right of voting, limited to householders of 10 l. a-year, and with the further limitation of requiring that the rates and taxes of such householders must be paid before they can be qualified to vote." Lord Grey, by the quotation from Whitelock, and the opinion then expressed, admits that the ancient right of the people was what I now seek to restore. The Reform Bill was, in fact, a partial return to the old system of household suffrage, with a limitation to houses of 10 l. value. The attempt to give the people their right in that respect, by the Reform Bill had unfortunately failed; it was found that the number of voters in the country, at present, was too small, and so unequally distributed, as not to give satisfaction to the people, or to secure a full, fair, and free representation of them in that House. He (Mr. Hume) therefore submitted his present motion, in order that Parliament might, in justice to the people, make some amends for the failure which had taken place, and restore to them those rights to which they were by justice and sound policy entitled. The noble Earl (Grey), not satisfied with one authority, had, on the same day, quoted the following words
1054
from the report of Mr. Sergeant Glenville, in a committee of the House of Commons, of which Coke, Seldon, Finch, Hay, were Members.
"There being no certain custom nor prescription who should be electors and who not, we must have recourse to common right, which, to this purpose. was held to be, that more than the freeholders only ought to have voices in the election, viz. all men inhabitant householders resident within the borough."
He (Mr. Hume) could produce many Parliamentary authorities; but would only give two instances in which this House had decided that householders generally had the right of voting. In a committee upon the Cirencester Election Petition in 1792 (quoted in 2 Fraser's Election Cases, p. 449–451,) it became necessary for the committee to define what was the right of election; and they gave a general definition, for purposes of enactment as to the right of voting, in the following terms which stated it to extend to
"Every male person of full age, and not subject to any legal incapacity, who shall occupy any house or dwelling, the same being bona fide fitted for and applied to purposes of residence, shall, if duly registered, be entitled to vote in the election of Members to serve in Parliament."
The case of the Pontefract Petition was also before the House, and a committee then decided that the suffrage should be extended to every person who had lived in the town during six months, and such had continued the law in that borough to this time. The non-payment of rates and taxes formed no objection to voting. Householders resident was the distinguishing term.
If further proof were necessary of the original intention of the promoters of the Reform Bill to give a fair representation of the people in this House, he held in his hand an extract from a speech of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), in the present Session. He (Mr. Hume) observed, with great regret, that the speeches of the noble Lord on reform were very inconsistent—at one time he had boldly maintained the importance of extended suffrage, while, at other times, he refused to act upon that principle. On the 6th February, 1839, the noble Lord said,
"With respect to the original intention of the Reform Bill, he was speaking then in the presence of many before whom he had introduced that bill, and who were present at its formation, and he thought he should be corro-

1055
borated by them when he said, that his intention was to give a fair representation to all parts of the country. They wished to give a preponderance to no part over the other, and he had more than once stated that they had taken a certain number of counties, and an equal number of manufacturing towns to share in the representation.'"
That speech was made by the noble Lord, in answer to a charge, that the noble Lord had originally professed and held out expectations of a fair and full representation, and now defended a preponderance of the landed interest in this House. It was matter of deep regret to all Reformers, that the noble Lord now refused to lend his aid to make this House a fair representation of all interests of the country as he had promised. He (Mr. Hume) supported the Reform Bill, when first introduced, with all its defects, because he believed it would effect very important reforms, and because the Government could not have carried out, at that time, any greater extent of reform; he consented willingly to give the bill a fair trial, before any further demands for reform should be made. But he, at the same time, distinctly stated, that if the bill did not effect the promised advantages, he should demand further changes. The lamentable results of that Act soon appeared, and every week, and every month served to give additional proofs of the insufficiency of the measure to produce a popular House of Commons. A fair trial had been given to the bill, and the number of electors was found to be greatly below that which was originally proposed; and, consequently, the fair voice of the people could not be obtained. He repeated, that the electors were, in many boroughs, reduced below 300, the minimum number fixed for the smallest borough in the United Kingdom; and he was, therefore, warranted in stating that there had been a failure, to a very great extent, in the objects which were promised to the people. It seemed, therefore, impossible that the noble Lord could, consistent with the sentiments expressed by him on former occasions, believe that the Reform Bill had answered the expectations held out by him and his colleagues. The noble Lord, (Lord J. Russell) in fact, went farther in the extension of suffrage than was now proposed: the noble Lord advocated almost universal suffrage. He said, in this House, on the 1st March 1831:—
"In the first place, then, the ancient constitution of our country declares, that no man shall be taxed for the support Of the State who
1056
has not consented, by himself or his representative, to the imposition of these taxes. The well-known statute, 'De Tallagio non concedendo,' repeats the same language; and, although some historical doubts have been thrown upon it, its legal meaning has never been disputed. It includes all freemen of the land."
After this broad and comprehensive declaration, when introducing the Reform Bill, he begged the noble Lord to act now in conformity to these speeches, because, if he (Lord J. Russell) had forgotten them, he (Mr. Hume) could assure him that others had not; and he conceived that these speeches afforded him ample grounds to call upon the noble Lord now to fulfil his promises, and assist in extending the suffrage. When the noble Lord addressed the House in the terms quoted, did he mean that freemen should not be taxed, without having any representative? If he did mean that, how was it that the people were taxed when so few of them had a voice, or could give their sanction, by their Representatives, to the proceedings of the House? He would ask, whether the millions of active and industrious men, now unrepresented, who were heavily taxed without their sanction, had not a just right to complain:—they did in fact complain loudly and generally, and the noble Lord was bound with those colleagues, who assisted in passing the Reform Bill, to make good their promises to the people, of a full and fair representation in this House. He did not undervalue the reforms and advantages to the people which had been effected by the Reform Bill, because every increase of representation in Parliament, secured for even a small proportion of the people, was an important advantage. Before showing what was the actual state of the elective franchise under the Reform Bill, he would refer to one more authority, of the position which he had already taken, that all householders had of ancient times the right of electors. Mr. H. W. Tapered, M.P., of Lincoln's-inn—(the hon. Gentleman who sat near him) in a publication in 1831, "on the origin of the system of representation," affirmed, the proposition, that every person of full age, who was not subject to any legal incapacity, and who should occupy, within any city or borough, any dwelling-house, &c., should be entitled to vote in the election of a Member of Parliament, provided that such person should be rated in respect of his premises. He observes, that,

1057
"At all events, this appears certain that if any qualification of property were required, in the earliest Parliaments, only the tenure of the property was regarded; and no limitation of value was imposed; but that every freeholder, as suitor of the county court was entitled to vote, however small might be the estate."
He further states,—
"In the commencement of representation, no borough contained freemen made such by admission, but only freemen made such by residences, and by sharing in the burdens and privileges of the place."
This opinion was confirmed by the researches and writings of Mr. Hallam; and, therefore, by the present motion he (Mr. Hume) was only proposing to restore the ancient privileges of the people of this country. By the best authorities, that right of suffrage was fully established; and we ought not, as we now do, to shut out from the representation the large class, on whom, in fact, the prosperity of the country mainly depended—he alluded to the artisans and working men. The ignorance of the poorer orders of the community was the plea commonly used for excluding them from the exercise of the franchise, although little means had been taken, by the Government to instruct them; but, there was another class of men—viz., physicians, surgeons, clergymen, lawyers, school masters, &c., who, if literary, and scientific knowledge, were to be the criterion of political sufficiency, were surely fit to be endowed with the elective privilege. By the present system, many members of the legal, medical, and clerical professions, although fit men, were shut out from the exercise of the franchise. He was prepared, further, to assert, that the justice of the claim for household suffrage, founded on ancient right and practice, was not the only recommendation; it was a wise policy to concede to the very general demand now made for an extension of the suffrage; and such concession, if made at this time, would be considered a boon, and would afford satisfaction to a very large portion of the community; and give encreased security to the Throne. During the last year, when a notice for a motion similar to that which he was now submiting to the House was on the paper, many petitions from the working classes, praying for household suffrage, were presented from different parts of the country; indeed he might say, that, if the sentiments entertained, and expressed almost universally,
1058
at public meetings, on the necessity of further reform in the representation of the people, were to be taken as representing public opinion, then had public opinion been most unequivocally expressed in favour of an extension of the suffrage. He would read only part of one of these petitions to the House to show what the result of granting household suffrage some years ago might have been. A petition, agreed to at a public meeting held at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, on the 13th of March, 1837, the mayor in the chair, stated, that "although they considered universal suffrage as the right of every man, yet they were prepared to give up their claim to it for a time if household suffrage were granted." The petition stated,
"That, in the present state of the representation, the great mass of the people are entirely excluded from all share in the government of the country, and that, contrary to the first maxims of justice, and the very principles of constitutional liberty, they are called upon to obey laws, and to pay taxes, to the framing and imposition of which, they have never given their consent.—That the elective franchise is the great badge and mark of political freedom, and that the citizen who is excluded from the possession of this grand privilege of freemen, is degraded by the laws of his country, and held to the condition of a slave.—And that the meeting are, for the present, ready to forego the demand for universal suffrage, and to content themselves with petitioning for an extension of the elective franchise to every householder in Great Britain and Ireland."
What, he would ask, had been the consequence of denying timely reform to the people? Unions of the most extensive nature in every manufacturing town in Great Britain, and containing millions of the working classes, were now forming, under the title of Chartists, to demand Universal Suffrage, Ballot, Annual Parliaments, and electoral districts, with equal representation. He (Mr. Hume) conceived, that the most just and simple mode, by which the Legislature could put an end to these demands of the Chartists would be to grant household suffrage on an extensive scale. That there was a gross disparity between the numbers of the population and their Representatives, not only in each of the three kingdoms, but also in the boroughs and counties of each, as would appear from statements which he had prepared with care, and which he would now submit to the

1059
House, to prove his assertion. He would first read a statement of the population

Population census of 1831.

Electors Qualified to Vote in 1831.

Males of 20 years and upwards, in 1831.

No. of Electors in every 100 of the gross Population

No. of Electors in every 100 of male population above 20 years.

per Cent.

per Cent.

England

13,091,005

619,213

3,199,984

4·73

19·35

Wales

806,182

37,124

194,706

4·60

18·55

Scotland

2,365,114

64,447

549,821

2·72

11·72

Great Britain

16,262,301

720,784

3,944,511

4·43

18·27

Ireland

7,767,401

92,152

1,867,765

1·18

4·93

United Kingdom

24,029,702

812,916

5,812,276

3·38

13·98

This gave the proportion of electors to males of 20 years and upwards of 1 in 5 for England and Wales; for Scotland, 1 in 8; or for Great Britain, 1 in 5½; for Ireland, 1 in 20; for the United Kingdom, 1 in 7. That was the state of the representation after the first registration, in 1831–2; and he would now compare it with 1835–6.

KINGDOMS.

1832.

1835–6.

Counties.

Boroughs.

Total Electors.

Counties.

Boroughs.

Total Electors,

England

344,564

274,549

619,213

435,350

301,966

737,316

Wales

25,815

11,309

37,124

31,898

11,128*

43,026

Scotland

33,115

31,332

64,447

41,885

36,043*

77,928

Great Britain

403,494

317,290

720,784

509,133

349,137

858,270

Ireland

60,607

31,545

92,152

65,358*

32,648*

98,006

United Kingdom

464,101

348,835

812,916

574,491

381,785

956,276

The numbers marked with an asterick, are taken for the year 1834–5, no return having been made for 1835–6.

He also read an estimate of the actual state of the representation in 1837, in the United Kingdom. The population was
* Report of Select Committee in 1834 on Election Expenses.
and representation of the United Kingdom in 1831–2*:—
The hon. Member then read a statement of the comparative number of persons qualified to vote as electors in the counties and boroughs, in the different parts of the United Kingdom, in 1832 and in 1835–6, shewing an increase of electors enrolled since 1832 of 143,360, or seventeen per cent.
estimated at the rates of increase of from 1821 to 1831; the electors are taken from the parliamentary returns of 1836, by

1061
which the apparent proportion of electors in the male population is increased; but, as many of the electors are registered three or four times in several counties and

Estimated Population in 1837.

Estimated Population of Males above 20 in 1837.

Electors in 1835–36.

Proportion of Electors to gross Population

Proportion of Electors to Males of 20 years.

England

13,876,465

3,327,984

737,316

1

in 17

1

4½

Wales

864,227

208,724

43,026

1

20

1

4½

Scotland

2,549,592

592,707

77,928

1

32

1

7

Great Britain

17,290,284

4,129,415

858,270

1

20

1

5

Ireland

8,396,560

2,019,053

*98,006

1

85

1

20

United Kingdom

25,687,844

6,148,468

956,276

1

26

1

6½

*For 1834–35.

These statements exhibited neither a full or a fair distribution of the elective franchise in the three kingdoms; and the proportion of the male population who had the elective franchise, to the whole of the males of twenty years and upwards, was so small and limited as to create just dissatisfaction, and raise the general demand of the Chartists for more extensive reforms? Was it not time, therefore, for the Legislature to interfere; and put an end to so unjust and impolitic a state of things?
The injustice was not, however, confined to the inequality of voters in

Electors.

Boroughs.

Retuning Members.

There were under

200

8

10

Above 200 and under

500

61

89

Above 500 and under

1,000

76

120

145

219

Shewing that 219 Members were returned by constituencies not exceeding 1,000 electors

And in boroughs above 1,000, and below

5,000

66

117

above

5,000

11

24

Totals

222

360

boroughs, and often under different qualifications in the same, the actual number of electors must be considerably less than these numbers registered.
proportion to the population. The same disparity existed in the apportionment to the several counties and towns, of Members, in proportion to their population and electors. The inequality in the representation of the three kingdoms was thus clearly proved. The extent of the inequality between different cities and boroughs, in regard to the number of voters returning a Member in each, appears by the following general abstract of the borough representation of Great Britain in 1835–6.
This inequality he would show, more decidedly, by comparisons of particular boroughs and cities; and first, by a comparison between six of the smallest constituencies and three of the largest consti-

Boroughs.

No. of M. Ps.

Electors, 1835–36, Qualified.

Boroughs,

No. of M. Ps.

Electors, 1835–36, Qualified.

Ashburton

1

195

Westminster

2

15,695

Calne

1

178

Liverpool

2

12,981

Reigate

1

195

Tower Hamlets

2

13,189

Westbury

1

211

Liskeard

1

246

Total

6

1,259

Total

6

41,865

It appeared from this statement, that in the first class of boroughs there was one Member for every 210 electors; and in the second class one Member to every 6,977 electors. So that 1,259 electors in some parts of the country had all the privileges of 41,865 in other parts of the country. Again, Cheltenham, which returns one Member, had 1,249 electors; Salford, which returns one Member, had 2,335 electors. Thus shewing that the 3,584 electors of these two places return only

Boroughs.

Electors in 1835–6.

Gross Populalation

Boroughs.

Electors in 1835–6.

Gross Population

Harwich

152

4,297

Westminster

15,695

202,460

Thetford

176

3,462

Tower Hamlets

13,189

302,519

Chippenham

230

5,270

Liverpool

12,981

193,000

Totness

286

3,308

Finsbury

12,523

224,839

Huntingdon

264

5,413

Marylebone

10,592

234,294

Knaresborough

262

6,258

Manchester

10,123

187,022

Marlborough

263

4,186

Bristol

10,347

104,338

Tavistock

289

5,602

Lambeth

7,154

154,613

Andover

229

4,958

Leeds

5,052

123,393

Richmond

287

4,722

Nottingham

5,391

50,216

20 Members to

2,438

47,471

20 Members to

103,414

1,776,794

Thus, in the small constituencies, 122 electors returned one Member on the average, whilst in the large constituencies 5,170 return, only, one Member. The twenty
tuencies in England, each class returning an equal number of Members to Parliament. The hon. Member read the following statement:—
two Members, while in the six small boroughs, as above stated, 1,259 (or about one-third that number of electors), returned six Members.
To show in another form this disparity in the number of electors and population, he (Mr. Hume) submitted a comparison between ten of the smallest, and ten of the largest, constituencies in the boroughs of England, returning each two Members to Parliament.
Members in the small boroughs represent only 47,471 of gross population, whilst the twenty Members in the large boroughs represent 1,776,794 of gross population,
The inequality of the suffrage was further illustrated by the following comparison of seven boroughs returning one Member

—

Members.

Electors in 1835–6.

Males of 20 yrs. and above.

—

Members.

Electors.

Males of 20 years and above.

Salford

1

2,335

12,568

Harwich

2

152

1,032

Cheltenham

1

1,249

5,507

Thetford

2

176

831

Monmouth

1

1,138

1,267

Chippenham

2

230

1,253

Rochdale

1

832

4,838

Andover

2

229

1,191

Huddersfield

1

778

4,569

Huntingdom

2

264

1,295

Chatham

1

792

4,560

Knaresborough

2

262

1,501

Dudley

1

776

5,530

Marlborough

2

263

1,006

Total

7

7,900

38,839

Total

14

1,576

8,109

From this, it appeared, that while 7,900 electors in a male population of 38,839, of twenty years of age and upwards, returned only seven Members; 1,576 electors in a male population of 8,109, of twenty years and upwards, returned fourteen. In the first case there was one Member to every 1,143 electors; in the other case, there was one Member to every 112 electors. Can such a state of representation be by any person, considered either a fair or a full representation? He would

Comparison (In Ireland) of six small with three large boroughs, as number of Electors and Representatives.

Boroughs.

No. of Members.

Electors in 1834–5.

Boroughs.

No. of Members.

Electors in 1834–5.

Lisburn

1

134

Cork

2

4,461

Portarlington

1

156

Dublin City

2

7,113

Tralee

1

174

Limerick

2

2,976

Dungannon

1

197

Enniskillen

1

215

Kinsale

1

221

Total

6

1,097

Total

6

14,550

Thus, in the six small boroughs, one Member was returned by an average of 183 electors; and in the three larger boroughs, one Member by an average of
* See General Table of Borough at the end.
each, and seven returning two Members each.
not trouble the House with further examples of the inequality of the suffrage in the boroughs in England; but he would add that these examples, and a reference to the general table in his hand,* proved the absurdity and injustice of such a state of the suffrage, when the promoters of the Reform Bill promised it should give a full and fair representation. The anomaly, however, was not confined to England, and in proof of this the hon. Member instanced the following:—
2,423 electors. Could any man gravely maintain, that a state of representation such as this, ought to be allowed to continue?
The same inequalities in the suffrage existed in the representation of the counties, as would be seen by the following

Members.

In England.

No. of Males above 20 Years.

No. of Electors in 1835–6.

2

Huntingdonshire

11,465

2,744

2

Rutlandshire

4,553

1,391

2

Northumberland (North)

12,146

2,703

2

Worcestershire (West)

12,920

4,612

2

Westmorland

10,432

4,846

10

51,516

16,296

Thus, it appeared, that in England 5 of the smallest counties had 10 Members to a male population of 51,516 and 16,296 electors; whilst 5 other counties had 10 Members to a male population of 424,292 and 80,676 electors. Such instances might be multiplied in England.

Member

Counties.

Males of 20 years.

Number of Electors in 1835–6.

Members.

Counties.

Males of 20 years.

Number of Electors in 1835–6.

1

Banffshire

8,160

670

1

Aberdeenshire

42,384

2,894

1

Berwickshire

3,408

1,195

1

Edinbur.-shire

52,704

1,518

1

Peebleshire

2,544

455

1

Lanarkshire

76,032

3,714

1

Selkirkshire

1,632

462

1

Perthshire

34,296

4,027

1

Linlithgow

5,592

692

1

Ayrshire

34,824

3,913

5

Members for

21,336

3,474

5

Members for

240,240

16,066

statement of the population and representation of certain counties in England, Scotland, and Ireland.
He would state only one example in the counties in Scotland, where nearly the same inequality occurred as in the Scotch burghs. But that single statement would sufficiently show the unequal state of the representation in counties of Scotland in 1835 and 1836:—
Thus a male population of 21,336 and 3,476 electors in 5 counties, return 5 Representatives, whilst other 5 counties, with a male population of 240,240, and with 16,066, return only the same number of representatives. That the same disparity

Members.

Counties

Males of 20 years and upwards in 1832.

Electors in 1834–5.

Members.

Counties.

Males of 20 years and up wards in 1832.

Electors in 1834–5.

2

Louth

26,171

904

2

Antrim

73,586

3,822

2

Sligo

40,849

804

2

Cork

171,873

3,926

2

Tyrone

73,557

1,250

2

Down

82,999

3,729

2

Terry

63,545

1,212

2

Wexford

45,414

3,567

2

Kildare

27,625

1,152

2

Armagh

52,392

3,423

10

Members for

231,747

5,322

10

Members for

426,264

18,467

It there appeared, that in the 5 smallest county constituencies there were on the average 532 electors and 23,174 males of 20 years and upwards to one Member; while in the 5 largest county constituencies there were 1,846 electors and 42,626 males of 20 years and upwards to one Member, The electors of the small counties were only one-third the number of those in the larger counties, but they returned the same number of Members. He had prepared, in the same forms as he had done for England, a variety of statements of the inequality of the suffrage in Irelands but, as his hon. Friend, the Member for Dublin, had so lately made a full exposition to the House of the Suffrage of that kingdom, he (Mr. Hume) would not state any others.
As there might be some Members who

COUNTY VOTERS' QUALIFICATION BY THE REFORM ACT.

1. Freeholders

40 shilling freeholds for life or lives.

40 shilling freeholds for life or lives.

10 l. life freeholds.

2. Copyholders

10 l. Copyholds.

3. Tenants in Ancient Demesne

Holding by custom of Manor.

4. Leaseholders

10 l. per annum, for term of sixty years.

50 l. per annum, for term of twenty years.

5. Occupying tenants at will (without any reference to length of term.

12 months' occupation and paying 50 l.rem

6. Mortgagee or trustee in possession of the rents and profits of sufficient qualification.

existed in Ireland as in the counties in Scotland and in England would appear from the following statement of the representation in 5 of the smallest and 5 of the largest county constituencies in Ireland in 1834–5 from Porter's tables:—
objected to alter the Reform Bill, and to make household suffrage the leading qualification, for fear of rendering the suffrage more intricate, he (Mr. Hume) had taken from the Reform Bill some of the many kinds of qualification which already existed, to show that there was already so much variety, that the extension of the household suffrage could produce no difficulty. There were actually eighty-five different varieties of qualification for the suffrage in England, of which the following appeared to be the chief; but, if the simple qualification of a resident householder, (which, as I have shown, was the ancient qualification of this country), rated to the poor and to the local taxes of the county, or borough was adopted, it would be a simpler and better qualification than all the others:

BOROUGH VOTERS QUALIFICATION IN ENGLAND BY REFORM ACT.

1. Occupying a House, Shop &c. of the clear annual value of 10 l.

2. Old rights reserved in perpetuity

1. Freeholders and burgage tenants in cities, and cities of counties.

In Exeter, Norwich, &c., freeholders without distinction vote.

In Bristol and Nottingham 40 s. freeholders only.

In Lichfield 40 s. freeholders and burgage tenants.

In London, continued in perpetuity

2. Burgesses and freemen, and freemen and liverymen.

Rights reserved for a time

3. Paying Scot and Lot, Potwollopers, Servitude, &c.

In order to satisfy the House that the Reform Bill had not answered the purpose intended, he would now show what was the state of the representation of the United Kingdom in 1793, which was so much complained of, and compare it with the present state of the representation. His opinion was, that the evil of nomination existed quite as much now as it did then. The only difference was, that where, before the Reform Bill, a few individuals nominated a majority of the Representatives, the same thing was now done by a small constituency, or by the landed aristocracy of the district, who by undue influences of different kinds carried the elections. The following account is taken from the Petition of the Friends of the People, presented to Parliament by Mr. (now Earl) Grey, May 6, 1793. The petitioners affirmed, that of 249 members returned for England, 70 were returned by places without virtual representation; 90 more by places with less than 50 voters; 37 more by places none exceeding 100 voters; and 52 by 26 places, none exceeding 200 voters: that, of 30 members for counties in Scotland, 20 were returned by less than 100 electors each; and 10 by less than 250 each; and that, of 15 members returned by Scotch burghs and districts, 13 were by places not containing 100 voters each, and 2 by places of less than 125 each. The petitioners having thus made out, that 294 members (a majority of the whole House) were chosen in this manner, proceeded to state, that 84 individuals, or borough mongers, sent to Parliament by their own authority 157 members, and 150 more were returned by the recommendation of 70 powerful individuals; together, making 307 members, chosen by the influence of only 154 patrons. So much for the constituency in 1793, which produced so much general discontent in the country, and was productive of so
1072
much evil to the country by its corrupt acts!
What was the present state of the constituency under the Reform Act? By an analysis, carefully made, of the constituency of the United Kingdom, it appeared that 347 members, a majority of the House of Commons, were elected by 180,603 electors, being, on the average, 520 electors for every member.* Thus, somewhat more than one-fifth of the whole of 956,272 of registered electors, or one fortieth of the whole male population of 6,148,468 of 20 years and upwards; or 1–141th of the gross population of the United Kingdom, returned a majority of Representatives to the House of Commons, at this time. After this statement, and the details which he (Mr. Hume) had given of the inequality of the electors, population, and representation, he maintained that, essentially, the evils of nomination and the want of representation remained nearly as great as ever: and the influence of power, and of property, was so exercised, that individual voters could not possibly, from the want of proper protection, give effect to their honest opinions. But, even admitting, that the electors could all fairly express their opinions, by their suffrage, their number was so few that they could not be said to represent the opinions or interests of the people generally. Surely, therefore, after the fair trial that had been made, it was time for the House to reconsider this subject, and no longer to disregard the loud and urgent claims of the unrepresented millions. The people would be less than men if they did not, under such circumstances, clamour for their rights; and he hoped they would not cease to demand their rights until they obtained them. It may be asked, what addition was proposed to be made by
* See Tables at page 1080.

1073
household suffrage to the electors? It was very difficult to form a correct estimate of the increase that would be made in the franchise, if the scheme which he had proposed was adopted, whereby every householder, and every person occupying part of a house, and rated to the poor-rate and local taxes, was authorised to vote; the effect, undoubtedly, would be to more than double the number of voters. The number of electors by occupying houses of 10 l. value would be a bad criterion of the number of voters that would be created if

TWELVE BOROUGHS.

Population in 1831.

Number of Electors in 1834.

Inhabited Houses in 1831.

Number in 1831 of 10 l. Houses.

Manchester

187,022

8,432

30,858

12,728

Liverpool

193,000

12,492

27,466

17,427

Finsbury

224,839

10,299

29,605

23,266

London

122,395

18,288

17,315

14,564

Marylebone

234,294

7,752

27,888

21,630

Tower Hamlets

302,519

9,462

66,777

23,187

Westmonster

202,460

13,268

21,893

17,681

Lambeth

154,613

4,435

29,079

16,405

Soutwark

134,117

5,249

22,482

9,923

Birmingham

142,251

3,681

30,000

7,000

Leeds

123,393

4,774

25,456

6,683

Shefield

90,657

3,587

20,594

4,383

Total

2,111,560

101,719

349,413

174,872

From this it appears, that, by the impediments thrown in the way of householders becoming electors, by rate-paying clauses and other difficulties, only one-half of the inhabited houses are enrolled as 10 l. houses, and scarcely two-thirds of their inhabitants are enrolled as electors. In these twelve boroughs, containing a population in 1831 of 2,111,560 souls, there were 349,413 inhabited houses; but only 174,872 houses of the value of 10 l. and upwards, and only 101,719 registered electors in that number. Can such results be satisfactory, either to householders generally, or to those of 10 l. value, when it was held out, that every 10 l. householder was, by the Reform Bill, to have a vote? There was no recent return of the total number of houses in the United Kingdom, to enable him to be very accurate. He found, however, in the population returns, that an attempt had been made to give a return of the number of houses in Great Britain and Ireland, and the following was the statement
1074
every inhabitant householder had the suffrage, as the proportion of houses and of electors varied in every town. He would only state one example in proof of what he advanced. To elucidate this, he had prepared a statement of the existing numbers of their population in 1831; of the number of electors in 1834; of the number of inhabited houses; and of 10 l. houses and upwards in twelve of the principal boroughs in England as taken from the boundary reports and plans of 1832:—
which he found in the returns for 1821 and 1831:—*
He believed, that if household suffrage rated to the poor was adopted, the number of voters that would be added to the existing number would be 1,250,000 and upwards; making the total number of electors in the United Kingdom amount to upwards of two millions and a quarter. This number, though large, would only be a little more than the third part of the six millions of males above the age of twenty: but the addition would, in his opinion, give great satisfaction in the present state of public opinion, and promote peace in the country. It would still shut out many persons well qualified to be entrusted with the elective franchise. For his own part, he had no fears from an extension of the suffrage; and on the principle, "that taxation and representation should go together," he would include all the adult part of the
* See Table in following page.

1075
male population not tainted with crime: but he was willing to wait and see how far the general discontent could be allayed by household suffrage. There was at present much discontent; arising from the want and privations to Which the labouring classes were exposed; by heavy taxation and unequal laws; and they justly demanded, that they should have the right of suffrage, in order that they might have the choice of their Representatives in this House to attend to their interests and make laws for them. Many of the unrepresented had become Chartists, and had raised objections to many very important measures which they thought less material and important than that of universal suffrage. They objected, as is generally known, to petition even for a repeal of the Corn-laws, that their attention might not be diverted from universal suffrage, which they believed, would enable them to obtain the administrative reforms of the Corn and other laws; he thought the Chartists were wrong in this respect, because, in the opinion of their best friends they should endeavour to get cheap food as soon as they could, to enable them the better to continue their struggle for their more extended rights. He was sure that if they looked at this matter a little more attentively than they had done, they would see that it was for their interest to get a repeal of the Corn-laws as soon as possible, whether universal suffrage was obtained or not; and they might reasonably expect that when the corn monopoly was abolished, other classes in the community would join with them to get an extension of the suffrage. Although, by altering the

1821.

1831.

(No.)

(No.)

Great Britain:

Inhabited Houses

2,429,630

2,850,937

Building

21,679

27,327

Uninhabited

790,041

132;634

Total No. of houses

3,241,450

3,010,898

Ireland:

Inhabited Houses

1,142,602

1,249,816

Building

35,251

15,308

Uninhabited

1,350

40,654

Total No. of houses

1,179,203

1,295,778

United Kingdom

Totals

4,420,653

4,316,676

old representative system, many beneficial reforms had been effected, yet it was evident that much more was required to be done to accomplish the promises held out to the people by the Government. It was notorious, that the elections in many places were retained in the hands of a few persons, and the elections were made under their nomination, and the general interests of the country were disregarded and sacrificed to selfish interests. As long as this state of nomination lasted it was impossible that the working classes could be satisfied; particularly when the amount of the national debt, and of the taxation requisite to carry on the Government, which exceeded fifty millions a year, were considered—that burden pressed on the means of every poor man in the community, and prevented millions from getting the means even of a comfortable subsistence. He (Mr. Hume) could not define what the objects of Parliamentary Reform were, so well as a journalist in 1833 had very ably done. In the Times of the 14th of December of that year, he found the following paragraph:—
"Parliamentary Reform means, in substance, a security lodged in the hands of the people for the redress of whatever they conceive to be a national grievance, whether authorised, or not prevented by the existing law. But the right and power to redress all grievances which afflict the people collectively, involves the duty of legislating for the redress of whatever grievances affect a particular portion of the people, otherwise the most precious of all all rights, viz.: that of equal justice might be altogether excluded from our idea of upright government and of civil liberty."
He asked for no other reforms. But it appeared to him that that class which possessed the advantages which wealth and power gave them as legislators, did not act With equal justice to the many; but endeavoured to support the abuses of the system for the benefit of the few. Was it possible, then, that the millions who were not represented, and constantly plundered by unequal legislation, could be satisfied with the present state of things? He thought, that the people were entitled to obtain, in a quiet manner, that change in the repesentation which was their right, and if this House did not immediately adopt some such plan as he had now proposed, he feared some serious calamity. He repeated, that the suffrage might with perfect safety be extended more than he had proposed; but he had abstained at this time from proposing more than household suffrage, in conformity with, and in deference to, the opinions of many excellent persons. Although he was convinced that the Government could not be on a safer basis than when it rested on the affections, and possessed the confidence of the people. The differences which, unhappily, existed so generally between workmen and their employers, and the state of discontent of the millions at being unrepresented in this House, had been made objections against the extension of the suffrage to workmen generally. But he (Mr. Hume) teas confident, that no measure could be adopted which was better calculated to promote harmony and good feeling between masters and their workmen than giving the men the right of suffrage. At present the relative situations of these parties were very dissimilar in the eye of the law. The one party was represented, and a law-maker; the other party was unrepresented, and, in many respects, no better than a slave. The possession of the right of suffrage by the men would raise them in the scale of society, and their employers would then act towards them with more forbearance and attention than they now did. The effects of that change would be a better feeling and greater harmony in every manufactory in the country, which he considered, a most desirable result. With respect to the fears entertained by many of universal suffrage, he would only observe, that there was no such thing as universal suffrage. He would have as extended a franchise as possible: the exceptions should be few, and only such as it was evident would be injurious to the
1078
peace and to the general interests of the community. The suffrage was by the Reform Bill given on the qualification of property almost exclusively;—he thought that the personal tights of persons ought to be attended to and represented, as Well as the rights of property: But he Would not enter on that subject at present. His first motion was, that the House should resolve into a Committee of the whole House, for a re-consideration of the Reform Bill; and every person who thought the Reform Bill ought to be amended should vote with him. The bill to be amended was the 2d Will. 4th, c. 45, intituled "An Act to amend the Representation of the people of England and Wales."*
Lord John Russellsaid, that the hon. Member for Kilkenny had certainly made an extensive motion on an important subject. He had gone through all the changes which had been made in the state of the representation in the year 1832, and had proposed upon those changes a large extension of the suffrage; and yet, with all these recommendations to the notice of the House, his motion, if he might judge from the languid state of the House, had excited little interest and attention. He could not wonder at the inattention which prevailed, when he looked at the proposition which the hon. Member for Kilkenny had put upon the votes, but had declined to put into the Speaker's hands; for that proposition was not, that, finding faults in the Reform Act, we should make a new scheme of representation, on which we should be prepared to rest, but that we should establish a certain intermediate step to be changed again, whenever it was deemed advisable to give still further extension to the suffrage, The hon. Member had shown that, under the present system, one in every five adult males in England and Wales had the right of suffrage, and his proposition was, that one out of every three should be qualified, to vote. At present, four out of every five adults were excluded from voting; according to the hon. Member's proposition two out of every three would be excluded. Why, if his proposition were carried, we should have fresh applications the next day to change a constituency so narrowed, and we should have as many applications then from the two that were excluded as
* See Tables referred to in this Speech in the following page.

Abstract of the Parliamentary Boroughs of the United Kingdom, classified according to the number of Registered Electors in 1834.

Classification.

England.

Wales.

Scotland.

Ireland.

Totals.

Each Total added to the proceeding.

Boroughs.

Voters.

Representatives.

Boroughs.

Voters.

Representatives.

Boroughs.

Voters.

Representatives.

Boroughs.

Voters.

Representatives.

Boroughs.

Voters.

Representatives.

Boroughs.

Voters.

Representatives.

Under

200

Electors.

8

1,431

10

4

662

4

12

2,093

14

12

2,093

14

Above

200

and not exceeding

300

23

5,961

32

1

218

1

6

1,462

6

30

7,641

39

42

9,734

53

Above

300

and not exceeding

400

23

7,982

35

1

309

1

1

362

1

6

2,339

6

31

10,692

43

73

20,426

96

Above

400

and not exceeding

500

12

5,413

19

1

474

1

13

5,887

20

86

26,313

116

Above

500

and not exceeding

600

17

9,135

26

3

1,616

3

2

1,110

2

3

1,665

3

25

13,526

34

111

39,839

150

Above

600

and not exceeding

700

16

10,504

29

1

672

3

2

1,290

2

2

1,345

2

21

13,811

34

132

53,650

184

Above

700

and not exceeding

800

9

6,950

15

1

773

1

1

785

1

3

2,186

3

14

10,697

20

146

64,347

204

Above

800

and not exceeding

900

6

5,160

12

2

1,798

2

3

2,534

3

1

805

1

12

10,297

18

158

74,644

222

Above

900

and not exceeding

1,000

11

10,471

21

1

987

1

1

991

1

13

12,449

23

171

87,093

245

Above

1,000

and not exceeding

1,100

4

4,161

7

1

1,069

1

2

2,206

2

7

7,346

10

178

94,439

255

Above

1,100

and not exceeding

1,300

12

14,521

24

2

2,385

2

2

2,431

2

16

19,337

28

194

113,776

283

Above

1,300

and not exceeding

1,500

6

8,331

12

1

1,303

1

2

2,904

3

9

12,538

16

203

126,314

299

Above

1,500

and not exceeding

2,000

10

16,334

20

4

6,650

4

14

22,984

24

217

149,298

323

Above

2,000

and not exceeding

3,000

9

22,032

17

1

2,098

1

3

7,175

6

13

31,305

24

230

180,603

347

Above

3,000

and not exceeding

4,000

6

20,837

12

6

20,837

12

236

201,440

359

Above

4,000

and not exceeding

5,000

6

26,063

12

1

4,461

2

7

30,524

14

243

231,964

373

Above

5,000

and upwards.

9

95,342

20

2

15,122

4

1

7,113

2

12

117,577

26

255

349,541

399

Total Borough Representation.

187

270,628

323

14

11,130

14

21

35,582

23

33

32,291

39

255

349,541

399

County Members.

144

15

30

64

253

University Members.

4

2

6

Total of Representatives.

471

29

53

105

658

Parliamentary Representation of the Boroughs of the United Kingdom and the registered voters at the last General Election of 1835, classed in Tables.

(From Parliamentary Papers, Session 1836, Nos. 199 and)

ENGLAND.

Boroughs.

No. of Electors.

4,000 and upwards.

Representatives.

Under 300.

300 to 500

500 to 800

800 to 1000

1000 to 2000

2000 to 4000

Abingdon

292

1

Andover

242

2

Arundel

360

1

Ashburton

190

1

Ashton

515

1

Aylesbury

1544

2

Banbury

224

1

Barnstaple

790

2

Bath

2764

2

Berwick

618

2

Bedford

1252

2

Beverley

1042

2

Bewdley

414

1

Birmingham

3681

2

Blackburn

761

2

Bodmin

313

2

Bolton

968

2

Boston

938

2

Bradford

1225

2

Bridgnorth

791

2

Bridgewater

430

2

Bridport

422

2

Brighton

1382

2

Bristol

10,100

2

Bury

526

1

Buckingham

351

2

Bury St. Edmund's

633

2

Calne

178

1

Cambridge

1582

2

Canterbury

1467

2

Carlisle

946

2

Chatham

672

1

Cheltenham

960

1

Chester

2053

2

Chichester*

2

Chippenham

217

2

Christchurch

354

1

Cirencester

615

2

Clithero

351

1

Cockermouth

328

2

Colchester

1152

2

Coventry

3577

2

Cricklade

1633

2

Dartmouth

240

1

Derby

1478

2

Devizes

311

2

Devonport

1870

2

Dorchester

318

2

Dover

1567

2

Droitwich

285

1

Dudley

797

1

Durham

892

2

Evesham

338

2

Exeter

3239

2

Eye

282

1

Finsbury

10,299

2

From

285

1

Gateshead

506

1

Gloucester

1523

2

Grantham

667

2

Greenwich

2516

2

Great Grimsby

592

1

Guildford

537

2

Halifax

648

2

Harwich

156

2

Hastings

673

2

Hellestone

356

1

Hereford City

891

2

Hertford

618

2

Honiton

471

2

Horsham

280

1

Curried over

12

14

17

6

13

6

2

121

Boroughs.

No. of Electors.

4000 and upwards.

Representatives.

Under 300

300 to 500

500 to 800

800 to 1000

1000 to 2000

2000 to 4000

Brought up

23

25

31

18

23

13

12

244

Shoreham

1910

2

Shrewsbury

1270

2

Southampton

1172

2

South Shields

518

1

Southwark

5249

2

Stafford

1117

2

Stamford

755

2

Stroud

1305

2

Stockport

922

2

Stoke on Trent

1266

2

Sudbury

554

2

Sunderland

1359

2

Tamworth

505

2

Taunton

920

2

Tavistock

289

2

Tewkesbury

396

2

Thetford

160

2

Thirst

267

2

Tiverton

473

1

Totness

259

2

Tower Hamlets

9462

2

Truro

510

2

Tynemouth

760

1

Wakefield

617

1

Wallingford

366

1

Walsall

578

1

Wareham

339

1

Warrington

247

1

Warwick

971

2

Wells

377

2

Wenlock

809

2

Westbury

192

1

Westminster

13,268

2

Weymouth

518

2

Whitby

432

1

Whitehaven

466

1

Wigan

495

2

Wilton

203

1

Winchester

515

2

Windsor

504

2

Wolverhampton

1522

2

Woodstock

306

1

Worcester

2400

2

Wycombe

309

2

Yarmouth

1615

2

York

2890

2

Total Eng. Bors.

30

35

42

16

32

15

15

323

we had now from the four. He saw at present no demand for household suffrage; but there was a demand for universal suffrage from a number of persons who were eager to effect a change in the basis of our representation. The real question, then, for the House that evening was, whether it would adhere to the system of representation as it then stood, or whether it would adopt universal suffrage. Each of those propositions had its followers; but the notion of going through all the agitation and all the contest which must be gone through to carry household suffrage, and then to begin a new agitation and a new contest, as the hon. Member for Kilkenny proposed, for a still more extensive right of suffrage was little likely to meet the approbation of many Members in that House. The hon. Member for Kilkenny had said, "Hon. Gentlemen may seek to put this question off, but in spite of their manœuvres, all the people counted by heads will ultimately obtain the right of voting." Now, he would tell the hon. Member for Kilkenny that it was not he but the hon. Member himself who was putting off the settlement of that question. It was not likely that the hon. Member's proposition could ever give satisfaction to the people. He would not give universal suffrage because all the operatives were not yet sufficiently enlightened; he would only give household suffrage, Why, would not the inevitable result of this be, that the universal suffrage men would ask the hon. Member how he knew that they had not acquired that knowledge which he deemed sufficient to entitle them to that suffrage which he (Mr. Hume) admitted must ultimately be granted to them? He would now go in detail through the points which the hon. Member had raised in his speech. The hon. Member had called upon those members of the Government who had proposed the Reform Bill, if they valued their consistency, to support the change which he now recommended. In other words, the hon. Member called upon those who had proposed a great and extensive change in the representation with a view of settling it upon grounds that were reasonable and fair, to abandon that change and to make a further change upon grounds that were neither fair, fixed, nor certain. Now, on the ground of consistency, be contended that the Government could not undo what it had already done, or oppose the system
1086
of which it had been the author. The hon. Member had also stated various reasons why he was dissatisfied with the operation of the Reform Act. When the hon. Member showed that one out of every five adult males in England and Wales, and that one out of every eight adult males in Scotland, and that one out of every twenty adult males in Ireland was an elector, he showed that the basis of our representation was not narrow, but large and comprehensive, The hon. Member had then entered upon the question of inequality, and had gone into a great mass of statistical details to prove that places with a small number of electors returned as many Members as places with a much larger number of electors. Now, if that was an evil, it was an evil apparent on the face of the Reform Bill. In the first Reform Bill it was proposed to disfranchise sixty, and in the last fifty-six such boroughs; but it was well known that many boroughs were left with the right of representation which had a population very little above 5,000 souls. As the hon. Member had spoken to him of consistency, he would just read to the House an extract from a speech of the hon. Member containing his observations in praise of this system which he now denounced as founded on inequality and as full of anomalies. The noble Lord then read the passage in which Mr. Hume said, that "The plan of the noble Lord far exceeded his expectations; that he knew that any change in the representation must be accompanied with difficulties; which he trusted that the noble Lord would not be discouraged by the difficulties which surrounded him, but that he would persist in his own project; and that he had great pleasure in informing him that every person with whom he had conversed that morning had expressed their satisfaction at the plan proposed to the House." The hon. Member had also stated, on another occasion, that the plan proposed by the Government had elicited the almost universal approbation of the country; and yet he now came forward to find fault with it because it contained defects, which, if they were defects, were as palpable when they were first proposed as at the present minute. He had great doubts whether, if the House were of opinion that another change should be made in our system of representation, the plan now proposed by the hon. Member would give satisfaction to the classes which

1087
still remained unrepresented. The hon. Member had not made out that, under his plan, all our artisans, whose talents, natural and acquired, he willingly acknowledged and whom the House ought always to treat with the greatest respect would be entitled to vote. If the hon. Member had shown that all those persons would enter into his scheme of representation, then supposing that an extensive alteration in the representation were determined upon, his scheme might, perhaps, be one worthy of adoption. But if he had understood the hon. Member rightly, he had confined his plan to those artizans who occupied parts of houses and were rated. Very often those persons were lodgers and were not rated. The householder who let them part of his house was rated, and acquired in consequence the right to vote. But the hon. Member complained of the inequalities of the Reform Bill. Now, it was notorious, when the Reform Bill was first proposed, that it did not establish equal divisions. If the Government had intended anything of that sort, it would not have been difficult, by referring to maps and statistical details, to have divided the country into parcels, and to have allotted a certain number of Members to certain districts with a certain amount of population. But he did not think that such a plan would have given satisfaction to the country. The plan which he had on a former occasion brought forward was based, as he thought every plan of representation for the country ought to he based, on numbers, property, and intelligence. He did not think that any plan of representation for this country, based on mere numbers, would be satisfactory. He did not think we could adopt in this country the rule that prevailed in the United States of America, that the majority should be supreme, and that the basis of the representation should rest on numbers alone. But if that rule could not be adopted, and if we must look on intelligence as well as numbers, he thought it absolutely necessary that some of those smaller boroughs should exist, where the stream of property, running very much in one direction, would enable persons of great talent and standing to be returned to Parliament. That was the course of things which occurred in the first elections under the Reform Bill. At that time, in consequence of the strong opposition made to the bill, there was a very strong popular cry against the authors of
1088
that opposition. Now, when the first elections under the Reform Bill occurred, they had seen, entering that House,—not, certainly, a very great number of persons professing those political principles—not an unfair representation of the country in that respect—but men of great personal eminence in their vocations, whether members of the legal, military, or other professions. If ever this question came to be fully argued, he should be able to show, he thought, the superiority of the Reform Act over any plan which would go to divide the country into districts. But the hon. Gentleman had, in fact, not stated that he meant to divide the country into districts; he had not stated anything more than that he meant to have household suffrage. If that was all, there were some of the smaller boroughs which were very corrupt, and into which they would only be introducing bribery on a very extensive scale. Such were some of those which the hon. Member had enumerated, Pontefract for instance, were the scot and lot franchise of the potwallopers had existed, which had been notorious for constant and repeated acts of bribery. Therefore, he said, the hon. Gentleman's plan was totally incomplete. If the hon. Member proposed to enact household sufferage with the present division into counties and boroughs he would only give room for increased bribery and corruption. If he proposed to divide the country into districts, they must have a totally new plan; the hon. Member must state to the House what he had now omitted to state, and must submit fairly its various advantages and disadvantages. Let it not be forgotten that when that was proposed, it was proposed that all boroughs under 10,000 or 20,000 inhabitants should be disfranchised. By that act the greatest number of the boroughs of the country would be deprived of the right of returning a Member. He should make but one more remark with respect to what the hon. Gentleman had said of the great burdens borne by the people of this country, and the large amount of taxation. That large amount of taxation, as the hon. Gentleman well knew, was chiefly required to defray the charge of a debt to which the faith of this country was pledged. It was not absorbed in maintaining establishments which this country could spare, and which had certainly rendered the greatest service to its interests. Taxation could not be very greatly reduced

1089
without reducing that to which the faith of the country was engaged. His belief was, that—not by the hon. Gentleman and those who in this House advocated the extension of the suffrage, but by those who would be returned to a Parliament elected by universal suffrage—one of the means adopted of relieving the people would be a refusal to fulfil the engagements entered into between the people and the public creditor. Now, he believed, that if they were now to alter the representation, and accede to the proposal of conferring the suffrage on all householders, a demand would then be immediately set up for universal suffrage, and that that demand would be based upon the belief that the Parliament so elected would not keep the faith of the country, and that taxation would be reduced, perhaps 5,000,000 l. or 6,000,000 l. so as merely to maintain some necessary establishments, and prevent the public creditor from receiving what was his due. That was one among many reasons why he thought it most dangerous now to make any change in the representation of the country. He had always said, on bringing forward a plan of reform, which he had frequently done unsuccessfully, that he did not wish to propose it as affecting the state of public distress or prosperity, that he could hold out no prospect of great or immediate relief of the burdens which the people had to bear, and that the question ought not to be considered under any such aspect. He had always expressed these sentiments both when in the Government and in opposition, and when some parties who supported reform encouraged such expectations, but at the same time he had always believed that, not being able to grant any extensive relief from taxation, a time would come when numbers of the people would proclaim that they were discontented with the Reform Act, would say that it had not given the relief they expected, and would demand further changes. But he would suggest to those hon. Members who favoured this demand, and particularly the hon. Member for Kilkenny and the hon. Member for London, who, he saw, did him the honour to pay particular attention to what he was saying, that if after effecting a great change in the representative system, after passing through a mighty struggle, and almost convulsing the country from one end to the other by the proposal and the resistance, they were in a
1090
few years to attempt a further alteration, they would shake the confidence of the people in the institutions of the country, and in the engagements made with the public creditor, while those who raised the cry would not be satisfied with household suffrage, would not be satisfied with what the hon. Member styled a fair and equal representation, would not be satisfied with seeing the electors distributed in the proportion of 5,000 to each Member, would not be satisfied with changes which they would regard as mere theoretical improvements; but, step by step, would proceed to exact what they considered a substantial benefit, namely, such a reduction of the taxes as would be incompatible with the settlements to which the faith of the public was pledged. Entertaining these views with respect to the motion of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, he certainly should give a direct negative to his proposition, as he should to any proposition founded on similar principles, and tending to repeal altogether the Reform Act of 1832.
Mr. Grotesaid, that in spite of the great want of interest and attention in the House to which the noble Lord had alluded, he hoped they would be good enough to listen to him while making a few remarks on what had fallen from the noble Lord. The hon. Member for Kilkenny had, he thought, rendered great service by setting forth so many important facts, which were in all probability little known to the public, and which, when placed before them, were calculated to open their eyes to the real state of the representation, and to lead to such improvements as might make it a sound and efficient index to the real state of public feeling. He would leave it to the noble Lord to say whether such an exposure of the real state of the representation was or was not calculated to raise it in the estimation of the public. The noble Lord had dwelt very much on the mischiefs of the future changes, and the danger of unsettling the principles established in 1832 by the Reform Act; and he must say, that it had seemed to him, in following the noble Lord's observations, that the noble Lord had borrowed a great number of them from the speeches made by the opponents of his own bill in 1831 and 1832. Sure he was, that almost every one of the topics urged by the noble Lord this evening had been urged long before, and certainly not less forcibly, by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth,

1091
and those who opposed the noble Lord's views; and sure he was, that if the noble Lord had taken the same line then as he now took, he would have gone out against the Reform Bill. When the noble Lord talked of settling important questions, he must reckon upon a singular want of progression in the public mind, a delusion which he was astonished any one so deeply read in English history as the noble Lord should entertain. Were not the same arguments used against those who brought forward any motion for making any change in the state of things at present existing? In the course of the discussion on the Corn-laws, had they not been told by hon. Gentlemen on the other side that nothing could be so monstrous as to unsettle or disturb the existing system, which worked so admirably well? The noble Lord, the Member for Northamptonshire (Lord Maidstone), had even said, that the motion made regarding those laws ought to have been rejected without a discussion. If the principle of finality were to be adopted on any important question, it ought, in consistency, to be urged as conclusive against entertaining every other question. He did not see, for instance, why his hon. Friend and himself, who were averse to any alteration in the beer laws, should not urge the doctrine of finality in bar to any proposal to change them. He knew that more substantial arguments against that change might be drawn from the amount of capital engaged in that trade, and the disturbances which it would produce. He could not think the noble Lord would carry the public with him by simply telling them they had got the Reform Bill, and must be content to take it for better or worse. What one argument had the noble Lord advanced to show that the persons whom the hon. Member for Kilkenny wished to intrust with the elective franchise were unfit to exercise it? That was the only argument relevant to the proposal of his hon. Friend; for if these persons were worthy of the privilege, and were yet debarred from it, surely they had just grounds of complaint. The noble Lord had said they were worthy to exercise it, and yet refused to permit them. If the noble Lord could offer no proof that the persons of whom his hon. Friend spoke were unworthy of this privilege, they had a right to say, that there was no ground for excluding them. He could not consent to treat the Reform Act as a kind of canon of scrip-
1092
ture, which was to have nothing added and nothing taken away. He might respect that statute for the rights which it conferred, but he could not respect it for those which it withheld. He never could admit because the Reform Act was a measure in itself good and proper to be proposed—because it had done good so far as it went, mutilated though it had been in its progress through the House. That therefore, the hon. Member for Kilkenny, or any other hon. Member, was to be precluded from proposing any measure based on the same principles and tending to realise the same results. The hon. Member for Kilkenny had enumerated many defects of the Reform Bill, and, so far as he could follow the noble Lord, the noble Lord had not disputed the statements as to the inequality of the present scheme of representation. The noble Lord said, that that feature of the Reform Bill was front the first apparent on the face of the measure and that it had never been intended to rectify that inequality; but to leave it untouched. If the noble Lord admitted this to be a defect existing before the Reform Act, and left unredressed by it, that was surely a good reason for having that act remodelled and altered according to the better and more enlarged views that now prevailed. He could have wished to hear the noble Lord enter more fully into the main alteration proposed by his hon. Friend, which he understood to be the extension of the suffrage to all householders. He saw no valid reason for withholding the elective suffrage from any man, unless it could be proved, or a strong presumption could be raised, that he was unfit to exercise it. That view he conceived to be in accordance with the theory of representative government in every nation which had possessed one. He believed the principle universally assumed was, that it was desirable to have the representative body coincident, as nearly as possible, with the body of males of mature age in the community; there must be exceptions, but these must be defined by some rule founded on ascertained or probable conditions. The franchise was not to be withheld from a man merely on caprice, or without any solid grounds. Was there any probability that the householders under 10 l., to whom his hon. Friend wished to extend the franchise, were more unworthy to exercise it than those who now possessed it? They were

1093
men who laboured assiduously every day,—who discharged faithfully all the obligations of private life—who had the greatest possible interest in the inviolability of those laws, which ensured the stability of property, and the security of the earnings of industry. Instead of having that interest which the noble Lord imputed to them of defrauding the public creditor, he maintained, that such a measure would do the working classes the greatest possible injury, and he should feel the most perfect confidence that it would meet with no approbation or acceptance from any body composed of. such men as those to whom his hon. Friend wished to extend the right of suffrage. Was there any ground for accusing those persons of a want of knowledge or ability? The noble Lord had himself admitted the great ability of many of the artisans, and the general respectable character of the class, which possessed many who had acquired much knowledge both from books and by experience. He believed the noble Lord to have given a perfectly true account, and therefore he desired to see these men admitted to the elective franchise. He would remind the noble Lord that but a very small proportion of the members of the mechanics' institutes, and other seminaries for instruction were now in possession of that right, and no men could be more worthy of the privilege than those who, under heavy toils and other serious disadvantages, took so much pains to cultivate their minds, maintaining so many mechanics' institutes, and profiting by the knowledge there communicated. It was not to be supposed, that profound knowledge or a learned education was required to qualify a man for the exercise of this right. The elective franchise was at present very contracted, and it was impossible to draw any tangible line of demarcation between the competency, moral or intellectual, of the tenants of 5l. houses, and the tenants of 10 l. houses. He was anxious that both limitation and extension of the franchise should be based on some reasonable principle, and that it should not be determined on vague and inadequate grounds. The representative system, as settled in 1832, was disfigured by anomalies which the noble Lord himself could not venture to defend. How did it happen, for instance, that 10 l. householders in small boroughs, had no vote for the county in which their house was situate? Was a householder in a little town which
1094
was not a Parliamentary borough, and returned no Member, less intelligent or respectable than a 10 l. householder in a large town like London or York, who possessed a vote? There were 1,000 such anomalies in the Reform Act, and when, in the face of all these they were told that the measure was to be as enduring as the solar system, to last in sœula sœculorum, he thought it would have become the noble Lord to take a little more pains to expunge these anomalies. Into the question of universal suffrage he would not now enter. He understood his hon. Friend desired the admission of all householders under 10 l. to the elective franchise; and the noble Lord, if he wished to sustain his refusal to admit them, and his resolution to take his stand on the integrity of the Reform Act, must make some more convincing reply to the powerful arguments of his hon. Friend. The hon. Member concluded by saying, that he should lend his support to the motion of his hon. Friend.
Mr. D'Israelisaid, that a fallacy ran through the whole of the ingenious speech of the hon. Gentleman. The constitution of England consisted of the estates of the realm. The Commons of England in Parliament, were one of those estates. If the elective body in the country were to be an estate of the realm, it was absurd to have a House of Commons to represent the volition of the nation. When the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Kilkenny, talked of the people, he should give some definition of what he meant by the term "people." We knew what a nation was, but what did he mean by a people? The hon. Member's notion of a people was the electors of Kilkenny; that of the hon. Member for the city of London those who hallooed him on the hustings. He (Mr. D'Israeli) said, that that House, an estate of the realm, was the only representative of the Commons of England. The gentlemen who smiled or sneered at this, were sneering at the English constitution. The hon. Member for Kilkenny said, that the theory of the constitution was, that taxation and representation should go hand in hand. Where did he find that principle? In what part of the constitution did he find it? In Magna Charta—in the Bill of Rights—or in that famous Reform Bill which the hon. Member once welcomed with so much enthusiasm, and now attacked with so much causticity? The hon. Member had

1095
no definite idea of representation. He (Mr. D'Israeli) took it for granted, that the hon. Member supposed, that the principle of representation was the principle of popular election, but the principle of representation did not necessarily include election, as there might be representation without election. The Church of England was represented in the House of Lords—there was representation without election, for the bishops were not elected by the clergy. The House of Lords was quite as much a representative body as the House of Commons—as much an estate of the realm as the House of Commons, and that House was not elected. He should like, too, to have a definition of taxation by the hon. Member. If this dogma of taxation and representation going hand in hand were true, he hoped the hon. Member would not deny, that indirect taxation gave as good a claim to representation as direct taxation. If taxation was a qualification for the elective franchise, he wished to know whether indirect taxation was not, and why they should stop at household suffrage. It would be desirable also to know what the hon. Member meant by the "fundamental foundation" of his scheme. The hon. Member took a sentimental view of the politics of the country, and supposed that education would qualify persons for being electors, he would soon find, that when they got household suffrage, they would was universal suffrage, and then they would have no suffrage whatever.
Mr. Wardsaid, that the hon. Member had supposed that a fallacy had run through the very ingenious speech of his hon. friend. This was clear; that the hon. Member had pointed out a great truism, that the House of Commons is not the house of the people. This was not the only truism; he had stated another, that election and representation were not synonymous and reciprocal; which he admitted. With respect to the motion of his hon. Friend, if he had confined his notice to the first part of the resolution which he had placed on the votes, he was convinced there would have been a fuller House. Many Members had been prepared to go with his hon. Friend in his speech as to the extension of the franchise, who were not prepared to go with him as to that part which related to household suffrage. He was prepared to go with him as to household suffrage, leaving the
1096
committee to say how far that principle should extend. The noble Lord took the same ground now that he had occupied for the last five years—resolved to adhere to the finality of the measure of 1833. The noble Lord had created a new school of politicians—the finality school. He held, that the reform bill, though not to be tampered with unnecessarily or lightly, had created a tribunal, before which all measures affecting the country could be properly discussed. Before, there was a packed jury to deal with; now, there was a jury before whom there was a chance of a fair verdict. The noble Lord considered that the changes must come within the competency of the tribunal, and must not diverge from the line prescribed in 1833. But the reform bill as we now had it was not the reform bill which the noble Lord had introduced. It had been mutilated in some of its most essential parts by the amendments of the noble Lord's opponents. We had the bill with all its defects, and were told that it must be considered as a final measure; and this objection went to all matters connected with the bill, in anything relating to the reform bill, the finality principle was brought to play against them. The noble Lord had alluded to universal suffrage. He (Mr. Ward) did see grounds which ought to induce the noble Lord to pour in his hostility to this principle. He had looked pretty closely to the state of feeling in the country amongst those who were excluded from the franchise, and he saw the worst spirit amongst them, which was assuming a shape it was difficult to control, except by agreeing to a resolution like that proposed by his hon. Friend, that the House would concede to that class a share in the constituency of the country. He knew that this spirit could be kept down by physical force; but he could not look forward without apprehensions of evil to the possible violent explosion of feeling on this point. He hoped that the motion of his hon. Friend would receive the consideration to which it was so fully entitled, and he was sure that the time must come soon when the House would be forced to a consideration and an acceptance of the measure.
Mr. P. Howardconsidered that upon the whole, the Reform Act had been successful. In this great commercial country he was anxious to spare the merchants and

1097
traders a renewal of the agitation which they were subject to during the Reform Bill. He thought that any great increase of suffrage would produce still more anxiety for further extension among the non-electors. They would see themselves still nearer the goal, and they would become still more restless and dissatisfied. He believed that the desire for change had no deep root among the constituent body generally. If their opinions were taken, there would be found a very large majority in favour of the law as it at present stood.
Lord J. Russellwas anxious to refer to two remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member for London and the hon. Member for Sheffield. The hon. Member for London had said, that he (Lord John Russell) had stated, that the inequality of representation was a defect of the Reform Bill. He certainly did not state, that it was a defect in the Reform Bill; but he had expressed his opinion, that no fair representation of the numbers, property, and intelligence of a country could be secured by the alteration proposed. The hon. Member for Sheffield had said, that he (Lord John Russell) had denied the competency of Parliament to entertain the present question. Now he had by no means denied the competency of Parliament to entertain the question, but he had said, that it would not be wise to entertain it.
Colonel Sibthorpthought, that the present question lay between the two parties on the other side of the House, and he had no wish to interfere between them. They were pulling against each other on the brink of a precipice, and it was a matter of perfect indifference to him which pulled the other over. As for the existing suffrage, he was rather disposed to complain that the 10 l. qualification was general. He thought there ought rather to have been a 5l. qualification for some of the smaller places, and a qualification varying from 15 l. to 20 l., in other places, in order to ensure a fair representation.
Mr. O'Connellwas sorry to observe the air of ridicule which had been attempted to be thrown on this important question by some of the speeches which he had heard. The hon. Members for Carlisle and Maidstone seem disposed to treat it in a tone of grave mockery. They might attempt to treat it with ridicule, but the public at large could not be made to treat
1098
it in that way. Before the Reform Bill, as was admitted by the hon. Member for Maidstone, the people had no representation. Seats were sold in the market. Gatton was bought for 70,000 l., and old Sarum for 125,000 l. Stalls in Smithfield-market were not more regularly sold than seats in that House. The intention of the Reform Bill was to transfer the power of legislating from the nominees of individuals to the representatives of the people. He hoped the hon. Member for Maidstone would not be offended with him for talking of representatives of the people. The hon. Gentleman did not choose to assume that capacity. He rather chose to take upon himself some imaginary dignity, as one of the estate of the commons, and not as a representative. He would leave the hon. Member in the undisturbed enjoyment of his new dignity. The principle of the Reform Bill gave up the nomination of a certain class of the people, and gave the power professedly to the nation at large. But how? In a most capricious and absurd way. It gave the elective franchise to persons occupying a house of 10 l. yearly value, though such persons might really have no property, or be involved in debt or difficulties. It gave the franchise to freeholders having a particular profit, and left it with freemen by birth or servitude, though they might have no property at all. They gave it to men having this right depending on the mere accident of birth. They left it to scot and lot voters in some towns. They gave it to persons who, instead of having property belonged to the class of paupers. They refused it to persons of independence, and gave it to tenants at will, who were dependant on the breath of their landlords. They had introduced no distinct principle; while they had admitted a portion of the people for some fantastic reason, they had for reasons equally capricious excluded others. Did not the people at large know, and say now, that there was a master class which had votes, and a slave class which had not votes? Talk of property indeed! What property was more sacred than a man's physical powers and his intellect? The artisan by the exercise of these powers must earn more than 10 l. or 20 l. a year, or he would starve. What could be more sacred than the property which God and nature gave? Yet they excluded the intelligence of the artisan from the franchise, and while upon some imaginary and

1099
preconceived notions they admitted others, they told the working man, that he was to be excluded. Such a system could not last. Common sense and common honesty were against it. The hon. Member for Carlisle had talked of a compromise. But had there been any compromise? Who were parties to it? The Radical reformers, of whom he (Mr. O'Connell) reckoned himself one, had determined at the time of the Reform Bill to make an experiment, and see whether they could get popular government by that experiment. The moment they ascertained the failure of that experiment, they were hound to carry their principles further—and was not that failure ascertained? Look at the boroughs and counties. What were the means by which the returns were influenced. If it had not been for an absurd cry in support of the Corn-laws, and a bigot cry on religious subjects, would the Gentlemen opposite crowd the benches as at present. If the boroughs were not reduced to nearly their old state of slavery, would the opposite benches be crowded as they were with borough mongers. It was true, they were sustained by the folly of a portion of the people. The wild ravings of the Chartists had fortified them in their abuses; but the popular sentiment could not be excluded. If those misguided men had not proclaimed principles which every honest man must abhor, which no man of conscience could do other than reprobate—If they had not used threats of physical force—if they had not become like them (the opposition) exclusionists and opponents of the rights of the middle classes, the sober, steady voice of the people of England would, before this time, have been heard proclaiming that the present plan of representation should not be continued. It excluded too many of the people; it excluded those who were as deserving of confidence, and as distinguished by integrity and intelligence, as any other in the constituent body or the legislature. For he (Mr. O'Connell) could not yield to the hon. Member for Maidstone's assumption of peculiar dignity for what he called the third estate of the realm. He saw nothing either in the hon. Member or his colleagues of that mens divinior which might give them a natural right to legislate for others. There was no reason why an honest and intelligent workman, who gave his leisure moments to the improvement of his mind and the increase of
1100
his intelligence, should not enjoy political power. Until that was the case, he would tell them that their Commons estate was not safe, and more even than they now refused must ultimately be yielded to pressure. When common sense and common honesty became the maxims of the masses, not only those who were now attempting to mislead them, but they (the Opposition) would be driven from the position which they had usurped and abused. The hon. Member for Maidstone seemed to be above learning the meaning of the principle of representation. He would tell the hon. Member to look into a book which was familiar to him (Mr. O'Connell), he meant "Blackstone's Commentaries," where he would find it stated, that it was robbery to levy taxes in England, unless the people of England consented to these taxes by their representatives. Blackstone talked of a virtual representation, but that was a phrase to account for the want of a real one. You struck (continued the hon. and learned Member) by the Reform Bill, the idea for a virtual representation, but you have not given a real representation. When you tax now, you rob. When you create a capital felony, you are guilty of the blood you shed, because you are not the representatives, as the hon. Member for Maidstone has candidly confessed, of the people of England. The mass of the people must have power, and their common sense and common honesty are the best securities against any robbery, either of the public creditor or of private individuals. They have an interest in it. In the artificial society of England, the great interest in maintaining the social state as it exists in the millions who depend from week to week for the subsistence of their families on their wages, they have a more deep and immediate interest in the preservation of the order, peace, and security of society, than the haughtiest aristocrat in the land, or the proudest landowner among you. The people of England are entitled to representation. Their day of delusion must shortly cease, and your day of delusion will end with it.
Mr. T. Attwoodquite agreed with his hon. and learned Friend behind him, that very improper language had been used in many parts of England; but he was perfectly certain that the masses of English labourers were not interested in anything unjust or illegal. He was sure that they were determined to accomplish a great

1101
change, and he would stand by them and support them in effecting that change; and it would be brought about, not by any illegal measures, but peacefully, before that House continued much longer. It was true that much mischief had been done, as his hon. and learned Friend said by violent and improper language. That language had alarmed the timid and offended the upright, the prudent, and the patriotic; but it had not discouraged the bold, the generous, and the brave. There was one thing, at all events, settled, that the Reform Bill was not a finality bill; it could not he a finality bill. He did not mean to say, that universal suffrage was absolutely certain; but he did say, that it was every year making a larger advance in the public mind. But for the intemperance of some parties, he believed that the demand for universal suffrage would be now all but universal. He must say, that if he were to decide whether we should go on as we are now, or abolish the Reform Bill, as an honest man he should vote for abolishing the Reform Bill. He thought they would be better under the borough mongers than under that blouse. He knew of no good which that House had done—no generous or humane feeling which they had ever entertained towards the masses of the people of England. Perhaps that House was a representative of the aristocracy, or of the richer classes, in the sense of the hon. Member for Maidstone. He knew nothing of that; but it was no more the representative of the working classes—of the Commons of England, than it was a representative of the commons of China.
The House divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 85—Majority 35.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Grote, G.

Attwood, T.

Hall, Sir B.

Barnard, E. G.

Harvey, D. W.

Bodkin, J. J.

Hawes, B.

Brotherton, J.

Hector, C. J.

Butler, hon. Col.

Hollond, R.

Chalmers, P.

Humphrey, J.

Codrington, Admiral

Hutt, W.

Currie, R.

James, W.

Denistoun, J.

Leader, J. T.

Duke, Sir J.

Lushington, C.

Duncombe, T.

Muskett, G. A.

Dundas, hon. J. C.

O'Connell, D.

Easthope, J.

O'Connell, M. J.

Fielden, J.

O'Connor, Don.

Fenton, J.

Pattison, J.

Finch, F.

Power, J.

1102

Protheroe, E.

Ward, H. G.

Rundle, J.

White, A.

Salwey, Col.

Wilde, Sergeant

Somers, J. P.

Williams, W.

Style, Sir C.

Wood, Sir M.

Tancred, H. W.

Yates, J. A.

Turner, E.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

TELLERS.

Wallace, R.

Hume, J.

Warburton, H.

Johnson, General

List of the NOES.

Abercromby, hn. G. R.

Law, hon. C. E.

Ainsworth, P.

Lefroy, rt. hon. T.

Baillie, Colonel

Lockhart, A. M.

Baring, F. T.

Lowther, J. H.

Barrington Viscount

Mackenzie, T.

Barry, G. S.

Maule, hon. F.

Blair, J.

Maunsell, T. P.

Blennerhassett, A.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Broadley, H.

Morpeth, Viscount

Bruges, W. H.

Murray, A.

Campbell, Sir J.

Norreys, Lord

Canning, rt. hn. Sir S.

Packe, C. W.

Cayley, E. S.

Palmer, G.

Copeland, Alderman

Parker, R. T.

Courtenay, P.

Pease, J.

Curry, W.

Perceval, Colonel

D'Israeli, B.

Perceval, hon. G. J.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Pinney, W.

East, J. B.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Egerton, W. T.

Richards, R.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Ellis, J.

Round, C. G.

Forester, hon. G.

Russell, Lord J.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Sandon Viscount

Freshfield, J. W.

Shaw, right hon. F.

Gaskell, J. M.

Smith, R. V.

Gladstone, W. E.

Stanley, E. J.

Gordon, R.

Stanley, Lord

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Stuart, Lord J.

Grimsditch, T.

Stuart, V.

Guest, Sir J.

Stock, Dr.

Halford, H.

Teignmouth, Lord

Hastie, A.

Tennent, J. E.

Heneage, G. W.

Thompson, Alderman

Hodgson, R.

Tollemache, F. J.

Hope, hon. C.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Hope, G. W.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Hotham, Lord

Vivian, J. E.

Howard, P. H.

Wood, C.

Howick, Lord

Wood, T.

Jones, J.

Young, J.

Jones, Captain

TELLERS.

Kemble, H.

Seymour, Lord

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Parker, J.

RAILROADS IN IRELAND.
Mr. F. Frenchsaid, that in calling the attention of the House to the subject of which he had given notice, he assured them no person could be more desirous than he was to do full and ample justice to the report of the railway commissioners, to acknowledge the mass of statistical information

1103
that it contained, and the fair and open manner in which the commissioners had placed before the public the data from whence their conclusions had been drawn; and he was fully prepared to admit, notwithstanding the objections to which it was liable, that their report was by far the most valuable that any of the numerous commissions on Irish subjects had produced. The commissioners had shown with great ability the circumstances peculiar to the situation of Ireland and its inhabitants, which rendered the promotion of these works an object of national importance, and their suggestions as to the means and manner in which their projects should be carried into execution, their expose of the evils which had resulted, and which was likely to result, from the exorbitant powers already conferred on the railway companies in this country, and their observations on the principles on which all future railway bills should be framed, were worthy of the most serious attention. Railways were about to become the highways of the nation, and therefore the choice of their lines, their mode of construction, the rules by which they should be governed, and the regulations to which they should be subject, had become matters of paramount national importance. He (Mr. French) had read with deep interest the powerful manner in which the commissioners imposed upon Government the necessity of affording extensive assistance towards developing the now dormant resources of Ireland, and but for the melancholy experience of the past, in all that related to that country, could never have entertained a doubt that their views would speedily be carried into effect; but he confessed until he read the report of the speech of his noble Friend the Secretary for Ireland, he had no expectation that even a portion of the report would have been acted on. Hitherto, although Government had assented to inquiry on all subjects connected with the improvement of Ireland, they had uniformly disregarded all recommendations for that purpose, whether proceeding from commissioners appointed by themselves, or from Committees of the House of Commons, on the subject of the reclamation of the waste lands of Ireland. They had the reports of the commissioners appointed by the Crown in 1809, of committees of that House in 1819 and 1830, all concurring in its practicability and
1104
the policy of its being promoted by the State; and notwithstanding that these reports had been backed by the strong argument of national interest, tested and shown by the extraordinary increase of revenue which had uniformly followed such improvements, no steps had been taken towards its accomplishment. They had reports on reports, and recommendations on recommendations, from committees and commissioners, as to the necessity of the improvement of the Shannon being undertaken by the State, a national work, in the words of Colonel Burgoyne, to be accomplished only by national means; if any steps were to be taken towards giving to the nation the benefit of the navigation of this splendid river—the principle to be acted on was one which would, he feared, render the bill, if indeed, it was ever to be introduced, wholly inoperative—a principle which had originated with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which was in direct opposition to the recommendations of the committee which inquired into and the commissioners who surveyed and reported on the state of the river, the report of the committee on public works, which sat in 1835, moulded as it was to meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman, might, for all the benefit likely to accrue from it, as well never have been made. The intimation of the introduction of an extensive system of public works appeared, until the statement of his noble Friend, to be altogether forgotten. These and other circumstances, which he should not detain the House by enumerating, had led him to the conclusion that neglect would also have been the portion of this report. He (Mr. French) was glad he was irk error as to the intention of her Majesty's Government, and regretted that he could not tender his support to the proposition of his noble Friend, being convinced that Government had but one of two courses to pursue—to give general assistance or none at all. Even the latter course would be more for the advantage of Ireland than the partial measure they proposed. The check which the publication of the report had given to private enterprise would be removed, and the lines which had been for some time before the public would be executed or abandoned, as the prospect of immediate remuneration appeared favourable or otherwise. Since 1817, 6,500,000 l. had been devoted to the pro-

1105
motion of public works in the United Kingdom. Of this sum, 6,250,000 l. had fallen to the lot of England, and but 250,000 l. to that of Ireland. Loans to the extent of twelve millions had been sanctioned by the Exchequer Loan Commissioners for Great Britain, whilst from the limited nature of the funds entrusted to the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, the entire amount in that country was but 730,000 l. Great assistance was given to the former country, which, on a former occasion, he had shown possessed in a portion of it equal in size to Ireland upwards of 4,000 miles of inland navigation; Ireland had altogether but 400. They would find by the report of Lieutenant Harness, that she annually forwarded to her ports 2,225,000 tons of agricultural produce for exportation on cars in the primitive fashion of the country. The want of the means of internal communication was universally admitted to be one of the chief causes of her miseries; and yet three-fourths of the country were to be excluded from the benefit of the proposed measure of her Majesty's Government. Was this view politic or prudent? To give assistance and encouragement to public works could not, he contended, be considered on the part of Government an act of grace or benevolence: it was one of justice and sound policy; their own interests called for it. Much as he was disposed to give credit to the commissioners for their ability and research, there were two conclusions at which they had arrived from which he totally dissented, and which, as they appeared to influence materially the motion on this subject of his noble Friend the Secretary for Ireland, he could not pass over in silence. The first was their choice of a port, as a point of departure for America; the second, the policy of excluding one-fourth part of Ireland from the benefits derivable from the introduction of' railways into that country. As to the first, he was prepared to show, did he deem it necessary—which at present he did not—that their choice of a port had not been a judicious one, and that they had passed over in total silence ports possessing far greater claims than Tarbert to the position in which they had so prominently placed it. If there was one portion of Ireland which required the assistance of Government and the advantages of railroads more than another,
1106
that portion was Connaught. It was so peculiarly situated, that the voyage from its shores with agricultural produce was most dangerous and difficult, whether northward by the North Channel, or southward by Cape Clear. A vessel sailing from a port in Connaught for Liverpool, and taking the passage northward, had a dangerous navigation to contend with of upwards of 500 miles, if southward, 850, while the distance from the centre of Connaught across Ireland was but 240 miles. A railway from Dublin to Connaught would give to that district the most direct and quickest transit to the first market in the world; its inexhaustible fisheries from Galway to Donegal would be made profitable; and the latter, from its rich pastures, would in all probability secure to it a million of money, now annually expended by Great Britain in foreign countries for that article. He (Mr. French) was aware that it had been urged, and that England had been referred to in proof of the soundness of the theory, that the construction of works for the benefit of the public might be safely left to private speculators, because private interest calculated most accurately the works that were likely to prove successful speculations; that their not being undertaken by private enterprise, was a proof they were not likely to be remunerative undertakings, and that it was the duty of Government to regulate and control rather than to originate them; this might be a proper rule with respect to England, but it did not, he contended, admit of general extension, and to no country in the world was it less applicable than to Ireland, which essentially required the stimulus that Government could alone give to develop her great natural resources. When society would derive a benefit from a great national work, which private interest might not consider a sufficiently tempting speculation, or which it might not possess the means to accomplish, he held it to be the duty of Government which represented the general interest to be the undertaker, and in proof of this position, he could refer to any country in modern times, where civilization had extended—to France, where, by means of the national funds, the Mediterranean was joined to the ocean; to Russia, where in like manner, St. Petersburgh was united to the Caspian, by a complete chain of inland navigation; to Holland, where an opulent state was

1107
raised from a marsh; to Germany, the Netherlands, to every state in Europe, to prove that to facilitate the intercourse between district and district, to lessen the expense of carriage, and thus to afford means to develope internal wealth, and distribute the productions of labour, had ever been held to be an object of national concern, and that in each of these countries the national funds had been applied to this purpose to an extent that was only limited by the national resources. Let them for a moment suppose that the different states in Europe had declined to construct common roads until it might suit the interest of private individuals to undertake them, in contemplation of the traffic by which they would be remunerated. How, he would ask, had the march of civilization been stayed? Railroads were as necessary at present as common roads in the infancy of society, and their construction had become as great an object of importance to the community. He could not agree with some hon. Members, that an outlay on public works must, as a matter of course, be an unproductive one to the state: he believed the very reverse to be the fact. He held in his hand several very interesting calculations which had been made by the French engineers, as to the advantage derived by the public compared to that derived by the undertakers, from public works. Having referred to the works of M. Vaille and M. Favrier, he proceeded to say, that occupation, which was now Inaccessible, and almost unknown, was as certain as that it would afford them present employment, with the certainty of such fruits springing from the judicious outlay of public capital. Surely it would be only acting in the true spirit of the professions of her Majesty's Government, and the strict letter of its duty, to devote a portion of the national revenue, and that on no narrow or sordid scale to this great national object; it was, however, necessary that the measure should be a general one, that the benefits derivable from it should not be confined to one district, but that every quarter of Ireland, north, east, west, and south, should equally partake of its advantages, all of which could be considered, by the adoption of a different system, be obtained without a larger advance of money than that proposed by her Majesty's Government. He would at present confine him-
1108
self by moving, that an humhle address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will direct measures to be taken to secure to every province in Ireland the advantages of railway communication.
Upon the question being put, an hon. Member moved, that the House be counted, and forty Members not being present, it was adjourned till to-morrow.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Tithe Compositions Arrears (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By the Duke of BUCKINGHAM, the Earls of SHAFTESBURY, MEATH, WINCHILSEA, and STANHOPE, the Marquess of WESTMEATH, and Lord REDESDALE, from a number of places, against the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By the Earl of CAMPERDOWN, from Leith, and Lord FOLEY, from several places, for the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By the Duke of BUCKINGHAM, from three places, Lord HATHERTON, from Uttoxeter, and Lord RAYLEIGH, from a place in Essex, for the Repeal of the Beer-laws.—By Lord REDESDALE, from several places in Scotland, for Church Extension.—By Lord FOLEY, from one place, for a Uniform Penny Postage.—By the Marquess of WINCHILSEA, from Maldon, and another place, against any further Grant to Maynooth College; also from a place in Yorkshire, for excluding Roman Catholics from Parliament.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.
The Earl of Rodenrose on the Order of the Day to bring forward his motion relative to the state of Ireland, and said, he could assure their Lordships that he regretted greatly that some of his noble Friends near him had not undertaken the most important subject which it now became his duty to bring under the consideration of the House; for he could sincerely assure their Lordships that nothing but a strong and imperative sense of public duty could have induced him to forego the happiness and tranquillity of his domestic circle to come into that House, year after year, to occupy their Lordships' attention with the unhappy and distracted condition of the country to which he belonged. But the state of that country rendered it incumbent on him to take that course. Sharing as he did in the opinions, and possessing the confidence, of a very large and much-respected portion of his fellow-countrymen, he felt that he should be acting in a very criminal manner indeed were he not, in this hour of deep and great distress in which his country was placed—distress which, in his lifetime, until lately, was altogether unknown—were he not to come forward and to state plainly what appeared to him to

949
be the causes, many at least of the causes, which rendered life and property insecure in various parts of Ireland—causes of such a nature as operated to strike terror into the minds of the peaceable, and to prevent many, very many individuals in that country, from the exercise of that civil and religious liberty, which it was the duty of a good and efficient Government to provide for, under all circumstances, however difficult, and without any reference to personal or to party feeling. He would freely confess to their Lordships, that the subject which he was compelled to bring forward this night he found one of considerable difficulty—not because he had not matter, and most painful matter, to bring before their Lordships, but because he found the subject so vast, its ramifications so extensive, and its details so numerous, that they encumbered him by their complexity, and weighed him down by their importance. The great difficulty was, how to compress those details into such a space on the one hand as would not take up too much of their Lordships' time, and would, on the other, enable him to substantiate facts as a foundation for the motion with which he intended to conclude. Their Lordships would remember, that, at the commencement of the last Session of Parliament, there was a paragraph in the Speech from the Throne, in which external and "domestic" tranquillity was mentioned. Their Lordships would also recollect, that the noble Lord who seconded the Address had extended the application of that paragraph, not only to England and Scotland, but to Ireland. Their Lordships would further recollect, that he objected to the application of that paragraph with respect to Ireland, and he afterwards submitted to the House a motion on the subject. He objected to such an application of the paragraph, because he was perfectly aware that the so-called tranquillity of Ireland could be no other than the tranquillity of death itself. Why did he entertain that feeling? Because he well knew, that at the time, there was in existence and in full operation, in that country, a combination of the most dangerous and alarming kind—the effects of which had been to terminate the lives of many of those whose exemplary conduct had brought them within the vengeance and under the ban of this foul and bloody proscription. Persecution was practised
950
on individuals the most harmless, the most innocent, of lives the most praiseworthy. He recollected, that on the occasion of his motion, the noble Marquess opposite answered his statements with that eloquence and ability which he always manifested when the noble Marquess addressed their Lordships. That speech he had since seen published—published, he believed, on authority. Therefore, he felt himself at liberty to quote from it, and to show, that not one of the facts which he had brought under their Lordships' consideration had been attempted to be denied. He should now confine himself to certain facts which had occurred since the last time he had the honour of addressing their Lordships. Those facts would form part of his case as a ground for the motion with which he meant to conclude. They were facts which tended to prove the real state of Ireland at the present moment, and to exhibit to their Lordships a picture of that country with respect to crime on the one hand, and the conspiracy and combination which now existed against the possibility of obtaining justice, if not in all, at least in the great majority of instances where serious criminal charges were made, on the other. The facts which he meant to quote were literally and truly facts; and if he were not convinced, that he could prove them to be so before a committee of their Lordships, he should not have ventured to trouble the House on the subject. He should be able to prove, that combination and crime existed to such a degree in Ireland as called for the interposition of the Legislature—as strongly demanded inquiry at the hands of their Lordships. That country was now suffering under a tyranny, was now groaning under a system of proscription, which he believed was altogether unknown in any other country in the world. He had taken his statements from different counties, in order to show that crime was not confined to one or two counties; that it was not confined to Tipperary or Westmeath, in which there had always been crime. No; he should prove, that crime, in its most frightful and repulsive forms, was extending to all the counties of Ireland. The first cases he should allude to to prove the extent of intimidation that prevailed, occurred in Tipperary; and first on the list, was the trial of the murderers of Messrs. Cooper and Weyland. It was proved on the trial, that

951
the murderers met at public-houses and talked of the murder every Sunday from February to April. People in the neighbourhood knew of it, and laughed at them. They would not catch their horses when they fled; and women cried out, "Why don't you come in here?" During the three months that Mr. Weyland lay dying, his father received a note almost daily, to bid him not waste his money on drugs for his son, as if he recovered, they would shoot him as soon as be crossed the door. Mr. O'Keeffe was shot in the street of Thurles. At the inquest, three labourers said they saw the shot fired, and saw O'Keeffe turn towards them. Still, they could not identify the murderer. On the evening of the 16th October, a person tried to murder a man named Gleeson in the street at Thurles. There was a person looking on, but he gave no aid to the party assailed. A magistrate had written, "I never heard of any instance when any inhabitant of Thurles came forward to prevent outrage." On the 18th of September W. Brien was murdered on his way to the fair of Castle Otway. On the inquest it was proved that at the time the murder was committed, a crowd was present; but, notwithstanding no one could identify the murderer. Burke, a herdsman of Mr. Scully, Queen's Counsel, was murdered on the 6th of September, because another labourer had been displaced. On the 10th of December, Currie, a carpenter, was murdered, for giving Mr. Orde information. He would advert next to the county of Sligo. At the trial of the murderer of Allan and M'Kenzie, the carman, who drove them and saw all the parties, would not identify them, nor would any of the crowd. There were four cases of carmen travelling on different roads from Sligo, who were beaten nearly to death. One man, George Cavan, was beaten three times. Yet, though he knew the parties, he was afraid to prosecute. There were many persons, in the last and the preceding summer, found by the chaplain in the hospital at Sligo, suffering from bruises or wounds. They knew whom the parties were by whom they had been ill treated; but, from fear, they refused to inform against them. He would next turn to the county of Leitrim. A farmer, named Price, employed by Lord Clements, was beaten, and threatened if he dared to prosecute. He re-
952
fused in consequence; for this tremendous system of intimidation ran through the whole country. In the county of Longford, on the estate of a noble Friend of his, Lord Lorton, whose name need only be mentioned to command respect and esteem, near Ballinamuck, no less than ten murders, or attempts to murder, were perpetrated from May, 1836, to January, 1837; and there was but one prosecution. A man by the name of Brock was murdered in a field a quarter of a mile from the village. His unfortunate wife pointed out the murderer to a party of individuals standing at the door; but, to use her own words, "they scoffed at her." Another man (Cathcart) was three times fired at before he was shot dead, in open day, by armed men. Here, also, no evidence could be obtained. No later than last Monday week, the rev. Mr. Butler received a notice that he must part with all his Protestant servants. This he refused to do, and one of his servants going into Longford last week, on his master's jaunting-car, was attacked and severely beaten. He now lay in Longford in a hopeless state. He would proceed to Roscommon. From documents sent to Mr. Drummond last spring, it appeared, that there was a general combination, night attacks, and oaths tendered. But parties would not identify the offenders. Lillie, a farmer, was driven from his farm, and was obliged to work as a labourer in the town of Boyle. As he attributed his molestation to feelings growing out of an election contest, he last year went back to his farm, supposing that those feelings no longer existed. He had not, however, been there more than a few days, when he was again attacked, and compelled to seek refuge in Boyle. Guffrey was killed in the open street in Keadre last August; but no evidence could be procured from those who were in the street at the time. He would next notice Westmeath. The police had reported to Government that it was completely organized. A magistrate wrote—" Don't mention our names. We are living here only by sufferance, and it is not safe for any gentleman to have his name brought forward." He would ask his noble Friend, the Lord-lieutenant of the county, whether this was an overstatement? He did not wish to overstate any thing. He would rather understate than overstate; but, in fact, it was next to impossible to overstate the fright-

953
ful situation of Ireland. Mr. Hinds, of Mitchell's-town, bought a property in May, 1836. This was the case of a gentleman of fortune, who was anxious to vest his money in the purchase of land in Ireland. The others were the cases of people in humble circumstances. How was this gentleman treated? Why, eight attacks were made on his property, or on his servants. At last a party of police was stationed by Government in his yard. Again, the care-taker of Mr. Ennis, Queen's Counsel, was savagely murdered. Here, also, no evidence could be obtained. Mr. Mears bought a lease of sixty-seven acres of land from Major Elrington, and meant to have renewed some others. Priest Coghlan denounced Major Elrington's agent, Mr. Brabazon, who was murdered on the 5th of December, in the open road. A crowd was near at the time, but no evidence could be obtained as to the identity of the murderers. A Scotch gentleman laid out a large sum of money on a property. He warned off a leader of a Riband gang, who was cutting his turf: He then received a threatening notice. Government offered 30 l. reward for the discovery of the offender, and an attack on his farm was the consequence. He had received a letter the other day from the county of Westmeath, stating that an outrage had been committed on Friday last, the day on which the commission was opened at Mullingar, just at eleven o'clock, when the chief constable had ordered the police to be in attendance at the court. In this outrage one man was shot, and another sadly beaten. In Waterford Mr. Keefe, of Mountain-castle, was fired at and killed, in April, as he was going to mass. Crowds saw it, but none stopped the aggressor. By a late trial it was proved that there was a general organization in Louth. In June last, James Anderson, steward of the rev. Mr. Wright, was beaten to death. A man who was with him, although he saw it, would not give evidence. The magistrates of Monaghan had applied for an increase of constabulary force. Mr. Gillespie, a publican and a Roman Catholic, three miles from Monaghan, spoke disparagingly of a Riband leader. The gang came to his house in September last and beat him. Government offered a reward of 30 l.; and on the 4th of December they returned and stabbed him and took away his arms. Such cases were rare in Car-
954
low formerly, now the calendar contained about seventy cases generally. In Clare a man named M'Namara and another, were indicted for murder at the last assizes, but intimidation prevented the necessary evidence from being given, although the widow of the murdered man was among the witnesses. Mr. Baron Richards, who presided in the court, observed that it afforded a most lamentable view of the state of the country, when such murders were committed, and none could be found to come forward for the purpose of bringing the offenders to justice. He was afraid of wearying the House in going through these details, but he felt the necessity of stating; hem, as the grounds of the motion with which he intended to conclude. In Limerick there had settled on the mountains of Latera sixteen Protestant families, who were visited by a clergyman, Mr. Stoddart. They were continually attacked by their neighbours, and they were forced to warn the clergyman, whom they paid themselves, to desist from coming, and since that the persecution they were exposed to was so great that ten out of the sixteen had left the place. He would mention another case—that of Thomas Brazil, who had lands six miles from Limerick town. In 1836 he refused to memorialize Government in favour of two men who he believed had murdered his tenant: he became unpopular; his tenants would not pay, and he ejected them; then no one would cut corn; none dared to occupy houses; and armed bodies marched in open day across the lands. He applied to Government in October for police, and Mr. Drummond stated that "too few were employed in that neighbourhood in proportion to the duties to be performed." The cases which he had now brought forward he had taken from twelve counties; but he had not taken King's county; he left that to his noble Friend who had taken so active a part in the late lamentable transaction in that county—a part which was honourable to himself and most useful to the country to which he belonged. As one who was most anxious for the welfare of Ireland, he must say, that the noble Earl's conduct with respect to those transactions had procured for him the approbation and respect of all good and loyal subjects. The communications which had just been read to the House were every one derived from magistrates in many parts of Ireland; but

955
if those magistrates were spoken of publicly by name, they would every one of them immediately be marked men, the objects of assassination and destruction. There was one singular statement furnished by the Government authorities themselves in proof of this: there were four magistrates—two in Tipperary, and two in Westmeath who had received notice from the police to be watchful at what hours they went out, for they were marked men. He could relate many other such circumstances; but he was anxious to leave it to his noble friend, who lived in another part of the country where outrages had taken place, to speak of them. It was his own happy lot to live in a part of the country where these outrages were not so much known—he would say, not known. There the authorities had to deal with a peasantry to whose character he was anxious to bear testimony. A more industrious or peaceable peasantry could not exist anywhere, except in instances where the Riband conspiracy made its approach, as it had done in some districts, and carried with it those murderous principles which were the foundation of the system. But he was sorry to say, that it was the object of demagogues in different parts of the country to destroy the peace and the religion of that peasantry. He was afraid that there was but a small spot in all Ireland where some of the outrages which he had described had not taken place. But before he sat down he should move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the state of the country, and, if possible, to arrest the arm of the assassin, and to trace the progress of that conspiracy to which he should by and by advert more at length, as another ground for his motion. The arguments which he would use to justify his motion for the Select Committee were, first of all, the acknowledged state of crime in Ireland, which no one could deny; and he would next ask the consent of their Lordships to his motion, because of that panic, which even the noble Lord opposite admitted to exist, and which was driving the people from their homes, in order that they might provide elsewhere for themselves and families, that security which the law and which the authorities were unable to give them. Last year 112 deaths by violence had taken place in Ireland. He believed, indeed, that there were many more, but that was the number which he had ascertained with-
956
out the assistance of the local authorities, who, he thought, would be able to swell the account very much. But there was another argument: above all, he hoped their Lordships would agree to the motion for a Committee as an act of justice to the noble Marquess, on whose Government rested so much responsibility for those tears of sorrow and streams of blood that had marked the career of his viceregal authority. He was speaking of the noble Marquess only in his capacity as a public officer, and as a public man he had a perfect right to deal with him in that House, and to arraign these proceedings under his Government of Ireland which had been, he thought, so detrimental to the public safety. He knew that the noble Lord would tell the House that crime had always existed in Ireland, and it could not be denied, that unhappily for many years past that country had been stained by crime. But what he said was this, that never had crime been suffered to go on as under the Government of the noble Marquess, whose predecessors, when they met with crime, grappled with it and subdued it. That he had always acknowledged, notwithstanding any difference of opinion he might have had with former Governments with regard to other departments of their policy. The noble Baron (Fortescue), who talked of consulting the late Lord-lieutenants of Ireland now he was about to undertake the same duties, had resolved, he hoped, to consult Lord Anglesey; for under the advice of that Nobleman he would be more likely to administer the Government in a manner satisfactory, at least, to the loyal people of Ireland. In which, from his heart, he trusted the noble Baron would succeed, and in which he would be most happy to render every assistance in his power. Should the noble Baron consult Lord Anglesey, he would be likely to receive advice which would enable him to administer the law, not to change it, and to remove all cause for the complaint which was now made, that the law had not been duly administered. He was sure, that the noble Marquess had acted from a conscientious feeling of what was right; but he begged to say to the noble Marquess—and it was an important fact, that he was going to state—that, whatever might he his opinion of the benefits of the course which the noble Marquess had pursued, however loud might have been those shouts of applause

957
which he had received in his popular tour through Ireland from a multitude ordered to attend, he believed, for that purpose by the priests, or sent by the demagogues—however respectable the noble Marquess might deem the support which he had received, yet the astounding fact remained undisputed, that at the present moment animosities in Ireland were more prevalent, religious distinctions more marked, the social bonds more extensively broken, the Protestant faith more assailed, and life and property less secure, than in any former period since the passing of the legislative act of union. That he should be able to prove, if their Lordships would grant him a committee. The noble Marquess the other night seemed surprised when he stated, that the course which he had pursued of opening the prisons in many parts of Ireland, and clearing the gaols, had produced very great alarm and disgust in the minds of many of the most peaceable and loyal subjects of her Majesty, not of one grade or of another grade, but of all grades. He had not made that statement without due consideration, and he now repeated it. He would read the statement of a fact which would prove, that he had not spoken too strongly. In Autumn last, a Roman Catholic named Gubben, in consequence of a political quarrel with a Protestant, pursued him, followed by a mob, into the house of a man named Barnett, in which he had taken refuge. Gubben and his followers insisted on his being given up to them, as they were determined to beat him for being an Orangeman. This Barnett refused to do, when they commenced an outrageous assault upon his house, which they nearly demolished, destroying and plundering almost every article it contained. For this offence Gubben was tried at the quarter sessions in October last, and Mr. Fogarty, then assistant-barrister for the county of Antrim, after hearing the case, sentenced him to six months' confinement, expressing at the same time, his regret, that he could not legally sentence him to transportation. He was committed to the borough gaol on the 27th of October. A memorial was immediately got up by his friends, and within three weeks, viz. on the 15th of November, an order arrived from the Lord-lieutenant for his unconditional discharge. And now mark the effect. His first proceeding was to re-assemble his mob, and return to the
958
house of Barnett, when he tauntingly called on him to come out and see him again at liberty, and hoped he would now see the influence enjoyed by his friends at Belfast. Was it possible to expect peace in Ireland while such a system existed? He was not surprised, that the noble Marquess had refused to lay certain memorials before their Lordships the other night. Had they been produced, their Lordships would have known what sort of persons those were who made application for the liberation of prisoners. By a return furnished to the House of Commons, dated from February, 1837, to May, 1838, it appeared that within those two years no less than 1,173 convicted prisoners had been discharged. Of that number thirty-seven had been condemned to death, thirty-three sentenced to transportation for life, and sixty-three to seven years. In the noble Marquess's popularity tour, so it was called in Ireland—in his popularity tour taken in the month of August, 1836, there were discharged 284 prisoners, 110 of whom were discharged by verbal order. That was during the lifetime of his late Majesty. Now, suppose his late Majesty had taken a tour of the same kind, and had visited Chelmsford, Hertford, and York, and had discharged from Chelmsford thirty prisoners, as the noble Marquess did at Leitrim; twenty-four from Hertford, as the noble Marquess did at Sligo; and seventy-two at York, as the noble Marquess did at Tipperary, would such a proceeding have excited no attention? It was true, that the King could do no wrong; but would not the magistrates have remonstrated with the Government on the effects of such a proceeding? Such conduct, as it had been well described, would make mercy feared instead of justice. There were other circumstances connected with this discharge of prisoners to which he would not further allude, but which he trusted some learned Lord would take up, as he himself was unable to discuss the legal part of the question. The next subject to which he was anxious to call their Lordships' attention was the existence of an association which he was sure was known to their Lordships by the mischief of which it had been productive. It was the association known by the name of the Precursor Society, and which had been established and carried on for purposes of mischief by a learned Gentleman who was the stay and support of the pre-

959
sent Government, and of whom the noble Viscount opposite had said, that he had the most perfect confidence in her Majesty's Government. Of this society the learned Gentleman was the chief; but though it had been called into existence by his influence, it was supported and upheld by the Roman Catholic priests. The noble Marquess opposite might tell him, that he had nothing to do with this association; but his answer to that was, that in not using the power with which he had been intrusted as governor of Ireland, to put down that society, the noble Marquess became a participator in all its proceedings. He said so the more particularly, because he remembered, that the Government had suppressed the Orange Society—a society which was calculated to promote the welfare of the country, because that body had for its object purposes which were perfectly legal, and was established to uphold the laws of the country, and to preserve the integrity of the empire. Such were the objects of the Orange Society, whereas the first object of the Precursor Association, as had been acknowledged, was the destruction of the Protestant Church in Ireland by the annihilation of tithes, and, if that object could not be obtained, then its second object was a Repeal of the Union. Now, he would tell the noble Marquess if he again affirmed, that he did not belong to the Precursor Society, that so long as the Government of which the noble Marquess was a member did not attempt to put down that association, so long were the Government implicated in its transactions, and responsible for its proceedings: Qui facit per alium, facit per se. He considered he was bound to bring this association under the notice of their Lordships; but in regard to its objects, he was unwilling to rest his statements upon his own testimony, and he should, therefore, with their Lordships' permission, read a few extracts from the testimonies of others. The first extract he should read was from a letter written by the learned gentleman who had established this body.
"Indeed, I pity the Irishman who supposes there is any hope for his country, save in the repeal. I request an adjournment for a fortnight of the Precursor Society—that is, from Monday the 11th, to Monday the 25th. On the latter day, I will, please God, attend, and remain in Dublin, organizing the popular party
960
for a fortnight. I will, in the first week after the recess, bring in the subject of an equalisation of the Parliamentary franchise between England and Ireland, and again divide the House on that question. I will try the same measure in substance, but in a different form, so as to meet Parliamentary usages, in the month of May. Being defeated in these attempts, I will then submit to the Precursor Society the necessity of either dissolving, or making way for the National Association for the Repeal of the Union. This last plan must be carefully digested, in order to make us as many friends and as few enemies as possible. I mean of course, in Ireland; but if I stand alone, I will then commence the repeal agitation, and never abandon it, save in success, or in my grave. It is my conscientious conviction that I owe it as a duty to Ireland, and to that God who will judge my actions and motives at his judgment seat, to struggle for the restoration of the Irish Parliament, and to commence that struggle the moment the present Session of Parliament has passed away without producing any substantial benefit to our unhappy country. In the meantime, let us work as Precursors—augment by all legitimate means the number of Precursors. Let the Irish people show no apathy, no indifference. Send in as many petitions as possible; in short, agitate during the session for measures of equalisation and identification. In future, our agitation shall be for repeal."
He would read another extract from the same learned gentleman's speech at Limerick, in November, 1838. The learned gentleman commenced:
"Agitate, agitate, agitate—the only wise words spoken by the Marquess of Anglesey the whole time he was in Ireland. That was his advice, and it is necessary we should take it. My Precursor plan is for universal organisation. The man who will not be a Precursor we will not abuse or ill use, but we can make him uncomfortable, for no man will speak to him. If I had a petition signed by 500,000 fighting men, beginning at the age of fourteen and ending at sixty-five, it would be attended to. A few words would do—'We her Majesty's dutiful subjects, whose names are subscribed hereto, being 500,000 fighting men, respectfully pray, beseech, and implore upon the knees of our hearts, as beggars would for alms, to have justice done to us, and ending with the words, 'And your petitioners will ever pray.' A petition of that kind would be likely to be attended to, and no other, I repeat, will be listened to."
Now, the only question he would ask the noble Marquess opposite was, whether any such petitions had been presented to her Majesty; and if they had, then he should like to be informed whether they had been favourably received, But this

961
association was, as he had stated, not supported merely by the learned gentleman, for it was supported and upheld by the Roman Catholic priests at large. He now came, therefore, to the speech of a Roman Catholic priest, which had been delivered at a dinner, given to the learned Gentleman, the Member for Dublin, in the town of Thurles. He was glad to see the noble Lord opposite (Lord Lismore) in his place, as the noble Lord had been in the chair at the dinner to which he alluded, and would, therefore, be able to say whether the statement he had to make to their Lordships was correct or not. At that dinner, a priest of the name of Laffan, after complimenting the noble chairman, said:
"You well remember when we beat the descendants of the Cromwellians by a majority of 1,036. If the same course is followed we shall free ourselves for ever from the Cromwellian grasp. I am happy to say that the Precursor agitation is getting on well here. In my own parish there are already 1,000 shillings paid down. In a neighbouring parish, there are 1,400 Precursors, in another 700, and it delights me to add, before January, universal Tipperary will be Precursors. Let Ireland follow that example, and it will soon enable us to put an end to the bloody tithes. We should never cease till tithes are totally and entirely abolished both in name and nature. The only good done by the bill, and for which we may thank our guest, is, that the arrears are wiped off; but I repeat, that alone does not, will not, satisfy us."
The Catholic priest then concluded with a tissue of vulgar abuse. He would not allude more to this dinner, and he had only stated so much which he believed to be true, in order to show how the Roman Catholic priesthood were engaged, and what their real objects were. He found his statements fully confirmed by the testimony of a Roman Catholic barrister, a man of great celebrity, who said that it was manifestly true that the line of conduct pursued by the Roman Catholic priests was one tending directly to the destruction of the Established Church. He alluded to Mr. O'Driscoll, who in a speech delivered at Youghall, in September, 1836, had said:
"As a Roman Catholic I may be allowed to assure you of the nature of those dangers. I tell you not to be deceived in the present day, for I fearlessly assert that the end, aim, and object of the Roman Catholic clergy is to subvert your Church of England altogether, and to annihilate it, root and branch from the land."
962
Such were the opinions of Mr. O'Driscoll as regarded the views of the Roman Catholic clergy, and he believed they were fully borne out by the facts. In reference to this subject, he held in his hand a paper which was an extract from a pamphlet lately written by a very eminent individual, and to which he wished to call the attention of their Lordships. The title of the pamphlet was "The Elements of Civil Government," and the work professed to be written by a "British Jurist," and had been published in Dublin, in 1838. In reference to the Precursor Society and to the learned gentleman who had established it, the "British Jurist," spoke as follows:
"One obvious and undeniable feature characterises the whole, and that is, that they professedly aim at, as their main object, a separation of the two islands, constituting, as they now do, one state. Declarations of the most public kind, in and out of Parliament, have been made by this agitator, a thousand times repeated, that the ultimate end of his labour, as the representative of all Ireland,' is a repeal of the union and the restoration to Ireland, of an independent domestic legislature, and that the subordinate measure on which he has successfully excited and inflamed the Irish populace, as well as a great portion of the middle orders, namely, the abolition of the legal provision of the Irish Church tithes, and the reduction or extinction of the Church itself as a national Establishment, the extension of the representative franchise, universal suffrage, secret voting, a subversion of the hereditary independent peerage as a branch of the Legislature, and the degradation of the House of Peers to a representative body, are all but subordinate measures, pursued as means to obtain that 'great and indispensable good'—the one thing needful—separation of Ireland from the present legislative union with England; and that if he waves for a season the express pursuit of this essential good, it is but to await the result of an experiment, of which he avows his conviction that it must fail, namely, obtaining from a united Legislature those particular objects, which he calls justice to Ireland,' and this through the influence of his sole argument—the fear of 7,000,000 of a Popish population. Now, let those who have the government of this empire in their hands well consider, whether it be consistent with their duty, or with the ultimate safety of the kingdom over whose destinies they preside, to permit this object to be thus avowed, or thus pursued. Is it, or is it not, treasonable thus to endeavour, through the medium of the physical force of the country, and the intimidation of its power, to overthrow the existing fundamental law of the realm? Shall a man be hanged as a traitor if he be guilty of procuring by force or terror, the enactment or

963
repeal of a single law? And shall the safety of the whole empire be left in jeopardy for years until the treason of another individual effects, in the long run, its own object, by subverting forcibly, or obtaining by fraud, a change of the whole system of laws by which the state is now governed, and until a government by the mob, and a religion from Rome shall supersede the government which we have now a right to enjoy—namely, one founded on law and on principles of rational policy, and a religion which is part of the British state, one which we have hitherto reckoned it as our peculiar pride that we have established as part of our constitution, and sealed with the best blood of our ancestors? If this, then, be treason, is not the time yet come when its progress shall be arrested? Must we wait, defenceless, the approach of the rebel horde—the 7,000,000, or fly on their approach? Must we patiently and passively expect the murdering host, which have spread pillage, and arson, and massacre, over the land, and rest satisfied and comforted with the consolatory declaration of a chief governor, who assures us that Ireland is tranquil.' How long, may we ask, is the sword of justice to be suspended? How long, till the 'power' of the state and the force of the law shall unite to save us from the forlorn, the destitute condition of the almost betrayed and deserted Canadas? We may, perhaps, console ourselves that there is not yet a Papineau to marshal and lead a rebel force—none to take the field, and hazard his person for his principles, like the bolder rebel in Canada; but may not some more fearless aspirant, some less discreet and cautious traitor than we now suffer from—be found to venture a worthless life under the secret auspices of the prime leader? If so, it may then concern Britain herself even though the existing minority of the Irish people, the loyal and Protestant, were to fall disregarded—predestined victims of the folly or crimes of Government—it may, I say, then behove Britain herself to consider whether she has nothing to dread from the further progress of movement."
The pamphlet from which he had taken that extract was one of great ability; its author, although he only signed himself a "British Jurist," he knew to be a very clever man, and he would beg to recommend the pamphlet to the perusal of their Lordships, as it was full of important information in regard to the state and prosperity of Ireland. The next subject to which he was anxious to call their Lordships' attention as a ground for the committee he intended to move for, he had before alluded to. The subject was, that of a conspiracy in Ireland—a conspiracy systematic, organized, and secret, and which was directed against the life and
964
property of all who would not join it and support the treasonable objects which its members had in view. From that conspiracy the poor farmers were the greatest sufferers, for, however anxious they might be for security, peace, and quiet, yet if they refused to join this conspiracy, or to obey the dictates of its members, they were visited at night, beaten, maltreated, and exposed to the greatest cruelties. The object and ultimate aim of the Riband conspiracy was exactly the same as those of the Precursor Association—namely, separation from England, in which was involved the annihilation of the Protestant faith. Such, he believed, were the chief objects of both bodies. He had stated before, that the Government were acquainted with the existence of that conspiracy front the investigations of its own officers, and he well remembered that when he made that statement, the noble Marquess opposite had said that he knew nothing of such a conspiracy, and if he recollected right, the noble Marquess also added, that he did not believe such a conspiracy existed. It, therefore, was incumbent upon him to prove to their Lordships the existence of a conspiracy in order to lay an additional ground for the Committee which he should conclude by moving for. The first statement he should make as to the existence of this conspiracy was from the speech of Judge Burton, in discharging the jury at the close of the commission which had been held in the county of Tipperary. That learned judge told the jury that the cases of crime which had come before them were of a most aggravated and atrocious character; that out of thirteen cases of murder three had been cases of premeditated assassination, arising out of conspiracy; and he added, that he could imagine nothing more horrible than systematic and premeditated assassination, and he was sure that what they had heard and witnessed must have filled their minds, as it would fill the minds of every right-thinking individual, with horror, the more particularly as it was found almost impossible to obtain evidence to convict the guilty. The conspirators also were encouraged by the disposition of the peasantry to screen the criminals from punishment. The next was the testimony of the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, relative to the case of Mr. O'Keeffe; and then came the case of Lord Norbury, into which he would not then enter, as his

965
noble Friend near him would call their Lordships' attention to it. Here was a noble Lord shot while walking in his park in open day, in a populous neighbourhood, and yet the assassins had escaped. And although upwards of 4,000 l. and an annuity of 100 l. had been offered for the detection of the murderer, he believed not a syllable of evidence had yet been elicited. But he had before him something still stronger to prove the existence of conspiracies, namely, the Riband oath. The following statement was made upon the affidavit of a person who had been a Ribandman, and was sworn to on the 9th of February, 1839.—He stated—
"That he is a member of the Riband Society, that it consists of county delegates, parish delegates, treasurer, body-master, committee-men, and common members; states how these are chosen, that the county delegates meet quarterly in large towns for the purpose of giving renewals of pass-words, signs, warrants, &c.; at the parish meetings, &c., members are admitted and sworn. The oath, amongst other things, is, that the member shall keep secret all he may see or hear, be loyal and true to each brother, fight for each other to death (especially against Protestants or heretics, or any man who may oppose his religion), not to discover or give any information against any brother, and to hold himself ready to rise in defence of his religion when called upon: that at their meetings orders are issued by the committee for the beating, carding, or other punishment of any person who may have rendered himself obnoxious in any way,—such as by taking land from which any member has been ejected, voting at an election against the candidate the society favours, giving evidence, &c.; and for the purposes of punishment, people from a different neighbourhood are appointed, in order that they may not be known, and a person (of the neighbourhood) to point out their victim. The (pass) warrant is written with contractions, so that none but the initiated can read it, and the pass-words are changed quarterly. He states the names, and addresses, and offices of various persons well known."
Now, that came from a person he would not name, but he held in his hand a similar statement, which he had no objection to communicate to any noble Lord, and which was fuller in its details, and had been forwarded to Government. Now, this same system had been traced to Leitrim and Cavan, and persons in the employment of Government had also discovered traces of it in Wicklow. During last winter in the gaol of Mullingar, proofs had been obtained of the existence of the
966
same system in that neighbourhood, and in Carlow it had been traced by the exertions of three of the magistrates of that county. In the county of Sligo it appeared from the information of two individuals who were Ribandmen, that an attack on the property of a gentleman of the name of Sims had been organized by the Riband Society, and he begged to state that at the last sessions at Drogheda several prisoners were found to be in possession of the Riband oath, and their trial was in consequence remanded to another session. He would now read to their Lordships a document relating to the attack made on the property of Mr. Sims, which would show to what a tremendous extent this Riband conspiracy was carried. The noble Lord read a paper setting forth that "Mr. Sims, a Scotch flour merchant, took a mill in Sligo; that some dispute arose between him and two gentlemen of the name of Kelly, who had been the original proprietors of the mill. It was then signified in the county that no one must deal with Mr. Sims; and the consequence was, that his large flour mill, which was previously in full operation, was reduced to inaction. Mr. Sims was on the eve of being ruined by the people deserting his mill, when he was obliged to agree to the terms of the Messrs. Kelly, who required a sum of money from him; and from that moment all opposition to him ceased, and the priest was active in bringing persons to the mill." It was not his wish to insinuate any charge against the Messrs. Kelly, but nevertheless the transaction he had described was of an extraordinary character; and those gentlemen of the name of Kelly were afterwards received by the noble Marquess opposite, and had been, he was informed, made justices of the peace. He repeated, he made no charge against any one, but he maintained that he had grounds for saying that an organized Riband conspiracy existed in many of the counties of Ireland. The last subject with which he should trouble the House was more important than any he had yet touched upon, and called imperatively for their Lordship interference. It referred, not to the spirit of resistance originating in tithe disputes, or in any political controversy, but to the conduct of the Roman Catholic priesthood, first of all in endeavouring to impede the Protestants in the exercise of their religious duties; and in the next place, it referred to the conduct

967
of her Majesty's Ministers, who, when the facts were represented to them, took no measures for insuring civil and religious liberty to these aggrieved Protestants. He was sure that many of their Lordships would agree with him in thinking that much of the misery and agitation of which they had to complain in Ireland arose from the violence of the Roman Catholic priesthood; and he would fearlessly assert that many of his poor Roman Catholic brethren in a humble sphere of life might be pointed to as examples of a good peasantry, were it not for the lessons they received from those who ought to teach them better things. He did not wish to make this statement merely on his own authority, for he knew that the charge of being a great bigot was sometimes thrown out against him, yet he would not yield to any individual in anxiety for the welfare and happiness of his Roman Catholic as well as Protestant fellow-countrymen. In corroboration of what he had just stated, he would adduce the authority of Baron Richards. The following was an extract from the charge delivered by Baron Richards at Castlebar, March, 1838:—
"As a friend of humanity, and particularly as a friend to the people of this country, I must deeply regret such a state of things. I cannot but grieve over the depraved character of a people who can be guilty of the many atrocious cases that have come before me at these assizes, and several of those homicides have occurred as the parties were returning from the mass-house. I must here say, that I cannot but think the minds of the people of this country are as open to instruction as those of any other; and if proper and due precepts were impressed upon them, they could be restrained from the violence and bloodshed which so greatly disgrace this country. I am certain the people could be humanized, and without anything like reproach, I do say, that a heavy responsibility rests on those who met these people in the house of God—I mean the spiritual instructors of the people, whose duty it is to keep them from violence and murder, and I think that could be done by proper exertion and persuasion. Many of the reverend Gentlemen I allude to are excellent men, and for them I have a high respect, but in the discharge of my duty I must say, that I conceive the people of this country are as susceptible of receiving benefits from the instruction their pastors should bestow as the people of any other. It is by the efforts of their clergymen more than by law the people can be humanized and rendered amenable to the voice of justice and peace. Feeling that such is the case, it strikes me with amazement that the people should still exhibit such savage conduct. Very
968
many cases of murder that have come before me were committed on the return of those concerned from the house of God, and that murderous habit I cannot reconcile with the moral and religious instruction which ought to be impressed on the people."
Such was the language of Baron Richards—a gentleman whose testimony would not be questioned by the noble Lords opposite, for he was a judge lately appointed by her Majesty's present Government. The next evidence he was anxious to produce in corroboration of his statements was that of a respectable gentleman, a Roman Catholic by birth, brother of a respectable Roman Catholic priest in Dublin. This gentleman, Dr. Meyler, had written an interesting pamphlet on the state of Ireland, which he recommended to their Lordships' attention, and from which he would take the liberty of reading, in the mean time, the following extract:—
"The Protestants have no safety but in coalition, and if they coalesce in a liberal spirit of amity towards their Roman Catholic countrymen, they will be met more than half way by all the respectable portion of that community, who, whatever religious opinions they may profess, are equally adverse, as are the Protestants, to mob and priestly dominion."
Again, speaking of the priests, Dr. Meyler says,
"In consequence of the hatred with which they inspire the people against the Protestants, they are the chief instruments in preventing tranquillity; the minds of the peasantry cannot settle down in quiet, in consequence of the state of excitement in which they keep them. They dread the influence of friendly intercourse with their Protestant landlords, and they keep them in an attitude of constant hostility on that account, putting themselves forward to the peasantry as the only authority they should obey, and the only guides they should follow. There can be no doubt but there is organized in Ireland, and that it is in active operation, also, a secret, powerful, and dread tribunal, which has assumed to itself the government of the land, and that its members take upon themselves to regulate the affairs of the country, and exercise a power far more formidable than that of the law. They denounce from the altar, they excite the people to lawlessness, and exercise over them an unlimited despotism by the agency of their superstition; they direct all things, as if invested with unlimited authority; they dictate to the rulers of the land, and send Members to Parliament, who Joust, in return, obey their dictates; they watch over even the private conduct of Protestants, and know all their proceedings and domestic secrets by the agency

969
of the confessional; the Protestants court them from fear, and contribute to their exactions. There can be no security for the country, nor no hope for its civilization and prosperity, till this order be put down—Delenda est Carthago. Every effort should, therefore, be made to repress the spread of sedition by the strong arm of the law, and even moral influence should be employed to wean the people from the doctrines of the priest, and to free them from the dark and degrading bondage of their yoke."
In connexion with this part of the subject he was anxious to bring under consideration the state of persecution endured by certain Protestants in the west of Ireland, merely on account of their religion:—
"A severe famine with which the western coast of Ireland was visited in 1831, led to the establishment of the Protestant colony at Achill. A minister of the establishment, Mr. Nangle, having acquired a knowledge of the Irish language, and having directed his mind particularly to the missionary operations of the United Brethren among the Greenlanders and other barbarous people, was led by his anxiety to benefit his fellow-creatures, to visit them in this time of their suffering and distress. He found on his arrival the most extreme destitution and ignorance prevailing; then it was that the plan of his mission, designed to further the temporal welfare of the natives in subserviency to their higher interests, was first conceived. He received encouragement from the chief proprietor of the island, who gave them a lease of 130 acres on the north-west part of the island. It was a wild tract of moor, overrun with heath, in order to reclaim which, and render it productive, houses were to be built in the midst of this wilderness, without any means of access or communication with a civilized country but by the sea. The works which were necessary were to be accomplished by the inhabitants, destitute of skill, or with the advantage of suitable implements. However, a steward was hired, the farm was enclosed, and two families took up their abode there in 1833. The reverend Mr. Nangle removed there with his family in 1834, and has since built a church. A congregation has been formed, in part of converts from the church of Rome, and of those who always belonged to the Protestant Church. They are occupied in their lawful calling of improving their farms; but the religion they profess has exposed them to the violence and persecution of Dr. M'Hale and his priests."
He did not wish their Lordships to believe this story merely on his assertion; and therefore would read depositions taken on oath, before their Lordships' Committee, which supplied complete proof
970
of his statement. The following was the evidence of the witness Rolph:—
"You went to the chapel where the people were?—Yes.
"Did you see Dr. M'Hale in the chapel?—I did.
"Did you see Mr. Conolly in the chapel?—I did.
"Did you see the other priests of the island in the chapel?—I believe he had a curate; I think he was there.
"Did you hear Mr. Conolly preach or say anything in the chapel concerning the Protestant religion?—I did.
"What did he say?—For one thing, he said, that the Protestant religion began in hell, and that it would end in hell.
"Did he say anything about the salvation of Protestants?—No. What he was saying was, that that religion had no foundation; that it was a new religion from the time of Luther; that it had begun in hell, and would end in hell.
"Did he say anything about the Protestant settlement?—He did. He was blaming the people for going to work there, and represented them as one going before the Devil, and the Devil having two half-crowns on his two horns, and that the man who went to work with them was like the man who would take the half-crowns from the Devil's horns, and fall down and worship them or thank him.
"Did he forbid persons to sell to the Protestant settlement?—Yes, he did. He told them not to have any communication with them, not to buy or sell, or even speak a word to them.
"Did M'Hale say anything when this sermon was over?—He got up, and seemed to me to confirm this.
Thomas M'Nulty's evidence was as follows:—
"Were you a Roman Catholic when you came to Achill?—I was.
"Were you ever in the chapel of Duncanelly, in Achill?—Yes.
"Who was the priest that officiated when you went there?—Mr. Conolly.
"Do you recollect any advice he gave the people at that time?—Yes.
"Was it in his sermon?—Yes.
"What did he say?—He gave orders to his congregation, that any person, being a Protestant or reader from the settlement, who would come to them in the field where they were at work, whatever they should have in their hand, if it was a spade, to strike them with it; and he likewise told them, if it was a pitchfork they had in their hands, to stick them."
Mr. Dombrain, another witness, the Inspector of the Coast Guard, deposed as follows:—
"You inspected the Coast Guard, that being your object in going to Achill?—Yes, I did,

971
"Did anything remarkable come to your knowledge?—Yes; it had been intimated to me that some very strong language had been used by the priest from the altar, either on the previous Sunday or the Sunday before that, in the presence of some of the Coast Guard men.
"Did you call those men?—I did. After the inspection was over, I called the men forward, and before entering into the particulars, I told them, that if anything had occurred between them and their priest connected with their religion, or anything of a spiritual character, I did not wish to hear it; but if anything had happened that was likely to compromise the character of the service, or its efficiency or discipline, or anything likely to lead to a breach of the peace, which I had been given to understand the words used were likely to do, then I thought they were bound to come forward and state it.
"How many men were there that were so called?—Two.
"Were they Roman Catholics?—They were. "What were their names?—Kelly and Donovan.
"Who had given you this information?—Mr. Reynolds.
"Did they state anything to you?—Yes; they stated, that the priest had been speaking from the altar about the Protestant colony, and that he had desired the congregation generally to hoot and hiss at them wherever they met them, for that he would not be satisfied till he had driven them out of the island."
Mr. Reynolds, the chief officer of the coast guard, swore that the priest Conolly had declared, in his chapel, that he would banish Mr. Nangle or any man who should take their part, and it was his intention to drive the Protestants out of the island. He was not surprised at this violence on the part of the Roman Catholic priesthood, because, though there were, of course, exceptions, the greater part of the Roman Catholic clergy were known for their hostility to the Protestants; but what he was surprised at was, that after the danger incurred by these Protestants had been represented to the Ministers, they should have allowed months to pass away without taking means to provide against that danger. After the witnesses whose testimony he had quoted were examined, Mr. Nangle returned to Achill, where the persecution against the Protestants continued and increased, when an account of the examination of the witnesses arrived there. On the 30th of October last Mr. Nangle wrote a letter to Lord J. Russell, from which the following was an extract:—
972
"We receive no tithe; we and the whole of our missionary apparatus are supported by the voluntary contributions of Christians disinterestedly attached to the principles of our church, as laid down in her Articles. Our principles have been misrepresented, our motives vilified, our characters calumniated, our property invaded, our safety threatened, our persons injured. We are at this moment, my Lord, while I write, enduring the rigours of a Papal interdict; our neighbours have been forbidden to buy or sell with us, to speak to us, or to exchange any of the charities or courtesies of social life, under pain of the heaviest weight of Papal malediction: One of cur congregation has been providentially preserved from a murderous blow aimed at him by an unknown assassin; another, the father of a numerous family depending for support on his industry, was assaulted in broad daylight on the highway, and sent home bleeding to his family, and wounded in such a manner, that a medical man, who has been consulted, cannot speak confidently of his recovery. Dr. M'Hale himself visited this island, to give a more furious impulse to the machinery of persecution which his priests organized, and whose movements they regulate. Yet our converts remain firm, and are more steadfast to their profession, in consequence of the antichristian conduct of the priests, and a growing murmur has arisen amongst the more respect able and enlightened portion of our Roman Catholic countrymen in this island."
He then wrote a letter to Lord Morpeth, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, on the 30th of October, complaining of the difficulties, the persecutions, and trials, which this unfortunate colony had suffered; and submitting to the Lord-lieutenant the necessity of having petty sessions established in the island of Achill. Not having received an answer to this letter, he again wrote to Lord Morpeth on the 3rd of November, praying for a reply to his former letter, and imploring Government to consider the unhappy situation in which this colony was placed. This letter was written on the 3rd of November; on the 5th of February, he came to attend to his duties in Parliament, and being informed of the circumstances, and that no answer had been received to either letter, he moved on the 7th of February for the production of all correspondence between Mr. Nangle and the Government on the subject. This was furnished on the 25th of the same month, with the addition of a letter dated the 21st of February sent by the Government in answer to the two letters of Mr. Nangle to which he had before referred; and he believed that if he had not called their Lordships

973
attention to the subject, that answer would not have been sent at all. Was not this, he would ask, a flippant manner, to say nothing worse, of carrying on the Government of a country, and of attending to the distresses of a loyal people? But what had taken place in the mean time between the 30th of November and the date of the answer to that letter? Why, Mr. Reynolds, one of the witnesses whose evidence he had quoted, was murdered in Achill. He would say, that the Government was highly reprehensible, if they had it in their power, not to have sent earlier answers to letters complaining of the sufferings of a loyal Protestant people. The answer dated the 21st of February, to which he had alluded, was to the following effect—that with reference to Mr. Nangle's letter of the 30th of November, not that of the 30th of October, he was directed to say that there could be no immediate change in the arrangement of the petty sessions, but that the subject should receive the consideration of Government, as it appeared desirable that petty sessions should be established in Achill, and as they were anxious to secure a speedy administration of justice in Ireland. This might be true but he would ask, what would be the effect such a letter would produce in Ireland, when the enemies of this persecuted colony of Achill found that no notice was taken of their proceedings by those who ought to have been its protectors? He felt that such a state of things was calculated to demand the most serious attention of their Lordships. They were aware the laws of England were paralyzed in many parts of Ireland; that the laws and canons of Rome superseded the efficiency of British judicature there; and that the trial by jury, the glory of the British constitution, and one of its brightest features, was a curse to that country. Oaths were reckoned binding or not, according to the circumstances to which they referred or the subjects to which they related; and even murder itself as he was able to prove, had been palliated—nay, encouraged, and considered praiseworthy under certain circumstances. The great end or object, as he believed, was the annihilation of the Protestant faith in Ireland. But he entreated their Lordships not to consider the subject which he had brought forward that night as a mere Irish subject, for it was clearly connected
974
with the best interests of the empire at large. It was impossible to separate the interests of England from those of Ireland, so closely were they united; and, even whilst he was addressing their Lordships, Ireland was the battle-field of the empire for the Protestant Establishment. It had been said in the time of Queen Elizabeth, and true enough it was
"He who would ever England win
"Must in Ireland first begin."
That was also true now. He trusted, therefore, that their Lordships would consider that he had laid before them sufficient grounds for inquiry into this subject. He had occupied too much of their Lordships' time, but he had an important, though plain, duty to perform—to bring this matter under their consideration. He hoped he had said nothing in the course of his address to hurt the feelings of a single person; but, if he had, he would affirm that it had been far from his intention to have done so. He had only said that which he believed to be true, and he left the case in their Lordships' hands, imploring them, for the sake of humanity and justice towards all classes and denominations of persons in Ireland, to give it their most serious and anxious consideration. The noble Earl concluded by moving for a select committee to inquire into the state of Ireland since the year 1835 with respect to the commission of crime.
The Marquess of Normanbyspoke as follows*:—I am perfectly ready, my Lords, at this moment, and in its fullest extent, to meet the responsibility of anything which the noble Earl has been able to lay to my charge. The noble Earl calls that responsibility awful, and awful, indeed, would it be, my Lords, if the evidence upon which these charges were supported, at all equalled the vehemence of language, and the earnestness of manner, with which they have been brought forward. The noble Earl is always personally courteous, but his denunciations have on this occasion been strong indeed. With natural indignation, I am ready, in reply, to prove now on the floor of this House, before I conclude, that I have grappled with crime wherever I found it, that I have vindicated the law wherever it was violated, that I have grappled with crime continuously—that I
* From a corrected report, published by Ridgway.

975
have vindicated the law successfully—and so far from the noble Earl being justified in drawing an invidious distinction between me and my noble and gallant Friend (Lord Anglesey), in this respect—that it is not only now, in your Lordships' House, and as a means of justification in your eyes, that I state I would, in similar circumstances, have done as he did, but that I took occasion, when visiting a part of the country, which had been peculiarly disturbed in his time, in answering an allusion to its improvement, to remark, that had the case been unhappily different, it would have been the utmost of my ambition to emulate the personal energy, which he then so advantageously displayed in repressing crime and vindicating the law. I will, however, prove, if not to the noble Earl's satisfaction, at least to his conviction, that the state of Ireland is not unparalleled—that it is not, as he states, unparalleled in his recollection—I will prove this, not merely from vague letters, which, even though they are from magistrates, can only be considered as their personal representations, since they are not pretended to be founded on depositions taken in their magisterial character. I will ground my answer on extracts from the despatches of former Lords-lieutenant of Ireland, respecting the state of that country in their time, comparing it then with the most exaggerated reports of its condition under my administration. I will also refer to another most unequivocal test; the charges of the judges during the last three years contrasted with former times. The noble Earl says he has gone through twelve counties. He may have named twelve counties to your Lordships, but how? In reference to isolated crimes still in existence—but that those counties thus alluded to, are in a worse state than before my administration, I am prepared to disprove most satisfactorily by evidence which I will offer your Lordships. What, however, is the ground of this extraordinary motion, for extraordinary it most certainly is? If the state of the country is not unparalleled, the course pursued by the noble Earl certainly is? From whom does this motion proceed? The noble Earl states he speaks in the name of the Protestants of Ireland. I deny any such delegation as the noble Earl claims. Amongst the Protestants of Ireland, there are a numerous, influential, and enlightened body, who differ far more widely from the noble Earl in politics than from the Pope in matters of faith. But what will the Catho-
976
lics of Ireland think of the motion of the noble Earl? Are they not to be considered? He says, that socially he lives on good terms with his Catholic fellow-countrymen. But what is his political position? Is he not known as the grand master of the Orange lodges in Ireland—and, depend upon it, if the noble Earl is successful in his motion, the effect of it will be in Ireland to convince all parties there, that under the auspices of the late grand master of the Orange lodges of Ireland—the same still in feeling though not in name—your Lordships have taken the executive Government of Ireland into your own hands. The noble Earl has spoken of individual cases, and yet, to show his want of correct information, he has referred to the murderers of Muirhead. [The Earl of Roden: I did not mention Muirhead.] The murderers then of Cathcart; but in every case of the murderers of Lord Lorton's Protestant tenantry, there are at this moment persons in custody awaiting their trials, except in that of Muirhead; where a conviction has already taken place, and execution has, by this time, been possibly done upon the unhappy criminals. The noble Earl, to show his general inaccuracy, has alluded to the case of Roscommon, and to the excitement there produced by the general election. Why, in Roscommon there was no contest at the last general election. Then, with reference to the case of Lord Norbury, your Lordships have been called upon to discuss a question, at this moment in the course of judicial investigation. The noble Earl still relying upon his information—too little trustworthy, as I can prove it to be—states, that there is no trace of evidence nor suspicion against any one in this case. Why, my Lords, to prove how ill timed are such assertions on such subjects, there are two persons in custody at this moment. I had this morning intelligence of their arrest. The noble Earl, three weeks ago, put a question on the same subject to me. I then stated, that two other persons were in custody; two soldiers, one an informer against his comrade. Of this case I may now speak, though I am aware of the force of that caution hinted to me by the judicial mind of my noble and learned Friend (Lord Plunket), but this case, as concerns these two men, has now had a legal termination; the approver has already been convicted of perjury in the accusation against his comrade; yet upon a former occasion, the noble Earl followed up his first question by

977
the extraordinary one of whether I thought there was much probability of a conviction against these men? Why, my Lords, ought not such a question to be a sufficient warning to you of the nature of the inquiries which will be put, if you take the extraordinary—the mischievous—the groundless course of referring such matters to the committee, which is the object of the noble Earl's motion? I will now proceed to examine the present state of crime in Ireland, with a view to prove to your Lordships, that it is not from any individual cases, however distressing, or revolting, the particular circumstances which have marked those atrocities, you can infer the general character of the country; but your opinion should be founded on pains taken in analyzing returns, and comparing the state of the country in one year, with that which those returns present in another. When I addressed your Lordships on the noble Earl's previous motion, the position which I endeavoured to establish was, first, that crime was less now than it was formerly, both in extent and atrocity; secondly, that there were more committals in proportion to the number of crimes; and, thirdly, that there were more convictions in proportion to the number of committals. If, therefore, I can establish these three propositions, which I think I can, and that the country is in a better state now than before my administration, I shall at least free the Government from any blame, for not grappling, as the noble Earl has said, with crime in Ireland. To continue what I stated on that occasion, I beg to recal to your Lordships' recollection, that I never said, that Ireland was in an entirely satisfactory state, but, that it was in a state of progressive improvement. My words were, "that species of tranquillity for which the Government have either received or taken credit, is not of a nature to make occasional exceptions or interruptions, a contradiction to its general continued existence. It is sufficient for us, that we see every reason to believe, that the improvement is, upon the whole, progressive." With respect to certain offences of the worst description, affecting the security of life and property, or involving open violations of the public peace, I, upon that occasion, read to your Lordships extracts from the constabulary returns—establishing, with reference to those offences, a gradual diminution from the commencement of my Government. The last period then quoted
978
was the first nine months of the year of which I was then speaking, the year 1837. I will now, by way of continuing the comparison in the simplest manner, quote offences in the three last months of that year and the corresponding or last three months of the following year, 1838.

1838.

1837.

Homicides

58

52

Firing at the person

14

36

Cutting and maiming, and aggravated assaults

209

329

Rapes and assaults, with intent

21

23

Abductions

4

4

Levelling

6

20

Incendiary Fires

125

147

Burglary

24

48

Attacks on Houses

99

182

Demands or Robbery of Arms

68

91

Unlawful Oaths

8

20

Illegal Notices and Meetings

92

182

Riots and Faction Fights

29

55

Rescue and Resistance to Legal Process

12

65

Totals

769

1254

The Marquess of Westmeath: Are you speaking from returns, and what returns?
The Marquess of Normanby: I speak from the regular constabulary returns, and am not quoting from newspapers or pamphlets, or private letters, as is sometimes done, but from official returns,—so that in the year 1837, for the period I have mentioned, the number of serious offences was 1,254, and for the same period in 1838 only 769. So that there is, evidently, a great decrease in the state of crime; am I not, therefore, as right now, as I notoriously was in 1837, in saying that the improvement is progressive? I will now look to the returns of the last five years; and, with respect to cases of homicide, I regret to say, there is no reduction—on an average it is the same. In 1837 the number was the smallest, and the largest in 1834. In the latter year, it appears that the number was 278; in 1835, 261; in 1836, 231; in 1837, 228; in 1838, 248. During the same period, for firing at the person, the numbers were, 1834, 105; in 1835, 83; in 1836, 78; in 1837, 91; in

979
1838, only 47. For attacks on houses and firing into dwellings, the numbers were in 1834, 923; in 1835, 818; in 1836, 518; in 1837, 637; in 1838, only 352. For demands and robbery of arms, in 1834, 224; in 1836, 147; in 1837, 246; in 1838, 176. For cutting and maiming and aggravated assaults, 1834, 1,343; 1835, 1,422; 1836, 1,161; 1837, 944; 1838, 838;—am I not, I again ask, entitled to say, that the improvement is progressive? I have also here a summary of the returns from the Inspectors of Prisons, of persons committed and convicted from 1832 to 1838. I could not expect your Lordships to follow me through all the details even of this summary if I were to read it, but it again serves to establish my position, that crime has diminished and convictions have increased. I will read only that part which shews the offences affecting human life.*
From 1832 to 1838, committals have diminished from 772 to 575; the convictions increased from 203 to 298. Your Lordships will, of course, always bear in mind, that the returns of the constabulary give the offences committed; those of the inspectors of prisons the offenders confined. Now, let us, my Lords, for a moment turn to a comparison made, I believe, with great accuracy, between the amount of crime in England and in Ireland. In England and Wales the committals in 1837 were 23,612; the convictions, 17,096. In Ireland, the same year, committals, 14,804; convictions, 9,536. The comparison cannot be so clearly made in any previous year, because, up to that time the petty sessions were included in the Irish returns. Your Lordships will, however, be surprised to learn, that the proportion of sentence of death to the whole population is, in England 1 in 26,992; in Ireland, 1 in 46,014. Transportation for life in England, 1 in 18,258; in Ireland, 1 in 30,460. The proportion of the capital sentences to the total convictions, is in England and Wales, death 1 in 39—in Ireland 1 in 62. Total for transportation in England I in 4½—in Ireland 1 in 8½, and it is in the imprisonment cases that the numbers are nearly equal. The proportion of convictions to committals is, in both countries, nearly the same, or about 71 per cent. These calculations of comparison between the different divisions of the empire, are of course not the regular official documents from which I have been previously quoting, but they are from tables constructed with great care,
* See Table.
980

1832.

1833.

1834.

1835.

1836.

1837.

1838.

Committed.

Convicted.

Committed.

Convicted.

Committed.

Convicted.

Committed.

Convicted.

Committed.

Convicted.

Committed.

Convicted.

Committed.

Convicted.

Murder or Manslaughter

620

168

687

274

575

299

712

309

620

292

519

175

424

199

Shooting at, Stabbing, and Administering Poison

72

26

70

18

74

11

78

22

65

25

48

13

36

9

Assault with intent to Murder

22

2

55

11

47

3

113

71

127

97

111

72

104

85

Conspiracy to Murder

58

7

14

—

33

2

19

7

31

11

10

3

11

5

Total Offences Affecting Life

772

203

826

303

729

245* (Sic orig.)

922

409

843

425

688

263

575

298

981
and upon which I believe perfect reliance can be placed. I feel now obliged, by the particular details into which the noble Lord has gone, to refer to former periods by way of shewing that he is not accurate when he represents the state of Ireland during my government as unparalleled. This will be an irksome task to me, and, I fear, must be wearisome to your Lordships. It is, indeed, painful to have to revive the records of by-gone misdeeds; I must, however do so, not to blacken the character of a people amongst whom such things have been perpetrated, but to spew, that if the Government is at all answerable for crimes, which after all are in the main traceable to defects in the social system, the blame must as much attach to the harsher rule of the days of ascendancy as to the more conciliatory policy of the recent system. I could, according to Mr. Peel's declaration, in bringing in the Catholic Relief Bill, choose at random any period between the Union and that day, for he justly observed, that there was hardly a year in which Ireland had been under the ordinary form of the Constitution; but I will take two epochs as examples, as they were both connected with somewhat similar moves in this House, and though neither partaking of the culpatory character of the noble Earl's motion, were both resisted by the minister of the day. The first period was the year 1816, during Lord Whitworth's time, when the Duke of Bedford made a motion in this House, referring to the state of Ireland. Lord Whitworth's despatch alluded to the disturbances which had taken place from the year 1811. He stated, that convictions had produced no good effects, and that, in many instances, justice had not been obtained on account of the intimidation of witnesses and juries. He stated, that in 1814, the Peace Preservation Act had to be put in operation in Tipperary; applications were made from 28 magistrates of Westmeath, and from 20 magistrates of Clare, for assistance to preserve the peace of their districts, and were refused. Lord Whitworth stated, that dragoons, some of whom were killed, were obliged to be called out to defend the mail coaches, and their barracks had been afterwards attacked. In 1816, occurred the assassination of Mr. Wm. Baker. Here was a case which showed, in all its parts, a successful and extended conspiracy. Mr. Baker had pursued to justice several persons belonging to an armed party, who had attacked and burned a house. A conspiracy was in con-
982
sequence formed to murder him, and the deed was perpetrated by five persons in mid-day. Parties had been stationed on all the roads by which he could return from Cashel, and when the shot was fired, a savage shout of exultation arose from every side, announcing to all the parties implicated, the death of their victim. In Clare, at that time, many houses had been plundered of arms; ninety meetings of the populace had taken place, and seven houses been burnt; and in the despatch of Lord Whitworth, he alluded to the disparity which took place at that time between the convictions and committals. By the paper to which he alluded, I can prove to your Lordships, that the disparity was very remarkable at that time. So far from there being, as now, four convictions in five, there was not at that period, one conviction in five; and Lord Whitworth attributed this to the intimidation of witnesses and juries. The next period was in the year 1822. A noble Friend of mine, who is prevented by indisposition from being present this night, (the Marquess of Lansdowne) brought forward a resolution at that time to consider if any measure could be brought in which would tend to the tranquillity of Ireland. In that year Lord Wellesley stated, amongst many similar reports, that 200 armed men on horseback, had met to commit depredations, and had attacked several houses, and also a number of persons coming out of church in one county. And in Clare and Galway 200 men in a body had attacked a number of persons. But, perhaps, it may be said, these outrages were then of a different sort—that since the passing of the Emancipation Act these offences have assumed a religious character—that what we now complain is, that, under the late Government, Protestant life and property are not secure. But what says Lord Wellesley in the year 1822, quoting that excellent authority, the Provost of Bandon? Why, that thirty-seven houses had been attacked, all belonging to Protestants; a large quantity of arms taken, and the persecuted Protestants obliged to quit the country and seek protection in towns. Tipperary was represented as bad as ever. It was in that year that the famous encounter between Lord Bantry and 500 armed men took place, he having thirty mounted gentry and fourteen troopers to oppose them. Serjeant Torrens, in charging the jury at Limerick on that occasion, stated, that "the convictions there

983
would give satisfaction to the few loyal people in that neighbourhood." A magistrate of the county of Kilkenny, stated, at that time, that "all control over the disposal of landed property was superseded by the sort of code established." I have quoted this, because the year 1822 was a year in which the noble Earl opposite, making, I believe, his first appearance in this House, stated as follows.—
"It would be in him a dereliction of duty were he not to state the conviction of his mind, that the great cause of these evils was non-residence. It was the great number of absentee landlords which formed the principal evil. Their absence broke those links which were necessary to preserve confidence between the different ranks and relations of society. While adverting to the spirit of outrage which unfortunately prevailed in Ireland, he should be guilty of a great omission were he not to acknowledge the vast improvement which had taken place during the last ten years."
A great improvement had taken place in the last ten years, had it? What, when the Provost of Bandon describes successful attacks upon thirty-seven Protestant houses! When landlords retained no power over the disposal of their landed property! When Lord Bantry, with thirty armed Yeomanry, and backed by regular troops, was obliged, as may be seen in a despatch from Sir John Lambert, to retreat before an armed mob of 500 men! If the country was improved then, what is it now? And can the noble Earl, even if every one of his unauthenticated statements were true, with a grave face say, that its condition is now unexampled? I could continue the review through other succeeding years; I could ask which of the melancholy instances of individual crime we have still to regret,—which of the cases thus brought before us, could compare with that long chain of guilt growing out of one transaction, commencing with the murder of Mr. Chadwick, in 1827, followed by the assassination of the witness Mara,—the attempt upon the lives of his brothers,—the complication of iniquity shown upon the trial of Grace, by the whole Russell family? Where now are such scenes as the burning of the Sheas, and the sad tragedy of Wild Goose Lodge? With reference to the memorials which have lately come from Tipperary and the King's County, I must read one from the magistrates of the county of Cork, in 1823. The noble Earl's improved times.
984
"May it please your Excellency,
"We, the magistrates of the county of Cork, assembled at Cork, to carry into effect the provisions of the new Constabulary Act, feel it our duty to lay before your Excellency, for the information of his Majesty's Government, the disturbed state of part of this county, together with the expression of our conviction that the spirit of insurrection is rapidly extending into parts of the county hitherto undisturbed.
"We understand that our County Grand Jury, after the minutest investigation, have presented a sum of about 10,000 l. for damage sustained by fire, destruction of cattle, breaking machinery, &c. &c., and though the greater part of those outrages have been hitherto confined to a comparatively small portion of the county, yet we regret to say there have been instances of crime connected with the system in various other districts.
"It cannot be necessary to impress on your Excellency the extent of suffering which has been inflicted by the persevering atrocity with which the insurgents have perpetrated the work of destruction. Many are now dependent altogether on the presentments which have been passed for their compensation for all they can be deemed to possess; nor can we feel that property of any description is exempt from the influence of that spirit which unhappily prevails, and is directed against all property whatever.
"By notices posted and personally served, many have been obliged to abandon their farms; witnesses who have prosecuted, have done so at personal risk; persons giving evidence at the present assizes, as to the value of property destroyed, have had their houses burned immediately on their return home; money has been extorted from several, by personal threats, to support and carry on their plans; arms still continue to be plundered, and pikes forged, to arm the disaffected.
"We regret to state that our exertions, aided by the vigorous co-operation of the military, police, and armed associations, have hitherto been insufficient to counteract the designs of men who have set all the constituted authorities and the law of the country at defiance. We therefore feel ourselves imperiously called upon to state to your Excellency, that whatever further measures may be adopted, they cannot be too promptly or vigorously carried into effect.
"Signed by desire of the meeting.
"DONERAILE,
"Chairman."
Cork April 7, 1823.
Again, I ask, is the present state of Ireland unparalleled? Now, my Lords, I proceed to produce to your Lordships the most unequivocal testimony—the most unimpeachable witnesses to the progressive

985
improvement of the country. The charges of the circuit judges at different periods. In the year 1816, it appears from the charges of the several judges which I hold in my hand, and to which any noble Lord may refer, that the state of crime in the counties of Clare, Galway, Louth, Tipperary, King's County, Donegal, Armagh, and many others, which are in my list, was of an aggravated and extended nature. In Clare the calendar exceeded 120, comprising many cases of a very heinous nature. In Limerick the calendar contained 103 prisoners, of which twenty-three were charged with murder. Judge Day said, he held in his hand a calendar, marked with the most atrocious crime that human nature could perpetrate. In Armagh, Judge Moore called the attention of the jury to the unparalleled state of the calendar. (Unparalleled—so the noble Lord did not invent that term as applicable to the period of my government), which demonstrated the county in a most disturbed state, and observed, and referred to the districts, bounding on Louth and Monaghan, and commented on the evil of search and seditious associations, which were extending themselves in Tipperary. Lord Norbury, in addressing the Grand Jury, said, that the outrages against all government and authority which have disgraced the county have now arisen to such a height, that no Government could overlook such offences. In Louth there was a special meeting of magistrates to inquire into the state of the county. In Galway the Insurrection Act applied for. In Donegal a meeting of magistrates to consider its disturbed state. In the King's County the Insurrection Act was in force, and the estimates of its expense for two months was 600 l. Take another period in the year 1821. In Limerick, bands of armed men were traversing the county, committing depredations and seizing arms. In Monaghan, Baron M'Clelland remarked on the state of the calendar, which contained a considerable number of offences, and many crimes of a heinous nature. In Mayo, Baron Pennefather remarked on the state of the calendar, heavy in number and enormity. In Fermanagh, Judge Jebb deeply regrets the state of the county. In Clare the calendar was very heavy, including eleven for murder. In 1825. Judge Moore remarked on the very bad condition of Tipperary. In Sligo, Baron Smith condoled with them on the state of the calendar, which contained several heinous cases, In Down, Judge
986
Burton observed on the number of cases for murder on the calendar. In Longford there were sixty criminals for trial, and it was alleged, that the Riband system had extended itself to it from Westmeath. In Cork the calendar contained 145, in-eluding twenty-three for murder, and twelve for house burning. Again in 1827, Limerick calendar amounted to 193, including sixteen cases of homicide: and Sergeant Lefroy, who presided as judge, remarked that the increase of crime I was truly melancholy. In Cork the calendar contained 374, including twenty for murder. In Westmeath there were a number of capital convictions. In Cavan the calendar was very heavy. In Wicklow there were a vast number of convictions. In Down, Judge Jebb said the number of prisoners on the calendar were numerous beyond example. In Tipperary, Judge Burton said, he was concerned to find the list of crimes, not only in number, but in magnitude, unexampled in this or any other county. It is painful to observe the proportion that the crime of murder bears to all the rest, and that this crime is marked by peculiar features of barbarity and atrocity, appearing in many instances to be preconcerted by bodies of men confederated in defiance of all law, to commit a crime, that strikes not alone against individual life, but against the security of all society. In Wexford, Baron Pennefather remarked on the heavy state of the calendar. In Limerick, Judge Jebb remarked on the number in the calendar charged with murder—thirteen or fourteen. In Monaghan, Baron M'Clelland remarked on the immensely heavy state of the calendar, and alluded to the large number of cases in the county of Louth, which he had just left: and although a very small county, no less than 106 indictments were sent to the grand jury. In 1835, during the spring circuit, before I entered upon the Government of Ireland, attention is called to Roscommon, where the calendar contained 102 prisoners for trial—seven for murder, two homicide, three stabbing, &c. In Louth, a small county, the calendar contained fifty-nine for trial, including five for murder. In Leitrim there were seventy-two for trial, and in Monaghan, Judge Johnson, in addressing the grand jury, regretted the state of the calendar, which is heavier than usual. In Westmeath, Baron Smith said, although the calendar is not numerous, it contains several heinous crimes. In Cork, Sergeant Greene said the calendars have been re-

987
markably heavy throughout the Munster circuit, and I find that Cork will not prove an exception. Let me now contrast with this picture the state of some of the counties to which I have adverted in the years 1836 and 1837, and see what the same class of testimony proves with regard to them. In Down, the Chief Justice congratulated the grand jury on the extreme lightness of the calendar. In Louth, Chief Baron Joy said it gave him great satisfaction to observe that the calendar at the present assizes was very small when compared with former years. In Waterford, Chief Justice Bushe remarked on the extreme lightness of the calendar. In Kilkenny, Baron Pennefather congratulated the county on the lightness of the calendar which contrasted happily with the former ones. In the Queen's County, at Mary-borough, Judge Johnson congratulated the county on the extreme lightness of the calendar, and said some of the principal cases were adjourned from last assizes. In Wexford, Judge Johnson congratulated the county on the state of the calendar—very few cases. At Fermanagh, Baron Pennefather congratulated the county on the pleasing appearance of the calendar. In Limerick, Judge Perrin congratulated the grand jury on the reduced state of the calendar, which was evidence of the peaceable state of the county. In Kildare, Judge Johnson complimented the grand jury on the lightness of the calendar. In Sligo, Judge Burton remarked on the lightness of the calendar; and in Clare, Baron Foster said, he was happy to congratulate them upon the great diminution of crime, that had taken place in the county, compared with former years. In Carlow, Baron Smith remarked on the lightness of the calendar. In Wexford, Baron Pennefather said, he was happy to inform them there was little to be done. He was really surprised to see a county of such extent so free from crime. 1837.—In Fermanagh, Chief Justice Bushe said, the calendar was only of ordinary description. In the Queen's County, Baron Pennefather said, there is nothing on the face of the calendar which requires observation. In Cork, Sergeant Greene said, there is nothing in the calendar requiring observation. In Roscommon, Judge Burton said, he saw nothing in the calendar, that could make him think, that the county did not enjoy the utmost tranquillity. In Leitrim, Judge Perrin remarked on the lightness of the calendar. In Kerry, Baron Richards said, the calendar was swelled with minor
988
offences that should be tried at sessions. In Down, Judge Torrens said, the offences on the calendar are but of such a nature as must occur from the extent of the county. In Louth, Chief Baron Joy told the grand jury, that the criminal business would be very light. "I cannot help hearing my noble Friend opposite observing, that this would go to prove, that there is no crime at all in the country." My Lords, it is no intention of mine to prove any such absurdity; on the contrary, I regret, as much as any man, that heinous crimes do still remain, exceptions to the general improvement of the country, but the use I make of these charges is to prove, that the Judges take, as they are bound to do, an enlarged view of the subject, and give, by the language they have lately used, as compared with what they were formerly obliged to express, the most indisputable confirmation of the position with which I started. In Limerick, Sergeant Greene said, the calendar was unusually light, containing no crime worthy of comment. In Wexford, King's 'County, and Kilkenny, Judge Johnson and Foster severally remarked on the lightness of the calendar. In Armagh, Chief Baron Joy said, the calendar contained the smallest number of cases he ever saw. In Kerry, there were only thirty-four for trial. In Donnegal, Baron Pennefather congratulated them on the lightness of the calendar. And, in Monaghan, Judge Burton did the same. Such is the opinion of Judge Burton, a name which I cannot mention even thus incidentally, without paying the humble tribute of my praise to the zeal and energy displayed by that learned person, in undertaking, at my request, in spite of his years and infirmities, the arduous task of holding the late special commission in Tipperary; thus showing, t least his devotion to his duties had not been impaired—those duties which no one could better discharge. 1838—Spring assizes. In Meath, there was but little civil or criminal business. In Wexford, there were but twenty-two prisoners for trial, and all minor offences, except two; and Baron Foster, in addressing the grand jury, said, there were no cases that required any observation from him. In Lough Judge Burton, in addressing the jury, said he was happy to state, from the appearance of the cases upon the calendar, it would not be necessary for him to make any lengthened observations, or give them any particular directions. The number of cases was not large; the crimes were not

989
of a serious character; they were such as might be expected in a densely populated county, such as Louth. At Limerick Sergeant Greene said, he was happy to have it in his power to repeat the congratulation, which, at the last assizes, he offered upon the state of the calendar. The offences are neither numerous, nor of a serious character. At Cavan, Judge Torrens congratulated the jury on the state of the calendar. In Kilkenny, the number of prisoners for trial, amounted only to twenty-eight—eleven of the number were bailable offences; and this the quantum of crime in a population amounting to 200,000, In the county, the calendar used to exceed considerably 100. In Kilkenny county, Baron Foster, congratulated the jury on the lightness of the calendar, and said it formed a great contrast with former calendars in the county. In Waterford county and city Baron Foster and Judge Moore, congratulated the juries on the lightness of the calendars. 1838—Summer assizes. In Wicklow, there were but eighteen prisoners on the calendar, and Judge Moore said, the extremely peaceful state of the county spoke so well, both for the higher and lower classes in the county. In Louth, Judge Burton said, the state of the calendar rendered any observations unnecessary. In Kilkenny, Judge Crampton said, he was happy to find, that his labour would be light. In Clare, Baron Richards congratulated the jury upon the lightness of the calendar. In Roscommon, Judge Perrin said—It is with great satisfaction, I feel myself called on to congratulate you on the peaceable and tranquil state of your great and populous county. And in Leitrim, Sergeant Greene said, he took occasion to express his great pleasure at witnessing the very light state of the calendar. In the county of Cork, Baron Richards observed, that he had great pleasure in offering his congratulations on the unprecedentedly light state of the calendar; it ought to give the county great pride. In Mayo, Sergeant Greene said, that although there were many cases on the calendar, still, with a few exceptions, they were not of a heinous character. And at Enniskillen, county Fermanagh, Baron Pennefather said, I have to congratulate you on the appearance which your county presents not only by the calendar, which is light, but by its general tranquillity. While in Galway, Judge Perrin said, with the exception of two or three heavy cases standing over from last assizes, there was nothing
990
to call for any particular observation, and nothing that might not be expected in so extensive and populous a county. Sergeant Greene addressed similar observations to the grand jury of the town. And at Armagh, Judge Burton said, from an examination of the calendar, the business would not be heavy or protracted. And in Londonderry, Mr. Justice Torrens said, "I feel pleasure in again congratulating you, and communicating that the calendar is excessively light, in fact, at every successive assizes, I find crime decreasing, and tranquillity becoming established in your county." These, my Lords, were the opinions of the judges, giving the impression on their minds at the time, by a recent examination of all the commitments; and if your Lordships are to go into a Committee, what further evidence can you produce to set against this testimony to the improvement of the country within the last three years. We have had a great many references to the state of Munster in former times—I will read a letter which I have this morning received from Mr. Barrington, a gentleman of well known intelligence and great experience; it relates to the present assizes:—
"Cork, 17th of March, 1839.
"My Lord—This circuit is now drawing to a close, and as Lord Roden's motion is fixed for the 21st, it will be satisfactory to your Lordship to hear, that the counties of Clare Kerry, and Cork, and a great portion of Limerick, are perfectly free from agrarian disturbances. The attendance of witnesses even in those cases arising from insurrectionary outrage, where intimidation might be supposed to prevail, was very great, and the number of convictions bore a greater proportion to the number of cases tried, than had taken place for some years.
"In the county of Clare, the calendar was extremely light, and there was no case of an insurrectionary nature. I observe, however, that Mr. Colquhoun, in the recent debate in the Commons, has alluded to a case which was tried at the Clare assizes, where a person of the name of M'Namara, and others, were tried and acquitted for the murder of a man named Minogue, and has adduced that case as a proof that witnesses are intimidated from giving evidence in Ireland. This case, however, proves exactly the contrary. A field had been let to two different persons, by a father and a son, each of whom claimed property in it. Each tenant brought a large party to till the ground; a general quarrel ensued in which a man named Minogue received a blow which caused his death. Informations were sworn, implicating several persons in the homicide, but a large sum of money, having, it is said, been subscribeu and paid to the family of the

991
deceased, they declined to prosecute effectually.
"In Limerick, the calendar was much heavier, and several cases of an insurrectionary nature, such as entering houses searching for arms, administering oaths, and assaulting habitations, were tried at the assizes. There was the fullest attendance of witnesses, in these cases, and convictions had in each, which I am sure will be most useful.
"The assizes of Kerry were concluded in three days; the convictions were chiefly for sheep-stealing.
"In this great county, the calendar is equally light, exhibiting no offence beyond those which occur in every crowded community.
"Upon the whole, I consider, that this circuit affords the most satisfactory evidence of the improved state of the country, and an increasing confidence on the part of the people in the administration of justice,
I have, &c.
"(Signed) M. Barrington."
The noble Earl has spoken of the late and present state of Ireland under my government as unparalleled. No doubt the noble Earl speaks his honest feelings on this occasion; but I will beg to ask whether the noble Earl recollects what was said of the state of Ireland in 1834, under the government of a noble Marquess, (the Marquess of Wellesley), whom I can never speak of, but with the highest respect, and, perhaps, I may say this with somewhat more sincerity than the noble Earl who professed it this evening, for I never heard that during the administration of the noble Marquess, the noble Earl had given him any effectual support, either in this House or elsewhere. Does the noble Earl recollect what was said of the state of Ireland in that year by a rev, gentleman (Mr. Professor Boyton), who was sent over to this country by the Protestant party in Ireland, indeed specially nominated by the noble Earl himself, to convey to Englishmen an accurate picture of the miseries which Protestants were then enduring. That rev. gentleman at a public meeting here, said:—
"It will be difficult to give any idea to the people of this country of the state of Ireland, in which there was a total absence of anything like order or security for property. Imagine if possible, that at the close of day, having examined the lower stories of your houses, and, afterwards, your upper and sleeping apartments, and found all secure, you should afterwards be aroused by seeing flames burst forth as refulgent as those of Birmingham and Wolverhampton, and let you heighten the terror of he scene, by the reflection, that to every fire
992
there was a victim, and you will have a faint idea of the unfortunate condition of many parts of my unhappy country."
This, then, is merely a faint idea, a mere sketchy and indistinct outline of a picture of the state of Ireland given by the rev. gentleman—the emissary of the noble Earl and his Protestant friends—at the time, which the noble Earl has this night represented as that in which crime was grappled with, and the law vindicated, under that noble Marquess, now the object of his sudden adulation; and the noble Earl, the patron, if not the author of the description, which I have just read, has, nevertheless, charged me with not having grappled with crime, with not having vindicated the law—with having produced a state of things unexampled, I will now come to another point, which, though not directly arising out of any statement of the noble Earl, I still feel it necessary to advert to; because, not having any claim to reply, I think I have a right to anticipate arguments, which (from what occurred in another place) I may fairly presume will be used by noble Lords, who will follow me in the debate. I will first advert to the memorial from the magistrates of the county of Tipperary, agreed to at a meeting in which a noble Earl (the Earl of Glengall) not now present took a conspicuous part. The answer to that memorial was objected to, as being supposed to convey a censure on the magistracy and landed gentry of that county. The paragraph objected to, stated, that property had its duties as well as its rights—perhaps an unnecessary truism to any one not aware, that to the neglect of some of those duties had, in all times, been attributed many of the worst evils of Ireland, which broke out in perpetual disorders, in disgraceful outrages. But in more recent resolutions it has also been stated, that this answer had had the effect of increasing animosities against the owners of the soil. Would not any one infer, on reading that resolution, that the sentiment in question which has given offence so disproportioned to its obvious truth had been volunteered as an address to the peasantry, instead of being an answer to a memorial from the magistrates of Tipperary, most unsparing of attacks upon all but themselves and their class? It accused the jurors of violating their oaths—the Government of neglecting its duty, it threw out insinuations in other quarters, usually considered invulnerable. Whilst disregarding such attacks, and pas-

993
sing by such insinuations, the Government vindicated the juries by showing that the convictions in cases of homicide, at the Spring assizes had been to the full average in proportion to the trials, and by quoting the authority of the venerable judge, that the verdicts had been in accordance with his charges. With regard to the ancient custom of challenging jurors, the answer to the memorial corrected a mistake into which the memorialists had fallen, in arguing that the Government had entirely abandoned the practice. The answer upon this point stated, that the privilege of challenging was not abandoned, but that in cases in which the Crown was concerned as prosecutor, it was not adopted except upon what appeared to be a sufficient reason, and that in no instance would it be used merely upon the ground of the religion or politics of the juror, but upon some special ground of exception. It then proceeded to touch upon this evidently tender ground, but in an answer merely to the magistrates themselves, which never saw the light afterwards, till moved for in the other House of Parliament, when certainly, as the magistrates had published their memorial, the answer could not be refused. "Property has its duties as well as its rights,"—this then is tender but not untrodden ground. The effect of too sudden an attempt to correct, by ejectment, the vicious system of subdividing lands which was adopted for purposes no longer available, has been often the subject of discussion and complaint, before this unfortunate truism excited so much misplaced indignation. Why, as far back as at the time of the Committee of the House of Lords in 1825, the report states, that it hopes the increasing intelligence of landlords will correct this evil, with a due regard to the comfort and well being of those directly concerned. (I think I am quoting nearly the words). Now, on all sides, what was more than this the subject of debate at the time of the passing of the Catholic Relief Bill? In the debates on the Catholic question, an hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell) described with great force and feeling the situation of the unhappy peasantry, whose fate was in the hands of those who were not aware that property had its duties as well as its rights. Another hon. and learned Gentleman said, this was a picture drawn by the hand of a master, and wondered that none of the Government attempted to gainsay it. Moved by this appeal, what was the line
994
taken by that Member of the Govenment who did then reply—and from whom did that reply come? An individual who spoke with all the effect of the esteem universally felt for his private character, all the weight of his official station, and all the authority of his recent military experience in Ireland. Sir George Murray thus expressed himself:—
"An hon. Gentleman has alluded to the removal of the peasantry, which has taken place in consequence of depriving the 40 s. freeholders of the elective franchise. That system was radically defective; it was calculated to create a political influence of real detriment to the landed estates, and to the country. However well the system may sound in name, it was undoubtedly in Ireland a great evil. I admit it was impossible to remove that evil without the danger of incurring that which we feel as one of its consequences, for when the motive of the landlord—namely, the creation of political influence was removed private interest it was to be expected, would step in, and, perhaps, with too harsh a hand cast out the tenantry which no longer answered the purpose for which they had been created."
If, however, any noble Lord opposite supposes that by this much criticised observation, the Government intended to imply that the landlords of Ireland were bearing more harshly upon their tenants than heretofore, they are perfectly mistaken, as will appear from the words of the answer itself, which are, that "property has its duties as well as its rights, and that it is to the neglect of these in times past, that many and most of the present miseries are to be attributed." I will now advert for a moment to a most distressing occurrence. I mean the murder of Lord Norbury. And when I consider the amiable character of that noble Lord, his position in society, his extensive connections, and the shock which his death occasioned through the country, it is an occurrence which, in common with your Lordships and every right-minded man in the community, I do indeed deeply deplore. I will not enter into any speculation as to the cause of that melancholy event; but I must say, as yet there is no evidence that the crime was the result of of any extensive conspiracy. Like the murder of Mr. Weyland and others, I believe it arose out of a local conspiracy connected with the possession of land—a conspiracy arising from revenge on the part of those, who were dispossessed of lands which they had held. I will here say a word, as to the high character of

995
the gentlemen who were sent down by Government to investigate the circumstancet connected with the murder of Lord Norbury. I do this, because certain returns connected with their appointment were moved for by a noble Earl opposite, (Lord Charleville), as if there was some intention to found a charge against me for their selection. However, when the returns arrived, whether the noble Earl did not think them likely to answer his object, I know not, but he stated, he did not wish them to be printed. Mr. Brownrigg was a gentleman who had been distinguished by his commanding officers when in the Rifle Brigade; he had been since the year 1832, sub-inspector of the county Kerry, where I had an opportunity of becoming acquainted with and observing his able discharge of the duties of his office. At that time, if he had any politics, of which I really never informed myself, they were supposed not to have been much those of the present Government. He was afterwards, when in Dublin, high in the confidence of Colonel Shaw Kennedy; and it was upon his report that I was further induced to take an early opportunity of promoting him. I would here read your Lordships a letter from Colonel Shaw Kennedy to Mr. Brownrigg, at the time of his quitting the service, but it is hardly necessary thus to occupy your time. Mr. Haly was a gentleman whom it had been the intention of Lord Wellesley to appoint, upon a vacancy, sub-inspector of county Cork; but, upon his own representation that he was a native of Cork, the appointment, which would on that account have been contrary to rule, did not take place. In every situation in which I have since employed him, he has had the good fortune and tact to give general satisfaction. Now, what I complain of in the conduct of the noble Earl opposite, is, that his deportment towards these gentlemen was uncourteous and capricious. He complained to them to them of the Government having sent them down. The noble Earl dissents. I am aware that he did not in the first instance; but the moment they entered seriously upon those functions on which their utility depended, then the noble Earl began to complain of them. It was on the occasion of the examination of Maguire that I find it stated in the report by these gentlemen.
"The examination had just commenced when (about half-past one o'clock) Lord
996
Charleville entered the room in the gaol where the prisoner was under examination by us. His. Lordship appeared greatly excited—expressed his astonishment that we should have interfered with Maguire in his absence, and who, his Lordship was of opinion, ought not to have been examined for several days. Lord Charleville then indulged in much invective, and, at some length, against the Government, for whom, he said, he entertained no respect whatever, and in whom he placed no confidence; he also said, he supposed we had received secret instructions.
"We assured his Lordship that we had not received any such instructions, that our orders were to act as already mentioned, and that we were under the full conviction, that in examining Maguire we were acting with his Lordship's concurrence: that nothing was further from our intentions than to spew the least disrespect or discourtesy towards his Lordship or the magistrates.
"Lord Charleville expressed himself quite satisfied with our explanation, and with regret for the warmth of his manner, apologized for anything he might have said to hurt our feelings, adding, that although he felt no respect for the Government, he did for us."
Now surely, my Lords, this is not language which ought to have been used on a solemn occasion like that, in the presence of a person under examination for a heinous offence, and of officers sent down by that Government whom the noble Earl chose in his character of magistrate thus to vilify. If, as the petition, of which a copy has been sent to me, states, "the constituted authorities (as they call themselves) are not treated with proper respect," such conduct as this is not calculated to correct the evil.
"Lord Charleville proceeded to inform us of his intention to bring before the House of Lords the unconstitutional conduct of the Government, in having sent down two gentlemen to supersede the local authorities, and for not having communicated with them on the subject."
The noble Earl does not seem quite to admit this. Then, of course, I will say no more about it, further than this, that the noble Earl is no doubt perfect master of any line he may choose to pursue as to what he may bring before the House of Lords, only that then he had better give his notice here than there. I now come to the noble Earl's speech at the meeting of the King's County magistrates; upon which occasion the noble Earl introduced a variety of topics, spoke with great appearance of preparation, but I think I shall shew that on all the subjects on which he touched, the noble Earl had

997
not taken the necessary pains on one important point—to procure due information with reference to the facts. First, as to the noble Earl's perversion of the real circumstances of a case in which at the early part of my government I exercised to a certain extent the prerogative of mercy, but which the noble Earl considered appropriate to introduce on this occasion. The noble Earl is reported to have thus expressed himself:—
"When a person is found guilty of the most atrocious crimes, what has been the conduct of the Irish Government, and what the result? One result is the demoralization which we all lament and deplore. I may be told that this is a sweeping charge. I may be called on for proof, that proof I adduce. Do I turn to the east and look to Durrow, the seat of the late outrage? No, I turn to yonder gaol, and in that gaol I hold evidence of the fact to which I have alluded, At March Assizes, 1836, four prisoners were committed to gaol for attempting to murder the steward of Lord Bloomfield. They failed in murdering the steward, they were tried for the attempt, and found guilty, and the man who fired the shot was executed on that drop. My noble Friend, Lord Haddington, was then Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, and knowing well how to execute and wield the power entrusted to him by his Sovereign, thinking as the intended victim had not fallen under the blow of the assassin, that justice was amply requited by the execution of the man who fired the shot, he commuted the sentence on the other three to transportation for life. Within six weeks Lord Mulgrave came to Ireland, superseding my noble Friend in his high office of Lord-lieutenant. He may have received memorials, but every gentleman I address knows how little value is to be attached to a memorial from a county; they are often not the genuine signatures of those they represent; but even supposing them to be genuine, they are often extorted by personal fear from the individuals applied to, and in the general fear of terrorism and intimidation which pervades the county. Well, a petition was presented to the Lord-lieutenant; I understand the name of Lord Bloomfield, the next victim on the list, was attached to it. It may have been so. I know not who said so. I know not who sent it, or who called the Lord-lieutenant's attention to it; but this I know, that the Lord-lieutenant commuted the sentence of transportation to a temporary imprisonment in the gaol of Tullamore."
This was the statement of the noble Earl; will your Lordships allow me to make mine? A very few days after I had arrived in Ireland, I saw Lord Bloomfield, whom I had known long. His Lordship presented to me a memorial, signed by
998
three clergymen and five justices of the peace, besides other respectable neighbours, and he said, that he conceived that it would be better for the peace of the country, as well as for his own comfort, that these men should have their sentences commuted. I told him that in the case of so serious an offence, I could not think of commuting the sentence then, but that I would communicate with the Lord Chief Justice on the subject. I did write to the Lord Chief Justice on the subject, and his Lordship said, that he did not see anything in the circumstances of the case itself that called for commutation, but that the effect of such a step upon the peace of the country was peculiarly a question for the executive to consider. Still I would not exercise the prerogative of the Crown, and I decided that the law must take its course. Before I again saw Lord Bloomfield I had had some communication with the present Judge Perrin, then Attorney-General, whose recommendation was strongly in favour of a commutation, but upon this I still hesitated to act, and I told Lord Bloomfield, when he came to me four months afterwards, that I would not do it then; but that I would do it then, and then only, when the noble Lord could tell me that the country was in a better state. At length, after the lapse of one year, after renewed application to me on the part of Lord Bloomfield that the sentence might be commuted. I gave the necessary direction that the commutation might take place, but not that the sentence should be commuted, as the noble Earl stated, "to a temporary imprisonment," but to two years imprisonment, and for the remaining portion of it with hard labour. I hope your Lordships will not fail to remark that this is one of the cases which are said by those who are in the habit of making attacks on my Government, to have been decided in a summary manner, and as the noble Earl says, "we don't know how." Really I think, as the noble Earl was in the country at the time, he ought to have informed himself of the real state of the case, before he ventured these attacks upon her Majesty's Government. But see, my Lords, how misrepresentation spreads. It was stated a few days afterwards, on the authority of this speech of the noble Earl's, at a meeting in the north of England, by a noble Marquess, the cause of whose absence to-night I much regret, that I had liberated these men because the Catholic priest interposed, and the Catholic pea-

999
santry memorialized in their behalf. Intimidation, too, was stated by the noble Earl as causing Lord Bloomfield's application. But I must say, I think the well known character of Lord Bloomfield is a security against the possibility of intimidation. But it is necessary I should add, that Lord Bloomfield was so struck with the erroneous representations of the noble Ear], that he wrote to the noble Earl explaining the real circumstances, and saying that he did it to enable him to correct the erroneous impression his speech was calculated to make, which he was sure he would be desirous to do: and he sent a copy of his letter to me. [The Earl of Charleville: Did he send you my answer.] Yes, he did; and I thought it was most unsatisfactory. But the noble Earl had not yet done with the consequences of the ignorance in which he had spoken. Mr. Johnston Stoney, the gentleman who had been shot at, writes to the noble Earl, complaining most justly and temperately of the prejudice to the administration of justice which such a course as that pursued by the noble Earl was likely to inflict. But the noble Earl's notion of justice seems to be, that when persons are awaiting their trials, it is then the fittest time to excite a prejudice against them; for, when the case of Ward and Gannon was again brought forward the other night, the noble Earl gave as a reason for not having mentioned their former offence before, that they were not then in custody. In this instance Mr. Johnston Stoney, the person fired at, gives his opinion that they were not the guilty party. He also corrects the noble Earl in another point, shewing that he could not have carefully informed himself on any part of the subject. There was no shot at all fired at Lord Bloomfield's steward, as was asserted by the noble Earl. Mr. Stoney's letter elicited the following reply from the noble Earl—
"Charleville Castle, Tuesday Jan
"SIR,—I had the honour to receive your letter of the 19th inst. this day, and though I read several Dublin papers, yet I cannot find the expressions quoted by you and attributed to me. I did not assume the guilt of the prisoners. I did not express any public or private opinion as to their guilt. I did not designate their crime as the most atrocious.
"I have the honour to be, &c.
"CHARLEVILLE.
"J. Stoney, Esq., Emall Castle,"
Did not express any opinion of their guilt! did not designate their crime as the
1000
most atrocious! Why, in the extract I have read from the report in the Evening Mail, in the last line the question is asked, "what is the crime?" which surely assumes guilt—else accusation is the word—but in the first line as applied to them is the phrase even "the most atrocious crimes." So that we gather, coupling this report from the Evening Mail, with the noble Earl's declaration, this curious collateral fact, that the noble Earl does not read the Evening Mail. I admire his taste, though I cannot say much for his gratitude, as certainly to that source he owes much of his recent fame. I read the Evening Mail, because it abuses me, if it praised me as it does the noble Earl: from which I trust I may be preserved, I, should follow the noble Earl's example. Then again, the noble Earl in the course of his speech assumes, on the slightest possible grounds, the guilty participations, as he stated, of the whole population, in the murder of Lord Norbury, because, according to him, two persons, who must therefore, have had a foreknowledge of the intention, came to the lodge where Lord Norbury was, and asked if he was dead. Now, what were the real facts as proved by the depositions of the lodge-keeper, Eliza Charnley, and an old pensioner who, with his companion, were the persons who came to the gate. It appeared that the woman had told them what had happened when she met them on the road, and the old soldier who it happened was not a Catholic peasant, but a Scotchman and a Presbyterian, said to his companion, "I have had some experience of gun-shot wounds, let us return and see if we can be useful;" and thence their inquiry as to his being alive. They both remarked afterwards upon the inexplicable conduct of the steward, who passed through the people returning from the funeral, without giving any intimation, or attempting to procure assistance; had this been done, the deposition goes on to say, the murderer must, in all probability, have been secured. Now, one more mistake; and it is really almost the only other statement of fact made in the noble Earl's speech, which produced such an effect upon his brother magistrates as to induce them to pass these extraordinary resolutions. The noble Earl stated something about two persons having been engaged to murder two different parties, and having for special reasons changed the lots, and the one who was to murder the man taking the woman instead. This story

1001
gained additional currency from having been been adopted apparently from the speech of the noble Earl by the noble and learned Lord near me, who stated it to your Lordships on the first night of the Session more clearly and forcibly, but not as it appears more correctly. I understand the effect upon your Lordships was great; but I am sure he will be happy to have any effect destroyed which was produced from such a painful source. The statement was this:—
"Notwithstanding all these difficulties we have had it proved within the last month, that when it was resolved by persons minded to kill two individuals, that one should kill the man and the other the woman, an objection was made—not to the criminality—not to the foul and hideous crime of murder,—but that the person on whom the lot had fallen to kill the woman, happened to have some conviction that it was more convenient that he should kill the man; so he changed the parts, and both the man and woman were murdered. And yet, my Lords, to my infinite astonishment I have heard the Crown lawyers who conducted the prosecution congratulate themselves and the country that the charges of conspiracy had been disproved;—that there existed no 'extensive' conspiracy in that part of the United Kingdom."
Now, I had hardly finished reading this, before I sent for the Solicitor-General to inquire how it was if this had been proved, and as it appeared at the late commission in Tipperary, that I had never heard any thing about it. He said, that it was equally new to him. I then desired that circulars should be addressed to the Crown solicitors of all the circuits through whom the prosecution, if any, must have proceeded. I hold in my hand the replies from them all, not only distinctly denying any official knowledge of such a fact, but adding that they cannot even understand on what such a story can have been founded. The special commission at Tipperary has been alluded to. So far from any thing having been elicited there to prove the existence of a general or extended conspiracy, I take the direct contrary to have been the fact. Convictions were pronounced on the evidence of informers. Great individual depravity was proved, but it appeared evident that the conspiracy, such as it was, was of a local character, and for limited objects—connected in short with the tenure of land, and extending to the connections or clan of those affected by the particular acts out of which the intention to commit the crime
1002
arose. One thing however I may observe, with respect to the convictions before the Tipperary commission, that it was so far satisfactory, as it proved that jurors of every degree and shade of opinion, some of them being of much stronger political opinions than I could approve, can be brought to do substantial and impartial justice. With respect to a charge that has been circulated that I commuted the sentence of the law in the case of two persons of the names of Kelly and Hourigan, convicted of killing another by beating him with stones: and that I did this without a communication with the judges, and because I conceived that death by stones was not to be considered as murder. This monstrous misrepresentation having obtained considerable circulation through the press, and being calculated to create a most injurious impression upon the minds of the peasantry, I communicated with the learned judges Burton and Perrin, who agreed with me that it would be desirable, if an opportunity occurred, to correct so injurious an error by stating the real facts of the case. These are, that I twice rejected memorials for a remission of the capital punishment, on the ground that the malice appeared to me to have been proved in the evidence and that the instrument with which the fatal blow was struck ought not to make any distinction, but when a memorial came from many of the jury begging a reference to the judges, I could not of course interpose my opinion in a case of life and death, and after two communications I got a distinct and conjoint recommendation, founded doubtless on their better means of information that the capital sentence should not be carried into effect. This brings me to a portion of the attacks upon my government which I am most anxions to put correctly before your Lordships. I allude to an alleged abuse of the prerogative of mercy. Now this charge relates principally to what passed in the year 1836. It comes, then, after repeated opportunities have occurred of bringing the whole subject before the House, and after the noble Earl made a motion, eighteen months ago, of a very similar character to the present, and when every document referring to the subject has been ten months on the table of the House. As to individual cases which may have occurred since, I have on all occasions shown every desire to give the fullest explanation, when they have been brought separately before your Lordships;

1003
selected as those cases have been, as I have frequently said, with considerable care, by those who brought them forward, but all, I think, in the opinion of your Lordships, capable of receiving a satisfactory answer. Now to correct some of the Misunderstanding as to the exercise of this prerogative, on personal inspection of the gaols, in the years 1835 and 1836, but principally for a reason which I shall explain to your Lordships, in the latter year. The cases upon which I then decided, were of three descriptions. The first, those upon which there had been much previous inquiry—as was shown the other night in the case of Ward and Gannon, one of those on which I had been supposed to have decided summarily and capriciously. Upon all of these, what passed was only the communication upon that occasion of a previously formed decision, sometimes merely reserved up to that time for some final local inquiries. The second class were those of whom there were several instances, both in 1835 and 1836. Persons convicted of light offences, whose sentences were very nearly expired, and who were recommended on account of their exemplary conduct in confinement, by all the authorities, the local inspector, (in every instance but one a Protestant clergyman) the governor of the gaol—their recommendations generally backed by the testimony to previous character on the part of some accompanying magistrates. I received, some months afterwards, the most satisfactory accounts froth the local inspectors, of the benefit this very limited indulgence had been in maintaining the discipline of the gaol, and improving the character of its inmates. The third class to which I applied the exercise of the prerogative, upon the occasion of my tour in 1836, was most numerous in the gaol of Clonmel. There and elsewhere, the law had been pressed with unexampled certainty and severity, through the officers of the Government, against a sort of offence which had previously been neglected, if not encouraged—hardly ever punished. I mean faction fights, and riots at fairs.
In passing sentences upon some of these and others for assaults, Mr. Howley, the assistant-barrister—a gentleman who has the singular good fortune, in a most arduous situation, to have given universal satisfaction—Mr. Howley stated, that the sentences were of a nature, which
1004
might, perhaps, receive subsequent mitigation, if the state of the country in those respects became better. Mr. Howley afterwards spoke to me in the same sense, and, in visiting Clonmel, my object was to inform myself as to those persons convicted of this particular sort of offence, who had been best conducted in gaol, whose sentence was most advanced, and who came from a part of the country which was in a most improved state. As to the result of this experiment, we have some months after the testimony of Mr. Rowley, who, in his charge to the grand jury at the quarter sessions of the county Tipperary, in October, 1837. observes:—
"Occasional acts of clemency, judiciously exercised towards offenders, act with a moral force, oftentimes as effective as the cell."
And further in reference, to these particular cases—
"No person can deny, that the experiment was at least worth the trial; and if it should not, in the end, produce the good effects which his Excellency, who humanely applied so lenient a remedy, looked for, it must be only cast aside amongst the legislative lumber of insurrection and coercion acts, which, I believe, are no longer looked upon as specific for Irish disturbance. But so far as I have yet had an opportunity of judging, I should say, with great submission to those who would propound a contrary opinion, that any clemency exercised towards persons convicted at the Quarter Sessions of this county, has rather worked beneficially than otherwise; and it may be some proof that it was not unworthily bestowed, that not one of the objects of it have been since been brought before me for trial; while the factions riots, for partaking in which a number of those discharged had been convicted, have almost entirely ceased within the county."
Two things I distinctly deny, that upon these occasions any persons detained for serious offences were discharged without there having been mature previous inquiry. And, secondly, that any were discharged, merely because I happened to pass through the town, who would not have been equally considered as entitled to the same indulgence upon facts stated in a memorial. Now, as to the general question of the exercise of the prerogative of mercy—the best mode to arrive at the truth is to analyse a return, which I hold in my hand, of the memorials presented to me, and the decisions upon them, since the last motion of the noble Earl in November, 1837, when all the facts to which I have been just alluding

1005
might have been brought before the House, and ought to have been so, if noticed at all. From the 1st of November, 1837, to the 31st of January, 1839, there have been presented to me 1,631 memorials;—of these, there were decided unfavourably, without reference to judge or assistant barrister, 371; unfavourably, after such reference, 431; favourably, without reference to judge or assistant barrister, 188; favourably, after such reference, 634. It is obvious, that the principal observations must apply to the 188 decided favourably, without reference to any such authority; but of these, forty-three being fines under green wax, or warrants for non-attendance as jurors, or fines for having unregistered arms, were, in point of fact, referred to the proper officers, either the solicitor of the Crown revenue, or clerk of the peace, or convicting magistrates. There remain, therefore, the 145 to be dealt with. I have here in my hand an explanation, as far as time permitted, of each of these cases, and I think I need not mind being questioned on any of them. They are in three classes: the first, where a remission of sentence, from the time when the memorial was considered, took place—sixty-two; a second class, where health was either the only ground or an ingredient in the decision—twenty-four; a third, where only a prospective mitigation was given—fifty-nine. In all these there are only three cases of transportation, in all of which the mitigation took place upon the certificate of unfitness for the voyage: one of these is an old acquaintance, Michael Brien, of whom we have latterly heard so much. But to examine the matter in another way, the whole actual mitigation or remission of sentence of the sixty two and fifty-nine, all taken together, does not amount to much above 140 months in all, or one fourteen years' transportation divided amongst them all, as the whole extent of mitigation. But then, it is said by some, that the lavish manner in which I have exercised the prerogative of mercy, has promoted the more numerous presentation of memorials—more certainty of the success of such appeals. How is the fact? Some nights since f quoted a speech of Sir Robert Peel's in 1824, upon a motion of Mr. Hume's, for the abolition of the office of Lord-lieutenant; he stated, as a reason against it, the increase of business it would entail upon the Home-office; and cited,
1006
as an instance, that Lord Wellesley, in the year preceding, had before him 2,600 memorials, and that the capital sentence had been set aside in 400 cases.—2,600 memorials in twelve months! why, 1,600 in the last fifteen months, is only in the proportion of one-half! 400 capital sentences set aside in twelve months! How many capital sentences do your Lordships imagine were set aside in the last twelve months? Just nine; and all, of course, by the recommendation of the learned judges; as also, I presume, were those of the noble Marquess. Do not let it be supposed that I would, in the slightest degree, insinuate blame, any more than Mr. Peel did, in making the statement. Much of the difference between the capital sentences set aside at one time or the other, of course arises from the altered state of the country, and the changes in the law; but at least it strews how much foundation there is for the charge against me, of having encouraged any extraordinary ins crease of these memorials. Another way of judging the effect of such an experiment as that I tried is, by the number of re-committals. Every one who has studied the statistics of crime, knows the constant tendency of those once inured to guilt to revert to evil courses, and in consequence the immense numbers who habitually return to prison. Your Lordships will recollect we have been talking of convictions, amounting very nearly, including those at petty sessions, to 20,000 in a year. How many do your Lordships think, by a return which I hold in my hand, of those whose sentences were mitigated by me have since been re-committed within the last two years? Just twenty-one and as the original offences of most of these were light, so were the grounds of recommittal, as I find here, amongst the twenty-one, such atrocities as "breaking windows," "throwing stones," "found "drunk." This, then, my Lords, I say, as to the liberation of the prisoners in the year 1836, that it rested on grounds very different from those usually attributed to it; that in the peculiar circumstances of that country at the moment when severity had so often been tried, it was an experiment well worth the trial; that I never mentioned it as an experiment to be lightly repeated; but that I have every reason, from the best testimony, to be gratified with its success; that if questioned at all here, it ought to have been questioned

1007
before. Then as to the general exercise of the prerogative, I challenge comparison with my predecessors, without, I need not again repeat, wishing to make any invidious reference; but, defending myself by maintaining at the same time the course pursued by them; I have the opinions of some of the judges, with whom I have little personal and no political connexion, that no Lord-lieutenant ever took more pains in the examination of each case, or was more generally in accordance with their reports. With regard to what the noble Earl has said of secret oaths, I do not believe in their existence to the extent pretended; certainly not by any means in the shape of a general confederacy. It was impossible for me to say, that ribbonism was entirely extinct in Ireland, but I hold in my hand documents which would prove that Government had not overlooked the fact whenever they could touch it; but still with every effort on our part, and every desire to put an end to the last vestige of that system, we have not been able to procure evidence sufficient to obtain a conviction; and I must say, that of all expedients ever hit upon, a Committee of your Lordships' House was, in the circumstances of the case, the least likely to elicit the truth. When this question was formerly discussed, I stated, that Government had observed traces of ribbonism, but that they had no evidence of any general conspiracy partaking at all of a political character, but that, whenever any information could be offered, Government would examine and endeavour to probe it to the bottom. On another point I have been frequently accused of a disposition to appoint exclusively Catholics to the prejudice of Protestants. Mind, in the list I read in answer, I do not claim any merit in the proportions in which they appear, any further than as it is an answer to an unjust charge. The merits of the appointments must rest upon the intrinsic character of each. Of judges and assistant barristers I have appointed eight Protestants, six Catholics. Of the higher appointments of the constabulary, sixty-nine Protestants, thirty-seven Catholics. Of promotions in that force, twenty-seven Protestants, eight Roman Catholics. The disproportion here is greater from there having been fewer officers of long standing Catholics. Of legal and other appointments in the courts and offices in Dublin, Protestants forty; Catholics thirty-seven.
1008
Another ground of attack was, that I had not taken strong measures for putting down the Precursor Society. The noble Earl says, I am not answerable for the establishment of that society; but that, being established, I should have used every exertion to put it down. Now, this is a question which has puzzled many Governments before now, and I believe it has not usually been the practice for the Government to interfere to put a stop to a society merely because it disapproves of some of its proceedings. I have never concealed my opinion with regard to this society, and have taken every opportunity of stating my objections to it; so I did also to the Orange Lodge; and the noble Earl was, I believe, a member of an Orange Lodge; and still they were not interfered with. Now, the Precursor Society is a public society, free from all secret oaths; and all I will further say on that point, is, that although I sincerely disapprove of the Precursor Society, which was very well known to all parties, and throughout Ireland, as soon as the society was formed, yet I did not by any means think with the noble Earl that it would have been expedient for the Government to take any steps to put it down; indeed to any recommendation on my part to Government to come to Parliament with a proposition for putting down the Precursor Society, I had at that time, on constitution al grounds, the most insuperable objections. The noble Earl has alluded to certain phrases used by Mr. O'Connell at some meetings of that society. Now, the noble Earl has not always been very guarded in his own language, or very cautious as to his companions. In the year 1831, at a meeting in the county of Down, the noble Earl in the chair, a Mr. Cromelin talked of the time being come to drive the Papists from the land; again, in 1834, in a letter to the Protestants of Ulster, the noble Earl said that he knew their strength, their moral courage, and their numbers; and that the time might come when these might be important. Now, although the noble Lord did not actually talk of fighting, yet such a reference to their numbers, under the circumstances, exhibited something like an intimation that he would be disposed to use them. And again, in the north of Ireland, in the year 1834, the noble Earl indulged in equally strong language against the then Government, all of whom were equally obnoxious in his sight. There are

1009
still one or two points on which I wish to say a few words. I regret that I have found it necessary to go so much into detail, because, in the first place, such details are irksome to hear, and make it embarrassing for any one to speak with effect or with justice to himself, from having a constant occasion to refer to papers. Of the two points which I have still to urge upon your Lordships' attention, the first is, with regard to the administration of the Criminal Law in Ireland, upon which I have been attacked more than once, and I rest my defence of that part of the subject on the two measures I have introduced; one of which is, the establishing local prosecuting solicitors in Ireland. Now, it is a fact, that, up to the introduction of that system, many offences were compromised; and the result has been, to render the administration of justice throughout the sessions of Ireland most efficient; and the effect of this system will endure long after this party attack has been forgotten. The other point to which I wish to refer, is the constabulary force which is at this moment organized under one head. The bill for that purpose was passed the year after I went to Ireland; and it had engaged my earliest attention after my arrival. Certain alterations had been made in it in Committee of your Lordships' House, which, as I stated then, I did not think of advantage; but still I am bound to admit, that the measure works extremely well. Previous to that, the force was under four independent authorities in the four provinces of Ireland. The system of the constabulary was thus various, isolated, and ill-defined; but under the provisions of the new enactment, and the control of Colonel Shaw Kennedy, and his able successor, Colonel Macgregor, the constabulary of Ireland had been rendered in every way efficient. Previous to their formation, the troops in Ireland amounted to 19,000, and now there are only 15,000. The numerical addition to the constabulary was only 500 men, as the force previously amounted to 8,000 men; it is now 8,500, but the difference is most striking in their moral influence, in the perfection of their discipline. Some men seem to present a rare union of qualifications for the discharge of the duties entrusted to them, and such I believe to be the case of the present Inspector-General, Colonel Macgregor. After the resignation, by me much regretted, of
1010
Colonel Shaw Kennedy, I felt all the difficulty of choosing a worthy successor who would not be open to immediate objection from some quarter. I had known Colonel Macgregor long, both personally and by repute. I had seen him in the West Indies, and remembered his character there as a commanding officer. I had known him afterwards on duty in Dublin. He had then again gone on service to America, but I thought, when looking around for an officer to fill this post, that he united many qualities which peculiarly fitted him for the situation. I made the offer which was accepted, and after nine months experience of his conduct in that command for which I selected him, I believe there is not a second opinion as to his merits. I may well feel satisfied at thus having left behind me not only a superiorly organized force, but a most worthy head under whom the improved system must continue and prosper. Now I have gone through my legal and constabulary appointments, let us examine for a moment my distribution of clerical patronage. One of the most current clamours against the present Government is its supposed disregard to the interests of the Church. I have had the disposition of the Church patronage of the Crown in Ireland for nearly four years. Is there one of the noble Lords opposite who can find fault with a single act of mine in connexion with this subject? I observed the other day a paragraph in a Tory provincial paper, stating that, in the course of my Government, I had promoted thirty-six curates who had no other passport to my favour but their merits. I kept myself no account of the numbers, but it was with the most sincere desire to promote the efficiency of the Church, of which I am myself a member, that I considered each individual case as it came for my decision, and is it not something to have succeeded in making this so evident, that with all the disposition which cannot be denied to party attack, it has never been pretended that on this subject there has been cause for a single murmur? I am not aware, my Lords, that I have anything further with which to trouble you at present. Should any new subject be brought forward in the course of the debate, I trust that, according to the usual courtesy of your Lordships, I shall be allowed an opportunity for explanation in matters where I am personally concerned. With regard

1011
to the motion before the House, I must say, that the manner in which it has been brought forward, and the limitation of the inquiry to the period of my Government, oblige me to consider it as a direct attack upon the system on which I have administered the affairs of that country—an attack for which I confidently assert that the noble Earl has laid no sufficient grounds. And what support out of this House is it likely to receive, except from the agents of Orange intrigue? Where are the demonstrations of public opinion, which call for such an extraordinary proceeding? It would be natural to expect some sympathy between the two Houses. Where are the Commons thronging your Lordships' bar with articles of impeachment? Has any one dared even to make such a motion as that of the noble Lord in the other House? Why, when in a shape studiously devised so as to prevent that House from being called upon to pronounce any opinion upon it, the subject of these grievances was brought forward, of all the numerous party who coincided in the general views of the majority of this House, forty Members could not be found to listen to the oft told tale of the misdeeds of the Irish Government. Do not deceive yourselves, my Lords; if you accede to this motion, the effect must be to convince the people of Ireland, and to make a strong impression upon the people of England too, that you are about to take on yourselves the Executive Government of Ireland. Are you prepared for the consequences of such a step? It is not for me to impress upon your Lordships what these consequences may be. But in the much less serious point of how it may affect myself, it is possible that the result of this night's division may be to prove that I have not acted as a majority of your Lordships would have thought right. Whatever the effect of that decision may be upon my future position, it cannot at least deprive me of the pleasure I derive from the past, in the reflection that it has been granted to me to raise the political condition, to, sustain the legitimate hopes of those whom my Sovereign had graciously committed to my charge. It has been my lot to live on terms of intimacy and friendship with many of your Lordships to whom I am politically opposed. I will not affect to be indifferent to your good opinion. It is more than probable I may have often erred; no one can be
1012
more sincerely aware of his manifold personal deficiencies, but even to secure your Lordships' approbation, or to avert your sentence, I would not change or modify the intention and tendency of any one act during my administration in Ireland. My conduct of affairs in that country is now the question at issue. Whatever this night's result may be, your Lordships' decision cannot deprive me of the gratitude of a long suffering but warm hearted people, nor of that, which alone I value more, the approval of my own conscience.
The Duke of Wellingtondid not think that the noble Marquess who had just resumed his seat had done justice to the noble Earl by whom the present motion had been brought forward, when he imparted to him any violent or party motives, for he thought he never heard a more moderate speech, on making a motion of this sort, than that of the noble Earl. He had stated clearly and dispassionately the points to which he wished to direct the attention of the House, and upon which he called upon the House to institute an inquiry, and there certainly was nothing in what he had said which exhibited anything of party inclination against the noble Marquess. The noble Marquess was, no doubt, well satisfied with his government in Ireland; and he must say, as the noble Earl by whom the motion was made had already said, that there was no charge against him personally; but what the noble Earl had really stated was, that a very great degree of crime had been apparent, and that murders had been frequent during his Administration, He believed the fact to be, that during the last year the average number of homicides throughout Ireland had been from two to three a day, or from 700 to 1,000 in the course of twelve months, and he said, that this fact alone, without adverting to the other topics which had been mentioned by the noble Earl, ought to be sufficient to induce the House to institute the inquiry which was sought, and to endeavour to ascertain whether there was not something in the jurisprudence—in the state of the law in that country—which required some remedial measure beyond any which could be adopted by the existing Government. The noble Marquess in his speech had reminded the House of what they had heard upon every occasion when this subject had been before discussed, that the case had always been as it now was,

1013
That was rather a large mode of stating the case, however, and there was besides this difference between former times and the present, that they had not formerly a Government coming down to Parliament and telling them, that Ireland was in a state of tranquillity—that they had not a speech from the King on the Throne informing them of the same fact—and that they had not the satisfaction of seeing the Lord-lieutenant in his place in that House making a speech of some two or three hours' length, to prove that Ireland was in a state of perfect tranquillity, and in cases of murder, alleging, that the want of the discovery of the offenders was to he attributed to the conduct of his noble Friend sitting near him, and not to the inefficiency of the means employed by the Government. He must say, that the circumstance of the murders which had been committed, and of threats having been held out to a noble Lord connected with the county of Tipperary, together with the state of crime as it appeared from the returns presented to the House by the Government itself, would be a sufficient ground of inquiry. When they had had a discussion upon this subject a year ago, he ventured to point out to the House the difference between the returns made to this and to the other House of Parliament. The noble Marquess had made an able speech in reply to the observations which he had made, but he thought, that he had entirely failed in showing any sufficient cause for the existence of the difference. He had got in his hand a paper of the same description as that to which he had alluded, containing the return from 1837 to the end of the last year, and their Lordships would hardly believe, that in the returns made by the inspectors of prisons, and those made by the clerks of the Crown and the clerks of the peace, who made a return of the numbers of persons tried at the assizes and quarter sessions, there was in the year 1837 the difference between 14,804 and 22,241, and that the number returned in this year was 27,340. [Lord Plunket: The difference is in the return from the petty sessions.] He had allowed for the quarter sessions, and that fact alone, which he had stated, and which was not accounted for, and which he took in the face of the return made to Parlialiament, would be a sufficient reason for the inquiry which was proposed by his noble Friend, But there was another
1014
ground upon which he should press the necessity of granting the motion, for it appeared in a late discussion in another House, and in their Lordships' House this evening, that it was admitted', that there was a secret society existing in Ireland called the Ribbon Society; and it appeared to be stated, that several persons had been proved to be members of that society, bound by the same oath in different parts of the country; and this fact alone, which was admitted by the Government, was a sufficient ground for inquiry by this House into the state of the execution of criminal law in Ireland—to see how far the state of crime was influenced by the proceedings of this society, and particularly as to the mode in which certain persons were enabled to influence the members of that society. But there was still another view in which this question might be regarded, and which was highly important. It appeared, that the Government had known of the existence of this society for some time, and he should like to know whether they were aware of its members being bound by this oath, and if they were acquainted with the nature of that oath, he would beg to inquire how her Majesty's Ministers had put into the mouth of her Majesty a Speech from the Throne in which she was made to advert to the state of tranquillity of Ireland. He said, that that also was a ground for this inquiry. The noble Marquess had been pleased to say, that the noble Earl had made a personal motion against himself, and had thought proper to defend himself respecting the appointments which he had made during his Government in Ireland. There was no insinuation at all against the noble Marquess in this respect; but as the House had now got at the fact, and as it was admitted, that there was a secret society existing in Ireland, called the Ribbon Society, and as the noble Marquess had chosen to advert to his appointments, and to justify them, he should like to hear from the noble Marquess (he knew he had taken care never to appoint an Orangeman to to a situation—they were all sent away—there was no need of them)—whether he had taken care not to appoint any Ribbon-man to any situation? He was not going to attack the appointments of the noble Marquess—that was not his practice; but when the noble Marquess came there to defend himself, he should like to go a little further than the noble Marquess

1015
seemed disposed to go. That, however, was not the question; but whether Ribbonmen, bound by a secret oath to perform certain acts, whether legal or illegal, should be appointed to situations? The noble Marquess had said a great deal upon the subject of the Precursor Society; but upon this he (the Duke of Wellington) knew nothing, and he should only like to know, when the noble Marquess talked so much of his appointments, whether he had appointed any Precursor? [The Marquess of Normanby: Never.]—And whether the Precursor, being a man who paid his shilling in order to bind himself to the repeal of the union, and as one of 60,000 fighting men, he had taken care not to appoint any of them? No charge was made against the noble Marquess, for he did not think that his noble Friend had said one word about the appointments in his speech; and he should have said nothing about it either, if the noble Marquess had not thought proper to advert to it himself; but all that had been done was to bring the case under the consideration of their Lordships, and under that of the noble Lord who had recently been appointed to fill the office lately held by the noble Marquess, in its true light.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that the noble Duke had put a question to him, and he hoped the House would allow him to answer it. The noble Duke had asked him, whether he had ever appointed a Precursor, and he answered that he had not. The noble Duke had also asked him a question, whether had he ever appointed a Ribbonman? and he thought that he need hardly answer a question which could scarcely have been asked seriously, and he thought that it was almost unnecessary for him to say, that he had never made such an appointment, if he was aware that the individual was a member of the society alluded to. He had taken every pains to find out whether the individuals he had appointed were members of that, or any other society of a similar description, and if he had discovered that they were, after he had appointed them, he should have removed them.
Viscount Beresfordwould be glad to know whether any members of the Catholic Association had been appointed to office by the noble Marquess?
The Marquess of Normanby: That society had ceased to exist long before I went to Ireland.
Viscount Beresford: What I allude to was not exactly the Catholic Association, but the National Association.
The Marquess of Normanby: If the noble Viscount will name any individual, I will answer him.
Viscount Beresford: Mr. Pigott.
The Marquess of Normanby: Mr. Pigott had ceased to be a member before he was appointed.
The Earl of Charlevillewas understood to say, that he had a painful and onerous duty to perform, because he stood before their Lordships to defend the conduct of the Lord-lieutenant of King's county, and the other magistrates who acted with him. The noble Marquess had stated, that conviction, trial, and active investigation, had taken place in almost every case. Out of four trials for murders in that county there had been only one conviction. Out of three cases of desperate outrage, in one of which a person had lost his life, and another had been made a miserable cripple for the rest of his days, there had been no conviction. There were also other trials in which no conviction had taken place. There was the case of Mr. Brock, who was killed by two men, one of whom had been a student of Maynooth, and was discovered some time after the offence was committed in a cabin in Leitrim, going by a false name. He was acquitted in consequence of a relation being upon the jury which tried him, the law officers of the Crown having neglected to challenge him. From the description of the noble Marquess, one would think that Ireland was a most happy and halcyon country, and that by some magic spell he had reduced it from a state of comparative outrage to one of comparative tranquillity. But, unfortunately for the noble Marquess, by the report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the state of Ireland in 1832, of which a colleague of the noble Marquess, Mr. S. Rice, was the chairman, it appeared that previous to that year there had been a great decrease in crime, and that quarrels arising out of religious differences of opinion were less frequent. But since that period, from the commencement of the reform agitation up to this day, there had been an increase in both cases. His noble friend had gone so amply into the state of other parts of Ireland that he would confine himself to King's county. The first outrage which he would notice was that upon the property of Sir W.

1017
Smith in 1832, which could not have arisen from any hostility to him as a landlord, because he had no tenants, but it originated in the honest discharge of his duty as a judge and commissioner of King's county. No sooner was that outrage made known, however, than the people flocked around him (the Earl of Charleville), and offered every assistance in their power to bring the perpetrators of the outrage to justice, and a sum was subscribed amounting to 405 l., as a reward for the discovery of the offenders. Sir William Smith expressed the high sense he entertained of the conduct of the people on this occasion, and in allusion to the subscription, said the 5s. contributors were not the least pleasing amongst them. The next case to which he alluded was, the shooting at Lord Bloomfield's steward, and also that of Mr. Drought, a respectable gentleman who was returning home from church, and was shot at, as well as the Rev. Mr. Dunn. It was somewhat singular, that while 25 l. was offered for the discovery of the person or persons who shot at these gentlemen, the same sum was offered about the same time for the discovery of the persons who shot a dog. The next case was that of a man named John Kennagh, who was murdered in consequence of a dispute arising out of his wish to marry a young woman, which was objected to by the man who waylaid and murdered him. Crime had considerably increased since 1832. By a return made up from reports on their Lordships' table he found that the number of prisoners committed in 1832 was 271; in 1833, 428; in 1834, 505; in 1835, 634; in 1836, 766. In Sligo, Tipperary, and Westmeath, an increase had also taken place. In the beginning of 1839—on the 1st of January—Lord Norbury was murdered; and as some observations had been made upon his conduct with reference to it both by the noble Marquess and a colleague of his elsewhere, he wished as briefly as possible to vindicate the course he had pursued. Immediately he heard of the murder he went towards the spot where it had taken place. He stated at the meeting of magistrates at Tullamore, that in passing through the town he had been met by a crowd of persons, who cried out, "He is dead, he is dead," and gave three cheers. Lord Morpeth said that the crowd who cried out "He is dead" were a drunken mob who had been turned out of a public-
1018
house; but the decided opinion of the gentleman, Captain Fox, who accompanied him, was, that the mob gave indications that they rejoiced in the murder of Lord Norbury. When they uttered the exclamation, "He is dead," he (Lord Charleville), who was riding in a cab, immediately pulled up and looked at them, but the moment he went on again they repeated the cry, "He is dead, he is dead," and the impression made on his mind, as well as on the mind of Captain Fox, was, that the people rejoiced in the murder of Lord Norbury. He knew that among a series of toasts which were drunk at a public-house that night there was this—" Let the man never lose either a finger or eye that shot Glendyn;" and similar toasts were drunk at other public-houses in the town. He met Mr. Brownrigg, the Government magistrate, near the spot where the murder was committed. He introduced himself to him, and said he was exceedingly glad he had come down to assist in the investigation, and that he and the local magistrates would very gladly co-operate with them. He took him over the grounds, and explained to him every thing he knew of the circumstances in the most cordial manner possible. He invited him and Mr. Heely to reside at his house, instead of going to an inn, but having declined, he passed that night at Tullamore, where he called on them frequently, and communicated with them with the most perfect cordiality. In the morning he got some important private information, and in order to avoid the slightest appearance of jealousy, the first thing he did was to put his private and confidential letter into the hands of Mr. Brownrigg, requesting him to communicate it to the Government. When attending the inquest he put no question to the witnesses without taking the opinion of Mr. Brownrigg and Mr. Heely as to its propriety; when they parted, he stated that he would wait upon them at one o'clock the following day. But he was much surprised to find when he called that the prisoner M'Guire had been taken out of his cell and examined, without any communication with him or the other committing magistrate. He continued, however, to act with them till the prisoner was released; and he was only prevented from continuing to act with them upon receiving a letter to this effect, that it had been widely circulated in the town and in the market

1019
that he was the cause of the apprehension and detention of the prisoner, against the wish of the Government; thereby marking him out to the vengeance of the party, this information being circulated by the Government magistrates. In that country the Government, in the case of Lord Norbury, seemed anxious to smother all inquiry. He then thought it was better for the ends of justice that he should not interfere. On a former occasion he had stated that the steward, frightened by the sight of the murderer, had not given any information; and yet it was strange, that although the steward had given no alarm, some people returning, at the instant, from a funeral were apparently acquainted with the circumstance. The next communication he had with Mr. Brownrigg, who was at the head of the police in the province, was to beg for the assistance of a policeman, as he had information which he thought might lead to the discovery of the murderer. The application was forwarded to Dublin, and some time afterwards, undoubtedly, the policeman was forthcoming, but not until the person from whom he learned the facts had left the country. A meeting had been called by the High Sheriff in reference to the meeting of magistrates of King's county, which had been held subsequent to the murder of Lord Norbury, and to the requisition calling on the High Sheriff to convene that meeting, he found there were the signatures of a great number of Ribbonmen. In short, such was the state of things in Ireland, that day after day and week after week had passed away, and notwithstanding all the exertions which had been made, and the great amount of the reward which had been offered, the family of the murdered nobleman were still in uncertainty, and no evidence had been obtained to bring the assassin to justice. With respect to the pardons which had been granted by the noble Marquess, he wished to make a few observations. He had on a former occasion alluded to the case of Coghlan, and the noble Marquess had at that time pleaded total ignorance of the circumstances he had stated; but he held in his hand a return which showed that Coghlan had been convicted several times, and that he had been pardoned twice. Then came the case of Brown and M'Namara, who had been pardoned, although they had been guilty of the most atrocious crimes,
1020
and upon the strongest evidence of their guilt. He held in his hand a return of the convicts pardoned by the noble Marquess from February, 1837, to March, 1839. The first individual mentioned in that return was a person of the name of Burnett, who had received a free pardon on a medical certificate, but who had since been tried and transported. Then there was the name of James Smith, who had been pardoned on the 3rd of February, 1837, on a medical certificate, and who had also since that period been re-tried, convicted, and transported. In short, out of 104 convicts whose sentences had been commuted, and nineteen pardoned, on medical certificates, three of those pardoned had been again tried and transported since they obtained those pardons. Under such circumstances he hoped that Government would pause before granting any more pardons on medical certificates. He would not trespass further on their Lordships' time; but when he reflected on the state of Ireland, and the little security either to life or property which existed in that country, he could not but give his cordial support to the motion of the noble Lord who had brought this subject under their Lordships' consideration.
Lord Rossmore, having lived long in Ireland, and being well acquainted with the people of that country, felt himself called upon to make a few observations in reference to some statements which had been made during the course of the debate. On the part of the inhabitants, and particularly of the peasantry of King's County, he stood up to give the most unqualified denial to the observations which had been made against them in that House and elsewhere. He stood up to remove the brand which the noble Lord, the Lord-lieutenant of the county, had thought fit to fix upon the peasantry at a meeting which had been convened by himself, and he gave the most unqualified denial to the charge which had been brought against the inhabitants of King's County of having conspired to murder their landlords, and to effect any one object by private assassination. The noble Lord, the Lord-lieutenant of the county, had brought forward no facts to entitle him to make such a charge, for the case of Lord Norbury was not sufficient ground for such a sweeping condemnation. He defied any person to bring from the calendar one fact to warrant such a general charge against the

1021
peasantry of the country, or the inhabitants of Tullamore. He had lived long in the vicinity of that place, and he had kept up a constant communication with it, and he could say, from his own knowledge, that a more industrious, peaceful, and loyal people was nowhere to be found. As to the circumstances which had been stated by the noble Earl opposite to have occurred when he was passing through Tullamore, he must say, that he considered the noble Earl to have mistaken the cries to which he had alluded. He had received two letters on the subject, but before alluding to them more particularly, he wished to state, that he had been requested to invite the noble Earl to investigate the matter upon oath, and if the noble Earl did not choose to accept that invitation, then the inhabitants themselves would institute an inquiry, and publish the result throughout the empire. The letters alluded to the statement of the noble Earl, that he had heard on passing through Tullamore cries of "He is dead," from which the noble Earl concluded, that the people of that place exulted in the murder of Lord Norbury. But his informant stated, that no such cries had been uttered; that he was present when the noble Earl passed through, and that nothing of the kind could have taken place without his knowledge. Those who reproached the noble Marquess with doing nothing should recollect, that shortly before he took upon himself the Government of Ireland that country was in a state little short of civil war, and that ever since then it had been progressing towards convalescence. Where were the Orange processions now? Where were the disturbances which had regularly recurred every 12th of July? Where, too, were the rustic faction fights? They had all disappeared under a Government, which it was alleged, had done nothing to tranquillize Ireland. He gave the most unqualified denial to the allegation that the amount of crime had increased during the noble Marquess's administration of that country. What said the judges upon that point? Had they not in almost every county in Ireland congratulated the different grand juries upon the lightness of crime in the several calendars submitted to their notice? He called upon the noble Lords opposite to exercise the influence which they had over the Protestants of Ireland in soothing, not in exasperating, the differences which unfortunately dis-
1022
tracted that country. There were two classes of Protestants in Ireland. The system of one class was to monopolize all patronage and privilege to themselves, and to exclude from it all their Roman Catholic countrymen. The system of the other class was to extend to all the privileges which they themselves enjoyed. He wished that the system of the latter was more generally adopted, as the system of the former, by adding fresh fuel to the inflammable materials already in Ireland, had a tendency to aggravate party animosities to a most frightful height, and to place in perpetual jeopardy the peace and prosperity of its inhabitants. When they were told daily, that Ireland was a country which the mariner ought to avoid—when it was dunned into their ears, that its inhabitants were cowards and assassins, and savages, worse than Turks and Hindoos—when they were denounced as aliens in blood, in language, and in religion, and were represented on that account to be unworthy of the privileges conferred upon the inhabitants of Great Britain, it became the House to take care that the parties so maligned did not recur to resistance, as their only refuge from insult, menace, and prosecution.
The Earl of Donoughmorewished to explain an expression of his, which had been the subject of much comment both in and out of Parliament. He certainly had given the noble Marquess credit for having carried the common law into exeecution with vigour during his administration of Ireland; but in giving the noble Marquess that credit, he had wished to contrast what he had then done with what had occurred three months afterwards. He had told the noble Marquess that the powers of the common law were not sufficient for his purpose, and that he would be obliged to come down to Parliament to ask it to arm him with additional powers. He had also recommended the noble Marquess to amend the Arms' Act. The noble Marquess had deemed his recommendation unnecessary. What was the fact? What had occurred within two months after his recommendation was given? In one short winter's day, at the end of January or at the commencement of February, he could not say which, Major Warburton had seized no less than 163 stand of unregistered arms on the banks of the Shannon, between Portumna bridge and Shannon harbour. He could assure their

1023
Lordships that no opinions which he might be compelled by a sense of duty to express, either in that House or out of it, and that no calumnies by which he might be assailed in consequence of it, would ever prevent him from giving his humble assistance to any noble Lord to whom the Government of Ireland might be intrusted, in carrying the law fully and vigorously into execution. He asked the noble Marquess not to give him or his Friends any share in the distribution of the patronage of that country; but at the same time he called upon the noble Marquess not to give the sanction of his name to any more circular letters issued by Mr. Secretary Drummond, which were of a character highly offensive to the feelings of the magistracy of the country. He did not think that such a course was becoming the high situation lately occupied by the noble Marquess; and he must be permitted to say, that the noble Marquess had replied to the memorial of the magistrates with a great deal of bitterness and acrimony. He assured the House that in his own immediate neighbourhood he was informed by a police constable, that seventeen of his own people had unregistered arms in their possession, and he went out, and himself collected ten stands. It was indispensible that the Arms' Act should be amended; for not only must the unregistered, but also the registered, arms be called in, for the latter were lent out to persons who had no right to possess them. The noble Marquess had alluded to the language of Mr. Justice Crampton; but what, he asked, were the words of that learned gentleman at the Assizes of Clonmel? Mr. Justice Crampton there observed, that "it appeared to him that the mass of violence and bloodshed gave to the county a fearful pre-eminence to crime, and in the disregard of human life, not only above every other county in Ireland, but above every other part of the civilized world." That was the frightful picture presented by Mr. Justice Cramp-ton of the state of Tipperary, where only a week ago the calendars for the north and south ridings exhibited not less than sixty-four accusations of murder. He could add, that in the assistant-barrister's court, in the same county, which was presided over by a most efficient officer, there had been during the last three months, sixteen people transported, and 384 persons sentenced to different periods of confine-
1024
ment. The assistant-barrister sat five months in this court in the course of the year, and very nearly as much crime went before him as before the judges at the common assizes. He would make one observation with respect to the answer given by the noble Lord to the memorial of the magistrates immediately after the murder of Mr. Cooper. In that memorial, it was represented that crime was increasing, that juries were acting under palpable intimidation; and that the Crown had given up the wholesome practice of challenging, and the magistrates called on the noble Marquess to amend the Arms' Act. The noble Marquess took a whole month to consider his reply, and then he informed the magistrates that it was necessary to institute adequate inquiries as to the evils complained of, and the immediate cause to which they were to be attributed; and soon afterwards the noble Marquess told the magistrates, that all their complaints were groundless, and that the country was progressing in tranquillity; and he added, that the Crown had not given up the right of challenge, but that the Crown Solicitor exercised it at his discretion. Those were the words of the noble Marquess, who told the magistrates, that by their expulsion of the cotter tenantry, and by the improper manner in which they had exerted their right of property, they themselves were the cause of all the mischief. He thought he should be able to show, that the noble Marquess had by his own acts falsified the very conclusions to which he had come, after deliberate investigation. Why, if the country was in a state of progressive tranquillity, why did the noble Marquess think it necessary to issue a special com-mission? In the interval between the murder of Mr. Cooper and that of Mr. O'Keefe, what was the state of Tipperary according to the returns on the table? In the course of these six months, not less than twenty-five homicides had been committed, and that was progressive tranquillity. Then the noble Marquess said, that the juries were not intimidated, but that they did their duty manfully. Why, then, he again asked, had a special commission been issued? He entirely agreed in one of the noble Marquess's observations, that no juryman ought to be put aside either on account of politics or religion; but but there was another description of persons which it was the noble Marquess's

1025
duty to have challenged—he meant the small publican. Upon this point some light appeared at last to have penetrated the noble Marquess's mind, for at the last Tipperary assizes, where there had been some capital convictions, though there were none at the preceding assizes, the sheriff of the county, a most excellent Roman Catholic, took care that these publicans should not be put on the jury. He trusted that the sheriff acted in this particular by the advice of the Government. He might mention, as another instance of the progressive tranquillity of the county, that on Sunday week a most barbarous murder had been committed on an old man of the name of Hanley, aged eighty-four years, within a mile and a half of Nenagh; and on the same night the house of a person of the name of O'Connor, situate but a short distance from Hanley's, was also attacked. And this was progressive tranquillity! It was almost impossible for the gentlemen of Tipperary to occupy the lower rooms of their houses, because they were there exposed to the attack of assassins. He held in his hand a letter from the rev. J. Beresford, who lived within a mile and a half of the boundary of Tipperary, in which the rev. Gentleman stated, that a shot was tired into his drawing-room the other evening, and carried away the top of the couch where his wife had been sitting, and where, if she had remained only five minutes longer, the shot must have passed through her. This, he supposed, was progressive tranquillity again! Before alluding to the appointments to the police force, he must say, that he thought some person had imposed on the confidence of the noble Marquess. He found in the police list, as a chief constable, a W. Slattery, a person whom the Governor of Ireland, being anxious, as he ought to be, for the proper organization of the force, ought not to have appointed to that situation. This Slattery kept a small dram-shop in the town of Tipperary, and having got into debt, had absconded from the place, for the purpose of concealing himself from his creditors. He had been intrusted with various sums of money by farmers, which he had not restored; and he asked their Lordships whether this was a proper person to appoint to the situation of chief constable of police? Another appointment to which he felt called on to express his objection was that of Dennis Welsh.
1026
He was also a small publican in Clonmel, and had been in the situation of a gutter agent—that was to say, a man who brought up voters to the poll. He had been fined over and over again for selling spirits at illegal hours, and three months before, he had, at the Sessions Court, sworn that no policeman ought to be believed on his oath. Even the people of Clonmel had turned this man's appointment as policeman into ridicule. There was one other appointment to which he felt bound to call their Lordships' attention. On the retirement of a meritorious officer, Major Carter of Nenagh, from the situation of stipendiary magistrate, a gentleman was recommended to the Government as his successor by a noble Lord opposite, and by Lord Bloomfield. They stated, that his title to the place consisted in his services, of which they gave the following representation—he had prosecuted to conviction in sixty-nine cases of murder of an atrocious description in Tipperary; and by his instrumentality alone thirty persons had been transported and seven executed, and he was at that time actively engaged in prosecuting to conviction, five people implicated in one of the worst murders ever perpetrated in Tipperary. The noble Marquess opposite acknowledged that the services of this gentleman were noted at the Castle; but said, that if he should be appointed, he could not be allowed to act as a stipendiary magistrate in the neighbourhood of his own residence, which was at Nenagh. His surprise was very great on finding, when he looked over the return of the stipendiary magistrates, that the vacant situation had been filled up by the appointment of a most gallant officer undoubtedly, but one who had performed no service in the police, and whose services could stand no comparison with those of the gentleman he had just alluded to—. Mr. Brereton. The services of that gentleman were attested by Lord Bloomfield. It did turn out, most unhappily for the noble Marquess, that the gentleman who had been appointed to this situation was nearly connected in marriage with the learned Gentleman who was supposed to have a great share of the patronage of Ireland at his disposal. He only threw out the insinuation; most unfortunately for the noble Marquess that was the case; but upon graver grounds he had a right to impugn the appointment. Such was the

1027
state of that county, that the noble Marquess ought to have availed himself of the services of Mr. Brereton. Although the noble Marquess had made a rule, that he would not appoint a stipendiary magistrate to act in the neighbourhood of his own residence, he had not adhered to it in all cases. The noble Marquess might recollect a person of the name of O'Brien, who once kept a small apothecary's shop, and who had been appointed by the noble Marquess—first an inspector of police, next a pay-master, and then a stipendiary magistrate. The noble Marquess had placed this gentleman near his apothecary's shop to discharge his duties at Wychestown. But that gentleman had much more important duties to attend to when there was an election for the borough of Cashel. That gentleman was an undertaker for the return of that borough, and at every election, the services of Mr. O'Brien, late retailer, and now stipendiary magistrate, were indispensable to the noble Marquess. Really nothing was more painful to him than to make these observations, but a sense of duty impelled him; he did it with the greatest reluctance, and he had nothing more to say, except to thank their Lordships for their indulgence.
The Marquess of Normanbywould say one word with reference to Mr. O'Brien. Till now he was not aware of the former profession of that gentleman, but a more efficient officer and a more excellent magistrate than Mr. O'Brien, or one better able to discharge the duties of his office, could not be named. With respect to Mr. Dennis Walsh, he rather thought the noble Earl was misinformed as to his appointment. It had not taken place when he (the Marquess of Normanby) left Ireland, nor had he any reason to believe that the appointment had since been made. With regard to Mr. Slatterley, he could not but remark that this was an instance of the extreme inconvenience that ensued from the practice of noble Lords holding back information from the Government that might be in their possession, and bringing it forward and discussing the personal characters of men in Parliament. The noble Earl might be misinformed. At all events, everything which he had heard of Mr. Slatterley was quite contrary to what had been stated of hint by the noble Earl. He had no reason for supposing that Colonel Macgregor would have appointed him if there had been any
1028
legitimate grounds of objection against him. The noble Earl had criticised the reply sent by him (the Marquess of Normanby) to the magistrates of Tipperary; but he begged to say, that he had never stated that the crimes committed in that county were owing to the conduct of the landlords. It was addressed to the Lord-lieutenant of the county, in answer to the memorial by the magistrates, and was confided to his care; and, in point of fact, that inflammatory document, as it had been represented to be, had remained in the hands of the noble Earl till moved for in the House of Commons.
Viscount Lismoresaid, that as reference had been made to his having presided at a dinner given to Mr. O'Connell at Thurles, he begged to explain to their Lordships that when he was invited to preside, he replied, that he respected Mr. O'Connell for the advantage he had been the means of procuring for that country by the emancipation of the Catholics, and that he was most anxious to show him every respect in his power; but still he would not attend the dinner if it were attempted to countenance either the Precursor Society or the Repeal of the Union. He was thereupon assured that not a word would be said about either subject. The noble Earl had alluded to his recommendation of Mr. Brereton as a stipendiary magistrate. He (Lord Lismore) did so at the suggestion of Lord Bloomfield. At the same time, he begged to say, that Mr. Brereton was an old acquaintance of his, and he did not believe that there was a more useful or respectable gentleman in the country. He, however, understood that it was a rule of the Government in Ireland not to appoint any gentleman to such a situation in his own county, and he, therefore, no longer pressed for the appointment. One word with respect to the motion before their Lordships. He believed that this Committee of Inquiry would lead to bad consequences in Ireland. With respect to the great and important county to which he belonged, he was sure it would aggravate the evils that already existed there. It would excite questions which would never otherwise be raised, and would cause much anger and heart-burning among the people of Tipperary. He regretted, likewise, the feeling which had been evinced by the noble Earl who brought the motion forward towards the Roman Catholics. The noble Earl had accused them of a

1029
conspiracy against the lives, property, and religion of the Protestants, and had represented their clergy as promoters of sedition and abettors of crime, and by these accusations, was impeding and thwarting the efforts of those who sought to put an end to the agrarian outrages that had prevailed in the county of Tipperary for more than sixty years, and which, he would maintain, had been already in a great degree put down by the exertions and energies of the noble Marquess. The Roman Catholics were not abettors of crime. The Catholic people of Ireland were not conspirators against the lives and property of the country; and he wished that those who thought they were would not shut their eyes to the real causes of crime and misery in Ireland, but would, by one strong and universal effort, exert themselves to promote the welfare, not only of Ireland, but the united interests of Great Britain.
The Marquess of Westmeathsupported the appointment of the committee, and grounded his support on the fact of twenty-six outrages having occurred in the county of Westmeath since the month of February. The noble Marquess quoted a letter from a priest to an hon. and learned Gentleman, recommending a repeal of the union, as proof of the existence of the riband conspiracy. He must complain, too, of the manner in which the remonstrances of the magistrates of Westmeath had been treated, and in many instances the penalties inflicted by them had been remitted by the Lord-lieutenant, in consequence of which, crime and outrage had increased. Notwithstanding what had been stated, he was convinced there were ribandmen in the police, as he held in his hand a notice which had been stuck on a police station in his neighbourhood, recommending "the bloody d—d Peelers" to provide themselves with coffins, for having turned a Roman Catholic out of their body. He would relate another instance of outrage in which a person had sent a man to fetch some ale, who had been attacked by a party of ruffians who broke all the jugs to pieces, and ill-treated the man. It was not always safe to give names, so he would give their Lordships the affidavit of blank, in the parish of blank, in the county of Westmeath, who, when at the chapel of so-and-so, heard the reverend Mr. Fuller say, that so-and-so had a gun. This information was particular enough, although
1030
some of their Lordships might not understand it. However, it would be all proved hereafter. The next case was that of a policeman in the county of Roscommon releasing a man from prison who had been, committed by Lord Crofton. The man was interceded for by a Catholic priest. The misconduct was not punished. He mentioned these as a few out of a multitude of facts, to show that the Government of the noble Marquess was not thought the same of at that side of the House as the other. He concluded by giving his hearty concurrence to the motion.
The Earl of Fingall, as a Peer connected with Ireland, and belonging to that race which a noble and learned Lord, not then present in his seat, had designated as alien in blood to the English nation, could not allow the debate to close without offering one or two observations. He wished to state that, from his own observation as a resident in that country, he believed the condition of Ireland to be progressively improving, that property was increasing in value, agriculture advancing, industry becoming more general, and that, although great crime certainly prevailed—although the existence of conspiracies, amongst the lowest orders could not be denied, the general condition of the country was nevertheless rapidly improving. He was satisfied that the noble Lords opposite, as well as his noble Friends near him, would bear him out in the statement, that the rate of the purchase of land in Ireland had considerably increased since the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. Even in Tipperary, which was represented as the most desperate part of the country, estates had recently been sold at a very high rate. Nay, he understood that the noble Marquess who had just spoken (the Marquess of Westmeath), and whose view of the condition of the country was so unequivocally bad, had lately become the purchaser of estates in Tipperary at a very high price.
The Marquess of Westmeath: I sold the half of the purchase shortly afterwards to Mr. Hindes, who has since been bullied out of the property in the manner de, scribed by my noble Friend.
The Earl of Fingallunderstood, that the noble Marquess had purchased the estate at a very high rate, and that he had since sold the half of it at an increased value. With respect to the proposition made by the noble Earl (the Earl of

1031
Roden, for the appointment of a committee of inquiry, he should certainly vote against it, because he did not see what good could possibly result from it. The noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) had stated, that one of the chief objects of the Precursor Society was to advocate the repeal of the union. He (the Earl of Fingall) was not a member of that society, and never should be; but he knew many members of it who did not approve of the repeal of the union, and who had joined the society upon the distinct understanding that it was not to be an association for the repeal of the union. He thought, that noble Lords would better consult the welfare of Ireland by consenting to pull together in the adoption of measures for its benefit, rather than by uniting in vague recriminations and general accusations against the Government.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that although this was a subject of very great importance, admitting of the introduction of almost every topic, great and small, from grave matters, which affected the whole state of society, down to the appointment of a policeman, and therefore, might lead to a very wide field of remark, and observation, and expatiation, still the question itself appeared to him to be very clear, very short, and very simple. The case involved in the debate, had already been very distinctly stated on both sides, as well by the noble Earl who introduced the motion, as by his noble Friend the Marquess of Normanby, whose very able speech was in his mind most definite, most clear, and most satisfactory. After this it did not appear to him to be necessary, that he should trouble their Lordships with more than a very few observations. He owned he was a little surprised at the speech of the noble Duke, (the Duke of Wellington.) He considered the speech a very bold speech, one of the boldest he had ever heard in any House of Parliament. The noble Duke said, that there was no offence in the noble Earl's motion—that it contained nothing, implied nothing, to which the government could object—in short, that there was no inculpation, no condemnation in the motion. Now, in his (Lord Melbourne's) estimation, not only was there inculpation—not only was there condemnation in the motion, but it was a pure censure and nothing else upon the Government. Because there was not one of their Lord-
1032
ships, from the noble Lord who opened the debate down to the noble Earl who last spoke—there was not a man who had taken a part in the debate, or who had listened to it in silence, who expected anything to result from this proposed inquiry—who thought that it would teach them anything—who thought they could learn anything by it—who thought that anything would be discovered or found out in consequence of it. There was not one of them who expected or supposed, that when such an inquiry terminated, he would know anything more about the state of Ireland, and the remedies to be applied to it, than he knew at present. Good God! an inquiry into the general state and condition of Ireland! An inquiry into the conduct of the Government would be something. That would have some meaning; there, possibly, something might be discovered. But at this time of day, considering how much they had inquired—how much they had investigated—how much they had examined—how minutely they had looked into the subject—how many hours they had devoted to it—how many committees of inquiry had sat—how many books had been published—how many reams of paper had been exhausted in the compilation of reports on the subject—considering all this, how could their Lordships expect to discover anything from instituting a new inquiry upon the general state and condition of Ireland. In the years 1824 and 1825 they had two committees of both Houses of Parliament sitting for two whole Sessions, examining every body, and inquiring into everything. Since then other committees had been repeatedly appointed in which the condition of Ireland had been amply considered. They had had committees upon tithes, committees upon education, and committees upon various other subjects, all of them more or less involving an inquiry into the general state of the country, and into the general feeling of the people. Last of all, they had had a most complete local inquiry carried on by the commissioners appointed to prepare the way for the introduction of the new Poor-law Bill, and who had gone most minutely into the whole state of the country, into the whole condition of its agricultural population, into the whole of the effects which its peculiarities had upon the character and feeling of its inhabitants, Was not every one well aware of what the misfor-

1033
tunes—what the crimes of Ireland were? The nature of the remedies proper to be applied was a very different thing. That which was to change the minds of a people—to alter the feelings of a people—was not so easily devised? but their Lordships were just as ripe to consider and frame these remedies as they could be if they were to consume a Session or two Sessions in such an inquiry as the noble Earl's motion would lead to. It was generally apprehended that the crimes of Ireland arose from conflicts about the tenure of land. He had no doubt if the Committee were granted, that the noble Earl would be able to establish all the facts he had stated. No doubt the outrages to which the noble Earl had alluded were perfectly true. But when the inquiry had been gone into—what then? How would their Lordships be wiser? How would they be better able to determine in what manner they should act. It was impossible to deny that there was unfortunately in Ireland, and had been for many years past—from causes originating long ago—a disregard for human life, and there was unquestionably not the same desire to discover a murderer in that country as there was in this. Comparisons were often drawn between the two countries in that respect; but he thought that in England they should be careful not to plume themselves too much or too hastily upon the point, that murderers were not allowed to pass unsought for and undiscovered. In Ireland it was to be accounted for, because unhappily the sympathy of the people was with the cause of the murderer—because there was a notion of right connected with the murder. How that feeling originated he knew not—whether from the defect or fault of the old laws of the land, or from some undefined but strong and immovable impression in the minds of the people about the original rights of property, he could not say. From whatever cause it originated, it was difficult, most difficult, to cure. But their Lordships would please to recollect that in this country there was a great anxiety to discover a murderer, and great indignation expressed against murder, because in general there was no sympathy with the cause of the murderer. But when, as sometimes happened, they came to murders which interested the feelings of the great mass of the people—murders, for instance arising out of strikes in the great manufacturing districts—there was pretty
1034
much the same difficulty in obtaining evidence, and in procuring co-operation for the discovery of the murderer, as in Ireland. Their Lordships all remembered—at least he (Lord Melbourne) perfectly well remembered—the murder of Mr. Ashton, at Stayley-bridge, in 1832—a murder not very unlike some of the atrocious murders that had occurred in Ireland. The perpetrator of that murder had never to this hour been discovered, because the people symphathised and felt with the persons by whom it was committed. He apprehended that the noble Duke had considerably exaggerated the number of homicides in Ireland when he said, that they amounted to 700 a year. He believed that 230 or 260 was the maximum number. Quite enough, God knows, but still trifling as compared with 700. Then the noble Duke stated that the existence of a riband conspiracy in Ireland, which had never been admitted before, was another ground for inquiry. Instead of never being admitted before, he believed that the existence of suck conspiracies had never been denied before. He had never heard it denied that there were ribandmen in Ireland nor, that there had been for years and years, secret societies, persons binding themselves together by secret and unlawful oaths for the attainment of objects not recognised by the laws. The existence of such societies had been one of the great misfortunes—one of the great curses of the country. The noble Duke had adverted to a murder they all regretted—the murder of Lord Norbury. They all knew, that, perhaps, viewing it philosophically and strictly in reason, there was no greater crime in the murder of Lord Norbury than in the murder of any other man; but, at the same time, they knew, that that was not the constitution of human nature; they knew, that the death of a man of the rank, station, and title of Lord Norbury created ten times as much impression as the death of a subordinate person; but that feeling would not prevail in that House; he was sure, that was the last assembly where it would be entertained. He thought the noble Duke went a great way in saying, that the mere fact of that murder being undiscovered justified the instituting and establishing this commission of inquiry; and when the noble Duke said, that it was no condemnation or attack on the Government, he surely forgot the whole of the

1035
speech of the noble Lord who moved for the committee and which went to condemn his noble Friend (Lord Normanby) for not having administered the law; to condemn him for conduct respecting the Precursor Society, in short, to condemn him for the whole course of his administration, and for the whole policy he had pursued. It was said, that "those who had gone before his noble Friend had administered the law boldly, and had grappled with crime." He remembered, that the noble Lord who now eulogised that Government, had formerly charged it with want of energy, and with great partiality, in the same manner, as he now thought proper to charge his noble Friend with those faults. The noble Earl said his (Lord Melbourne's) noble Friend, by not taking measures to put down the Precursor Society, had encouraged it. What could he said of Lord Liverpool's Government? He had recognised the Roman Catholic Association; and had brought in a bill to put it down, that bill entirely failed; and because the Government of that period had not immediately attempted stronger measures for that purpose, were they to be considered as adopting and acting with, and approving of all the acts of that association. The noble Lord said, that the Precursor Society was established by a gentleman who was a great stay and support of the present Government. Unquestionably, the Government had received very efficient support from that learned Gentleman. He had sometimes been asked if he would not repudiate and reject that support. Most certainly not. It was the business of a Minister of the Crown to obtain support, not to drive it from him, without sacrificing a principle. He did not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman in question had given the Government very efficient support by establishing a Precursor Association. He must own he wished he had taken other means. There was nothing, in his opinion, which had tended more to alienate those who were well disposed to the Government in this country than some of the proceedings of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and the opinion that in those proceedings he was closely connected with the Government, an opinion, which was entirely false, but had been made a source of considerable weakness, At that period of the night, he would not go farther into any of the topics that had been urged in the course
1036
of this debate. He Was against this committee of inquiry, because, as he had said, he thought there was nothing to be learned by it, because he thought it was not in the slightest degree required, because he thought they were already in possession of all the materials they possibly Could have, of all the facts that were necessary for being fully informed on the subject; whatever was the object in view, whether a simple improvement of the present law, whether the introduction of new laws, still no further inquiry was required; they were in possession of all the information which they could obtain by any inquiry into which they might enter. He was against it, because it was a direct censure on his noble Friend and on the Government with which he had acted. It was no light censure and would not be attended with light consequences. He was unwilling to call in question the highest prerogative of the Crown—that of dispensing mercy. Upon a great case shown it was absolutely necessary—it might be wise and prudent—to enter into the consideration of the manner in which the prerogative had been exercised, but in general, all wise and prudent statesmen had as much as possible kept such questions out of Parliament; they had always considered it imprudent to meddle with them. They heard nothing but statements of pardons which ought not to have been granted, of sentences which ought not to have been commuted, of punishments which ought not to exist, and Complaints generally upon the whole exercise of the prerogative of sovereignty in Ireland; in fact, the motion was directed against his noble Friend's administration, and against the prerogative of the Crown, and Was, in the highest degree objectionable.
Lord Broughamsaid, he should have felt it necessary even if the noble Viscount had not put the question On the footing which, in the exercise of his judgment, he had thought fit to place it—he should have felt it to be a duty to himself, on the present occasion, when he was about to vote against those with whom he had hitherto been in the habit of acting, and in favour of those with whom he so widely differed on most subjects, and especially under circumstances which might cast a doubt on the nature and tendency of his vote—he should, he must repeat, have felt it to be a duty to himself as well as their Lordships to state the

1037
grounds on which his vote would be given. In stating these grounds shortly and simply in order to get at the essence of the question, he should at once proceed to consider the statement given by the noble Viscount of the object of the motion of the noble Earl. Nothing could be more different from its real object than the one ascribed to it by the noble Viscount; it was not for a vague inquiry, without object and endless voyage, without compass or chart over the vast ocean of Irish affairs, but a Committee of Inquiry as to the state of crime in Ireland, in which there was nothing vague or indeterminate, and he would do the speakers on the other side the justice to say, that however much he might differ from them, yet in their speeches they had strictly confined themselves to the terms of the motion. He would not shelter himself behind the base pretence that he was not imputing blame to any one—as he was voting on known constitutional and parliamentary grounds. He considered, then that a primâ facie case for inquiry had been made out—a case that required an answer—and, rather than at once proceed to pass a censure, be must first have further information upon the question. The real question was, whether Ireland, as regarded crime and outrage, was, as each view of the case had been that night insisted upon in different parts of the House, progressing, stationary, or retrograding. It was as difficult to understand that return as if it had been drawn in a language of which be had been entirely ignorant. One word with regard to an observation of the noble Lord, the Lieutenant of the county of Tipperary, who had said, that the law had been enforced in Ireland as vigorously as was possible, but that it had been found ineffectual in checking the progress of crime, and that, therefore, a new law was required. He did not concur in that view; he did not think that a new law was required; he did not think either that a law was called for in order to put down the Precursor Society. It might be a very foolish, a very ridiculous, a very mischievous, a very innocent, or a very meritorious society; it was, at all events, legal, and he should strenuously oppose any attempt to pet it down. As to that society, said the noble and learned Boron, I disapprove highly of it, and for this reason, that it holds out as the meaning of its title that it is a prelude to the
1038
agitation for the repeal of the union. Its name implies its origin and signifies its object. It is preparing or precursoring another state, and what that state is which it shall be expanded or blown into, whether it is likely to become a full grown vermin, when it leaves the present chrysolite condition; whether it will ever come into that state, when it will be not only offensive, but that it will sting, can be best ascertained by attending to the conditions on which the repeal of the union is to be demanded. "If," say its founders, "we can succeed by means of two million of shillings, and by our numbers of fighting men, sometimes counted at 14,000, sometimes at 2,000,000, and sometimes at 100,000; but if by our men and our money, we can succeed in accomplishing the objects for which our society is founded, then you shall hear no more of the repeal of the union." Now, what where these objects? To add fifty or sixty to the number of Members for Ireland, and to take away an equal number from England, as well as to carry universal or an extended suffrage, annual Parliaments, and vote by ballot, all of which Parliament and Government have solemnly resolved not to grant. Does any man, then, in his senses—does any one of the two millions of precursors think, that the conditions on which they consent to refrain from seeking a repeal of the union can be complied with? It means, then, a society for the repeal of the union. Therefore, I disapprove of it—therefore, I am against it—therefore, I will use all lawful means, by argument, by influence, by debate, here and elsewhere, to oppose it. But why do I not approve of a law to pet it down? Because it would be unconstitutional and against the liberty of the subject. Though I think the association a bad one, and established for bad purposes, I am not disposed to nurse it (impotent and ridiculous as it has hitherto been), into importance by legislating against it. The noble and learned Lord went on to remark, that an odious, false, groundless, and inconsistent contrast had been instituted by some of those who supported the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Normanby) that night between the noble Marquess's administration, and those of his predecessors. It was the business of the noble Viscount (Viscount Melbourne) to take any support which he could obtain, without making any unbe-

1039
coming sacrifices; but if he (Lord Brougham) were in his position, he could figure to himself nothing more distasteful, nothing more distasteful, nothing more disgustful, to his feelings, his honour, and his principles, than to have received such support on the ground on which it was given. Now, what was the ground? Why they said "we oppose Lord Grey and Lord Brougham (these were the two names selected); we did all we could to unseat them; we finally succeeded with the help of a court intrigue, and we support the same Lord Melbourne whom we opposed before, because we know his Government to be utterly incapable of having proposed or carried the disgraceful Coercion Bill of 1833. That was the avowed ground of this support, and yet that very bill came out of the department of his noble Friend (if be would allow him to call him so), for being incapable of supporting which he was now placed in contradistinction to his former colleagues. He came now to the reasons on which he should give his support to the motion. By the constitution of England, mercy was not left to the arbitrary caprice of the monarch to be indulged in as any other caprice. It was a part of the duty of the monarch, and intimately and inseparably mixed up with the administration of justice itself. They could not be separated. Justice without mercy degenerated into cruelty; and mercy, in like manner, if not guided and controlled by justice, became absolute folly, or still worse, partial favour. With respect to the number of cases in which pardon had been granted, it was not pretended, that there had been in each instance communication with the judge who tried the case. The number of these cases, was, he believed, 284, excluding all cases tried at quarter sessions. Now, in the county of Tipperary, he believed, there were 400 cases of persons tried at quarter sessions who had been pardoned, or whose punishment had been mitigated. in no one of which there had been a reference to the judge by whom they were tried. In the vast number of these case: the effect of the pardon was to remit the punishment altogether, without communication with the judge by whom they had been tried. With whom communication had been held it was not for him to say, but he thought it was for their Lordship to inquire. He had the honour of a seat
1040
on the judicial bench for some time, and he had communication with some of the most distinguished persons who now presided over the administration of justice; I and he knew from personal communication with those learned and reverend personages, that very great alarm and disquietude had been occasioned in them by these proceedings. He knew that in conjunction with their feeling of the propriety of extending the mercy of the Crown, there was a strong persuasion of the intimate connection between the exercise of mercy and the administration of justice. They expected, too, that an inquiry should be made in that, the highest court in the kingdom, whenever the subject was brought before them. And was it not brought before them? Could they flinch from their duty? The statement of the noble Earl—the statements respecting the counties of Tipperary, and Westmeath, and King's County—would of themselves make it difficult to flinch from the inquiry. But it was utterly impossible, after the speech of the noble Viscount, who said, that this was a case made out, or affected to be made out, against the Government of Ireland on account of the abuse of the prerogative of mercy. Consider what the case was. He would assume for the present, and his noble and learned Friend (Lord Plunkett) need give himself no trouble to take notes for the purpose of answering, for he would assume, that in every particular case in which the prerogative of mercy was exercised by his noble Friend in his progress through the kingdom, where he was receiving so many tributes of applause, and so many testimonies of the respect and affection of the Irish people—that in every one of those cases, to the number of two or three hundred—he believed two hundred and eighty odd—in which he had liberated individuals, his noble Friend had made, previously, deliberate and accurate investigation. He would admit, in the second place, that the noble Marquess had made inquiry in the proper quarters, that he had inquired of the judge who tried, whether that judge were the chairman of quarter sessions, the assistant barrister, or the judge of assize. He would admit, that in every individual instance, inquiry had been accurately made of the judge who tried and sentenced the prisoner. He would admit, that in each case, the gaoler and turnkey, who had communication

1041
with the prisoner, during his confinement, had borne testimony to the good conduct of the party. And, lastly, he would admit, that there was not one of these prisoners, whose case was not a case for mercy; and in doing, this, he believed he made very large admissions. [Lord Plunkett hoped his noble Friend, would abide by them.] Yes, he had no wish to be released from them, and the hand of the clock would not go over three minutes before his noble and learned Friend would see, that he had no desire to escape from them. He knew he made very large admissions—admissions, he believed, as inconsistent with the real state of the facts as could possibly be. But there was one thing necessary to justify the exercise of the prerogative of mercy which he could not admit, which, if his noble and learned Friend could prove, would at once please him, which would change his opinion, prevent his vote, and restore him to the society of his noble and learned Friend on this occasion. His noble Friend had the means of silencing him, and of cutting short his labour, and that of their Lordships. Let it be proved to him, or asserted—for he would take his noble and learned Friend's mere assertion in the matter—that there were no other prisoners in any other part of Ireland who equally deserved to have their cases investigated, and to be made subjects for the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. [A laugh.] Let not his noble Friend treat the matter lightly He would not laugh many minutes longer, or imagine that it was a light matter. As a friend to justice, as a friend of the just prerogatives of the Crown, and of this its most delicate and most valuable prerogative of the Crown, as a friend of the monarchy, and as one who wished to see monarchy continue to be the government of this country, because he believed it secured peace within and respect from without, he protested against the exercise of this prerogative, unless some new circumstances had subsequently transpired, or the sentence had been too severe, or had been improperly given. Let the fullest meed of popular applause greet the arrival, the sojourn, and the departure of the noble Marquess, he had not a word to say against it; but let not the prerogative of the Crown be used—be abused—be perverted—nay, more, be prostituted—through caprice, or, what
1042
was worse still, through interested motives, for the mere purpose of securing a few elections. Mercy was one of the brightest prerogatives of the Crown, but at the coronation it was sworn to be exerted in conjunction with justice; but once let it be recklessly administered, or prostituted to party purposes, and it became tainted at the source, and we had no longer either mercy or justice. But it was a painful subject to see the viceregal office degraded in this manner, and the functions of it so exercised. It was a painful subject, and he did not wonder that his noble and learned Friend (Lord Plunkett) had not thought fit to take part earlier in this debate, lest he should be obliged to take a view of these enormities; he was not surprised to find, that spectaculo averteret oculos, ne tantœ majestatis deformationem aspiceret. He had now fully and fairly stated the case; and he thought it most manly on his own part, and most becoming such of their Lordships as agreed with his views on this subject, that both he and they should state fully and fairly, that they thought a primâ facie case for inquiry was made out. This he trusted on inquiry might assume an altered face, still he hoped and trusted that for the reasons he had given, their Lordships would agree to the motion.
Lord Plunkettsaid, though he rose perhaps with less confidence than the noble and learned Lord who last but one addressed their Lordships, he hoped, before he sat down, to be able to give a satisfactory answer to the chief points of his speech. Upon one side it was avowed, that censure was not intended upon the noble Marquess; upon the other side it was disavowed; and yet, where parties were disagreeing so much with each other, were they to form a majority which was to affect the Government? If they did so, it would not be creditable to the character of that House. As to the noble Earl who proposed the motion, he wished to refer to opinions expressed by him in February, 1825. [Laughter] He did not know that there was a statute of limitation against such references. In the month of February, 1825 the noble Earl who brought forward the motion contended for the necessity of adopting decisive measures for the purpose of pulling down the late association, and that he declared it was not by prosecutions of this or that person that this was to be done, as they

1043
only tended to increase iritation.* The noble Earl art that time declared, that some more stringent measure than prosecutions should be adopted. Now, however, the noble Earl made it a charge against the Government, that they had not adopted the method of prosecutions. The noble Earl on like grounds, in 1826, charged the Marquess Wellesley's Government with being weak and puerile, and declared, that it was the disgust of the Protestants and the contempt of the Catholics.† The next statement to which he would take leave to refer, was made by the noble Earl in July, 1832, and speaking of the appointment of the Marquess Wellesley to the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland the Noble Earl said, "It was formerly deemed necessary to appoint men of experience and ability to conduct the affairs of Ireland, and he lamented that these qualities were not to be found in the noble Marquess."‡ Now he begged to remark, the noble Earl was not entitled by any station or qualification he might hold to pass such an opinion upon one of the greatest statesmen that ever adorned this country—a man distinguished at home and abroad in places where the noble Earl's name was never heard—a man the memory of whom would ever be cherished by his country. On subsequent occasions the noble Earl had objected to the Reform Bill, the Education Bill, and the Procession Bill, and designated all those measures as means by which to drive Protestantism out of Ireland. The inference he drew from these statements was, that the noble Earl would repeal the emancipation Bill, and all those measures which Parliament in its wisdom had passed. He did not think either his noble and learned Friend (Brougham) or the noble Duke opposite (Wellington) would join the noble Earl in those principles. But the noble Earl had suggested no measures to be adopted. Indeed, none had been suggested, except by the noble Duke, with respect to ribandism. The amount of ribandism had been overstated, and he was of opinion, that ever since 1798 the principle of ribandism, or secret associations, persons sworn, and all the machinery connected with ribandism, had never entirely been taken away; but he
* Hansard (New Series), vol. xii., p. 29.
† Vol. xvi., p. 1232.
‡Vol. xiii.(Third Series), p. 1190.
1044
could state, as far as his own observation had gone, there was not any insurrection or movement in contemplation. When he spoke of the tranquillity of Ireland he spoke of it in that sense; at the same time he was quite willing to admit, that the system of ribandism ought to be carefully watched, and that if persons were found applying the machinery which existed, they ought effectually to be dealt with, and the thing be put down. He now came to what he conceived to be the view of the argument of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham). His noble and learned Friend had said, that justice and mercy were so essentially and intimately connected, that mercy was to be considered as part of justice, and that unless it was so, it was not Mercy; and he then added, that the coronation oath, which bound the Sovereign to administer justice with mercy, did not mean it should be administered at the discretion of the Crown, but on certain fixed and settled principles, and this his noble and learned Friend said, was the settled constitution of the realm. Now, if he was not mistaken, until a very late period, the accession of George 3rd, it was the regular course, on the accession of a new monarch to the Throne, that an Act of Grace was passed for all prisoners, with certain exceptions, and therefore he should be glad to know when that principle of the constitution, for which his noble and learned Friend contended, arose. His noble and learned Friend, in arraigning the exercise of the prerogative by the noble Marquess near him (Normanby), had relied only on one proposition, and that proposition had been known to his noble and learned Friend in 1837. But did his noble and learned Friend then arraign the noble Marquess for the exercise of the prerogative—an exercise which his noble and learned Friend now considered to involve such acts of delinquency that he felt it his duty to arraign it? It was for his noble and learned Friend, then, to explain why, in 1837, he gave his unqualified approbation to the course of conduct pursued by the noble Marquess. Suppose the noble Earl opposite should succeed in his present motion, which he admitted to be a vote of censure, he begged to ask him what course his noble and learned Friend would then follow? Had he any measure to propose, or was he willing to adopt the

1045
propositions of others? Was he willing to commit all the Friends with whom he had hitherto acted, and to surrender all the principles and opinions which he had advocated with such transcendant ability in the best days of his life. Was he willing to wait oh the issue of what might be done by those with whom to-night he had allied himself? He could not consider this motion in any other light than that of a party proceeding. What course, he must inquire, was intended for the public good from this most inexplicable coalition of persons of opposite opinions? Seeing no result could follow from it, and that the only object of it was the removal of Ministers, he must repeat it was, he would not say, a factious, but a party motion. He, however, did not believe the intelligent people of England and Ireland would be disposed to join in any party proceeding of the kind; and he sincerely grieved, that his noble and learned Friend should be willing to incur the consequences of such a coalition, and to sacrifice the glories of his former life for the dearly-purchased triumph of to-night; and he would caution the noble Duke opposite (Wellington), and those noble Lords who were disposed to co-operate with his noble and learned Friend on this occasion; not to count too confidently on the continuance of that support, for they might rest assured, his noble and learned Friend would repay himself with usury for the use he had lent himself to, and would say with the poet—
"Qui te nunc fruitur, credulus aurea."
Lord Brougham, in explanation said, that in 1837 he was prepared to have urged the same point be had argued tonight on the question of the prerogative, and had actually conversed with two of the most learned persons in the country on the subject; he had not used one word to-night which he had not used in that conversation fifteen months ago. He denied, that he had supported the motion as a vote of censure, for the House had not yet the materials for censure; he had, however, said, there was a primâ facie case of blame, and that he hoped on inquiry that case might be found groundless.
The Marquess of Normanbycould not thank the noble and learned Lord for the forbearance he had displayed. Though the noble and learned Lord might have
1046
conversed on the subject alluded to in 1837, yet so far from having Mentioned it in debate, the noble and learned Lord had then defended his conduct Without reserve, and he had in a publication entitled Notes on Irish Affairs, congratulated him on having successfully followed the policy of Lords Wellesley and Anglesey, However, he was not afraid to go to a verdict of his country on the manner in which he had been attacked on this occasion.
Lord Broughamobserved, that the publication to which the noble Marquess had just alluded, had reference solely to the following out of the policy of Lords Anglesey and Wellesley, in not making that invidious distinction which had been drawn between different classes of Her Majesty's Government in Ireland by former Administrations. With regard to the extent to which the prerogative of mercy had been pushed in Ireland, he looked upon it as an ultra-barbarism. When George 4th went to Edinburgh he never dreamt of doing such a thing, neither did he do so upon his visit to Dublin. It was reserved for the representative of Royalty to do that which Royalty itself would not have undertaken.
The Earl of Winchilseagave his hearty concurrence to the motion of his noble Friend, uninfluenced by one particle of party feeling. He grounded that concurrence on the frightful state of crime which prevailed in Ireland. No one had attempted to deny the existence of a fearful organization in that distracted country. The noble Marquess himself had admitted it, and admitted that he could not state the object for which it had been formed. This single fact furnished to his mind abundant ground for the inquiry. It was not at all his object to pass city vote of censure upon the noble Hardness; he considered, however, that at least a primâ facie case had been made out of the necessity of instituting such an inquiry, with a view to ascertaining the causes of this frightful state of demoralization. There was one point of the noble Mover's statement to which no reply whatever had been offered by the noble Marquess, and that was with reference to the island of Achill. Had the noble Marquess extended to the Protestant population of that island the protection which they had a right to expect at the hands of the Government, it was highly

1047
probable that the life of an unfortunate murdered man might have been saved.
The Marquess of Normanbystated, that Mr. Cruise, a stipendiary magistrate, had been directed by the Government to proceed to the island of Achill, upon the information of the disturbed state of the island reaching them.
The Earl of Rodenbriefly replied, explaining, that his accusation with reference to the transactions at Achill was, that, until six months after the application was made, no notice whatever was taken of it by the Government.
Their Lordships divided:—Content 63; Not-Content 58—Majority 5.

List of the CONTENTS.

DUKES.

Bradford

Montrose

Falmouth

Dorset

Ripon

Wellington

Brecknock.

Buckingham.

VISCOUNTS.

MARQUESSES.

Hereford

Tweedale

Hood

Abercorn

Strangford

Bute

Midleton

Downshire

Gage

Thomond

Hawarden

Cholmondeley

Beresford.

Westmeath

LORDS.

Ormonde.

Colville

EARLS.

Monson

Winchilsea

Grantley

Abingdon

Calthorpe

Haddington

Redesdale

Galloway

Ellenborough

Kinnoull

Sandys

Aberdeen

Colchester

Dartmouth

Maryborough

Tankerville

Rayleigh

Harrington

Bexley

Digby

Wharncliffe

Courtoun

Tenterden

Roden

Cowley

Mountcashell

Stuart de Rothesay

Clare

Brougham

Bandon

De L'Isle.

Donoughmore

BISHOPS.

Limerick

Rochester

Charleville

Bangor

Verulam

Oxford.

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

DUKES.

Headfort

H. R. H. the Duke of Sussex

Breadalbane.

EARLS.

Somerset

Albemarle

Norfolk

Ilchester

Argyll

Minto

Cleveland.

Huntingdon

MARQUESSES.

Uxbridge

Conyngham

Fingall

Normanby

Errol

1048

Meath

Holland

Camperdown

Barham

Lovelace

Langdale

Oxford

De Mauley

Thanet

Foley

Cowper

Sudely

Gosford

Saye and Sele

Bruce

Berners

Lichfield.

Vaux

VISCOUNTS.

Hatherton

Melbourne

Wrottesley

Torrington

Dinorben

Falkland

Carew

Ebrington

Lilford

Duncannon

Poltimore

Lismore.

Byron

BISHOPS.

Plunkett

Hereford

Kinnaird

Durham

Montfort

Ely.

Gardner

LORDS.

Hill

Cottenham

Glenelg.

Paired off.

AGAINST.

FOR.

Vernon

St. Vincent

Shrewsbury

Carnarvon

Belhaven

Eglintoun

Sligo

Harrowby

Lansdowne

Aylesbury

Rosebery.

Eldon.