Sitting of 9 August 1843

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1°. Militia Pay; Court of Exchequer (Ireland).
2°. Defamation and Libel; Grand Jury Presentments (Ireland, No. 3.)
Committed.—Episcopal Functions; Land Revenue Accounts; Coal Whippers.
Reported.—Applotment of Rates (Dublin); Foreign Jurisdiction; Poor Relief (Ireland).
3°. and passed:—Arms (Ireland)
Private.—2°. British Iron Company.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Hawes, from Wapping, and Shadwell, against, and by Mr. Gladstone, from the Tower Hamlets, in favour of, the Coalwhippers Bill.—From African Merchants, and from the Brazillian Company, against the Slave Trade Suppression Bill.—From Preston, for a Tax on Wood cut by Saw Mills.—From Lytham, against the Factories Bill.—From the Counties of Antrim, and Kilkenny, for allaying the Repeal Agitation. From Cork, against the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill.—From the Counties of Kilkenny, and Mayo, in favour of the Arms (Ireland) Bill.—From a Protestant Association in Dublin, for the Repeal of the Roman Catholic Relief Act.

COALWHIPPERS.
Order of the Day for a Committee on the Coal Whippers Bill read.
Mr. Gladstonemoved, that it be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill, that they have power to introduce clauses for the relief of coal-fitters by staying actions which might have been or may hereafter be commenced against them for penalties imposed by the 1st and 2d of William IV., or the 1st and 2d of Victotoria, until the Lord Mayor for the time being should give his consent in writing thereto, and for fixing the re-payment of costs out of pocket.
Motion agreed to.
On the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair,
Mr. Hawesobjected to the Bill, on the ground, that the plain construction of the 15th clause would lead to a doubt whether it did not continue a taxation levied by a former Act.
Mr. Gladstonesaid, that the taxation of 1d. per ton on coals, as provided by the 15th clause, was to be continued by the direct enactment of another Bill, until all the purposes of the fund created by the 1d. a ton duty should be accomplished, and no longer; but as there were certain words in the clause on which a doubt might be raised as to the continuance of the tax, he was willing that all those words should be struck out, when they came to the clause; but he would first take the opinion of the Speaker on the question of form, as to whether the irregularity referred to, did not vitiate the Bill, and whether it might not be necessary to bring in a new Bill?
The Speakersaid, it was clear that there was an irregularity in the former Bill in the clause referred to, which might, perhaps, render it necessary to withdraw the present Bill, and bring in a new one; but he would suggest, that they should first go on with the Bill, until they came to the 15th clause, and then strike out the words which created the doubt; but if the omission could not wholly cure the defect, then let the Bill be withdrawn, and a new one be introduced.
Mr. Humethought several parts of the Bill most pernicious in principle. The House had some years ago past an Act to put down combinations amongst trades or employments, but this. Bill would encourage combination, while it pretended to hold out protection. If it was necessary to protect the coal-whippers, he did not see why they should not have similar Bills for other trades. He moved that the further consideration of the Bill should be postponed to that day three months.
Sir C. Napiersupported the Bill, which was rendered necessary by the frauds, extortions, and impositions of the publicans who employed coal-whippers. He would support this and any measure which would tend to improve the condition of the seamen and workmen in the river.
Lord Seymouropposed the Bill, as unsound in principle, though he gave full credit to its promoters for their good intentions.
Mr. B. Wooddiffered from his hon. Friends who opposed the Bill. The coal-whippers one week with another earned from 26s. to 30s. a week, but of this sum they did not carry home to their families more than 15s. or 16s. This naturally
404
produced great distress and great discontent.
The House divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the question:—Ayes 40; Noes 15: Majority 25.

List of the AYES.

Affix, J. P.

Lowther, J. H.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Mackenzie, W. F.

Mackenzie, T.

Blackburne, J. I.

Marsham, Visct.

Boldero, H. G.

Napier, Sir C.

Broadley, H.

Neville, R.

Bruce, Lord E.

Newport, Visct.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Nicholl, rt. hn. J.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Northland, Visct.

Cripps, W.

O'Brien, A. S.

Damer, hon. Col.

Peel, J.

Darby, G.

Polhill, F.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Pollington, Visct.

Flower, Sir J.

Rose, rt. hn. Sir G.

Forman, T. S.

Somerset, Lord G.

Fuller, A. E.

Sutton, H. H. M.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W.E.

Wood, B.

Greene, T.

Yorke, H. R.

Hamilton, G. A.

Young, J.

Houldsworth, T.

TELLERS.

Howard, P. H.

Baring, H.

Knatchbull, rt. hn Sir E.

Pringle, A.

List of the NOES.

Barclay, D.

O'Brien, W. S.

Chapman, A.

Pechell, Capt.

Duke, Sir J.

Scott, R.

Duncan, G.

Seymour, Lord

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Wawn, J. T.

Forster, M.

Wyse, F.

Henley, J. W.

TELLERS.

Morrison, J.

Hume, H.

Norreys., sir D. J.

Williams, W.

House in committee. Main question agreed to.
On the first clause—Board of Trade to appoint four proper persons to carry the Act into execution.
Mr. Humeprotested against the appointment of so many Commissioners. The effect of appointing too many persons, would be merely to realize the proverb. "What's everybody's business is nobody's." He would suggest that the commissioner to be appointed should have a proper salary, he would conclude by moving an amendment, that one instead of four commissioners should be appointed.
Sir C. Napierseconded the amendment, and hoped that the sense of the House would be taken upon the subject.
Mr. C. Bullersaid, that the grievances under which the coal-whippers suffered were so great, that he was inclined to

405
give his support to the Bill. He did, however think that the number of commissioners was too great.
Mr. Gladstoneintimated his willingness to abide by the sense of the House. The patronage of the proposed board would not be in the hands of Government. The Bill provided, that the power of appointing officers should be in the hands of the Commissioners, subject however, to the Board of Trade, which would have the power of dismissing these officers upon proper cause. The registrar would be the person upon whom the principal share of the business, under the Bill, would devolve; but there would be very many by-laws, in the construction of which the advice and co-operation of the board of Commissioners would be necessary. He thought that the Corporation of London would dicharge the duties of appointing these commissioners honesty and efficiently.
After some conversation, the Committee divided on the question that the words four fit and proper persons stand part of the clause:—Ayes 49; Noes 12: Majority 37.
On clause 2, "Corporation of London to appoint four other fit and proper persons, &c."
Mr. Forstermoved "to strike out the word 'four' and insert the word 'two' instead.
The Committee divided, on the question that the word "four" stand part of the clause: Ayes 49; Noes 11; Majority 38.
Clause agreed to.
On clause 10, "coalwhippers to be registered, and all men above twenty years of age, desirous of following the employment, to be registered."
Mr. Forstermoved to omit the words "above twenty years of age."
After a short discussion, the committee divided, on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause: Ayes 54; Noes 11; Majority 43.—Words omitted.
Clause agreed to.
On clause 15, "money may be raised on the credit of the duty of one penny per ton on coals, under Act 1 and 2 Will. 4th, c 76."
Mr. Hawesobjected, that it was a fresh tax on coal. The Speaker had the other day overruled his objection, and stated that it was insufficient at that time to
406
stop the progress of the bill. In order to meet the Solicitor-general's opinion, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had been obliged to omit certain words, and to add a proviso against raising the 1,000 l., if the purposes for which the fund was granted by the 1st and 2nd of William 4th had been already satisfied. He had a right to assume that the bill was informal, if he could show that there was the possibility of imposing a new tax. The clause prevented a farthing being taken from the fund, and if this were so, it was clearly an addition. [Mr. Gladstone: The 1,000 l. is to be borrowed on the credit of the fund.] To borrow on the credit of the fund was the same as to borrow from the fund itself, as in both cases the fund was liable. The House had always been exceedingly jealous of any irregularities of this kind. Under these circumstances the hon. Gentleman would do well to omit the clause, and leave the corporation of London to find the 1,000 l. itself.
Mr. Gladstonesaid, that nothing was more fallacious than to confound the loan of money on the credit of a fund with a loan from the fund itself. He moved that certain words in the clause objected to by the Solicitor-general be omitted.
Clause amended accordingly.
The committee divided on the question that the clause stand part of the bill: Ayes 56; Noes 22; Majority 34.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Irving, J.

Acton, Col.

Lefroy, A.

Boldero, H. G.

Lincoln, Earl of

Boyd, J.

London, Lord Mayor

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Bruce, Lord E.

Mackenzie, T.

Bunbury, T.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Manners, Lord J.

Cripps, W.

Marsham, Visct.

Darby, G.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Dickinson, F. H.

Milnes, R. M.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Newdegate, C. N.

Douglas, Sir H.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Eliot, Lord

Palmer, G.

Flower, Sir J.

Peel, J.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W.E.

Pollock, Sir F.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Rendlesham, Lord

Gore, W. R. O.

Roche, E. B.

Goring, C.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Sanderson, R.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Sandon, Visct.

Hardy, J.

Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.

Henley, J. W.

Somerset, Lord G.

Hope, hon. C.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Howard, P. H.

Taylor, E.

Hutt, W.

Trotter, J.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Wellesley, Lord C.

407

TELLERS.

Wood, B.

Freemantle, Sir T

Young, J.

Pringle, A.

List of the NOES.*

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Gibson, T. M.

Barnard, E. G

Mitchell, T. A.

Bowring, Dr.

Morris, D.

Brotherton, J.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Pechell, Capt.

Corbally, M. E.

Plumridge, Capt.

Crawford, W. S.

Scott, R.

Duncan, G.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Duncombe, T.

Wawn, J. T.

Ebrington, Visct.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

TELLERS.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Hume, J.

Forster, M.

Hawes, B.

*This and the lists above comprise nearly all the Members who took part in the several discussions, and voted in the different divisions.
On the 22nd clause, "penalty on shipmasters employing non-registered persons, or coalwhippers, not being part of the crew of his vessel, or other vessels engaged in the coal trade."
Amendment moved to leave out the words "engaged in the coal trade."
The committee divided on the question that the words stand part of the clause; Ayes 15; Noes 68; Majority 53.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
The House resumed.
Bill to be reported.

HIGH SHERIFF OF BUCKINGHAM.
Mr. T. Duncombehad, a question to put to the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to a petition which he had presented a few days ago, and which was signed by the present high-sheriff of Buckingham, three of his predecessors, and a number of the freeholders of the county. The petitioners complained of considerable irregularity in the nomination of the high-sheriff by the Privy Council. It appeared by the petition,—
"That at the summer assizes for the county of Buckingham for the year one thousand eight hundred and forty two, John Palmer, Esq., the then high sheriff, returned to Mr. Baron Alderson the senior judge of assize on the Norfolk circuit, a list of gentlemen qualified to serve the office of sheriff, namely, John Lee, of Hartwell-house, Esq.; John Kay, of Fulmer, Esq.; Anthony Davis, of Misbourne-house, Chalfont St. Giles, Esq.; William George Cavendish, of Latimer, Esq.; William Jones, of Chalfont St. Giles, Esq.; Thomas Tyrwhitt Drake, the younger, of Shardeloes, Esq. That your petitioners cannot but believe that the same list
408
was, by the said Baron Alderson handed in without alteration or amendment at the meeting of the judges and other great officers and privy councillors in the Exchequer, on the morrow of St. Martin, in the same year, 1843, but none of the persons whose names were so returned by the said John Palmer were nominated to serve the office of sheriff, but there appeared in the Gazette of persons so nominated, one Edmund Francis Dayrell, of Lillinstone Dayrell, in the county of Buckingham, Esq., whose was not in the return made by the said John Palmer. That the nomination of a person to serve the office of sheriff, not chosen according to the statute, is a power not vested in her gracious Majesty, is a gross violation of the constitution, calculated to infringe the liberty of the subject, and subvert that great bulwark of constitutional liberty, trial by jury."
It was customary to place the names of two gentlemen who were rejected the previous year on the list, and these gentlemen were generally appointed in rotation. The petitioners stated, to their great surprise, a gentleman had been appointed to the office whose name had not appeared in the list delivered to the judge. The reason the petitioners think that Baron Alderson did not make the alteration was this; that on the morning when it was the duty of the high-sheriff to give in the list, the judge directed the clerk to put Dr. Lee's name at the head of the list, and afterwards it was found that instead of Dr. Lee's name, that of Mr. Dayrell had been substituted. It was a question that had caused great dissatisfaction and some alarm in the county. The appointment to the office of high-sheriff was not vested in the Crown, it was made on the recommendation of the judge, and the Crown ought not to appoint any person not so recommended. This was a subject that appeared to be of considerable importance, and justified him in asking the Secretary of State for the Home Department how it had occurred.
He did not call on the right hon. Baronet to state what was the cause of the change; but the general feeling of the country was, that it was owing to some high aristocratic influence which had induced it. He did not think he was asking too much of the right hon. Gentleman, when he called upon him to explain this proceeding, as from the lateness of the Session it was impossible to bring forward a specific motion.
Sir James Grahamwas not disposed to undervalue the importance of this subject, nor to complain of any jealousy that might

409
be exhibited with respect to irregularity in the appointment of a high sheriff. He was quite prepared to give an explanation to the hon. Gentlemen, and he hoped it would be satisfactory to him and the House. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that so far from any aristocratic influence being exercised in this case, that nothing had occurred but that which was in accordance with established usage, and strictly in obedience to the law. The hon. Gentleman had fallen into some inaccuracies. The names returned to the Crown for selection were not six but three. This had occurred in this case, and the election had taken place in the Exchequer, on the morrow of St. Martin; that which was done occurred in open court, where three names were returned; and the choice of the Crown was limited to these three. It appeared that it was the duty of the judge to make out a list of these names, which he did from the information that he received. It was the duty of the senior judge to do this, and he made out his list from the information he received from various parties, from the lord-lieutenant of the county, from the clerk of the peace, the foreman of the grand jury, or the under sheriff. From these, or other parties, he might receive information. The list was formed at the absolute discretion of the senior judge. In 1841 the list for the county of Buckingham contained the names of John Palmer, John Seniors, and S. Barnes. Mr. Palmer served in 1842, then the list contained the names of S. Senior, and S. Barnes; and to those Mr. Baron Alderson added the name of Edmund Francis Dayrell. The first name, Mr. Senior, was now sheriff, Mr. Barnes' name was after that, and then came the name of Mr. Dayrell. Her Majesty's Government had taken the senior name on the list, and Mr. Senior was now the high sheriff. These were the facts, and they had taken place in open court.

PARTY PROCESSIONS (IRELAND).
Lord Northlandbegged to ask the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government, whether it were the intention of the right hon. Baronet to repeal or extend the act, the 2nd and 3rd William IV,, which related to party processions in Ireland?
Sir R. Peel: The act to which the noble Lord had alluded did not expire in the present Session, but its operation was
410
limited to the end of the next Session of Parliament. The object of the act was of a special nature. It certainly prohibited processions, but they must have reference to the celebration of some anniversary or festival connected with religious differences in Ireland; and not only that, but the parties joining in such processions must either be armed or have emblems or devices calculated to excite religious animosity, or be accompanied by bands playing party tunes tending to the same effect. With respect to the application of the act, her Majesty's Government were of course prepared to give a general and impartial application to its provisions as far as they go; but the general operation of the bill was limited to the celebration of some religious anniversary or festival connected with religion, and therefore there might be processions to which the act did not apply. The act would expire next Session, and of course it would then be the duty of Parliament to determine what course should be taken, but it was not the intention of the Government, in the course of the present Session, either to repeal the act, which would expire next Session, or to give it a more extended application than its present provisions allowed of. Nothing would be more gratifying to the Government if, when the act expired, there should be no further necessity for its removal. The course pursued by the Protestant body in relinquishing their processions reflected the highest credit on them; and induced a hope that, as far as they were concerned, it might be in the power of the Government to dispense with the act.

STREET MENDICANCY.—JANE WARD.
Mr. M. Milnessaid he would now put a question to the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary relative to a girl of the name of Jane Ward, who was committed to the House of Correction on Tuesday, the 1st of August, as he thought the case involved important matter for consideration. A person of the name of Jane Ward was brought before Mr. Combe, a magistrate of Clerkenwell police, charged with begging in the street. Her accuser, who was the sole witness against her, was a man who called himself an officer of the Mendicity Society, who declared that he saw her beg. The girl denied the charge. No police-officer remembered having seen her before; no police-officer knew her,

411
and no person came forward to state that the girl had asked alms of him. There was no primâ facie case of any kind against the girl; there was no charge of importunity and no pretence of violence, but the mendicity officer who brought her up and accused, stated he saw her beg, and she was committed to prison by the magistrate solely on the evidence of a third person, she denying that she had begged at all. The question he wished to ask was simply this (and he believed the matter to be one of great general importance), whether it was legal or not for any third person to interfere in a matter of this kind so far as to bring to justice another person on the sole ground of receiving alms, without being charged by any party from whom he or she was supposed to have received alms? and whether, under such circumstances, the magistrate was justified in condemning the girl on such evidence?
Sir James Grahamobserved that the hon. Gentleman had put the facts of this case in his own way. He had, however, the deposition on oath of the party, by whose evidence the individual had been convicted. The House would bear in mind, that by the law of England, destitution was provided for as a matter of right, but it also provided that mendicancy should be considered an illegal act. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman in thinking that it would not be desirable to strain that law; but still it could not be denied that in this metropolis the general habit of begging should be restrained. Now, in this case, he found the facts very different from those that had been stated by the hon. Gentleman. The statement was quite true that this case rested only on the evidence of one witness, a person employed by the Mendicity Society. This officer deposed to his seeing the person in question, on the day named by him, begging more than once—that he saw her begging from two individuals—that he saw her receive money twice, and that on a former occasion he had seen her begging in another part of London. On these facts being proved the magistrates considered himself justified in treating this woman as a common beggar, and in coming to the conclusion that she ought to be committed for seven days.
Sir R. H. Inglissaid, that as he found he should not be out of order in alluding to this subject, he hoped to be allowed to
412
address to the House a very few words upon it. He (Sir R. Inglis) was one of the last men who would wish to bring the conduct of magistrates under the condemnation of the House; but at the same time he felt that the influence of the Crown would not be injuriously exercised if the expressions which the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department had addressed to the House were addressed to the metropolitan magistrates—namely, that they ought not to enforce to the extreme rigour of the law the penalties incurred under the Police Act in respect of those cases of mendicancy, to one of which his hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract had adverted. There ought, he thought, to be a distinction made between the sturdy and insolent beggar and the almost silent sufferer, who was sometimes met with in the streets of the metropolis. The question in this case was, did or did not the individual ask for, or did she merely receive alms? He could not help thinking that when they knew the state of suffering which existed around their own splendour and comfort, they ought to feel some sympathy in such an instance as that put forward on the present occasion, and not enforce the law to its rigour. He repeated his opinion that his right hon. Friend would well exercise the influence of the Crown if he communicated to the police magistrates the kind of feeling which he himself had expressed in the observations which had constituted his reply to the question put by the hon. Member for Pontefract. His (Sir R. Inglis's) point was, that the police-magistrates ought not to lend themselves to mendicity societies or to any other persons, and punish individuals for merely receiving alms, nor unless the individual charged was sturdy and insolent.
Subject dropped.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND)
Mr. S. Crawfordrose to move the second reading of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Bill. It was of the utmost importance, the hon. Member said, to amend the laws relating to landlord and tenant in Ireland. Under the present system the tenant was compelled to take his land upon any terms the landlord or his agent thought fit to impose, and he vas obliged to erect buildings and make every improvement at his own risk and cost, and in case of his removal he could obtain

413
no compensation for his outlay of capital and industry. Again, in Ireland there was the system of letting lands to what were called "middle-men," who obtained large "takes" of land, with the full intention, that they would make money of those lands, by merely letting them to under-tenants. Another system was that of letting lands in common or in co-partner-ship; that was, where the landlords would not let their lands in single acres, but insisted upon four or five men taking a tract of land in common, or in partnership, and any one of them was, under that system, liable to be distrained for the rent of the whole, and the consequence was, that the honest, industrious, hard-working man might be connected in such a partnership, with idle and dissipated persons, and if so, he was sure to be pounced upon for the rent of the whole tract. Another evil arising from the system of "middlemen," was that the middle-men would let houses to poor people without any land connected with them, and the result was, that the poor people occupying such houses were compelled to take land in what were in Ireland called "con-acres," that was to take land for a season, and to pay for it at the enormous rate of from 7l. to 8l. an acre. By these means all encouragement to industry was destroyed, and grievous exactions were levied upon the people. There were plenty of records in the library of that House which would prove every one of the points he had to urge, and especially in the reports of the Poor-law commissioners, which showed in all their details the evils of which he spoke and their results. There was one of those reports in which the principle which he sought to carry into operation by this bill was referred to, and to that report he should feel it his duty to call the attention of the House on the present occasion. In the course of the examination carried on by the Poor-law commissioners in Ireland, they had directed their inquiries as to how far it would be expedient to pass a law rendering the landlord responsible to the tenant for the valuable improvements which the tenant might have made upon the land. Before that commission issued, however, he had brought in a bill in 1834, for that purpose, but still the attention of the Poor-law Commissioners for Ireland having been directed to the subject, they examined into the point as to how far such a
414
law ought to be carried, and in prosecuting the inquiry, in no less than fourteen different districts, they received an answer in the affirmative as to the great utility of such a law. In Appendix F to the report and at page 147, a witness who was examined before the commissioners prosecuting an inquiry in the county of Mayo states, in answer to a question as to improvement:—
"They would be cutting their own throats if they laid out their money, for, where the lease is out, the rent is raised; were it otherwise they would plant trees and build walls; but I never knew an instance of a landlord, on the expiration of a lease of land improved by the tenant, taking one farthing less than he (the tenant) had made it worth."
The hon. Member read several passages to the same effect, and then continued. He could read to the House several other extracts to the same point, and in favour of the powers which he proposed to give under this bill, but he would not fatigue the House with them. There was, however, one remarkable instance, showing the hard-heartedness of the landlords, and the rigour with which some of them acted, which he must read. The commissioner for the county of Dublin, speaking of the food of the people (page 227), stated:—
"Though most of the small occupiers and labourers grow apple-potatoes and cup-potatoes, they do not generally use those kinds themselves, except as holyday fare, and as a little indulgence on particular occasions. They can only afford to use lumpers, an inferior kind, fit only for pigs and cattle, and they sell the others for the payment of their rent."
The commissioner then went on to state:—
"A landlord in passing the door of one of his tenants—a small occupier who owed some arrear of rent—saw one of his daughters washing potatoes at the door, and perceiving that they were of the apple kind, asked her if they were intended for her dinner. Upon being answered that they were, he entered the house and asked the tenant, what he meant by eating apple-potatoes when they were fetching so good a price in Dublin market?"
This landlord, of course, thought his tenant ought to have been content to eat lumpers. This, however, was an instance of the manner in which certain landlords desired to oppress the people. He did not mean to include all landlords in that observation. He knew in Ireland as good landlords as in any other part of the kingdom; but he knew this, that there were

415
in Ireland landlords who extorted and oppressed in such a degree, that such a measure as that he now proposed was absolutely necessary. The Poor-law commissioners had reported upon the effects of this system in very strong terms, and they attributed to it the increase of crime, unlawful combinations, poverty, ignorance, indolence, and excessive population. The preamble of the bill now under consideration declared, amongst other things:—
"That whereas it appears by returns made to Parliament of ejectments entered and decrees pronounced in the several courts of law, that an extended and progressively increasing system of ejectment of the small holders is in operation in that country, and that from this, various outrages and disorders have occurred."
Returns had been made in the years 1833 and 1842, and those returns showed that the number of ejectments entered, amounted to 71,397 in five years, being at the rate of 14,339 for each year; and by a comparison with former returns in nineteen counties, the ejectments had nearly doubled in the last nine years. He was not now going into the question as to how far it was right or wrong to have large or small holdings; but this he would say, that it was most grievous to drive these poor people away in so sudden a manner. Let them, then, have the protection which he proposed, and which was, that if they had made any valuable or useful improvements in the farm, the landlord ejecting them should be compelled to give them fair compensation. This was all the bill claimed for them, and he asked simply, if it was not consistent with justice? The principle was not new in legislation. In England, when the exterminating system took place in the fifteenth century, Parliament had not been nice in interfering with the rights of landlords. The present bill only went to re-enact the provisions of the laws passed at that period to restrain landlords. On this point he would only trouble the House by referring to the provisions of the statute 4th Henry 7th, c. 19, as a sample of those laws. It recited the desolation produced by the then general system of depopulation, and it enacted that all persons, of whatever state, degree, or condition, who had any houses for three years before let with twenty acres of land for husbandry, shall be bound to maintain and replace such houses, and return such
416
lands to the purposes of husbandry, or in default to forfeit to the next in fee, or else to the king, half the profits and issues of such lands until the provisions of the statute be executed. The 2nd and 3rd of Philip and Mary recited and confirmed the above act; it appointed commissioners to carry it into effect, and to enforce punishment, and by it the commissioners were enabled to abate rents when they thought proper. Lord Bacon, in two different parts of his works, praised the statute of Henry 8th, and Sir E. Coke named the offence known under the name of "depopulatores agrorum" as an offence which the King could not pardon, because it was an offence against the common weal. When there were such statutes as these to be found amongst English acts of Parliament—statutes making a great inroad into the rights of landlords, would the House refuse its sanction to a measure founded upon them? Let it be remembered, that in Ireland a tenant was not a free agent—that he was not capable of protecting himself; and like other persons acting under a sort of compulsion, should be protected by the law. Why was it that the law declared the usurer should not take more than a certain rate of interest, but to protect the borrower against the rapacity of the usurer? If any class required the protection of the law, it was that class to which the poor Irish peasant belonged—he was entitled to it according to the principle of English law, and Parliament was bound in justice to afford it to him. Nothing could be of the smallest use in ameliorating the condition of the people of Ireland, if the laws affecting landlords and tenants were not altered so as to give protection and security to the latter. He now felt the deep importance of pressing this question upon the attention of Parliament. Having, during the discussion upon the Arms Bill, been blamed with others for censuring the Government for not taking measures to ameliorate the condition of the people of Ireland, and having heard it said, "We do not know what measure to propose," he thought it his duty to propose this one, that it might no longer be said he was blaming the Government for doing nothing, and at the same time was himself involved in the accusation. The object of the bill was to encourage leasing for long tenures. The claimant was to have no claim under the bill except what was

417
founded on his own industry; and the provisions were of that nature that they would protect the landlord as well as the tenant, who would be put in a fair position, so that in case of ejectment he should be compensated for what he had done to improve the estate of the landlord. In cases of dispute respecting sums under 100 l., the tenant would be entitled to sue in the Barristers' Court, which would be a cheap means of obtaining justice; and claims exceeding 100 l. would be submitted to arbitration by a rule of the superior court, similar to the practice in the English courts. He could have no expectation of going on with the bill this Session, but he was exceedingly anxious, upon a subject so deeply interesting to the people of Ireland, to hear the opinions of her Majesty's Government. It was impossible, in his opinion, for any Government to adopt any measure which could tend so much to soothe the asperities existing in Ireland; nor would anything be more satisfactory than an intimation which would lead the people of Ireland to suppose, that though the measure could not be carried out this Session, the subject would receive the consideration of her Majesty's Government, and that in a future Session they would endeavour to do their best to settle this question to the satisfaction of all parties concerned. It was impossible that there could be any peace or prosperity so long as the population of Ireland continued to suffer as at present. He would not press the second reading, if the Government, or the Members of the House generally, wished that more time should be given for its consideration, and if he was encouraged to hope, that at a future time the subject would be favourably considered by her Majesty's Government. But he did not wish the people of Ireland to be deluded by false hopes. Whatever course her Majesty's Government took upon the present occasion, this debate would be read with the deepest interest, and it was better that the people should know what they had to expect. He did not wish to make accusations against any party, or to have this question treated in a party spirit. He was ready to acknowledge that amongst the hon. Gentlemen who were politically opposed to him, were as good landlords as amongst his own party. He was anxious to do that which would support the landlords of Ireland; and they
418
could have no security for any rights they possessed, except that security was founded upon justice to the tenants.
Sir R. Peelcould assure the hon. Gentleman, and the House, that he was little disposed to view this bill with any prejudice on account of the character and motives of the hon. Gentleman by whom it had been introduced, for he had a strong impression that the hon. Gentleman was influenced by pure and disinterested motives. So far as he had any knowledge of the hon. Gentleman, his character was not founded upon his professions in that House, but his practical conduct as a landlord, entitled the hon. Gentleman, he was sure, to the respect of all those who knew him or who had the happiness of being connected with him; but he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not ask the House to come to any decision upon this question. It was one of such extreme delicacy and difficulty, that if her Majesty's Government were to express any opinion, it would be of the greatest importance, whatever principles might be affirmed, that with respect to the relation of landlord and tenant, they ought not to leave the matter in a vague state for several months; but having affirmed a principle as to the object of the measure, and as to the possibility of its being carried out, they ought then to proceed at once to the details by which its principles were to be developed. With respect, therefore, to a measure of such extreme difficulty as the relation of landlord and tenant, if they were to legislate for this part of the empire, or for Scotland, he should be strongly disposed to advise the House not in one Session to avow a principle, and in another to carry it into effect. He had given the question as much consideration as he had been able amidst the claims of many other subjects, upon the attention of her Majesty,s Government; but so far as he had been able to refer to some of the acts quoted in the preamble of this bill, he thought, that there must be some misapprehension as to the intention and effects of some of those acts. The third part of the preamble of the bill was this:—
"And whereas, by the ancient laws of England it is the acknowledged right and duty of Parliament to protect the occupiers of lands from the unjust, arbitrary, and excessive exercise of the powers of eviction conferred on the owners thereof, as shown by va-

419
rious statutes passed in the reigns of former Sovereigns, for the purpose of controlling landlords in the exercise of such power, and for punishing the improper use of it."
Now, the intention and effect of those statutes did not seem clearly to correspond with the description in the preamble. The 5th of Henry 8th, cap. 5, the principal act quoted was—
"Whosoever decayeth any town or house of husbandry, or doth convert tillage into pasture, shall forfeit to the lord of the fee half, of the profits thereof."
He presumed, that the tenant was under an obligation to continue in repair the house of which he was the lessee, and in case of neglect, that he would be liable to forfeiture. It appeared to him, therefore, that more attention ought to be given to this subject before they consented to this measure. He did not wish to pronounce an opinion against the principle of the bill? but the principle was such, that the tenant, without the consent of the landlord, without his sanction, or without consulting him, might lay out an unlimited sum under his own superintendence, in draining and improvement of the land, and at the expiration of the lease he might recover from the landlord the amount of that expenditure. That would make an important distinction between the law of England and that of Ireland, and for the sake of all parties interested the measure should not be agreed to without due consideration. Since the hon. Gentleman gave notice of his intention, the Government had directed a careful review of the law of England and Ireland in respect to this subject to be made; and in stating that the Government would be disposed to give a fair consideration to the subject, he must at the same time say that they would discountenance any expectation that they meant to recognize in any shape that which was called fixity of tenure or any alienation of the rights of the landlord; being satisfied that the maintenance of the just rights of property was the great characteristic of social improvement, and that any attempt to controul or interfere with the just and legitimote rights of property, and must be the greatest blow to industry and the accumulation of wealth that could possibly be given; but, on the other hand, the Government was not to be deterred by a fear of being charged with encouraging vague and futile hopes from giving consideration
420
to the improvement of the law with respect to the relation of landlord and tenant. While he felt bound to discourage what was termed fixity of tenure, at the same time he was not prepared to say that the Government, through fear of unjust imputations, should refrain from giving to the subject that consideration which was necessary to ascertain the difference between the law and practice of England and Ireland, in order to see whether it could justify the application of any different principle of law. But he was not now prepared to give any opinion upon the principle of this bill, or to take any other course than to exhort the hon. Gentleman not to ask for a vote upon the second reading, but to allow an opportunity for the consideration of the subject during the interval of the present and the next Session of Parliament.
Mr. M. O'Ferrallthought that a lengthened discussion upon a question of this sort at so late a period of the Session would be most impolitic; and her Majesty's Government, in promising to consider the subject, had done as much as they ought to do. The question was in a very unsatisfactory state. He had never held that those who wished to amend the law in respect to it, wished to rob the landlords; on the contrary, he thought those who said so were exceedingly wrong. His hon. Friend, the Member for Rochdale, was himself, in his own character and conduct, the best evidence in disproof of such a notion. There was not a better landlord or a man who gave a more practical proof of the purity of his intentions; for while he displayed a fair desire to maintain the rights of property, he was constantly promoting the comfort and happiness of those who were connected with or dependent upon him. If the example of his hon. Friend had been followed at an earlier period, we should not now have to deplore the evils and crimes that marked the present day. The landlord was the victim of the law; he was compelled to carry it out. He submitted to her Majesty's Government the propriety of instituting such an inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining all the consequences of the present law. He believed that the landlords were more interested in the settlement of this question than the tenants. But the subject ought to be taken up so as to command the respect and confidence of both.
Sir A. Brookewas understood to say, that he believed very few landlords in Ireland would object to the principle of the bill. He agreed with the hon. Member for Rochdale that it was very hard for tenants to be ejected without remuneration for the improvements they had made upon the estates of their landlords. There was one proviso in the bill on which he wished to make an observation, that relating to the emigration of the tenant. Should the tenant wish to emigrate he should apply to his landlord for liberty to dispose of his right in his farm which he occupied. Should that request be acceded to, it ought to be considered as a privilege, and not as a right. He was glad to hear the right hon. Baronet say, that he would give the subject his best consideration between this and next Session; and that he would examine into the relative condition of the Irish landlord and tenant. It was a general impression among a certain class, that the Irish landlord had acted harshly towards his tenantry. The wretchedness and misery so generally prevalent in that country were attributed to the hard and cruel conduct of the landlords; but these impressions were erroneous. He fully concurred in the opinion expressed by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government on a former occasion. The right hon. Baronet observed,
"I said before, and I say again, that the indiscriminate and inconsiderate expulsion from the soil of whole families, without some refuge or means of relief being provided for them, may be a legal, but it is not a moral or a humane act. It is an act with which I cannot concur. I say it is not only the duty but the interest of those who throw those unfortunate persons on the world to consider the dreadful situation in which they place them by such violent exercise of the power which the law places in their hands. I say it is possible to blend improvement with humanity."
It was his most anxious wish to see the question amicably settled.
Mr. M. J. O'Connellsaid, the debate which had taken place that night was one of the very few gratifying discussions which had occurred connected with Ireland during the present Session. He was pleased with the tone of the debate. Hon. Members not only gave vent to expressions of sympathy, but there existed strong reasons to hope that the subject to which the motion of the hon. Member for Rochdale referred would, during the course of the next Session, be considered by her
422
Majesty's Government. He thought that the right hon. Baronet had given good reason for not pledging himself immediately to any particular view of the question. He hoped that the hon. Member for Rochdale would not press his motion to a division; should he do so, of course he would vote in favour of it. He regretted that the subject of fixity of tenure should have been alluded to. That point was not legitimately before the House. The question had many prejudices and difficulties connected with it. He trusted, when that subject came before the House, that these difficulties and prejudices would be removed. He thought that every effort ought to be made to encourage the tenant to lay out money in the improvement of the farm he occupied. He hoped that the Government would bring the subject of fixity of tenure before the House next Session, with a view to its final settlement. He felt assured, that were that to be effected the most dangerous portion of the agitation in Ireland, that associated with a tendency to outrage, would be removed. He again thanked the right hon. Baronet for the manner in which he had considered the question, and he hoped that the observations of the right hon. Gentleman would have their proper effect in Ireland, and produce that feeling of satisfaction which he (Mr. M. J. O'Connell) felt they ought to give rise to.
Sir D. Norreyssaid, that the subject under discussion was one deeply connected with the best interests of Ireland. The melancholy state of the starving peasantry of that country demanded their patient and earnest consideration. It was a matter of little consequence what they did with the franchise with municipal rights, so long as the social condition of the peasantry of Ireland remained unimproved. It was that which gave rise to the agitation which prevailed in that country. He had a right to complain of the manner in which the right hon. Baronet treated the proposition of the hon. Member for Rochdale. The right hon. Baronet had first referred to the preamble of the bill, and then to the doctrine of the fixity of tenure; at the conclusion of the right hon. Baronet's speech he stated that that subject should be considered by the Government during the recess. With regard to the bill before the House, he was bound to state that it contained many clauses which would be totally impracticable. His name

423
certainly was attached to the bill. The hon. Member for Rochdale, in consequence of some observations which had fallen from him on a former occasion, had asked him to allow his name to be affixed to the bill, and he had consented. But he did not see the bill after it was printed, and therefore could not be held responsible for its clauses. In the principle of the measure he, however, fully concurred. If they improved the tenure of land in Ireland, they would not have the people coming to England as beggars for money to carry on the public works in that country. If the Irish people were taught to trust more to themselves and the national resources of their own country, and less to others, their condition would be much better.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that the hon. Baronet had accused him of treating the question before the House with unbecoming levity. He denied the imputation. He had not addressed any observation half so strong against the bill as had fallen from the hon. Baronet himself.
Mr. S. Crawfordsaid, that he would act upon the advice which had been given and withdraw the bill.
Bill, with permission, withdrawn.

GOVERNOR OF ST. KITT'S.
On the motion that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply.
Sir C. Napierrose to ask the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, whether he (Lord Stanley) had given his attention to facts which had been formerly brought under the notice of the House relating to the treatment which a Midshipman had received from the Governor of St. Kitt's? and whether the noble Lord had come to any other opinion on the subject different from that which he had previously given expression to?
Lord Stanleysaid, that on a previous occasion he had stated to the hon. and Gallant Officer, that in his opinion the Midshipman in question having so demeaned himself as to lower the authority of the Governor in the eyes of those I amongst whom he was acting in that capacity, the Governor, in the moment of irritation, had taken the tiller out of the hands of the officer. Further, he had stated, that on that account he could not altogether acquit the Governor of having acted with indiscretion; but looking to the circumstances of the whole case he must
424
say that he did not think his conduct such as to render it justifiable for him to visit the Governor with any mark of displeasure. That was his opinion; and he did hope that the Gallant Officer would, on consideration, not think this a case which ought again to be brought under the notice of Parliament.
Sir C. Napiersaid, that the noble Lord having declined to communicate his opinion to the Governor of St. Kitt's, he was driven to the painful necessity of proceeding with the case. Somewhere about January last, Mr. Cunningham, the Governor of St. Kitt's, embarked on board the Clyde, a packet belonging to the West India Steam Navigation Company, for the purpose of proceeding to Basse Terre. After the packet had departed the Governor was informed that he could not be landed at Basse Terre, but that the ship's-boat should put him ashore at "the point." A boat, under the command of Mr. Jericho, was accordingly launched, and the Governor, his secretary, and the postmaster, got into it, and were pulled towards the shore. As they approached it the Governor insisted on the boat's course being changed, and on his being landed at Basse Terre. The Midshipman replied to him that he had orders to the contrary, and insisted on steering to the point. An altercation took place, and the Governor told the Midshipman that if he did not go to Basse Terre he would fling him overboard. Mr. Jericho insists that the Governor suited the action to the word, and that on being "thrown" or "pushed overboard," he laid hold of the rudder and was hauled into the boat. The Governor then again insisted on being rowed to Basse Terre, but the young officer still refused to deviate from his orders. He then again threatened to throw him overboard, when the strokesman of the boat interfered, and told the Governor that they knew no other governor in the boat but that youngster, and that if he (the Governor) attempted to touch him he would cram his oar down his throat. Ultimately the Governor desisted, and was landed at "the point." The consequence of this altercation, however, was, that during the time it occupied, the steamer had proceeded on her way without the boat; and finding this, by the change in the position of the ship's lights, Mr. Jericho landed, got some bread and water, hoisted a sail in the boat, and ran

425
200 miles up to St. Thomas's, where he picked up the ship. This was the story as told by the complainant. The Governor's defence was, that the young officer, Mr. Jericho, had behaved with great rudeness—that he was steering the boat on a reef, when he, the Governor, interfered, and that the young man fell, and was not thrown, overboard. He believed in the correctness of the facts as he had stated them. Mr. Jericho declared that he was thrown or pushed overboard. The Governor said that, from his situation in the boat, it was impossible he could have pushed him, and, if anybody pushed him, the secretary must have done it. Now, that was perfectly impossible. Let the House just suppose that the Treasury Bench was the boat—they didn't row altogether there, but that was no matter. Well, the Treasury Bench was the boat—the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) was the person steering it. The noble Lord on his right (Lord Stanley) was the Governor, and the Under-Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Hope), who was still further to his right, was the secretary. Now, he would put it to the House, could the Under-Secretary (Mr. Hope) throw the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) overboard unless the Colonial Secretary (Lord Stanley) aided and assisted him. It was clear he could do no such thing, continued the Gallant Officer. Let him ask how would this case have stood if the boat belonged to a Queen's frigate? Wouldn't the youngster have been perfectly justified if he had thrust his dirk through the Governor's body? Of course he would. He would have done so any day. Let them suppose the boat a ship. Why, there might be a dozen governors on board a ship, and they might all object to the course the captain was steering, and attempt to seize the tiller. Wouldn't the captain be justified in that case if he threw the dozen governors overboard altogether? Of course he would, and, as the difference between this real case and that he had supposed was, in fact, only a difference of degree, he should move that a select committee be appointed to inquire into the conduct of the Governor of St. Kitts.
Lord Stanleysaid that he owed some apology to the House for detaining them a single moment upon a subject so little worthy their attention. He wished merely to observe, that there was nothing could
426
be elicited by the inquiries of a committee that was not already before the House, and therefore the appointment of a select committee was quite unnecessary. He must say, however, that, under the circumstances, more attention ought to have been paid to the wishes of the governor on the occasion to which the hon. and gallant member had referred. The governor was well acquaintad with the coast, and there could be no doubt that he interfered for the preservation of life, and that what he did was under the influence of very pardonable excitement. Still his conduct could not be considered as otherwise than indiscreet. It was not perfectly justifiable perhaps, but yet he certainly did not think it called for any censure. He regretted that the hon. and gallant officer had thought it his duty to bring forward the subject so often, and to give it an importance not wished for by any of the parties.
Motion withdrawn.
House in committee of supply, several sums voted.
House resumed; report to be received.

ARMS (IRELAND) BILL.
Lord Eliotmoved that the Arms (Ireland) Bill be read a third time,
Lord Clementssaid, they were now about to close the session, and the only exhibition of strength the Government had shewn was their determination to press this odious and irksome measure. Early next session he would expect the noble lord would furnish reports shewing the whole of the arms which had been registered, the quantity seized, and what proportion had been returned to their owners, and also an account of those districts which had been proclaimed. Whenever the bill became law he would take care that wherever he had any influence it should be carried into effect; he would counsel all his countrymen to follow the same course; and it would become so irksome and harassing, and it would be but very short lived. He moved that it be read a third time this day six months.
Captain Bernalseconded the amendment, and contended that the bill was hateful in principle and contemptible in its provisions. He protested against the principle of the bill, and the period at which it was sought to be enacted. He believed there were now 25,000 troops in Ireland, exclusive of marines and police,

427
The present Government in reference to the conduct of that party who were their chief support in Ireland, said that they had never outraged the law. Now he had received a letter from a Protestant clergyman of Cootehill, in which he stated that his church was on the first of July broken open by an orange party, contrary to his express orders. The church having been broken open, the parties proceeded to the steeple, and had placed thereon a large orange flag. It had been the custom at this place for the clergyman to preach an orange sermon. as it was termed, but this the Rev. Mr. Douglas refused to do; he refused to accede to such a sacrilegious act—he refused to allow his pulpit to be thus desecrated. The consequence of this determination on his part, however, led to this,—that on his first entering upon his duties, the whole of the congregation rose in a body and left the church. The flag remained several days on the steeple; the police dared not interfere, because it was known that 180 men were resolved to keep up the flag. The Emperor Joseph of Austria caused to be written on his tomb, "Here lies Joseph, whose measures were all unsuccessful." He recommended the right hon. baronet to adopt this epitaph, for none could be more fitting or just. The hon. Member complained that hon. Gentlemen on the other side wished to arrogate all loyalty to themselves, and concluded by declaring that, favorable as he was to the union of the two countries, he would never attempt to uphold it by oppression and injustice.
Mr. M. Milnesremarked, the hon. Gentleman was singular in his objection to these precautionary measures which all men must admit to have been imperatively demanded in Ireland. Precaution was the essential concomitant of the moderation of the Government; and, perhaps, the prudence was as much necessary to restrain the enthusiastic loyalty of one party as the excited hostility of the other. At all events, he hoped the latter would be as anxious to merit a compliment for observing the law, as to deprive their opponents of it. But he was as desirous of telling his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, that the support which the bill had met with was not founded on the conviction that Arms Bills alone were necessary for Ireland. His supporters had entertained the hope, that if not in the
428
present session, in which the noble Lord's party had been so energetically obstructive, at least in the next, some important measures would be brought forward for the amelioration of Ireland. No doubt there was great difficulty in the present peculiar position of that country; but among those measures which would be followed by most advantageous results, he might mention the establishment of some improved system for educating the Catholic clergy; and the expenditure of money on public works. The Rev. Mr. Matthew had emphatically declared that what Ireland required was employment for her people. And with reference to the distinguished individual he had named, he believed sincerely that any compliment which could be paid by a Legislature or a Government was well merited by the apostle of temperance. The right hon. baronet ought not to be distrustful of his ability to meet the difficulties of the crisis. The right hon. baronet had already grappled with one mighty interest in this country, had met and overcome an immense mass of prejudices, and had accomplished more than any other Minister could have ventured. And the country knew well that the right hon. gentleman would not sacrifice any interest for any other motive than a deep conviction of public necessity. The right hon. Baronet could do no more than any other man; in fact, he was the only man in the country who could grapple successfully with existing difficulties. Let him proceed in the course he had hitherto pursued, and, relying on his own power, without having recourse to adventitious aid offered by the Opposition, he would eventually overcome all the difficulties that surrounded him, by carrying on that course of large and effective policy which had been commenced in the preceding session.
Mr. Wallbegan by saying that he agreed with his hon. Friend, Mr. Milnes, that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government was better able than any other man to introduce remedial measures for Ireland. The greater, however, his power, the greater his responsibility. His was the strongest Government the youngest member would live to see, and he should take care that the opportunity of settling at least some of the questions was not lost. The great moral of all Irish Debates seemed to him to be, that every

429
measure was encompassed with such difficulties, it was almost impossible to move. But the more difficult it was to do anything for them, the more imperious it was to take care that we had not the appearance of legislating against a country. There was the question of the Church, Landlord and Tenant, Registration, Franchise; the Church, which some were for supporting and others for distroying, some for one Church, some for two, some for paying neither, some for paying both, some for robbing one to endow the other: but while other men were differing and hesitating, his noble Friend (Lord Eliot) had made up his mind, and proposed an Arms Bill as the sovereign remedy. And such an Arms Bill; not contented with one that had been the law of the land, he said, let us put somewhat more ginger in it and make it as effective as we can. As far as he (Mr. Wall) understood the Bill, it was intended to put down agrarian outrage and facilitate the registration of arms. It did neither; he thought the Government had entirely failed in proving any increase in outrage. The returns were against them—in June, 1842, there were 800 serious outrages, in June, 1843, 447. The judges charged against this bill, for every statement as to the tranquillity of the country was an argument against it. But even if there was more agrarian outrage, this bill would not put it down. It had been tried fifty years, and re-enacted fourteen times. But would the bill facilitate registration? The reverse, men were obliged to go thirty miles to register their arms; some provision stating a maximum of distance beyond which men were not obliged to go to register, he thought might have been well introduced at the end of the second clause of the bill. He objected to it, however, on constitutional grounds, as a war measure and a second Alien Bill, as brought in under false pretences, giving a little protection and a little coercion, and being operative for neither. Above all he objected to it as giving increased power to the magistracy, at the time when great discontent and difference of opinion prevailed among that body. There were 3000 of them, and more attornies; to interpret this bill every magistrate should be a lawyer. The 17th clause for instance, which in principle was objecttionable in interfering with hereditary rights, he thought gave an undefined power to the magistrate, to give up the
430
father's arms to the son or sons, as he might think fit, giving all of them to one member or dividing them among the whole family. It was not by such measures as this that Ireland could be governed. Confidence was the principle on which the Administration should be founded, not suspicion and distrust. He was no Repealer; but this measure would make men Repealers. Some might think Ireland would do better connected with other countries than this; but no one in his senses could think that she could long stand alone. He believed the mass of the Irish people who clamored for repeal knew not what they asked for. The Russian mob once clamoured for the constitution, and when asked what it meant, said the constitution was the wife of Constantine. The Russian peasants were philosophers to the Irish, if they believe that the repeal of the union would relieve their distress. On those grounds it was that he opposed the Arms' Bill, and he called on those who had spoken from the other side of the House, and stigmatized the bill as irritating and ineffective, to unite with him in rejecting it on the third reading. It had been warmly, but not fruitlessly, opposed. The noble lord (Lord Eliot) had introduced thirty-five amendments, and been obliged to call in the assistance of the English Attorney-general to explain his Bill. It had been feebly supported only by five Members on the Government side, and by the petitions of five grand juries. The grand jury of Sligo objected to the bill, that it had been frittered away. The grand jury of Firmanagh mixed up with the consideration of the bill, the question of repeal and the Church. He thought the way the bill had been opposed and supported gave little hope of its being useful for the tranquility of Ireland.
Mr. D'Israelisaid, that, when in opposition, the Ministerial party had been accused of making Ireland their cheval de bataillle, to ride into office upon. It had been made a heinous offence in them, that they had supported the Registration Bill of the noble Lord, now the Secretary for the Colonies. In lending his support to that bill, he would not deny that he had looked upon it as a party question; still he had thought that good cause had been shown for the measure, and in this belief he had been strengthened when he found the bill received the support of persons from whom his own party were

431
little in the habit of receiving support. When he found himself going out in a division with the noble Lord the Member for Sunderland, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax, he scarcely thought the time would ever come when, for his support of that bill, he should be held to have been guilty of factious opposition to the Government. The House would recollect that, in the course of a protracted opposition, the right hon. Baronet selected two questions, by which he led the country to believe, if he came into power, his system of Government in Ireland might be, in some degree, anticipated. These two measures were, the reform of the municipal institutions, and a measure for the registration of voters. What had been the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman with respect to these two measures since he had been in power? After a struggle of many years, the right hon. Gentleman entered office on the strength of his policy with respect to Ireland, for it was not to be denied that the divisions on the Irish Registration Bill were the thing that really overturned the late Government. The moment the right hon. Gentleman was in office he selected for the office of Secretary for Ireland a noble Lord whom he (Mr, D'Israeli) had long known and always highly esteemed, but the selection of that noble Lord was a virtual admission on the part of the right hon. Gentleman that he had been wrong in the course he had pursued when in opposition with respect to the question of municipal reform. Very shortly after the right hon. Gentleman came into power, he took an opportunity to announce that the subject of registration of voters in Ireland, a question on which so much interest was felt throughout the country, would not be proceeded with; not only that the bill of the noble Lord was not to be resumed, but that no measure of a similar character would be brought forward. The right hon. Gentleman thus admitted that his course, while in opposition, as far as this measure was concerned, was diametrically wrong, and that those to whom he had been opposed had acted correctly. He did not blame the right hon. Gentleman for this conduct. If the right hon. Gentleman thought that the line he had taken in opposition was not one which a Minister of this country could adopt, the right hon. Gentleman had taken a right and prudent course in abandoning it when he came
432
into office. But he drew this inference, which he thought was a most important one, that as regarded Irish policy, they who were the followers and supporters of the right hon. Gentleman were now left to themselves. That was, he thought, the plain, the irresistible conviction which must press itself on the mind of every hon. Gentleman who sat on that side of the House. For a number of years they supported the right hon. Gentleman on these two important subjects. The right hon. Gentleman succeeded to office mainly on account of the line he had taken in opposition on those two subjects, and he had virtually announced to the House and the country that he had been in error. He gave the right hon. Gentleman full credit for the sincerity of his conviction, but having now no guide on the subject of Ireland, no means of forming an opinion—Ireland being in a state which challenged and demanded some opinions—he said they were plainly free from any bonds of party on tha subject, for the right hon. Gentleman himself had broken them, and they had a right, they were, in fact, bound to form their own opinion of what they considered really, in the sincerity of their conviction, was most adapted to the advantage of the two countries. He said this, because it was, in fact, a course that was necessary to prevent gentlemen on that side of the House from being stultified by the position in which they were placed. To many, no doubt, it would have been very convenient that Ireland should have remained in a state of tranquillity, and that they should not have been forced to give an opinion on the subject. He was sure that many who supported the right hon. Gentleman would have felt it much more agreeable to avoid any Irish discussion: but being told by the right hon. Gentlemen that he had unfortunately a blind guide in opposition on the subject of Ireland, that they must not look to him, nor to the views he announced as orthodox. When the House therefore saw Members of his Government come forward and propose a measure which compelled the House to consider the state of Ireland, what remained for them but to form the best opinion they could, without the advantage of any official light, on this the most important subject in the modern policy of this country. At least they must endeavour to form an opinion which, if not absolutely sound, might not be so to-

433
tally devoid of all pretensions to wise policy as that which for a number of years they had adopted, and which they had the misfortune to find, on the announcement of their leader, was in fact perfectly erroneous? An hon. Gentleman on his side of the House had taken a view of what he what he considered the duty of his party on the subject of Ireland, at which some Members seemed to have been surprised, and he defended these views by holding them up as the old Tory doctrines, the legitimate doctrines of the party with which he was connected. He knew that that statement was historically true, and he believed it to be politically just. But there was no anarchy greater, no principle if followed out would be more fatal to the policy of this country, and to the character of public men, than to suppose that the two great parties which had governed the State were mere factions, without distinctive principles, and absolute differences in their policy. He was sure hon. Gentlemen opposite, from whom he differed, were the last men who would attempt to controvert an opinion of that kind. Their leader, who was unfortunately not then present had on more than one occasion given what he might call a pedigree of patriotism, proud of the great measures which, in the course of the last two hundred years, the party with which he was connected had introduced and carried. The noble Lord had given the House his view of the character of those measures, and the consequences to which they had led; and they were, he did not for a moment hesitate to admit great measures, of which a party might well be proud, and which none but great men, so numerous in the political history of this country, could have framed. He contendsd, also, that the party with which he was connected had held great distinctive principles, and carried them out. He said, too, that those principles, at different periods, had been advocated by men as great, and by pens as eloquent as any that had adorned the party on the other side. But he said, when that party was left in the lurch by their own leader, when he threw up the reins, and told them he had made a mistake, and that he could give them no further advice, and that the policy he had pursued was perfectly erroneous, it was their duty to remember the original principles of the party with which they were connected, and he for one could not find
434
in the history of that party any grounds for assuming that hostility to the Irish people was a distinctive ingredient of what was called Tory policy. He found the fact to be exactly reverse. He knew that there had been monarchs as Protestant as any that could exist—as Pro testant as any under whom he for one would wish to live—in the time of that great queen, Elizabeth, to whom they so often appeared, in the time of another monarch of whose Protestantism the Church of England would not doubt, since she canonized him as a saint, and reverenced him as a martyr, that was not the policy pursued, these were not the sentiments encouraged with respect to the Roman Catholic population of Ireland. They had heard another night of the treaty of Limerick; but no one reminded the House when it entered on the subject of the Irish Church, of the secret articles of the famous Glamorgan treaty, one of which contained a scheme for the adjustment of the claims of the rival Churches, which had never been broached in debate in that House. That clause alone showed what was the feeling of those whose amity to the Church of England could not be doubted on the delicate and important subject of the claims of the Irish Church. He could not observe that at any later period of our history, whenever those questions had been discussed, whenever what was called the Tory party had had the preponderance in the state, that any other line of policy had been adopted. It was true that circumstances had occurred to which he merely referred for illustration, because he did not wish to introduce the bitterness of party into this debate. The Whig party for seventy years had the command of the Government, and the course of their policy was hostile to the Roman Catholics of Ireland. That was a historical fact which no one could controvert. But even at the time when the Tory party was overthrown, and proscribed, when it was led by an attainted and exiled leader, principles were always advocated in harmony with those to which he had referred, and on all occasions of political contest, the Roman Catholic population of this country supported the claims of the Tory party. He said this because at a time like this it was necessary to recur to the principles which were the foundation of the party, when those who had been its leaders no longer led it,

435
and they found themselves sinking into a faction, degenerating into the lowest position in which a public man could be placed—when, in fact, they were supporting a Ministry without knowing what principles they were maintaining. He wished to enforce this position on the House, because he thought there was nothing more strange than that the gentlemen of England, those who were the descendants of the Cavaliers, should in fact always be advocates for governing Ireland on the principles of the Roundheads. At present, the state of Ireland forced itself on their attention. He was not going, at this period of the Session, to descant on the grievances of Ireland or the empirical remedies which had been posed to cure them; but he wished to remind the House of the subjects brought before them, and pressed on their attention by the popular voice. There was the tenure of land, a question which had shaken kingdoms to their centres, and occasioned more revolutions than any other cause. There was the maintenance of the poor, electoral rights, the claims of the rival Churches, whether you should maintain one line of ecclesiastical policy, or substitute another. Whether these were genuine grievances, founded on absolute necessity, or merely the fantastical inventions of those who were called agitators, it was a fact that such questions were mooted, that such questions interested millions, and that was enough to show that the state of such a country demanded the most serious attention. What was the consideration which the statesmen of the present day gave to these questions? They had announced to the House, almost in an ostentatious manner, that they intended to do nothing, because to do nothing was in their minds the wisest policy. Now, if one could suppose for a moment that the curtain would fall upon Ireland as it fell in a theatre when a certain number of acts had been performed, one might conceive that those gentlemen who formed the present cabinet had some foundation for the policy which they had stated it was their intention to pursue. They reasoned, they acted, as if the moment that Parliament was prorogued Ireland must be tranquillized; that in fact the present agitation was a sort of divertisement got up to form the material for debates. He heard almost a silent cheer, as if that was a version of the
436
movement now in progress accepted by some one; but to believe that, they must reject all the facts that had come to their knowledge, and throw aside all the evidence on which their information was founded. He had a right to suppose that this immense agitation, which was confessed by Ministers to exist, and the causes of which they said they were not prepared to remove, would still subsist, and would even be aggravated. He knew that it was said this remarkable conduct, this paralysis of policy, which was now fashionable, was, in fact, occasioned by a dissension in the Cabinet. That had been alleged in more than one quarter; it had always been his opinion, and he had his reasons for it. They were not reasons of any confidential nature, and, therefore, he had a right to state them. He had never heard of a Cabinet yet, since the institution of Cabinets, in which there was not a dissension. He defied any man to go through the history of Cabinets, from the time of Sunderland to that of Stanhope, from Stanhope to the Pelhams, and from the Pelhams to the Pitts, and to find one which had gone on for twenty-four months without very serious and even fatal dissensions. In modern times, even the right hon. Gentleman himself entered the Cabinet through a dissension. He was not in the Cabinet, and it was wished he should be, and one morning, without the slightest preparation, the Secretary of State found that he was no longer Secretary, and the right hon. Gentleman became Secretary in his place. Even in the most quiet times, in the Cabinet presided over by the patient and benignant genius of Lord Liverpool, dissensions sprung up in the Cabinet. Lord Castlereagh died, and a series of bickerings took place, which in a moment were hushed. Mr. Canning entered the Cabinet; dissensions soon took place relative to the introduction of Mr. Huskisson; and when Mr. Canning died, in a moment all the suppressed evil passions broke forth, and from that time to the present there never had been twelve months without dissensions in the Cabinet. The right hon. Gentleman's own Cabinet did not exist more than a few months before dissensions took place, and an eminent person who was a Member of the Cabinet left it; and they had a right to believe there were dissensions now. They had the Lord Chancellor of England declaring in the House of Lords that meetings held to pe-

437
tition for the repeal of the legislative union were illegal; and they had it declared to the House of Commons, by order of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, that those meetings were perfectly legal, provided they were peaceable. The Leader of the Government in another House was chalking no Popery on the walls, while the Leader of the Government in that House told them that he, for himself, cared nothing about Protestant or Papist—Tros Tyriusve—he did not care what a man believed, and meant to be strictly impartial. When they found systems so inconsistent—policy so totally opposed—alike only in one great result, imbecility of the most lamentable nature, he had a right to believe that there were dissensions in the Cabinet. He believed it, and he believed that they would destroy this or any other Cabinet which did not address itself to the question of the government of Ireland in a very different spirit. It was perfectly clear, if you destroyed the Protestant, and established the Roman Catholic Church to-morrow, or chose any isolated remedies, one after the other, you would produce no improvement in the state of Ireland. It had arrived at that pitch which required a great man, to have recourse to great remedial measures. It was not a single remedy, but a simultaneous adoption of all those which had been indicated, and many more might be indicated that would restore Ireland to that state which every man, whether Irish or English, must feel to be desirable. You must re-organize and re-construct the government, and even the social state of Ireland. Nothing could prevent it—they might cry "question," but they would not cry "question" twelve months hence. It was not by having recourse to any of those measures brought forward in a great degree from party feeling, but in some degree, too, from sincere conviction; it was not by more empirical remedies that they could give peace and contentment to Ireland. With respect to the present measure he had little to say. Well, he would give his reason. He did not wish to use a harsh term, and, therefore, he would refrain from saying that the measure considered with reference to the present state of Ireland, was contemptible. The opposition to such a measure, taken also with reference to the present state of Ireland, must naturally, in some degree, be entitled to the same epithet;
438
but there were some measures which to introduce was disgraceful, and which to oppose was degrading. He had given no vote on this bill one way or the other, and he should continue that course, being perfectly persuaded of its futility. Believing that Ireland was governed in a manner which conduced only to the injury of both countries; that the principles declared by Ministers were not capable of relieving us from the difficult position in which we were placed; believing that the old principles of the party with which he was connected were quite competent, if pursued, to do that, he hoped the time would come when a party framed on true principles would do justice to Ireland, not by satisfying agitators—not by adopting in despair, the first quack remedy that was offered from either side of the House, but by really penetrating into the mystery of this great misgovernment, so as to bring about a state of society which would be advantageous both to England and Ireland, and which would put an end to a state of things that was the bane of England and opprobrium of Europe.
Colonel Vernerwished that the bill were not restricted to fire-arms only. He was happy to hear the terms of approbation in which the conduct of the Protestants in Ireland had been spoken of by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, and by a noble Lord in another place. He was glad that so much justice had been awarded them.
Mr. C. Bullerhaving on a former occasion expressed his opinion upon the general policy of the Government in relation to Ireland, would confine himself to the bill before the House, and to a few remarks upon the effect which, as now framed, it was likely to produce upon the tranquillity of Ireland. In the gallant Colonel who had just sat down the House had a specimen of the spirit in which the bill would be likely to be administered in Ireland by those in whose hands it would be placed for administration. The gallant Colonel, he believed, was not a magistrate, but he was the organ of a large mass of opinion in Ireland. He was the representative of a class who thought that the vigour of the Government had been too long delayed, and who were anxious for the moment to arrive when they were to be let loose to administer the full severity of this or any other law. The vigour which the gallant Colonel wished the Go-

439
vernment to evince was some coercive measure which the party he represented were so anxious to have passed for Ireland. The gallant Colonel's view of an Arms Bill was known—a buck-handled knife might be innocent in itself, but a buck-handled knife in a strong and malicious hand might be death. Parties on both sides of the House had agreed that the reason for introducing the bill had been mis-stated in the original debate; that it was absurd to treat it as a bill for the purpose of preventing agrarian outrages and offences against individuals. No Arms Bill would effect that; the only result would be to strip peaceable cottagers of the arms they had reserved for defence. He could understand the policy of an Arms Bill carried into effect by martial law, and if the yeomanry were to be let loose to search every cottage for arms. He could understand an Arms Bill such as that which Napoleon had in Spain, when the punishment for the possession of arms was death; but what would be the operation of this bill, and its effect upon the tranquillity of Ireland. The peasantry of Ire_ land had ever kept arms in spite of an Arms Bill, and nothing was more easy than for a disaffected peasantry to evade it. He (Mr. C. Buller) had said on a former occasion, that he did not object to the Arms Bill of the late Government, and he repeated, on this ground, that he viewed that Arms Bill as a mere continuation of a law of fifty years standing, and, therefore, certainly in itself nothing formidable—it was a bad law, it was true, but as a renewal was not calculated to excite such opposition as had been presented to the present bill—especially as a renewal by a Government which had the confidence of the Irish people and had kept that people tranquil. True, they had denied that position on the other side, but he said that such a renewed Arms Bill, brought in by such a Government, was not likely to be attended with practical evil consequences; but when brought forward by a Government in which the Irish people had no confidence, and against which the people had arrayed themselves in a sort of peaceable insurrection, what could be augured but that the Government which introduced the bill, and proclaimed it as the only remedial measure relied upon that bill to govern Ireland, and that Ireland was to be governed on the principle and by the policy of Arms Bills, Such a
440
course he thought to be peculiarly dangerous at the present moment. The mind of Ireland was in a state of great preturbation: there was much exasperation among the people, and a spark thrown upon such combustible materials might be productive of the most awful consequences. He gave credit to the right hon. Baronet for a wish to avoid collision, however imperfectly his measures might be carried out by his subordinates; but in the present fearful state of things what was done? A measure was brought in to revive all the irritation which former Arms Bills had ever occasioned, and bring it home to every member of the population by the clauses for registering and marking the arms. He implored the right hon. Baronet to consider the consequences. Parliament would separate without any remedial measure for Ireland; without any measure save one of coercion, and when the Parliament had separated, what was the first act with which Government met the Irish people? A genoral search for and registration of arms Why, if they wished to provoke an insurrection, could they have adopted better means. He professed great respect for the conciliatory spirit and sagacity of the right hon. Baronet, and the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland; and he believed that by them the law would be justly and fairly administered? It would come into operation when Parliament was not sitting—when there could be no appeal to the opinions of the people through their representatives; and who was to administer it? Three thousand magistates, scattered over the face of Ireland, from whom all those who were called liberal magistrates, had just been weeded, men connected with one party, and that obnoxious to the people. By those gentlemen this obnoxious and dangerous law was to be administered. He put out of the question the Protestantism of those gentlemen, their Toryism, their Orangeism, or any other "ism;" but the question was, how many great fools might be supposed to be found amongst these three thousand gentlemen? He was not one of those who were in the habit of sneering at the unpaid magistracy, who admistered the law with the best intention, and to the best of their ability, and who—he spoke of England—when in error, were generally found, except when the case before them was one which related to game, to have erred from good feeling, and a desire to

441
save those who came under their jurisdiction from the severities of the law. But among three thousand gentlemen, how many foolish persons might be reasonably expected to be found? The statistics of folly had not, he believed, been accurtely ascertained in any class or number of persons, but even among 658 persons he believed a considerable proportion might be found. Seriously, it should be remembered now much depended on the wisdom and temper of those who administered the law. One hot-headed magistrate might reason a whole district into revolt, and from that district revolt might extend, until it became general in Ireland. The power was one which could not be safely invested in the chance wisdom or folly of any 3,00 persons. He had been in hopes that the measure would in its progress have been reduced to such an Arms Bill as had been passed before. Some had complained of too much laxity, but after all he found that the old system had been pursued of governing Ireland by precedents. They were about to separate, but—suppose their calculations were right, and that the present feeling in Ireland was wearing itself out—suppose an insurrection were not to break out, or suppose it did break out and was suppressed—to what point then did they bring the question? That the old system of mis-government in Ireland was to be continued, which as the hon. Member for Shrewsbury had well said, was the bane of England, and the opprobium of Europe. They admitted the evils of the state of Ireland, the fearful evils of her social position; but they offered nothing. He begged the right hon. Baronet to consider the consequences of his policy. Was it safe to trifle with the feelings of the peace of Ireland? That people had gone on in a course of legal, peaceful opposition, defeating all the proper authorities of the country, and which was gradually taking the power out of the hands of the constituted authorities, and placing it in the hands of those whom the people had chosen. He would ask was the state of England and the feelings of the working classes such, that the Government could afford to palter with Ireland, and bring upon themselves additional difficulties? Was it wise or tolerable as a question of common sense and prudence, to put justice and humanity out of consideration, thus to trifle with Ireland, thereby adding to the danger of
442
England? Upon this question he was appalled when he thought of the blindness of the Government; and he exhorted them to consider that this was not a consideration that would bear trifling with.
Mr. Smythesaid, that his chief object in rising was not so much to make a speech upon the worn-out topic of an Arms Bill, as to vindicate the course which he had taken; and he had reason to complain of the mode in which that conduct had been interpreted. On that (the ministerial) side of the House, the right hon. Baronet told them, that they had no right to pursue any course but that which "he" might entertain. The noble Lord, the Member for Lancashire had made use of no such intolerant expression, and he (Mr. Smythe) was sorry he should countenance it by his cheers. When hon. Gentlemen talked of the intolerance of our Roman Catholic fellow subjects, he thought that the intolerance might at least be matched on the benches below. That that was felt to be the fact by some Gentlemen near him on that side, was shown from their cheering him more than they had the right hon. Baronet. But when majorities were counted by units and not by hundreds, such was not the ministerial language used. It had been urged against the course which he had pursued, that he should not make it a question of personality, but he for one did not understand playing with his constituents, nor did he think that this was a time, when, as the hon. Member for Shrewsbury had shown, men were rather prone to substitute persons for principles, that men should forego their convictions and opinions. He should not shrink from saying, that when persons became principles, personality became a duty with those that followed them. He looked upon this do-nothing policy as not Conservative, and not constitutional Conservative? Who so blind as not to see that it was charged with disturbance? Constitutional? Who so blind as not to see that it was charged with revolution. He knew those opinions were not fashionable; he knew the feelings of the right hon. Baronet were those of sanguine expectation; but the House would recollect the remarkable language of Prince Metternich, in July, 1830: "I should be less anxious if Monsieur Polignac were more so." That was the language of Prince Metternich, and he (Mr. Smythe), believed that the people of this empire would

443
be less anxious if the right hon. Baronet were more so; if he did not meet the perils and dangers which exist in Ireland by such a measure as the Arms Bill alone. He looked on it as a measure efficient only to irritate, inefficient to coerce, and he, therefore, felt it scarcely worth while to vote on it; but if he should vote for the bill, he would not thereby affirm the Irish policy of the Government; but on the contrary, he should indorse upon its back a protest against their Irish policy. He would, in reference to this subject, speak not words of his own, but the words of one who was the friend and contemporary of Lord North—one who was a witness to a policy of a similar nature to that which is now in operation—a policy which began in inaction and ended in capitulation—which began in doing nothing and ended at York Town and Saratoga; that individual said, "It is easier to disarm the minds of a nation than to disarm its hands," and he would say, that if they attempted to disarm the hands of that (the Irish) nation, they ought also to attempt to disarm its mind.
Mr. Sheil: As I have a far higher opinion of the Prime Minister than the gentlemen who sit immediately behind him, and those on his right wing, who condemn him without hesitation, and vote for him without remorse, I shall commence the observations which I mean to make, by adverting to a remark made by him, many years ago, in opposing the Reform Bill—a remark which appears to me to be peculiarly applicable to an opposition to the measure before the House. He said, in answer to a very eloquent and a very exciting speech made by one of his present Colleagues, that his resistance to Reform would be unavailing, but that it would not be fruitless. That our resistance will be unavailing, is beyond doubt. It is equally, I think, beyond question, that it will not be unproductive of salutary results. The people of this country will be led by the discussions to which this measure has given rise to enquire, why it is the Legislature should be united, and our legislation should be distinct, and how it comes to pass that a bill should have been carried by large majorities, which for England, under circumstances of extreme hazard, no minister was sufficiently adventurous to propound. Nor will the people of this country confine their con-
444
sideration to the provisions of this bill, they will extend it to the entire policy upon which the measure is founded, to the course pursued by the Government in the conduct of the affairs of Ireland, and they will, of necessity, institute a comparison between the results of a Whig and a Tory Administration. The Irish Whig executive was in sympathy with the people: it was supported by the majority of Irish Members, (a circumstance of the utmost materiality) they were sustained by the entire of the Catholic priesthood, and the Catholic episcopacy of Ireland. Good order everywhere prevailed. All fear of public commotion had passed away; property was not panic-struck—Protestantism was out of temper, but it felt itself secure; if political agitation had not entirely subsided, it assumed a more temperate character; the great agitator himself seemed to have lost his indefatigability; the thunder of his eloquence was not hushed, but it did not shake the castle to its foundation, and was only heard in those less frequent and more innocuous mutterings, which indicate that the hurricane is passing away. To the people, to the Parliament, to the Sovereign, Ireland presents a different spectacle. In an answer delivered by Lord de Grey, to an address from the university of Dublin, he stated with peculiar emphasis: that the Queen felt a more than ordinary solicitude for the welfare of her Irish subjects. If her Majesty entertained the hope, as well as the gracious desire that under the new Government Ireland should prove as tranquil and as prosperous as under the previous administration, of that benevolent hope how painful a frustration has been sustained. Twenty, thirty—what do I say?—hundreds of thousands of ardent, enthusiastic, but unenebriated men, meet in disciplined tranquillity, and with flashing eyes, and throbbing hearts, and clenched, but not uplifted hands, listen to that eloquence, to which in the records of popular excitement, scarce a parallel can be found; and while these great gatherings, which even the Duke of Wellington does not consider to be a farce, are convened in those districts, where they are calculated to produce the most signal impression, in the metropolis of Ireland, an association holds its sittings, whose Members have not indeed gone through any ceremonial at the hustings, but they faithfully reflect the feel-

445
ings of the people, under the guidance of that matchless man, by whom Irishmen are adjured to remember that Ireland once was, and to anticipate the time, when Ireland shall be once again a country. Never during the great struggle for Catholic emancipation, not even at the moment when it was won from your necessities, was Ireland more perilously excited. The entire of the Catholic peasantry, the entire of the Catholic middle classes, a portion of the gentry, the whole of the Catholic priesthood, almost the whole of the Catholic Episcopacy have become confederate in a cause, calculated beyond every other, to exalt the imagination, to stir the emotions, to lift up the aspirations of a fervid, enthusiastic, an undaunted and a dauntless people. No wonder that while Ireland is undergoing this great concussion, that you should have felt the shock—no wonder that the tremor has reached to you—no wonder that the solicitude with which you contemplated these events should have gradually grown into alarm—no wonder that the House should take a concern in what is passing in Ireland—no wonder that notwithstanding the Ashburtonian endearments, the sympathy of America should have been transferred from that great and conciliated colony, which the Prime Minister has no reason to consider as the most vulnerable point of your dominions. No wonder at all this; and yet there is matter for wonder, at least, to those who call themselves the Protestants of Ireland, for they are more than amazed at the philosophical composure with which the right hon. Baronet, the man of decision and of action, surveys this tempestuous agitation, as if, like the spectator in Lucretius, he beheld it from the beach, and the "suave mare magno," were among his official recreations, while he is in reality embarked in the boat which can scarcely live in that Irish Sea that threatens to overwhelmn it. But I for one, do not attribute the contemplative inertness, or I should rather call it, the passive resistance of the right hon. Baronet to any false security, but to an honourable repugnance upon his part, to the adoption of any measures of distempered energy. The Arms Bill for a single Session is enough; the people of England might not be disposed to concur in any proceedings which a more audacious minister (and such a man might perhaps be found on the Trea-
446
sury Bench) might extend to themselves: your own people may yet stand in need of the same protection as your creed—besides, if coercive laws are not to remain a dead letter on the statute book, a mere memorial of impotent aggression—the concurrence of the public tribunals must be procured, and for that purpose the sources of justice must perhaps be poisoned at the fountain-head, and expedients must be resorted to, from which the right hon. Baronet, I do verily believe, would instinctively recede. And what after all would be the result! Would the evil be eradicated? It would be hid, not cured;—you would convert discontent into disaffection, you would substitute for the loud clamour for redress, the meditations of a dumb but desperate vengeance, and teach undaunted men to lock in a deep and dark taciturnity, the fell intent, that waits its opportunity, and the more patiently it waits, the more it accumulates revenges. But, while the right hon. Baronet is entitled to high praise for the course which he has pursued, let him not imagine that the Repeal agitation will subside of its own accord. The Repealers boast of a daily accession to their numbers; grand-juries indeed petition against it, but in times of public commotion grand-jurors become mere isolated units, and over the peasantry on their own estates lose all control: and you have reason to apprehend that even that class on whom you rely will be gradually sucked into the whirl, and may think it a more prudential course to side with the organised multitude, by whom they are encompassed, than with a Government of which they despair, and which seems to be stunned by the events which have befallen them. I have told you that the Catholic priesthood, and the Catholic episcopacy were favourable to Repeal;—the measure to which they are favourable is not likely to recede, I very much doubt whether you are fully aware of the political power which is vested in the Catholic Church of Ireland, and I have often thought it an anomaly that you should labour to conciliate a body, which is every day losing all practical influence, while you are alienating the Catholic people of Ireland, to whom political power has lately been irreversibly transferred, and the Catholic priesthood, whose sway over the people, it would be difficult to over-estimate. Who and what is a Catholic priest? He comes from the

447
people, but if he does not associate with patricians, he is at all events exempt from those habits of ignominious complaisance, which result sometimes from the intercourse of the humble with the great. It is as well that the teacher of the apostolic religion, should come from the apostolic order;—his kindred with the people enhances their attachment, without impairing their respect. He receives an imperfect education at that seminary, which you have done your utmost to starve into destitution; but that education, imperfect as it is, is sufficient to develope a mind, of which the robust and athletic frame, in which it is embodied, is the type. Shrewd, sagacious, penetrating, energetic, Celtic in temperament, scholastic in accomplishment, born in some sort an orator, bred a dialectitian, a declamatory disputant, versed in the subtleties of ecclesiastical controversy,—exalted in belief, ardent in patriotism, irreproachable in morality,—devoted with a zeal beyond all praise to his spiritual functions—the companion, the counsellor, the absolver, the friend—always the best, too often the peasant's only—friend, the Catholic priest unites in himself all the attributes which can give him a sway over the affections, and a title to the confidence of those who are committed to his spiritual care. You have made him a Repealer: you have precipitated him into agitation, and when glowing with resentment at the wrongs done to his country, and burning with indignation at the affronts offered to his order and to his religion, from that altar, which you have turned into a rostrum of harangues, he pours among the masses that encompass him, his honest, impassioned invocation, of the effect with which it must be attended, you do not require my aid to form a conjecture. I have drawn the picture from the life; the colouring may be vivid, but the likeness is preserved. Such a man, more or less modified, is to be found in every parochial subdivision of the country; there are three thousand of them; they are connected by the bonds that fasten all churchmen to each other; they think, they feel, they act together, and at their head, at the head of this surpliced phalanx, stand their prelates, men distinguished by their learning, their talents, their piety, the energy of their character, and their knowledge of mankind; this great moral and intellectual corporation
448
cannot be neutral; it must be your auxiliary, or your antagonist; and of its hostility you have made choice. Mr. Pitt did not agree with you; and in 1825, one of yourselves, Lord Francis Leveson Gower proposed to establish the Catholic Church, and to grant 250,000 l. a year for the purpose. And here let me be permitted to advert to a statement made by the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, regarding what he calls a compact entered into by the Catholic deputies in 1825. I cannot but think that the noble Lord has discharged a missile, which like the weapon of the New Zealanders, returns in the direction from which it was flung, and hits the right hon. Baronet. The noble Lord reminds us of our evidence, but he reminds the right hon. Baronet, that the terms we offered were not accepted, and that the right hon. Baronet allowed the country, just as he allows it now, to be involved in a fearful agitation, of which the very events that are now passing are among the remote results; might not a doctor (if I may be permitted to draw an illustration from that calling to which the right hon. Baronet occasionally resorts for a comparison; he has been at last called in—we all see with what success); but, Sir, might not a doctor justly repudiate all responsibility, if he had prescribed two ingredients at an early stage of a complaint, and one only had been administered, when the patient had been allowed to get into convulsions and brain fever had set in? The noble Lord said there was a compact; his name is so honourably associated with a celebrated convention, that he thinks that without one, nothing can be done. I venture to recommend it to him, to peruse the speech made by the Prime Minister in 1829, for three reasons:—first, because it is a model of eloquence; secondly, because it denounces the Arms Bill; and thirdly, because the right hon. Baronet most explicitly declares, that there was no compact whatsoever entered into with the Catholics of Ireland. But to return to the proposition of 1825: it was made, it was rejected, and it cannot be renewed. It is out of all question; the Catholic Church will not accept rewards from the Castle; but there is another, and a course honourable to both parties open to you. Grant glebe houses, and glebes to the parochial clergy; let these temporal advantages be attached to the office, and not be made dependent on the

449
political compliance of the priest. What will be the result? First, you will ease the people of a portion of those does paid with voluntary promptitude indeed, but sometimes not without privation to themselves; secondly, you will make the people feel that their Church is one of the institutions of the country; thirdly, if you place the Church under the protection, but not in a base demoralising subserviency to the State, the sustainment will be reciprocal. But you can do more than this: you can build the Roman Catholic houses of worship at the public charge. Wherefore should you not? Of the temples dedicated to the national religion, wherefore should the piety of the people be the unassisted architect, while wherever their eyes are turned many a spire ascends in lofty attestation of the splendid inutility of a congregationless Establishment? Look to Maynooth. In 1796 the Maynooth grant was just what it is at present. The Whigs raised it to 12,000 l. in 1806; the Whigs reduced the grant to 8,000 l. The population was doubled, Catholic Ireland has risen morally, politically, socially: yet the same scandalous pittance—(scandalous to those who grant it)—with all the grievances of a narrow-hearted and narrow-minded intolerance continues to this hour to be doled out. It is most shamefully insufficient, yet you will not, or you dare not augmentit; but does not office lose half its dignity if it is to be held in a bad subserviency to that fanaticism which I fear that you have permitted to exercise over your Irish policy its preposterous domination. I have adverted to the state of the Catholic Church, in order that you may judge of the likelihood of that cause becoming retrograde, to which you have provoked that Church to become devoted. The notion that this great question will die away is most erroneous. Perhaps you conceive that it is so destitute of all sound reasons, that it cannot endure;—you think that, the people of Ireland are chasing a mere "ignis fatuus" from the morasses of Derrynane. Your mistake is most signal. I observe that Englishmen are peculiarly successful in convincing themselves; but you ought to bear in mind, that the arguments, and the motives that weigh with you, have little or no influence with the people of Ireland; on the other hand, do not undervalue the incentives by which Irishmen are prompted to seek the restoration of a domestic legislature. When
450
the great Tribune of the Irish people tells his countrymen that the Union was an infamous surrender of liberty for gold—that it was a breach of the highest of all trusts,—base and void—that the promises made at the Union were not fulfilled—that the Government of Ireland has been almost uniformly carried on, by Insurrection Acts, and Arms Bills, and all that complicated machinery of oppression, to which you appear to have resorted, to prove to Ireland how utterly she was in your power—that even after Catholic emancipation had been wrung from you, to the old system of national and religious discrimination you still pertinaciously adhered: when he tells them that the Repeal of the Union supplies the only means by which the wrongs of Ireland can be repaired—that upon your own acknowledgment there is no other way of repairing the monstrous abuses of your ecclesiastical Establishment;—when he tells them that they are 8,000,000, and that it is by the exercise of moral enforcement only, that any concession was ever extorted from you;—when he tells them that although Ireland has hitherto been only unfortunate, she has all the qualifications for greatness, and breathing with those hyperboles which the enthusiasm of a hundred thousand men divests of exaggeration, he exclaims that it was not in vain that the two islands were set apart, that it was not in vain that the sea was placed between them, that against their junction nature appears to have pronounced a prohibition, and that he hears in the voice of the ocean and in the murmur of the surge, the decree of Providence and the ordinance of God, when, I say, he utters these things or things like these, although upon you they do not and are not intended to produce any impression, don't you think, do you not know that over the feelings of Irishmen they exercise a deep and thrilling influence? And how do you counteract them? How do you prove to Ireland that the charges adduced against you are ill-founded. How do you prove to them, that of a domestic Parliament they do not stand in need, and that to Ireland in this Imperial Parliament, perfect justice has been, is, and will be for ever done? Is it by your Arms Bill? Is it by this measure which you have interspersed with such whimsicalities of oppression, that even your Protestant auxiliaries declare them to be gratuitous and unnecessarily-superfluous fetters put

451
on, not for security, but for clatter; is it by calling together a convocation of police inspectors, a congress of thief catchers, and delegating to them the office of legislating for Ireland, and then producing this pistol-branding, housebreaking result of these constabulary deliberations, is it by never omitting an occasion to institute between Englishmen and Irishmen the most odious and exasperating distinctions, is it (to pass from your Arms Bill to the other examples of your Irish policy), by establishing different parliamentary and different municipal franchises between us, is it by clamor for a registration bill when you were in opposition, and notwithstanding your reiterated intimations, notwithstanding the report of the Longford committee, notwithstanding that you have passed an English Registration Bill, allowing two whole Sessions to pass without giving us even an outline of your measure—is it by proclaiming yourselves the champion of every abuse of the Established Church, and thus arraying the people against the Union, which is used as a pretence for their sustainment, is it by entering with my Lord Roden and his representative in this House, not into a compact alliance, but (to use a phrase familiar in Canada) a "family compact," and having been duly interrogated, telling us that the Queen coincides with her predecessor, and leaving out every conciliatory intimation with which the opinions of William 4th were associated; or is it by following up that omission with a declaration from the Secretary of the Home department, by which that omission was rendered so much more significant that the limit of conciliation has been at last attained, or is it by announcing to the people of Ireland, not that your best endeavours will be used to redress the grievances of the country, not that you will at once apply yourselves to the remedy of its evils, not that you will at once do all that a lofty equity can prescribe, or a wise generosity can suggest to you, but that you are not unprepared to resist their demands at the hazard of that fearful warfare, which is accompanied by every aggravation of atrocity, from which humanity shrinks, and at which religion revolts, from which heroism turns away? But that sentiment was not original. Had you nothing better to borrow from Lord Althorp? For the purposes of severity, but not for the purposes, of conciliation is Lord Althorp to
452
be cited? Of the liberties of Ireland, from motives of magnanimity, was not Lord Althorp all his life the devoted champion? To all odious discrimination national and religious, was not Lord Althorp unremittingly opposed? Was not Lord Althorpthe second man in the Whig Cabinet, and the first man in the Whig House of Commons, when that celebrated church commission issued, which drove the noble Lord, the Secretary of the Colonies and the Secretary for the Home Department into the embraces of that party, to which they had been all their lives opposed; and if Lord Althorp was the Prime Minister of England, and was in possession of the power which is at this moment vested in the right hon. Gentleman, can a doubt be entertained that a measure of complete and perfect justice would be proposed by him? But the right hon. Baronet professes the utmost solicitude to do justice to Ireland. I do not dispute the sincerity of his professions, but I venture to suggest to him, that as for many and many a year he did not think that Emancipation was required by justice to Ireland, and afterwards changed his mind; as, for two years, he did not think that the extension of the Municipal Reform was required by justice to Ireland, and afterwards changed his mind; as he thought, three years ago, that the Registration Bill of the noble Lord was consistent with justice to Ireland, and afterwards changed his mind; he may be still, conscientiously, but most detrimentally, mistaken in the views which he entertains upon a subject of the most paramount importance, and anxious as he is to do Ireland justice, in reference to the measures which are required for its attainment it is more than possible that he should continue to be signally in error. For my own part, I cannot but think that he is not only doing injustice to us, but to himself, to his fame, to his future celebrity, he is doing wrong; and, surely, he is one of those who should look beyond "the ignorant present time," and anticipate the adjudication of history—the final verdict—the great finding of posterity in his regard. When he came into office, he declared that he set no value upon power, excepting as a means of doing service to his country, and securing a high and just renown; that aspiration, that noble aspiration, which exalts ambition into virtue, has not, as yet, been realised; but the opportunity for its reali-

453
zation, although passing, is not past; there is yet tune to seize it, and for any fault which you have committed, it is in your power to make amends. Shall I venture to tell you how? Consider whether it be not practicable, while you adhere to your determination to maintain the Legislative Union, to persuade the people of Ireland (and it is to the people of Ireland that the conviction must be brought home), that they can, through the intervention of an Imperial Parliament, secure some of the chief advantages which they are led to anticipate from a domestic legislature. Upon all imperial questions, questions which are imperial in fact, and not invested with that character by a fiction in an act of Parliament, upon questions which affect our relations with the great European family, on questions of peace and war, or commerce, or colonization, on all questions that affect the weal of the vast realm over which the sceptre of England extends, the Minister must abide by the opinions of the majority of the Members of this House, who must of necessity be returned by this the most powerful, and the most affluent portion of the United Kingdom; but upon questions which relate exclusively to Ireland, which do not affect the greatness and the power of the British empire, the Minister is bound to take the opinions of the majority of Irish Members into the most serious account. If, upon a question which effects the interests of Ireland only, the Minister were to ask himself what course would an Irish Parliament, fairly constituted, adopt, and act accordingly, he would not go wrong; but if, on questions exclusively our own, the Minister, instead of consulting the feelings and opinions of the Irish Members, who furnish the only constitutional test of the feelings and opinions of the Irish people, he consults the prejudices and predilections, both national and religious, of the English majority in this House, if he acts such a part, with the aid of that English majority, that it would be almost as well that not a single Irish Member were returned to this House, if the remonstrances and expostulation of Irish Members are set at nought, and your measures with respect to Ireland are diametrically the reverse of those which an Irish Parliament would adopt, then you create an inevitable, and I will add, a justifiable anxiety on the part of the people of Ireland to extort from you the
454
restoration of their domestic Parliament. You may tell me, there is some truth in these remarks, but that there are many questions which I consider Irish, which you consider Imperial. Do not, as you value the Union, and would yourselves avoid the dismemberment of the empire, involve yourselves in subtle disquisitions, and small and vain refinements. Don't rely upon a clause in an act of Parliament to prove that a question is Imperial look at the truth and fact; determine whether it affects the glory and the greatness of your vast dominion, and if you find that it does not, shape your policy accordingly. But this arrangement of the House of Commons, it this principle be adopted, will be difficult. I answer, the Government of Ireland on any other principle, will be almost impossible, and that it amounts almost to an impracticability the present state of Ireland affords a proof. I cannot but think that, however strong may be their views, and however violent may be the prejudgment of this House, yet that the Minister who has already been able to carry measures so repugnant to the feelings of the great party by whom he is supported, would be able to induce them to sustain him in an adaptation of his policy to the condition of Ireland. I think that if he were to call them together, to show them the rapid growth of the popular power in Ireland—to show them that in measures with the augmented multitudes, the moral prowess of the people had increased—to show them that in property, in intelligence, in union, in organization, in firmness of purpose, Catholic Ireland had made, and is at this moment making a marvellous progress—if he were to show them that the great majority of Irish Members were returned by the vast community to whose development I am referring—if he were to show them the effect which a measure comparatively recent has produced, and to advert to the momentous fact, that almost the entire of the corporations of Ireland are in the hands of the people of Ireland—if he were to point out the results of Catholic Emancipation, Parliamentary Reform, Municipal Reform, and Education Reform combined, and acting simultaneously upon the character of the people—if he were to tell them that it was necessary to adapt her institutions to Ireland, instead of adapting Ireland to her institutions—if he were to tell them, that a change of policy in Ire-

455
land was as necessary as in Canada, and that the change ought to be analogous—that as it must be founded on the same motives, it should reach to the same extent—if he were to tell them these things, I cannot but think that they would yield him, from a sense of its necessity, a wise acquiescence; but if they do not, then it remains for you (I do not hesitate to address myself personally to the right hon. Baronet) to break through those ligaments of party, that tie you down in that fatal resistance, which deprives your existence, as was said of old, of half its value: burst, burst then at once asunder, and as you have given up to party what was meant for a nobler purpose, make a new and a better appropriation of your faculties; restore to your country what you ought not to have alienated from her service, and of your surpassing talents make a restitution to mankind; and if men shall be found sufficiently unjust to tell you, that you have been false to them, tell them that you have been true to your Sovereign and to your country,—tell them that you hold in a lofty reserve every charge of which in your own bosom you bear the reputation, and that for any loss which you may sustain you will find a consolation in the consolatory consciousness that you have done your duty; that you held the public interests paramount to every other consideration; and that, whatever may be the estimate of those whom it may be your solemn obligation to abandon, you will in the tranquillization of Ireland, leave a monument behind which shall endure when bronze shall have decayed, and marble shall have crumbled away.
Sir R. Peel; I am anxious to separate the question of the Arms Bill from the more general considerations affecting the state of Ireland to which the right hon. Gentleman has adverted with an eloquence to which I am not unaccustomed from him, and in a tone and spirit of which, towards myself, personally, I can have no reason to complain. The House is called upon to decide to-night whether it will give its final approval to a measure for the prevention of crime in Ireland, the frequency of which all lament; or should the prevention be found impossible, for the punishment of offenders. The bill, give me leave to say, was framed with no immediate reference to the present state of Ireland; It was framed before the excitement which now unfortunately exists,
456
had been produced by agitation—nay, it was in the last Session of Parliament, that Government prepared the measure which has been submitted in the present. The right hon. Gentleman admits, that in all measures of general policy, Government must conform to the opinions of the majority of the representatives of the people; but he contends, that what is true of general policy, is not true with reference to the local circumstances of Ireland; then he would have a government defer to the opinions of the majority of the Irish representatives. Let us apply this advice to the Irish Arms Bill. Do we not find that when this measure was brought in by the late Administration, the majority of Irish representatives expressed no sentiments strongly repugnant to the measure? The right hon. Gentleman and his Friends from Ireland did not then denounce it as an insult to the people of Ireland, and we have done now only what was done in 1840, when the Irish Arms Bill was renewed. That renewal was proposed by Lord Morpeth with more stringent clauses than some of those contained in the measure upon the Table, and why did not the Irish representatives then raise their voices against it? I exonerate them from the charge of being influenced by undue and inconsiderate subserviency to the ministers of the day; for I say, that they gave their assent to it because there was something special and peculiar in the circumstances of Ireland which justified legislation in respect to that country, which was not required for England. The right hon. Gentleman was himself a Member of that Government. His acquiescence in that measure, nay the general acquiescence of the Irish Members, I admit is no justification for our introduction of a similar measure. But, Sir, I say, that the right hon. Gentleman has this night asked me to conform to the general voice of the representatives of Ireland, and, I ask him, if his doctrine be true, why it is not applicable to the Irish Arms Bill? Not only did the right hon. Gentleman acquiesce, as a Member of the Government, in the introduction of an Arms bill for Ireland, but the right hon. Gentleman has, in the course of the present Session of Parliament, borne his disinterested testimony to the present condition of Ireland, to which I must recal the attention of the House. The right hon. Gentleman, speaking of the condition of Ireland, said, Such are

457
the outrages committed in that country, such is the apprehension caused among the frequently unoffending inhabitants of the districts where they have occurred, that we should not apply to Ireland the principle which is applied to England. The principle applied to England, is to trust to the administration of the law as much as possible to those who are in a condition of life corresponding to the parties accused. The offences being agrarian, the principle of the English law would be, trust the judgment of the prisoner as far as possible to his equals, who might in some measure have sympathy with him. The advice which the right hon. Gentleman gave to the Government was to set aside in Ireland the principle of the English law—to require the sheriff to summon the persons on the jury from the great panel, and to commit the trial of prisoners for agrarian outrages in Ireland to the landed proprietors, who were parties to the transaction. Stern necessity might require such an exception to the administration of justice in the ordinary form, but what must be the condition of that country in which occurred these outrages of an agrarian character?—what must be its condition which could justify the Government to call upon one of the parties to the dispute, and to give up to the landed proprietors the administration of offended justice between themselves and the offenders. Talk of an Arms Bill, indeed! why can any Arms Bill be a greater violation of constitutional principles? And does the right hon. Gentleman stop there? does he consider that such measure alone would be a sufficient security for the repression of crime? Juries must be provided; but what, according to the right hon. Gentleman, was to become of the witnesses—of those who being cognizant of the crime, come forward to assist in the detection of the criminal? The right hon. Gentleman said, that the Government has neglected its duty in not providing for the safety and security of the witnesses, who come forward to aid in the detection and in the punishment of the guilty. "Protect the Crown witnesses," said the right hon. Gentleman. "Let the Government give a guarantee that their lives and property shall be saved from the aggression of those against whom they bear witness, and let the Government find for them, in the distant colonies of the empire, a safe
458
asylum, and that quiet security from torture or from death which they cannot find in their native land. What a picture of society is this!—that a witness already, perhaps, dispossessed of his property by the riotous assault of daring men, cannot assist the administration of justice in detecting the offenders, without being expatriated from his native land, and though he and his family should be altogether unsuited by the circumstances in which they had been placed, by age, by education, to earn a subsistence in a foreign land, the right hon. Gentleman could see no alternative for such persons but torture or expatriation. We have then not only the acquiescence of the right hon. Gentleman in the Arms Bill introduced by his colleagues in office, but we have the testimony which the right hon. Gentleman himself has borne this Session as to the condition of Ireland in respect to agrarian outrages—to the danger to the innocent—the difficulty of administering justice—the necessity of security being afforded to the humble agents by whose instrumentality the law must be put in force, and in all these circumstaces I find conclusive reasons for at least making an attempt to diminish evils of so formidable a character; and, influenced by these considerations, her Majesty's Government—not with reference to the present agitation—but disclaiming every notion of unequal legislation for Ireland, and, above all, disclaiming in the utmost sincerity, the remotest thought of insult to that country, have proposed a measure which they believe will have the effect of giving additional security to life and property, and of diminishing the necessity for those extreme and unconstitutional measures which have been recommended by the right hon. Gentleman himself. And what was the distinct offer made to us by some of the leaders opposite—and repeated, "If you will accept the Bill of 1840, we will assent to it, and then there will be no opposition." We refused to be parties to any such compromise. But, how could it diminish the insult to Ireland to have only the old Arms Bill, which raised the same distinction as the present Bill between the two parts of the country? What I lament is, the necessity for any separate law; and what I wish is, to overcome that difficulty, and then to make a law of perfect equality. Nothing is so absurd as to have a law, making these

459
distinctions, and then to make that an inefficient law. If it be necessary to have an Arms Act, which is not quite consistent with the constitution, it should be efficient; and we should not disgrace the statute book by having upon it a law which is unconstitutional and inefficient. Still the proposition made to us, was, "Take our Bill, and then you will meet with no opposition." We thought it better to inquire whether that Bill was efficient or or not, and we rejected the offer, although, if we had accepted it, we might, as it now appears, have spared ourselves many nights of labour. Now, with respect to the hon. Gentleman, the Member for the City of Canterbury, the hon. Member must have completely mistaken the observations which fell from me in reference to his speech the other night. So far from claiming, from past party considerations, an acquiescence in the measures of the Government, and a support of those measures, I distinctly told the hon. Gentleman, that, in my opinion, the measures of the Government connected with Ireland, were not to be decided by such considerations, and that if the hon. Gentleman thought that the motion of the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Limerick was just, and the want of confidence in the Government, implied in that motion, ought to be favoured; that if the hon. Gentleman thought that the Irish Arms Bill was an inoperative and an inefficacious measure, that it was offending the Irish, without repressing any disorders, so far from wishing the hon. Member to lend his support to the Government, I expressed my earnest wish that his vote should correspond with his speech, and if he thought any other Government could be found which would be able better to administer the affairs of Ireland; or if he believed the Irish Arms Bill was revolting to that country, and inoperative for the suppression of crime there, I ventured to express my earnest and sincere wish, that, having encountered the opposition of his speech, we might encounter also his opposition in his vote. The hon. Gentleman, therefore, as I infer from his speech, has put an entirely opposite construction from the correct one on what I said. So far from complaining that the hon. Member should give his vote for the motion of the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Limerick, I thought it a just and honourable conclusion to his speech; and I repeat now,
460
what I said then, that I think it a more friendly course of the Government that the hon. Gentleman should give his vote, expressing his want of confidence in the Government, than that he should lend to them a hollow and seeming support. And I say so, without abating any of my opinions with respect to party connections. I know that the party connections cannot exist without the occasional sacrifice of opinion, but I agree with the right hon. Gentleman with respect to Ireland—that Irish questions are exceptions—that they are of importance as to extend beyond all party principles—that party considerations ought not to induce men to support an Arms Bill, or a Government if they really believe that a Government better suited to administer public affairs, or the affairs of Ireland can be found, or if they think that an Arms Bill is not necessary. The hon. Gentleman, the Member for Shrewsbury made a speech, but with his strong opinion as to what ought to be the principle which should govern the administration of Irish affairs, I must say that the hon. Gentleman has in past time, made greater sacrifices to party connection than any Member of this House. If he did so cordially disapprove of the course taken with respect to the Municipal Corporations Bill, of the course taken with respect to the franchise, I wish, rather than postpone delivering his opinion as to the comprehensive policy which should be followed with regard to Ireland until the middle of August 1843, he had significantly intimated his dissent from the course which has been pursued, at a somewhat earlier period. Some great man, it seems, is expected to arise with some vast and comprehensive measure, and I was in hopes that the hon. Gentleman was about to explain. I was in hopes that I should find, from the nature of the measure, proposed by the hon. Gentleman, some indication of the coming man by whom such great results are to be achieved; but, considering that the hon. Gentleman has come to no other conclusion with respect even to this Arms Bill, than that on the whole, it is better to give no vote at all, I am afraid that I cannot infer that he is the man who is to realise this vision of a great statesman. Considering, to be sure, that a great part the hon. Member's speech was occupied in a condemnation of those who do nothing, but he was the advocate of an ener-

461
getic policy—of a decisive expression of opinion on Irish affairs, I should have thought that he would have signalized his new-born zeal in favour of Ireland, by being able to make up his mind on the third reading of the Irish Arms Bill, whether he should support it or not. But for an elaborate advocate of a vigorous policy, and such a determined enemy of doing nothing now, on the only occasion on which he has an opportunity of exemplifying his decision and vigour on an Irish measure, namely, the Irish Arms Bill, to come to the conclusion that it is not worth voting either one way or the other, is a practical conclusion so much at variance with his speech, that I am almost afraid that the expectations which some hon. Gentlemen are disposed to form will hardly be realised. The speech of the hon. Gentleman, as well as those made by other hon. Members in the course of these discussions, convince me how difficult it is for any minister, wishing to steer a safe course between contending parties, and to do that which may, on the whole, be the best for the general interests of the empire, to take that course without being liable to objection and condemnation. We had last year to consider the state of the Corn-laws, and the laws affecting the importation of foreign productions. When I proposed those measures which her Majesty's Government were disposed to recommend, which proceeded on a full consideration of existing interests—of the extent to which capital was committed, of the manner in which different parts of the empire would be affected by any sudden change in the Corn-laws, I was met by hon. Members on the opposite side of the House by demands for free-trade—by representations that the measures proposed were perfectly inefficacious, and were further an insult to the country. It was impossible to alter the law without affecting in some degree some part of the empire; and the hon. Member for Shrewsbury now charges me with having alienated the affections of the people of Ireland, and with having injured their best interests, by making some reduction in the amount of that protection which was afforded by previous laws to the agricultural produce of their country. I hope those who contend for the absolute and immediate removal of all protection, will foresee what the consequences may be, and what the bearing may be of such immediate removal of the
462
existing restrictions, when they hear the charges brought against the present Government, for having injured Ireland, and alienated the affections of the people of that country, and of other parts of the empire, by the alteration we have made. They may infer what might be the political consequences, if on their part they were able to carry into effect the sudden and immediate removal of all protection, for which they are the advocates; but I do think that it is rather ungenerous in the hon. Gentleman to charge me with having injured Ireland, and alienated the affections of her people by the laws passed last year, which had for their object to reconcile conflicting interests, and to strike a just balance, so far as it was possible between them. I think, as I have already said, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite, though the proper subject of discussion to-night is the Arms Bill, was perfectly justified, considering the relation in which he stands to Ireland, to express his opinions on the general condition of that country. He says that he is surprised at the apparent apathy, and at the calm composure with which I view the present state of Ireland. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I view the present state of Ireland with no other feelings than those of the deepest anxiety and pain. I know that I have done all that I could. I had hoped that there was a gradual abatement of all those difficulties and animosities which have existed, and which have sprung from religious feelings. I had hoped that there was a gradual and growing approximation to feelings of unity between the Protestants of the north and the Roman Catholics of the south of Ireland. I thought that I saw, even in the intercourse between hon. Members of this House and the kindly reciprocity of good feeling, an improved state of things, and the gradual influence of those laws which had removed political disabilities from the Roman Catholics, and had established complete civil equality. In these respects I thought I perceived great social improvement to have taken place. The commercial intercourse of Ireland with this country was extended; I thought I saw in the increasing tranquillity of Ireland, and the diminution of crime, the prospects of the capital of this country—the redundant and superfluous capital, hitherto employed in foreign speculations of a most precarious nature—being applied to the much safer, more legiti-

463
mate, and more productive purpose of advancing the improvement of Ireland. We resisted the appeals made to the Government for the advance of money, believing that Ireland itself had suffered from the lavish expenditure of public money on the public works of that country, that that expenditure had tendered to diminish that personal attention to enterprize, on which, after all, success mostly depends. The Government did not refuse to advance capital from any parsimonious motives, but from a belief that the prosperity of Ireland would be founded on a surer and safer basis, when it was established on undertakings which offered a prospect of a productive return, rather than upon plans which depended for success on the pecuniary aid of the Government. From the appointment of Government boards, of Government officers, and from the Government taking on itself to contribute to the completion of great works, Ireland has suffered most materially. The expenditure of a great amount of public money, the adoption of a system tending to the increase of patronage and jobbing; and the interposition of the Government, so far from having been favourable, has been, in my opinion, highly prejudicial to that country. I entertained the anxious hope that returning tranquillity would ensure the application of private capital to the purposes of enterprise in that country; but from the agitation which unfortunately prevails my expectations have not been realized. The right hon. Gentleman holds the Government responsible for this. Does he really believe that the Government is responsible? What are the acts which the right hon. Gentleman charges on us? Where can he find one instance of the prejudicial and unjust administration of affairs? The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the disciplined phalanx of ecclesiastics superintended by the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Did he foresee this in 1829. If he had told us, that after the removal of all political disabilities, we should see in 1843, this disciplined phalanx of ecclesiastics confederated together against the continuance of the Union with this country; does he think that such a prophecy would have conciliated English and Irish support, for the removal of political disabilities; or if he entertained the opinion, that this would be the result, would he have thought it wise to utter the prophecy. If I had any
464
calm composure in viewing the state of Ireland, and the right hon. Gentleman has given me credit for calm composure, it has arisen from the circumstance that there was nothing then to contemplate in the condition of the country which afforded ground for anticipating what has since occurred. I had then no grounds to anticipate that attempts would be made in the manner in which they had been to lessen the security, and destroy the integrity of the empire. If I and those who act with me have possessed any of that calm composure which the right hon. Gentleman has dwelt on, it has arisen from the confident assurance, that men like the right hon. Gentleman, men of his high station, and possessed of his distinguished talents, having been in the service of the Crown, and holding as he most assuredly does an eminent station in the political service of the country, that the right hon. Gentleman and others similarly circumstanced as himself, would have come forward and expressed more vehement disapprobation than we have hitherto heard of the agitation and excitement which now prevailed in Ireland. It was because we had an entire confidence in the expectation and hope that there would have been an expression on the part of the Roman Catholic gentry, that they entertained the deep conviction, that the repeal of the Legislative Union would be detrimental to the welfare of Ireland, lead to the severance of the empire; and that although there might be a difference of opinion on other subjects, yet, that on the great question of the Union, there would have been an oblivion of differences on other points, and that there would have been a formal declaration by all parties of a firm determination to adhere to it, and thus to uphold and maintain the security and the integrity of the empire. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the meeting of certain persons in France, to express sympathy in the agitation for Repeal in Ireland, and to the anxiety which had been manifested in the United States for the same object. I confess, that I heard that portion of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman with deep concern. I should have hoped, that the right hon. Gentleman would not have been the first to summon for agitation in Ireland any aid which foreign countries could afford. The right hon. Gentleman in the course of his observations on this

465
point, was checked by a cheer. The right hon. Gentleman immediately observed, that he did not approve of this; but would it not have been more consistent with the station, and talents, and influence of the right hon. Gentleman, if he had expressed some more decided disavowal and condemnation, than was conveyed in his mere abnegation of approval? The right hon. Gentleman referred to the position of the Roman Catholic priesthood in Ireland, and to the situation in which they are placed with regard to the people of that country. The right hon. Gentleman, I am aware, has been away from the House on former occasions, when this topic has been adverted to in the course of debate during the present Session, and as I have had various opportunities of speaking on this subject, I will not follow the right hon. Gentleman into his general observations, but will advert only to one or two points. The right hon. Gentleman complained that the Government—or at least those who were Members of the Government of 1825—rejected the proposition of a noble Friend of mine, for the payment of stipends to the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland. I apprehend that at that time the Roman Catholic priesthood did not support the proposition, or express any desire that it should be carried into effect; on the contrary, it is well known, that they were not prepared to assent to any conditions with which it might be accompanied. Again, when the subject was prominently brought forward in the discussion the other night. a right hon. Gentleman, standing deservedly high in the estimation of his fellow-countrymen, distinctly stated, that any proposition that any one might hope to see adopted, involving the principles of a concordat with the Papal see, would not be accepted, but that the Roman Catholic clergy would reject any proposition which involved any spiritual control over them on the part of the Crown. It appears, then, to me, that the Roman Catholic clergy are willing to accept an establishment from the state, but that they will not submit to any pecuniary control from the state. This apparently is the form of grant from the state that the Roman Catholic clergy are willing to accept. But the right hon. Gentleman after having alluded to this opinion of the Roman Catholic clergy, said in a most deliberate manner, that he was not sure that the conclusion at which they had
466
arrived, was not the correct one. He declared that the Roman Catholic priesthood would not accept of any provision as a condition of controul on the part of the Crown; that they would rather remain independent than submit to any interference as other countries exercise over the churches which their respective states contribute to support, and that even if we established a concordat, there was no power which would enable us to exercise such an authority as we might then claim. Sir, if that be true, then I think the right hon. Gentleman should not have been so lavish of his wrath against us for not acceding to the proposal made in 1825. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman suggested that we should take a middle course. He suggested that instead of paying we should provide glebe and glebe-houses for the Roman Catholic clergy. Sir, let me ask the right hon. Gentleman, how did he intend to vote upon the motion brought forward the other night by the hon. Member for Sheffield—a motion containing no such mitigated proposition as his own? The motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield—which we understood was to receive the unanimous support of the other side—which was described as a motion to remove those grievances which have formed, for many years, the subject of recorded complaint and remonstrance; and to be such a settlement of church property in Ireland as will remove all just ground of complaint, and give satisfaction to the Irish people. The hon. Member who brought forward the motion described it as the only tangible means of dealing with the subject. The proposition of the hon. Member for Sheffield went to the extent of proposing that all the ecclesiastical property of Ireland should be confiscated to the state, and that the Protestant, the Presbyterian, and the Roman Catholic clergy were to receive proportionate shares, according to the numbers professing those several religions, and the hon. Gentleman proposed to give 75,000 l. a year to the Protestant Church, and 430,000 l. to the Roman Catholic clergy. [An hon. Member: No, no!] No. This certainly might not be directly specified in the words of the motion, but it was directly stated by the hon. Member for Sheffield when he brought forward his motion, and when he stated his views on the subject to the House. The hon. Gentleman distinctly

467
stated that no appropriation clause would be for the future of any avail. He said, do not vote for my motion if you think that it involves any delusive measures—I will at once tell what my object is. My proposition proceeds on the broad principle that ecclesiastical property belongs to the state, and that it should be devoted to the religious instruction of the people, in due proportion, according to the numbers belonging to the different religious denominations. The hon. Gentleman laid down the principle that the circumstances of the whole ecclesiastical property of Ireland being assigned to the clergy of a small section of the population is not conformable to reason, or to the practice of any Christian country, and he therefore called on the House to pledge itself, after providing for the existing rights, to make a new apportionment of church property. Those, I say, were the hon. Member's opinions; his motion was not so worded, but that was strong enough; and when the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who was to vote for this motion, and by that vote to hold out such magnificent promises, now comes down to talk of glebe and glebe-houses as all that the Catholic priesthood want, I entertain great doubt whether such a proposal would not be regarded as a very shabby and delusive conclusion. The right hon Gentleman advised me to summon those together with whom I am acting, and to tell them that I am determined to adopt a change in policy with regard to Ireland. It is time enough to do this when I contemplate such a change, and when I have considered its probable effects; and I am called upon to do this—when the Roman Catholic population of Ireland is in a state of the greatest excitement by an agitation to promote the attempt to sever the common empire, and which, I believe, can be justified neither in policy nor in principle. Scarcely thirteen years have passed since we removed the disabilities affecting our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. The right hon. Gentleman tells me to summon my friends around me, and to tell them that the joint operation of the Catholic Emancipation Act, the Reform Bill, and the Corporation Bill, has been to transfer the Parliamentary representations of the counties of Ireland, which were formerly held by the Protestants, to the Roman Catholics—to transfer the representation of the boroughs, which were heretofore held by the Pro-
468
testants to the Roman Catholics—and to transfer the municipal corporations, which were formerly exclusively Protestant, to the Roman Catholics. He tells me that these changes which have taken place in thirteen years, are not solid practical changes which have transferred political power from the Protestants to the Roman Catholics. At the same time with this there has been that remarkable abstinence from all those demonstrations of feeling on the part of the Protestants which formerly prevailed, and which then excited a natural and just feeling of dissatisfaction on the part of the Roman Catholics. In addition to this, close commercial relations have grown up between the two countries, and all those feelings of estrangement are allayed which formerly existed between Protestants and Catholics in consequence of the footing of inequality on which the latter were placed, now stand on an equality, not merely in this House, but all distinctions of every sort and kind have ceased to exist. Why, then, with these facts for the past, with this state of things for the present, with this prospect for the future, am I not justified in entertaining a hope that dissensions will subside, and that all parties will rally round the common interests of their country, and resolve to maintain this united empire? Sir, I will not notice unfounded speculations about dissensions in the Cabinet. All the Members of that Cabinet are actuated by one common desire to further the best interests of the nation; taking any alternative rather than resort to physical force. I do not think her Majesty's Govenment will suffer in public estimation by the adoption of this course. At the same time they are determined—feeling strong in the justise of their cause—feeling confident in the support of the people of this country and of the people of Ireland—to do their duty to their Sovereign, and their duty to their country—their duty to Ireland itself—and leave nothing undone which can be or ought to be done, in order to maintain the integrity of the empire, which is essential to our greatness, our prosperity, and our glory.
Mr. Morgan J. O'Connellalluded to what had been said of the Roman Catholic clergy, and expressed his satisfaction that justice had been done to their character. He had pleasure in acknowledging that, and in saying that the feeling which the

469
Roman Catholic clergy entertained towards the Protestant clergy was reciprocal. He thought hon. Gentlemen had asked with some surprise if the present proceedings had been foreseen in 1829, whether Emancipation would be granted? He admitted the great merit of the right hon. Baronet's conduct on that occasion, which would give him a great name in history; but he would ask, could any person believe that such a great measure would have been followed up is so unfortunate a manner. Allusion had been made to the measures passed since, which had increased the political power of the Catholics, but when were they passed, or how were they opposed? Measures the most trivial, and the more trivial the more galling was the opposition, were opposed, and every advantage withheld from the Catholics on the ground of religious differences. That even seemed to be the ground of justification of the Gentlemen opposite in now passing this act. He had endeavoured before to warn them, but they would make no concession; and saw that it was most important that the measure should be carried. The right hon. Baronet was an excellent hand at hoping: he hoped that distress would pass away; but still distress existed. The right hon. Baronet hoped that discontent would pass away, but discontent existed, and would continue. The right hon. Baronet's hopes would be all in vain unless he adopted some measures to redress the grievances of Ireland. He feared that if redress were denied to the people, the right hon. Baronet would only find all his difficulties heightened; and he believed that the existing agitation, instead of subsiding, would continue and extend. With reference to the bill before the House, it was, as he had said before, a violation of the principle on which Ireland ought to be governed. It was said to be less stringent than Lord Morpeth's bill. But it was no reason why they should now submit to this bill because they had consented to that measure. He hoped that the right hon. Baronet would employ himself during the recess—he would, if he had any regard for his fame, employ his best diligence in preparing measures to be brought forward next Session, better suited than this to the circumstances of the times. If they were not, the right hon. Baronet might pass them with larger majorities—they might be passed with less discussion—they might
470
not, as he feared they would, seal the fate of Ireland, and be dangerous to the interests of the empire: but of this he was sure, that if they were not different measures from this, the administration of the right hon. Baronet would not last long.
The House divided—on the question that the word "now" stand part of the question—Ayes, 125; Noes, 59; Majority, 66.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

A'Court, Capt.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Acton, Col.

Greene, T.

Allix, J. P.

Gregory, W. H.

Antrobus, E.

Grogan, E.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Hamilton, G. A.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Harcourt, G. G.

Astell, W.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Bagot, hon. W.

Henley, J. W.

Baillie, H. J.

Herbert hon. S.

Baldwin, B.

Hope, hon. C.

Bateson, R.

Hope, G. W.

Beckett, W.

Ingestre, Visct.

Blackburne, J. I.

Jones, Capt.

Blackstone, W. S.

Kelly, F. R.

Bodkin, W. H.

Kemble, H.

Boldero, H. G.

Kirk, P.

Borthwick, P.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Botfield, B.

Lefroy, A.

Boyd, J.

Lincoln, Earl of

Broadley, H.

Lockhart, W.

Broadwood, H.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Bruce, Lord E.

Mackenzie, T.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Bunbury, T.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Manners, Lord J.

Clive, Visct.

Marsham, Visct.

Collett, W. R.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Meynell, Capt.

Cripps, W.

Mildmay, H. St. J.

Damer, hon. Col.

Milnes, W.

Darby, G.

Neeld, J.

Denison, E. B.

Neville, R.

Dickinson, F. H.

Newdegate, C. N.

Dodd, G.

Newport, Visct.

Douglas, Sir H.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Northland, Visct.

Douglas, J. D. S.

O'Brien, A. S.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Oswald, A.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

East, J. B.

Peel, J.

Eliot, Lord

Polhill, F.

Escott, B.

Pollington, Visct.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Pollock, Sir F.

Filmer, Sir E.

Pringle, A.

Flower, Sir J.

Rashleigh, W.

Ffolliott, J.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Forman, T. S.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Fuller, A. E.

Round, J.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Sanderson, R.

Gore, M.

Sandon, Visct.

Gore, W. R. O.

Scott, hon. F.

471

Sheppard, T.

Trotter, J.

Sibthorp, Col.

Verner, Col.

Smith, rt. hn. C. B. T.

Vivian, J. E.

Somerset, Lord G.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Stanley, Lord

Wortley hon. J. S.

Stuart, H.

Yorke, H. R.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Young, J.

Taylor, E.

TELLERS.

Tennent, J. E.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Clerk, Sir G.

List of the NOES.

Aldam, W.

Morris, D.

Archbold, R.

Napier, Sir C.

Bannerman, A.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Barnard, E. G.

O'Brien, J.

Bernal, Capt.

O'Brien, W. S.

Bowring, Dr.

A'Connell, M. J.

Bright, J.

O'Connor, Don

Brotherton, J.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Buller, C.

Pechell, Capt.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

Plumridge, Capt.

Christie, W. D.

Ponsonby, hon. C. F. A. C.

Cobden, R.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Protheroe, E.

Corbally, M. E.

Roche, E. B.

Crawford, W. S.

Ross, D. R.

Duncan, G.

Russell, Lord E.

Duncombe, T.

Scott, R.

Dundas, A.

Seymour, Lord

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Forster, M.

Smith, B.

Fox, C. R.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Gore, hon. R.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Hawes, B.

Stewart, P. M.

Hill, Lord M.

Wall, C. B.

Hindley, C.

Wawn, J. T.

Howard, hn. C. W. G.

Williams, W.

Howard, P. H.

Wood, B.

Hutt, W.

Yorke, H. R.

Langton, W.

TELLERS.

Layard, Capt.

Clements, Visct.

Managles, R. D.

Wyse, T.

Main question agreed to.
Bill read a third time and passed.
House adjourned at a quarter to two o'clock.