Sitting of 14 August 1843

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1°. Coroner's Duties.
2°. China Government; Affidavits, etc. Commissions (Scotland and Ireland).
Committed.—Charitable Loan Societies (Ireland); Chelsea Hospital Out-Pensioners; Court of Exchequer (Ireland) Offices.
Reported.—Consolidated Fund; Exchequer Bills; Sessions of the Peace (Dublin).
3° and passed:—Militia Pay; Public Notaries; Turnpike Acts Continuance; Municipal Corporations (Ireland).
Private.—2°. Morgan's Divorce; Limerick Church.
Reported.—British Iron Company.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Hume, from Caithness, against the Act relating to Bridges and Roads; and from Greenock, against Church Patronage.—By Lord John Manners, from Individuals belonging to the Church of England, for Measures to render the Establishmeat efficient.—From Cork, in favour of the Irish Arms Bill.—From Irthington, for the Repeal of the Corn-Laws.—From the Ward of Langbourn, and several other places, for abolishing the Tolls of Waterloo and other Bridges.—From Edward Bewley, M.D., against the Charitable Loan Societies (Ireland) Bill.

CHARITABLE LOAN SOCIETIES (IRELAND).
Upon the order of the day being read for the House to go into committee on the Charitable Loan Fund Societies (Ireland) Bill,
Viscount Clements: In pursuance to the notice that I have given, I beg to call the attention of the House to the state of the Charitable Loan Funds generally, and more particularly to that

639
which is commonly called the Reproductive Loan Fund. I regret that a matter of so great importance should be brought on at so late a period of the Session, and at a time when so few Members are present, and more particularly when so few of the Members of her Majesty's Government are present. Sir, this bill is entitled "A Bill to Consolidate and amend the Laws for the Regulation of Charitable Loan Societies in Ireland." There are many persons who are of opinion that the word "Charitable" ought to be struck out of this bill, and I confess that I feel, after having carefully considered the Reports of the Commissioners of the Loan Fund Board, that it requires a great deal of charity to believe that there are any of these loan societies that are not decidedly injurious to the interests of the country—and to the poor; and a still greater exercise of charity is required to believe that there may be a few that are working well, and doing that good which is so much to be desired, and which it is to be supposed was the intention of the founders of these societies. I fear very much that the laws regarding Charitable Loan Societies have been observed much in the same light as Sir John Falstaff's notion of a good Government, when he says,—
"We be men of good Government, being governed as the sea is, by our noble and chaste mistress, the Moon, under whose countenance we—steal."
And this is, unfortunately, the opinion which has been very commonly entertained from the abuses which have existed, and which I shall endeavour to point out to this House. But if these loan funds are to be considered as charitable institutions, it can only be by their becoming a benefit to the poor, and by being carried out on purely charitable principles, taking the lowest possible rate of interest that will enable them to defray the expenses of recovering the money and keeping accounts. Not as banks of discount carrying on extensive business, and only evading the Bank Charter by enrolling themselves under the name of a Charitable Loan Society. Nor by their being made the means of raising large sums of money for the purpose of supporting infirmaries, dispensaries, schools, or agricultural establishments: and however desirable it may be that these public institutions should be established and supported—it is not by the means of the profits
640
of loan societies that they should exist, or that the highest rate of interest should be wrung from the poor for the purpose of endowing establishments however useful to the community, and then call that charity! It is also considered very generally, that the system of weekly repayments of loans is very injurious in many respects to the welfare of the country by inducing the farmer to sell stock to a disadvantage; this is more particularly felt in the butter trade, and I will trouble the House by reading part of a letter that I have received from a gentleman who has paid great attention to this subject. He writes from Ballyconnell:—
"The injury occasioned to the butter trade by the loan funds is, that the farmers, to pay up the weekly instalments, are obliged to send their butter to market in small quantities of two and three pounds to meet their weekly payments, little attention is paid by the females in making these small quantities. The markets are glutted with small quantities, and a new trade has sprung up, that called 'packers,' who buy up all small quantities met with, and melt all together, colour it with some dye, and put it into tubs, sending it to Dublin, Newry, and elsewhere. Butter made in this way keeps good, I understand, a very short time, and in a foreign market is despised, lessens the value, and lowers the name of Irish butter."
I have presented petitions from the county of Leitrim complaining of this mode of adulterating the butter. There has also been a petition to the like effect from Sligo. I have received information that this practice, so injurious to the butter trade, is carried on to a very great extent throughout Ireland, and that in the little green market in Dublin, almost all the butter there sold is made up in this way. It was my intention to have called the attention of the House to the present state of the butter trade in Ireland during the present Sessions; but, unfortunately, other matters have so engrossed its attentiod, that I have been compelled to defer it. If the loan fund system is to be allowed to exist, there ought to be established a strict inspection for the purpose not only of preventing frauds and usury, but also as a security to the debenture holders. The abuses which exist at present are very considerable, and I will mention only a few of them which I have extracted from the last report of the Loan Funds Commissioners that has been laid upon the Table;—
"Clerk and manager obtaining loans for

640*
themselves, in the names of other parties, p. 22.
"Clerk a defaulter to the amount of 125 l., but his securities, members of the Loan Fund Committee, are unwilling to proceed for its recovery, p. 27.
"False reports sent to the central board, making the amount of fines appear less than what they really were, p. 34.
"100 l. abstracted by the clerk, p. 37.
"Clerk absconded with 128 l.; clerk absconded with 195 l., p. 39.
"Greater interest given for large sums deposited than for smaller sums, pp. 25, 26.
"Fictitious borrowers put forward, and the securities actually receiving the loan, p. 28.
"Acting as a bank of discount, and doing very extensive business, p. 29.
"Building a fever hospital, dispensary, and cottages, out of the profits which ought to be turned to charitable purposes, pp. 29–31.
"Winnowing machines and ploughs bought, and a school-house built out of the profits, p.35.
"The Mount Shannon case, p. 41.
These, I regret to say, are only a few of the abuses which are to be found in the last report, and which hon. Gentlemen may refer to, but which I do not wish to mention by name, as I do not think that it would tend to any good result publishing more than is absolutely necessary the deformities of particular societies. It will be found by reference to the reports of the Loan Fund board, that the sums of money passing through the hands of these societies are very great, and that their profits are very large and on the increase. It will be found, that in the year

1838 The total profits were

£ 2,547

1839

11,047

1840

15,477

1841

14,853

Which profits, according to law, ought to be expended in charitable purposes; yet these reports show, that in the year 1841, the amount of fines are stated at 12,978 l., and the amount actually expended in charitable purposes, including the building of infirmaries, schools, &c., was only 8,8791. In 1842 the amount of fines are reported at 14,689 l., and the amount expended in charitable purposes only 13,469 l., while the net profits for the year after paying interest and expenses, and deducting bad debts, amount to 19,130 l. Now, I am anxious to know what charity is to be found in such a state of things where not even so great an amount is expended upon what may have been deemed charitable objects, as has been levied off the poor in the shape of fines. But, as the report observes:—
6402*
"This does not include returns from all the Loan Societies in Ireland, as there are about 100 in operation, legally exempt (under the provisions of the last clause of the Act 1 & 2 Vict. c. 78), from rendering any account of their proceedings, as having loans from the Irish Reproductive Loan Society in London, and about thirty more working illegally, under colour of the operations of this exemption clause."
I beg leave to observe, that all these abuses are equally applicable to the reproductive funds, as far as are known of them, some having been inspected by the secretary of the Central Board. Before I proceed any further, I will attempt to show the House the state in which the law at present exists with regard to these institutions, and the history of them. In the year 1822, a period of great distress and famine in Ireland, a subscription was entered into for the purpose of relieving the wants of the starving poor in the provinces of Connaught and Munster, and, after the most pressing wants of the poor were said to be alleviated, part of the surplus funds, namely, 45,000 l., were disposed of in the following manner: 5,000 l. were sent to the Commissioners of Fisheries, and 40,000 l. were sent to ten counties, as I will presently show, for the purpose of forming reproductive loan funds. The latter sum was placed in the hands of trustees in the several counties, and became the origin of the present loan fund system. In May, 1833, an act was passed, 4 Geo. 4th, c. 32, for the purpose of enabling the loan societies now formed to recover before the magistrates in petty sessions. The other provisions of this act obliged such societies to lodge their rules with the clerk of the peace; that rules thus lodged should be binding, Loans of 100 l. might be made to committees, to be repaid in twelve months, with interest; and no loan to be made to an individual exceeding 10 l. in twelve months. This act was amended in June, 1829, by the 4 Geo. 4th, c. 32, which provided that the funds in the hands of deceased treasurers, and belonging to societies, should be vested in their successors, and to give powers of suing. It was found necessary in 1836 again to amend these laws; and the 6 & 7 Will. 4th, c. 55, was passed, which provided, 1st. that rules already formed should be enrolled; 2nd. a Central Board to be formed in Dublin; 7th. rules to be certified by a barrister, enrolled, and copy transmitted to Central Board;

6403*
16th. recovery by summons before a justice of the peace; 23rd. abstract of accounts to be sent yearly to the Central Board; 24th. profits shall be applied to charitable purposes. I beg that the House will observe, that there is nothing in this act which does in any way exempt the Reproductive Loan Funds: under this act they are obliged to transmit their rules to the Central Board, and to forward yearly an abstract of their accounts; and by this act they are still bound. In the year 1838, it was found necessary to amend the foregoing acts by the 1st and 2nd Victoria c. 78. The provisions of this act were as follows: 4th George 4th, c. 32, and 10th George 4th, c. 42, were repealed after twelve months from passing of this act. 2nd. Existing societies, whose rules have not been certified, to produce them to be certified within twelve months, or disabled from suing. 12th Board to transmit an annual report to Parliament. 26th. Act not to extend to loan societies, in connexion with the Irish Reproductive Loan Fund Institution, provided that the chairman of said institution send to the secretary of the Loan Fund Board, within six months after the passing of this act, lists of last-mentioned societies, enrolled under the 6th and 7th, William 4th, c. 55. Now there was no such clause as this in the bill when it was introduced into this House, nor in the bill as printed, after being amended in committee; nor can I find any record in the Parliamentary Debates of anything having been said regarding the introduction of such a clause as this; but I find that this clause was slipped into the bill on the third reading, at a late hour of the night; and it is thus always that interested persons in London contrive to obtain exemption from acts of Parliament which are considered applicable to Ireland. Thus the Irish society, as I attempted to show the other night, were made exempt from a law which was considered applicable to all Irish corporations, yet was not applicable to an English corporation; and it just amounts to this, that there is to be one law for a man living on the River Thames, and another law for the man who lives on the River Shannon; and Ireland is to be ever made subservient to the interests or wishes of a London citizen—and I ask you, if this is just or right? But notwithstanding this act of 1 & 2 Vict., I maintain that by the 6 & 7 Wm. 4th, the Re-
6404*
productive Loan Societies are under certain obligations to the Central Loan Fund Board—that they have not attended to those obligations—and that there is nothing in the 1 & 2 Vict. which exempts them from the provisions of the 6 & 7 Wm. 4th: and I think, that they also must have been of this opinion; for I find that in the year 1839, Mr. John Abel Smith brought in a bill for the purpose of freeing those societies from the Central Board, and for re-enacting and amending the 4 Geo. 4th, c. 32: that bill was read a first and a second time, and was then thrown out. And now I will endeavour to show the House how far these societies deserve to be exempted from the inspection of the Central Board. In May 1822, a subscription was raised for the purpose of relieving the Irish poor; a committee was formed for disposing of the funds; many of the members of that committee are still alive. A sub-committee of treasury and accounts was formed: all of this last committee are now dead. Messrs. Smith, Payne and Smith were appointed bankers to this subscription; Mr. Hyatt was appointed the travelling agent to the committee. The sum of 44,177 l. was collected in Ireland, and sent over to the committee, besides what was subscribed by Irish people living in England. The following sums were sent from India, &c.:

Calcutta

£18,944

5

0

Madras

8,971

0

0

Bombay

2,000

1

3

St. Helena

280

8

1

£30,195

14

4

I mention these facts to show, that the subscription was not an English subscription. On the 29th August, 1822, there was a meeting of the general committee, for the purpose of disposing of the surplus funds, and then it was decided that amongst other grants, 5,000 l. should be given for the purpose of forming reproductive loan funds, for the exclusive use of the poor fishermen in the distressed districts; and that 40,000 l. should be placed in the hands of trustees in the following counties, and in the proportions I am about to mention, for the purpose of forming reproductive loan funds in those several counties:—Clare, 3,000 l.; Cork, 5,500 l.; Galway, 6,000 l.; Kerry, 4.000 l.; Leitrim, 2,000 l.; Limerick, 5,3001 l.; Mayo, 4,500 l.; Roscommon, 4,000 l.; Sligo, 3,200 l.; Tipperary, 2,500 l.—Total, 40,000 l. After all these sums were

6405*
paid, I find by the report of this committee, which is signed by Mr. John Smith as chairman, and Mr. M. W. Troy, hon. Secretary, that on the 30th August, 1823, there was—

A balance on hand

£24,040

17

2

There was also an additional remittance from Bombay

5,059

13

10

There was also an additional remittance from Calcutta.

140

0

0

Total

£29,240

11

0*

I am told that this sum has been all disposed of and that reports were made at the time, I am also informed that a certain portion of this balance was at that time funded for the purpose of providing for the supervision of the Reproductive Loan Societies; but as I have never seen any further reports, than two papers which were printed in the years 1836, and 1838, and which I shall presently refer to, I can form no opinion respecting this portion of the business. In the year 1836, a paper was printed with Mr. Hyett's, and Mr. John Abel Smith's names attached to it, purporting to be a statement of the Reproductive Loan Funds, and I find by that statement a vast sum of money unemployed, in the different counties, and also that considerable sums of money have been invested in the stocks. I will first refer to the paper of 1836, which reports as follows:—†
In 1838, the amount unemployed in the different counties was not so great as in 1836, while the sum reported in 1838 as the amount of the grants in 1824, does not tally with the paper of 1836, nor can I reconcile either of them with the statement laid before the Select Committee, which states the total of the original grants in 1822 as 54,079 l.‡ Thus it will be seen by these two papers, that not only have these funds been considerably mismanaged; but, that the money which was granted for the benefit of the Irish fishermen has been withdrawn, and that it has, together with a portion of the grant for establishing agricultural schools, been invested in the 3½ per cent. stock. Besides the grant for defraying the expences of supervision, which has been altogether
* The total amount of the subscription previous to receiving these additional remittances from Bombay and Calcutta, appears to have been 304,180 l. 17 s. 5d.
† See Tables (as notes) following pages.
‡See Table, p. 610 18*
6406*
kept in the dark; and no report whatsoever made, either of its amount, or of the manner in which it is applied. Thus, matters stood, when it was found to be necessary again to apply to the Legislature to amend the laws relating to the Loan Societies in Ireland, and a bill was framed under the directions of the Commissioners of the Loan Fund Board, and sent here for the consideration of this House, accompanied at the same time with the strongest remonstrances against any exemption being granted to the Reproductive Loan Funds. If hon. Gentlemen will take the trouble to read the report which has been laid upon the Table of the House this Session, they will find that the Commissioners after citing a case of very gross abuse rising out of the exemption clause of the 1st & 2nd Vic. report as follows:—
"The anomalies caused by the operation of this exemption clause are very numerous, and some of them very unjust and dangerous; but the board feel it unnecessary to enter at further length upon the subject in this report, as what has been above adduced will amply suffice to point out the mischief which may arise from the continuance of such an exemption from the provisions of a public statute."
And the names of the commissioners attached to this report, and giving this opinion are deserving of some respect. They are as follows:—

DOWNSHIRE,

JOHN BARLOW,

ERNE,

JAMES JOHN BAGOT,

COURTOWN,

THOMAS HUTTON,

CLANCARTY,

JOHN N. V. VERNON,

J. W. L. NAPER,

GEORGE ROE,

A. BURGH CROFTON,

THOMAS MC KENNY,

R. OWEN,

C. FITZSIMON,

THOMAS HINCKS,

ROBERT MAUDE,

JOHN D'ALTON,

WILLIAM HODGES,

CHARLES VIGNOLES,

JOHN LENTAIGUE;

and GEORGE A. HAMILTON, who I have the honour of seeing opposite to me. In addition to the opinion thus expressed, when the bill was forwarded by the Loan Fund Board, there accompanied it a printed paper in which they again remonstrated strongly against any exemption being granted to the reproductive loan societies. I have also had the honour of receiving a letter from Lord Clancarty on this subject, and that noble Lord thus expresses his opinion.
"I must express my regret, at the introduction of the clauses exempting societies in connection with the Irish Reproductive Loan Fund from the control of the commissioners, I can see no public object whatever to warrant such an exemption, but on the contrary, great

6407*
facilities opened for abuse of system which, under proper and uniform regulations and control, I think calculated to be of the greatest advantage to the country."
Now, in these opinions I entirely concur, but as those of noblemen and gentleman of much greater experience, than so humble an individual as myself can lay claim to. In the form that this bill was read a first, and a second

Synoptical Table, shewing the Amount, Progress, present State, and Application of the Irish Reproductive Loan Fund.

COUNTIES.

1824.

1836.

REMARKS.

Amount of the Fund.

Present Amount.

Amount employed.

Amount unemployed.

Doubtful Debts.

£.

£.

£.

£.

£.

1. Clare

5,697

6,473

4,387

1,543

543

The heavy arrear of debt charged against these four counties was incurred during the first two years, when the working of the system was not well understood, nor the casualties guarded against. It is hoped that a considerable portion will yet be recovered, avid that the interest which has since accumulated will cover any deficiency that may remain.

2. Cork.

8,028

9,278

8,326

212

740

3. Kerry.

5,777

6,460

4,513

548

1,399

4. Silgo.

3,870

4,341

2,315

1,608

388

5. Galway.

7,065

9,197

4,194

4,199

304

The arrear in this county is chiefly caused by the default of three individuals, against whom legal proceedings are in progress.

6. Leitrim.

2,000

1,252

1,252

The whole of the grant made to Leitrim was placed in jeopardy by the incautious conduct of the original Trustees—1,200 l. has been since recovered and confided to new managers, who, in the course of a few months, have realized 52 l., and whose judicious arrangements are calculated to improve and extend the operations of the Institution.

7. Mayo.

9,300

10,896

9,069

1,737

90

After thirteen years management, the only doubtful debt against this county is 90 l. The credit side shews a profit of 1,506 l.

8. Limerick.

6,370

7,423

7,348

75

The accounts from Limerick and Roscommon are of the most satisfactory description, shewing the important results that zeal and vigilance can effect. The combined fund has risen from 10,870 l. to 12,816 l., and that large amount is yet insufficient to satisfy the claims of the numerous applicants who crowd the periodical meetings.

9. Roscommon.

4,500

5,393

5,363

30

10. Tipperary.

2,500

2,345

770

2,016

53

The Trustees report, that from peculiar circumstances they are at present unable to extend their operations with safety, but that they will avail themselves of every favourable opportunity that may present itself for bringing their fund into operation.

55,107

63,558

47,573

11,968

4,017

Add doubtful Dedts

4,017

59,124

Deduct

59,124

Made up to the 1st May, 1836.

Clear Profit

£4,434

W. H. HYETT, Manager.

time in this House without a single objection being made against it, and it was then referred to a select committee I had the honour of serving, and, Sir, my astonishment was great, when I found that it was proposed to that committee to engraft a second bill of five clauses upon the bill referred to that select committee, and which clauses had reference to a cognizance of whatsoever—to the introduction

6409*
of this bill of exemption, I remonstrated most earnestly though most ineffectually, and the only information which was given to that committee to justify their introduction, was the copy of a petition to her Majesty from thirteen gentlemen calling themselves "The Irish Reproductive Loan Fund Institution," and praying her Majesty to grant them her royal charter of incorporation, with such rights, powers, privileges, franchises, and immunities, as are expressed in the schedule hereunto annexed, which schedule is the draft of the charter they so humbly pray for—and which goes the length to empower them

Tabular View of the Amount, Progress, present State, and Allocation of the Irish Reproductive Loan Fund.

COUNTIES.

1824.

1838.

REMARKS.

17th March.

Amount of Grant.

Profit from Interest received.

Aggregate Fund.

Doubtful Debts.

Available Fund.

Amount employed.

Amount unemployed.

£.

£.

£.

£.

£.

£.

£.

1. Clare

5,697

74

5,771

5,771

5,564

207

The greater part of this balance is now in operation.

2. Cork

8,028

1,417

9,445

712

8,733

8,700

33

Against the debts, all of which were incurred during the early attempts to work the system, must be placed the accumulation of interest, which will more than cover the deficiencies.

3. Kerry

5,777

848

6,625

1,399

5,226

4,219

1,007

4. Sligo

3,870

1,092

4,962

60

4,902

4,076

826

The fund belonging to the Town of Sligo, composed partly of money derived from the Trustees, and partly from private sources, is well managed.

5. Galway

7,065

1,861

8,926

104

8,822

7,866

956

The applications for loans before the Board will fully absorb this balance.

6. Leitrim

1,200

173

1,373

1,373

1,300

73

The sum originally granted was £2,000, but by agreement £1,200 only is charged against the new Board of Trustees; the fund is now fructifying.

7. Mayo

9,300

1,624

10,924

91

10,833

10,593

240

The sum stated chanced to be paid in when the account was made up; but there are generally applications for a larger amount than the Trustees can supply.

8. Limerick

6,370

1,085

7,455

7,455

7,378

77

The Trustees state that they could employ a much larger capital.

9. Roscommon

4,500

1,301

5,801

5,801

5,672

129

The Trustees have augmented their fund by receiving deposits of money, for which they allow interest.

10. Tipperary

2,500

447

2,947

68

2,879

2,092

787

A great portion of this balance has since been employed.

Total £

54,307

9,922

64,229

2,434

61,795

57,460

4,335

Made up to the 1st day of May, 1838.

W. H. HYETT, Secretary and Manager.

General Statement of the Funds in Ireland, under the control of the London Directors.

1836. May. The Reproductive Loan Fund amounting to

£64,229

Distributed among the ten counties above named.

1836. May. The Grant for Straw Plat

2,000

This manufactory, giving employment to numerous families, has been successfully established at Caher.

1836. May. The Grant for establishing two Agricultural Schools—originally £6,000 augmented by Interest to about

8,620

Of this £3,600 has been applied to the erection of buildings, and bringing into cultivation a Model Farm at Hollymount, for the benefit of the province of Connaught—the residue is invested in 3½ per cent. Stock.

1836. May. The Amount repaid by the Fishery Board with the Interest accruing since its investment

4,750

Invested in 3½ per cent. Stock, until a favourable period arrives for bringing it into useful operation.

Total

£79,599

Exclusive of the grant for defraying the expenses of supervision.

Dated London, 1836.

Chairman.

to withdraw every farthing which has been sent to Ireland for the benefit of the poor, by the relief committee of 1822, and to render them totally irresponsible to any person whatsoever. I will read this extraordinary document to the House.
"TO THE QUEEN'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY,
"The humble petition of the right hon. George William Frederick Villiers, Earl of Clarendon, John Cator, esq., John Abel Smith, esq., M. P., William Bell, esq., Martin Tucker Smith, esq., Henry Blanshard, esq., Edwin Gower, esq., George Robert Smith, esq., Sir John Lubbock, bart., Samuel Tompkins, esq.,

64011*
the hon. John Thomas Leslie Melville, William Brown, esq., and Henry Kingscote, esq.,—
"Sheweth,
"That in the year 1822 a large sum of money was raised by voluntary subscriptions, for the relief of the poor in Ireland, the management whereof was vested in a committee in the City of London.
"That the said committee appropriated 45,000 l., part thereof, for the purpose of making small loans to the industrious poor in the provinces of Connaught and Munster, and furnishing them with implements of labour, seed and other raw materials to be used and employed by them in husbandry, or in any trade, manufacture or other business, the said committee receiving back payment of the same by instalments or otherwise, with interest:
"That the said sum of 45,000 l. hath, since the year 1822, by good management and divers other means, been increased, and now amounts to the sum of 60,000 l.
"That great benefit has been found to arise from the operations of the said charitable association, which would be further increased by the incorporation of the said society.
"Your Majesty's petitioners therefore humbly beseech your Majesty to grant to your petitioners your Majesty's royal charter of incorporation for the said purposes, and that your petitioners and their successors may be henceforth one body politic and corporate, by the name of "The Irish Reproductive Loan Fund Institution," with such rights, powers, privileges, franchises and immunities as are expressed in the schedule hereunto annexed.
"And your Majesty's petitioners,
"As in duty bound, shall ever pray, &c."

CHARTER OF THE IRISH REPRODUCTIVE LOAN FUND INSTITUTION.
"Victoria, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith. To all to whom these presents shall come, greeting: Whereas a large sum of money was, in or about the year 1822, raised by voluntary subscriptions for the relief of the suffering poor in Ireland, and the management and distribution thereof was vested in a committee in the City of London, who appropriated the sum of 45,000 l., part thereof, for the purpose of making small loans at interest to the industrious poor, and such committee has ever since continued, and now continues, to carry on the same charity, under the name or style of "The Irish Reproductive Loan Fund Institution:" and whereas the said sum of 45,000 l. hath, since the year 1822, by good management and divers other means been increased, and now amounts to the sum of 60,000 l.; and whereas great benefit bath been found to arise from the operations of the said charitable association, and it bath been represented, to us by George William
64012*
Frederick Villiers Earl of Clarendon, John Cator, esq., John Abel Smith, esq., M. P., William Bell, esq., Martin Tucker Smith, esq., Henry Blanshard, esq., Edwin Gower, esq., George Robert Smith, esq., Sir John Lubbock, Bart, Samuel Tomkins, esq., the hon. John Thomas Leslie Melville, William Browne, esq., and Henry Kingscote, esq., the present managers of the said fund, that such benefit might for the future be much increased, and the purposes for which the fund was instituted be more effectually carried on, with the sanction of our royal letters patent, and the said George William Frederick Villiers Earl of Clarendon, John Cator, esq., John Abel Smith, esq., M. P., William Bell, Martin Tucker Smith, Henry Blanshard, Edwin Gower, and George Robert Smith, esqs., Sir John Lubbock, Bart., Samuel Tomkins, esq., the hon. John Thomas Leslie Melville, William Browne, and Henry Kings-cote, esqs., humbly besought us, hat we would graciously be pleased to grant to them our royal charter of incorporation. Now know ye, that we, being desirous of encouraging so laudable an institution, have given, granted and ordained, and do by these presents for ourselves our heirs and successors, give, grant and ordain, that the said George William Frederick Villiers Earl of Clarendon, John Cater, John Abel Smith, William Bell, Martin Tucker Smith, Henry Blanshard, Edwin Gower, George Robert Smith, Sir John Lubbock, Samuel Tomkins, John Thomas Leslie Melville, William Browne, and henry Kingscote, together with such other persons as have become, or shall at any time become, or be appointed governors under or by virtue of the provisions for that purpose hereinafter contained, shall be one body politic and corporate in deed and name, by the name of "The Irish Reproductive Loan Fund Institution," and by that name shall and may sue and be sued, implead and be impleaded in all courts, whether of law or equity, and shall have perpetual succession, and a common seal, with full power to alter, vary, break, or renew the same at their discretion. And we do declare, that the said corporation shall be established for the purpose of lending advancing and providing by way of loan, to and for persons of the industrious classes in the provinces of Munster and Connaught, in Ireland, small sums of money, implements of labour, seed and other raw materials to be used and employed in husbandry, or any trade, manufacture, fishery, or other business, and for receiving back payment for the same by instalments, or otherwise, with interest, re-investing the capital of the said society, and the interest thereof, for the like purposes, after defraying the necessary charges of management; and that all and every, the capital, stock, funds, monies, and effects, now belonging to the said charitable association and held or possessed by the members thereof, or any of them, or by any other person or persons for or on behalf of the said association, or for the purpose

64013*
thereof, together with all such monies, stocks, funds, and securities, as shall at any time be given, bequeathed or contributed to the said corporation, shall be and constitute the capital of the said corporation, to be employed by them for the purposes aforesaid. And for the better governing the affairs of the said corporation, we will and direct, that there shall be thirteen governors of the said corporation, exclusive of the ex-officio governors thereof, as hereinafter mentioned, and that the said George William Frederick Villiers Earl of Clarendon, John Cator, John Abel Smith, William Bell, Martin Tucker Smith, Henry Blanshard, Edwin Gower, George Robert Smith, Sir John Lubbock, Samuel Tomkins, John Thomas Leslie Melville, William Browne and Henry Kingscote, shall be the first governors of the said corporation, and shall be and continue in office until such time as they shall die, resign or be displaced in manner hereinafter mentioned. And we ordain that when and so often as any one or more of the said governors shall depart this life, or resign his office, or be displaced there from in manner hereinafter mentioned, then and in every such case, it shall be lawful to and for the remaining governors for the time being, at a special meeting to be held for that purpose in manner hereinafter mentioned, to appoint one or more person or persons (as the case may be) to fill up the vacancy or vacancies so to be occasioned as aforesaid. And we will and ordain, that our Lord High Treasurer, or the Lords Commissioners for the time being of our Treasury, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade for the time being, and our chief Secretary for Ireland for the time being, shall be ex-officio governors of the said corporation, and shall during the time they shall respectively hold their said respective offices have all the like powers and privileges as any other governor of the said corporation. And for the better conduct of the affairs of the said corporation, we will and direct, that the governors of the said corporation shall meet together at some place in the City of London or City of Westminster in the month of May in each year, and at such other times as they shall from time to time appoint in that behalf; and that it shall be lawful for the governors present at any such meeting to adjourn, and so from time to time, and the meeting so to be held in the month of May, shall be called the annual general court of the said corporation, and every other such meeting shall be called a general court of the governors of the said corporation, provided that no business shall be transacted at any such court, unless three governors at the least, shall be present thereat; and it shall be lawful to and for the said governors to commit the management of any part of the business of the said corporation to any committee or committees, and for that purpose to delegate any of the powers of the said governors to such committee or committees, who shall meet at such times and places as shall be appointed by the court of
64014*
governors in that behalf, and in default of such appointment at such times and places as shall be determined on by the members of such committees. And further, we ordain, that seven days notice shall be given of the time and place appointed for each court of governors of the said corporation by advertisement in the London Gazette, or by letter addressed to each governor according to his registered address in the books of the corporation; and that it shall be competent for any governor of the said corporation at any time by such notice as aforesaid, to summon a special general court of the governors of the said corporation. And we will and ordain, that the governors of the said corporation, in general court assembled, shall have power and authority to elect and appoint new governors, to supply all vacancies arising in the number of governors, and to make bye-laws, rules, orders, and regulations for the government of the said corporation, and for conducting the affairs and business concerning the same, and to appoint a treasurer, secretary, clerk, and such agents and other officers, clerks, and servants, as shall in their judgment be necessary, for the conduct of the affairs of the said corporation, and him and them to remove and displace and to allow him or them such salaries, commissions or other emoluments, as to the said governors shall seem meet; and also to make orders for the appropriating, lending out, and calling in of the funds of the said corporation, and to purchase or hire houses or offices for the carrying on the business of the said corporation; and it shall be lawful to and for a general court of the said corporation, specially summoned for the purpose by notice stating the object of such court, to remove and displace any governor who by sickness or infirmity shall have become incapable to attend to the affairs of the said corporation, or who shall not for two consecutive years have attended any court or committee of governors, or who shall have so conducted himself, as, in the judgment of the said court to discredit his office, provided that no governor shall be removed except at a court at which five governors at the least shall be present, and all elections of new governors of the said corporation shall take place at the annual general court to be holden in the month of May in each year; provided always that in no case shall the corporate seal of the said association be affixed to any instrument whatsoever except by an order of a general court of governors, and in the presence of at least three of them who shall attest such sealing by their signature, and that the same was done by order of the court of governors. And we further direct, that it shall be lawful for the said governors to lend or advance out of the funds of the said corporation for forwarding the purposes aforesaid, any sum or sums of money to any agent or agents of the said corporation, or to any institution, society or committee of persons now instituted or associated, or hereafter to be instituted or associated together in the aforesaid provinces of

64015*
Munster and Connaught in Ireland, for the purpose of making charitable loans of money, implements, seed or raw materials, as aforesaid to persons residing in the said provinces, on the terms of repayment to the said corporation of the money so lent or advanced without or with such lawful interest thereupon as shall be agreed upon by the said governors, and to enter into such agreements and accept such securities for repayment of the sums so to be lent as aforesaid, as to the said governors shall seem meet and proper; provided always that none of the said governors shall derive any benefit or advantage from any transaction to be made pursuant to the provisions here in before contained, but that all interest, to be obtained for any sums of money so to be lent as aforesaid shall, after the payment of the secretary's and clerk's salaries and other incidental expenses be accumulated and added to the actual capital of 60,000 l. In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent.
Witness, &c.
By WRIT of PRIVY SEAL.
Now, Sir, when I couple this charter with the exemption clause in the 1st and 2nd Vic., and the bill introduced into this House in the year 1839 by Mr. John Abel Smith, and consider them all together, I must say, that whatever may have been said in Ireland respecting "Fixity of Tenure," and however much reviled those opinions may be in this country, I will yet take upon myself to say, that any speeches that may have been made in Ireland fall far short of this charter, and that Irishmen must come over to the City of London to understand how to adapt the theory and principle of "fixity of tenure," to practice. But who are these gentlemen who thus petition her Majesty?—four only out of the thirteen had anything to say to the general committee of 1822, and not one of them was in the sub-committee who as I have before stated are all dead, and I maintain that not one of these gentlemen have any legal right whatsoever over any portion of that subscription, and certainly not over the Reproductive Loan Societies, their funds having been placed in the hands of trustees in the different counties, as I have before stated. Nor can I recognise the Messrs. Smith in any other light than the bankers of the subscription of 1822; and as the bankers of that subscription, I conceive, that they ought to render an account of their trust. In addition to the draft of the charter sought for by these gentlemen, a statement of the Irish Reproductive Fund was also laid before the select committee, which
64016*
I now hold in my hand. By this paper the original grants are stated to be 54,079 l.:—*
Therefore this statement does not agree with that set forth in the petition, which shows the grant to have been only 45,000 l. in the year 1822. The statement of 1836 shows the grants in 1824 to be 55,107 l. and the statement of 1838 shows the grants in 1821 to have been 54,307 l. which different amounts appear to require some further explanation, which I conclude can be given. But it will be perceived that there is not in this paper any account whatsoever of the amount which has been funded in the 3½ per cent., nor even anything to show the existence of any such money. There is also in this paper an observation stating that no accounts have been furnished from the county of Leitrim for the past year. This is perfectly correct and is owing to the melancholy death of the late treasurer; and some difficulty which unfortunately existed in taking out an administration to his affairs. That gentleman was most highly respected and esteemed, and had the principal management of these funds since they had been in the hands of the present trustees. Unfortunately, for the last few years his health prevented his devoting so much attention to them as formerly, or as he would have wished; and I regret to say, that when I was called upon last Christmas by my fellow trustees to examine into the state of the accounts of the different funds connected with our trust, I must add with much sorrow that I found a great deal that could not be approved of. The result has been, that after a full investigation, the trustees felt it to be their duty in some instances to recall the loans which had been advanced to some societies. Two societies had ceased to issue loans for some months, the money in their hands was called in, and some had declined to keep the loan received from the trustees any longer, preferring to issue debentures at 6 per cent. for money lent by their neighbours, for the purpose of rendering the society useful as a savings bank as well as a loan fund. Minutes have been regularly kept of all these proceedings, and nothing has been done without the approbation and direction of the trustees. The money, repaid with interest, has been invested in 3½ per cent. stock, until it can again be put into circulation, this was the
* See Table, following page.

64017*
more necessary, as the repayments extended over a space of some months, and in sums of various amount, as they could be collected; and, I must here add, that nothing could have been more honourable than the manner in which those sums were paid back to the trustees, although the gentlemen in whose charge they were, have been in some instances personally losers to a great amount. I regret to say, that at the last Spring Assizes, two clerks of different loan societies were in gaol on charges of a very serious character. The Government refused to prosecute them, and the loan societies thought that they had suffered sufficiently by them already, without being put to any more expence about them. The clerk of a third loan fund ought also to have been prosecuted; but, the benevolent gentleman, who had lost to a considerable amount by his misconduct, preferred suffering the inconvenience to punishing his clerk. I believe, that all these gentlemen entered into these loan societies from most benevolent and excellent feelings, not being aware of the very great trouble that so vast an undertaking would entail upon them. That from various reasons they have at one time or other been compelled to leave them to the superintendance of a clerk, who, as it has been seen, has not been at all times very well chosen, and the result has been very disadvantageous to the system, which has fallen very much in public estimation, and has indeed been productive of very evil results. But, however injurious

Statement of the Irish Reproductive Loan Fund.

COUNTIES.

original Grants.

March 1843.

—

1822.

profit.

Aggregate fund

Lent.

Clare

5,697

195

5,892

5,681

Cork

8,028

1,837

9,865

8,875

Galway

7,260

1,514

8,774

8,459

Kerry

5,777

1,334

7,111

4,454

Leitrim

1,200

436

1,636

1,550

Made up from last Statement, no accounts having been furnished this year.

Limerick

6,370

923

7,293

7,112

Mayo

9,377

1,721

11,098

10,900

Roscommon

4,000

3,088

7,088

6,404

Sligo

3,870

1,104

4,974

4,590

Tipperary

2,500

531

3,031

2,705

54,079

12,683

66,762

60,730

Made up to 17th March 1843.

W. H. HYETT, Secretary.

these funds may have been to the morals of the people, the reproductive fund has not suffered, but on the contrary has increased. I am happy, however, to be able to say, that there are some loan funds in the county which are working pretty well, they all report to, and are inspected by the Central Board, with one exception, whether in connection with the Reproductive Fund or otherwise. And I can further state for the trustees, with whom I am connected, that we desire no exemption clause, we are anxious for the inspection, and assistance of the Central Board, and we court examination into our accounts, if a blot can be discovered we shall be glad to rectify it, and all we desire is, that the funds that have been entrusted to our charge may continue to be turned to the advantage of the poor to whom they belong, and for whose benefit we are bound to preserve them. I therefore hope, that her Majesty will not grant any charter of incorporation to her petitioners, who I maintain are self-elected, and have no right whatsoever, over the money which has been placed in the hands, and under the care of trustees in the several counties to which it was sent by the relief committee of 1822. Many of the noblemen and gentlemen who formed the general relief committee of 1822 are yet alive, and their opinions ought to be consulted, why have they not been so? is it that they are persons unworthy of being considered? I will read to the House a few of the names

64019*
of that committee:—His Grace the Duke of Devonshire; the most noble the Marquess of Lansdowne; the most noble the Marquess of Downshire; the right hon. Colonel Richard Fitzgibbon, M.P.; the right hon. Charles Grant, M.P.; the right hon. Henry Goulburn, M.P.; Major-general Sir Charles Doyle, K.C.B.; Alexander Josias Dupre, esq., M.P.; Dominick Brown, esq., M.P.; James Brown, esq., M.P.; Peter Brown, esq., M.P.; Antony R. Blake, esq.; Thomas Barnewell, esq.; James Daly, esq., M.P.; Edward Ellice, esq., M.P.; John Fitzgerald, esq.; Henry Grattan, esq.; Lucius O'Brien, esq.; James Pattison, esq.; Thomas Spring Rice, esq., M.P.; Mr Alderman Thompson, M.P. I am at a loss to understand why, with such names as these belonging to the General Relief Committee of 1822, they should be put aside for the purpose of bringing forward gentlemen unconnected with that committee, and, as far as I know, equally unconnected with Ireland; and it is remarkable, that out of the whole of these petitioners styling themselves "The Irish Reproductive Loan Fund Institution," there is not, as far as I can ascertain, one Irishman, or one that is in any way connected with Ireland. I hope, Sir, that her Majesty will not grant this charter; and if it should be her Majesty's pleasure that any corporation should receive a royal charter, for the purpose of superintending these funds, I trust that there may be found some of my countrymen sufficiently worthy to form part of that corporation; and I also hope that the House of Commons will not permit the clauses which have been introduced by the select committee, contrary to the strong remonstrance of the Central Loan Fund Board in Dublin, to stand part of this bill. I submit that if the Reproductive Loan Societies are exempted, that on the same principle, you ought to exempt the Charitable Musical Loan Society from the inspection of the Central Board; and also the Loughrea Fund, which derives its capital from the charitable bequest of a benevolent individual, who left it for the use of the poor, and to be lent to them in the way of loans, to be repaid by them with interest. But I am at a loss to discover upon what principle the Reproductive Fund can be exempted from the inspection of the Central Board, if the House adopts the principle of inspection in any case. Is
64020*
it to be said that a gentleman, acting under the most benevolent feelings, and lending his own money to his own tenants, or to the poor in his neighbourhood, is to be subject to having his accounts inspected, and that another gentleman, perhaps equally benevolent, but borrowing capital from the county trustees (which capital belongs to the poor), is not to be subject to any inspection. I ask, is there any principle of justice in such a law, or who ever heard before of exempting a few private individuals, from the operations of a public act? You may think proper now to establish such a rule out of favour to a particular individual, but if you do, you ought to state fairly and honestly your reasons for giving this exemption, that you do it, not because it is just, not because it is advisable, but out of compliment to an individual. But, Sir, if this bill should pass with these clauses standing part of the bill, I think that we shall very shortly be again required to legislate on this subject. I hope that such will not be the case: I trust that her Majesty's Government will not allow these clauses to stand part of this bill; but if they do, I shall then feel it to be my duty to move, by way of an amendment to the third reading of this bill, that it be postponed for six months.
Sir R. Fergusonhoped the noble Lord would withdraw his opposition at present, and allow the bill to go into committee, where he would have an opportunity of resisting the obnoxious provisions.
House in committee.
On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, several clauses were passed the House resumed, the committee to sit again.

PRIZE MONEY—CHINA.
Sir C. Napierrepeated the question which he had asked a few evenings ago, whether any prize money was to be given to the troops and seamen who had distinguished themselves at Canton? He trusted he should obtain a satisfactory answer. The officers had been rewarded by honours, but the seamen, to whom the prospect of prize-money was a great inducement to enter the service, had received no prize-money.
Sir R. Peelwas not prepared to give an answer to the question. The House would feel that before her Majesty should be advised to grant any sum of money to the

641
army and navy, it was fitting that the Government should have all the facts before them, so that they might be enabled to offer to Her Majesty advice relative to the subject on satisfactory grounds, and this information the Government did not yet possess. They did not properly know what sum of money was necessary for the expenses of the war, and what was the amount of the prize-money. There was a sum of 250,000 dollars with respect to which a communication had been made to Sir H. Pottinger, with a view of ascertaining whether or not it should be considered as prize-money; but before the Government knew the expences of the war, it would be premature to offer their advice to her Majesty on the subject.
Sir C. Napierhoped the case of appropriating the prize-money to pay the expences of the war would not be drawn into a precedent.
Sir R. Peelsaid, the money in question was not prize-money, and he wished the hon. and gallant Member to bear in mind that the Crown had not appropriated a sum of money. A sum of money had been demanded from the Chinese for paying the expences of the war, and the duty was imposed on the Government, for the protection of the public purse, to have all the facts of the case before them before they tendered advice to Her Majesty on the subject. They all acknowledged that the gratitude of the country was due to the army and navy in China; but still he hoped that the House of Commons, as the guardian of the public purse, would aid the Government in postponing a decision on the subject until the Government should be in possession of all the elements necessary for forming a decision.

NEGOTIATIONS WITH PORTUGAL.
Mr. Cobdenwished to know whether there was any ground for the report, that an individual of high rank had arrived in this country from Portugal for the purpose of negotiating a treaty?
Sir R. Peelsaid, he had stated on a former occasion, that so far as the Government was concerned, the negotiation with Portugal on the subject of the treaty might be deemed to be terminated. He had seen the statement in the newspapers that the Duke of Palmella had arrived in this country, and he believed that to be the fact. He also understood that that personage was charged with powers to treat with this
642
country; but this was the act of the Portuguese Government, and was not a consequence of any previous communication with the British country. He was not aware of any formal communication having yet been made by the Duke of Palmella to the Government of this country.

CHELSEA OUT-PENSIONERS.
On the motion that the order of the day for the House to resolve into committee on the Chelsea Hospital Out-pensioners Bill be now read,
Mr. Humerose on a point of order. He thought it was now proposed to take a course different from that which the House had ever taken. He was not aware that the pensioners were other than civilians. He was not aware that they were subject to martial law, or liable to penalties for the breach of martial discipline; and, therefore, he thought that they could not be placed under the provisions of the Mutiny Act, unless the House first determined the number to be employed. The House must first resolve into committee, and settle the number, By the sixth clause of the bill, the pensioners were to be made subject to the Mutiny Act and the articles of war, and he wished to know whether there was any precedent for proceeding with such a bill without the House first deciding the number of men to be employed? He had also an objection to the House passing the bill without provision being made by Parliament, for the pay and expenses of the men.
Sir H. Hardingesaid it was perfectly true that these men were not now under the provisions of the Mutiny Act, but it was also true that every other description of force in this country, when they were called out in aid of the civil power, and arms were placed in their hands, was liable to the provisions of the Mutiny Act. This was the case with the yeomanry force, and the law had been so for the last forty years. These pensioners were now liable to be called out in aid of the civil force, and the experience of last year had exhibited the inefficiency of this force when so called out, and it was therefore deemed necessary that they should be armed when called out; and when they were armed it was not prudent or safe that they should not be under the provisions of the Mutiny Act. This was the case of the volunteer corps in 1804, and even gentlemen belonging to them when called

643
out in aid of the civil power were placed under the provisions of the Mutiny Act. Under these circumstances, the Government thought it right to place the pensioners when called out under the provisions of that act. With respect to the number of men proposed to be called out, he had stated the other evening that in his opinion it would not exceed 10,000; but that was merely a vague answer, and he did not mean to say, that the number might not be less or even more in emergencies. It was impossible to propose a vote of money for the expenses, because the expenses could not be stated. The expense would depend on circumstances. There might be no necessity for calling the pensioners out. In the meantime he hoped they might be allowed to go into committee on the bill. He must, in conclusion, observe, that it was even now in the power of the Crown to call out the pensioners, and that power had been exercised in the year 1819, when 10,000 men were called out in aid of the civil power.
Mr. Hume, in explanation, begged to say, that in 1819 an estimate had been laid on the Table of the House, and all the details relative to the 10,000 men then called out were given. He however wished to ask whether there was not an express statute which enabled her Majesty to accept the services of volunteers who were a wholly different class from that comprised by the bill? The objections to the measure had not, he thought, been answered.
Mr. W. Williamssaid, every man in England as well as the pensioners, might now be called out in aid of the civil power, and was obliged under a penalty to serve as a special constable. But they would not be liable to be brought within the operation of the Mutiny Act, as would the pensioners who might be called out under the bill. He should be glad if the right hon. Baronet the Secretary at War would point out the Act of Parliament which placed the pensioners in that position. He was not aware of the existence of any such statute.
Mr. T. Duncombethought he should be quite in order if he now moved that the order of the day for the committee on this bill be read this day three months. The sooner the bill was stopped the better. He should oppose the bill in every stage, and take the sense of the House upon it. He had declared that intention the other even-
644
ing, and he now rose to fulfil it, for nothing he had heard on the second reading, and nothing he had heard to-night, at all induced him to regret the opposition he had already given to this insidious and unconstitutional measure; and all he could say was, that if, to the eternal disgrace of his side of the House, and to the lasting shame of the other side of the House, this bill should become the law of the land, it should not stain the statute book without the House and the country being put in possession of the insidious character of the provisions which polluted the pages of this bill. He could only look at the measure as an attempt on the part of the present Government to undermine still further the few remaining rights and privileges of the people. He could only regard it as an attempt on the part of the present Ministry to stifle that expression of the public voice which must be given before many months were passed, against the odious system of selfish legislation which had been so long pursued in that House, and which every hour and every day tended to augment the wrongs and sufferings of the people, which he was ready to prove were at this moment almost past endurance. No one was more ready to admit than he was that the public peace must be maintained, that the rights of property must be respected, and that the supremacy of the law must be vindicated; and no man was more ready than he was to furnish the Government with means for those objects; but he maintained that no case of emergency at present existed; that no necessity had been shown to prevail which could justify the House in passing and consenting to this measure. His grounds of objection were threefold. First, he objected to the period of the Session at which her Majesty's Ministers had thought proper to introduce this most important measure; he objected to the measure itself, looking at its character and tendency; and, thirdly and lastly, he objected to it because there was nothing in the circumstances of the country or in the conduct of the people of this country that could justify her Majesty's Ministers in bringing forward so unconstitutional, so cruel, and (as he must call it) so cut-throat a measure as that which it was now proposed to go into. He might appeal to the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government whether, considering that this was now the 14th of August, looking at the deserted benches

645
both behind and in front of the right hon. Baronet, it was advisable to proceed further with this measure during the present Session. This House had now been six months and a half assembled, and had never heard of this measure before it was introduced. His hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, had referred to the vote of the number of men for the service of the year made and consented to in the month of April or May last, and he complained of want of candour on the part of her Majesty's Ministers, when the House consented to the enormous vote of men, in not having then told the House and the country that they intended to take to themselves the power of increasing the standing army by from 10,000 to 50,000 men if they thought proper. There were at present about 76,000 out-pensioners of Chelsea, and the right hon. the Secretary at War had told the House it was not the intention of the Government to arm at present more than about 10,000 men. The right hon. Gentleman stated; that 5,000 would do for England, 2,000 for Scotland, and about 3,000 for Ireland; but still let the House remember that the bill gave unlimited power to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and to the Secretary-at-War, to increase the standing army to any extent they might think proper, if they could only find men into whose hands they could place muskets. He repeated they might arm from 10,000 to 50,000 men; and he must say that her Majesty's Government had behaved most unjustly and unfairly to the House and country in bringing forward this measure at the present moment. Let the House just look at the measure which had been abandoned in order to make way for this most insidious and unconstitutional measure. What had become of the pledge given last Session to ameliorate the provisions of the Poor laws of this country? It was true the right hon. Baronet had been absolved from redeeming that pledge, but he would never have consented to that proceeding had he known of such an unconstitutional measure as that now under consideration. But what were the measures which had been disposed of? The Government had passed a Registration Act for England—a miserable measure not at all adequate to, or commensurate to the wishes of the people with regard to the elective franchise. What had become of the Factories Bill?—though
646
it might have been right to withdraw the educational clauses, still the Government ought to have proceeded with the other portions of the bill which regulated the employment of children in factories, which as far as they went might have been of considerable service to that suffering portion of the community. But it had been abandoned. Again, look at the fate of the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill—a measure which they had been told early in the Session, by the Prime Minister when he called God to witness, was one of the most honest and righteous bills ever introduced into Parliament; and yet that bill had, he supposed, been put aside in order to make way for this measure. Again, he must inquire what had become of the County Courts Bill? Why had it not been proceeded with? It had been introduced long before this measure, and it had been said it would bring cheap justice to every man's door; instead of that however, here was a measure which would carry bayonets into every man's house, at least in the manufacturing districts. Then he must ask the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Home Department what had become of the Prisons Discipline Bill, which lay at present in the midst of a mass of legislation? That bill had been announced two or three months ago, and brought in before this iniquitous measure, but there it lay perdu amongst many other measures, in obedience to the senseless clamour which a portion of the senseless magistrates of the country had raised against it. But he must now entreat the House to look at the character of this measure itself. His hon. Friend the Member for Montrose had correctly described it as an arbitrary and unconstitutional measure, giving powers such as no Minister ever before asked, and which even Lord Sidmouth or Lord Castlereagh would not have dared to introduce. It was worse than all the Six Acts put together. Look at the number of men that might be enrolled by a warrant from the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Then the country was to be divided into districts of an extent at the pleasure of the Secretary of State, and the men enrolled were to serve not only in their own but in all adjoining districts. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War had called this a dormant local force. It was no such thing. It was a most active and dangerous force, to be employed against the li-

647
berties of the people. The Government might volunteer these men for garrison duty, and the Secretary at war was to make regulations for their clothing, for the equipments, and for their pay. But out of what funds were they to be clothed, equipped, and paid? Would the Secretary at War, or any other member of the Government, provide the payment out of his own pocket? If not the expenses must come out of the public purses. He believed, therefore, there was an objection in point of form against this bill. It ought to have been introduced in a committee of the whole House, because it entailed taxation upon the people. The clothing, the arms, and the pay of this body of men, would be a charge upon the people of this country; and he had yet to learn why this bill should not have been introduced in a committee of the whole House in the same way as had been the Militia Pay Bill. He hoped the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had consulted some authority on the point, otherwise it would be necessary to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair to examine the clauses of this bill, and pronounce his opinion on the point of order. Then what were the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War, the other evening as a justification of this measure? The right hon. Gentleman said, "Look at the state of Wales, look at the state of Staffordshire, and look also at the experience you have had in the manufacturing districts during the last year." The right hon. Gentleman had repeated those sentiments this evening. But, looking at what had actually taken place last year in the manufacturing districts the Government had told the House and the country in the Queen's speech at the commencement of the Session that the ordinary laws of the land, promptly enforced, had been sufficient to repel all these disorders and disturbances which had taken place during the last autumn. But was not this bill something more than the ordinary laws? The Government did not tell them then that they contemplated such a measure as this. True, the other night the Government had informed the House that when last year they passed a bill in relation to half pay officers, they then had in contemplation to call out these pensioners. In common candour they ought in the first instance to have communicated that intention to the House. He contended
648
that this measure was not just or fair to the pensioners themselves. They were civilians to all intents and purposes, they might be called out to serve as special constables, and in no other way had the Government any claim upon them. He desired to be informed whether the pensioners knew anything at all at the present moment of this measure, or whether, in point of fact, the Government by this bill were not taking them by surprise. He had received many communications on the subject from pensioners themselves. To one which he had received this morning he must call the attention of the House. And what did the writer state? He said—
"With what reckless haste is the Government legislating to compel 76,000 men to take arms against their country; not one of them knows a single clause of this bill which so much concerns them. I am a pensioner myself, I have served several years and I am now receiving nothing near what was contracted with me at the time I enlisted I should receive after a faithful period of service. The country is now only performing its part of the contract towards me. I am not a pauper; on the contrary, I am not beholden to the Government—especially such a Government as the present, who would force me to take arms against my starving countrymen. I am at present employing myself as a schoolmaster, and therefore am not liable to be called upon to serve as a special constable; but under the bill am I to be compelled to leave home? If you cannot stop this infamous bill you can perhaps pass a clause to exempt persons from being called out who are already exempt from serving as special constables. Many pensioners are now in comfortable situations, and in different employments, and if this bill passes they would be obliged either to give up their pensions or their living. Would they in such a case act with the Government or take part with the people? The refusal to serve as a special constable incurred a penalty of 5l. Would not such a fine be a sufficient penalty upon a pensioner who would not give up his situation to serve under the provisions of this bill? As far as my knowledge has gone the pensioners are directly opposed to the present Government, and if arms are put into their hands how will they use them, especially in Ireland? I will not trespass further on your time than to express a hope that you will succeed in your attempt to stop this invidious and odious measure."
That was the letter of a pensioner receiving the pay of the Government. He contended that this man spoke that which he had a right to speak; he was a civilian, and owed the Government no allegiance

649
beyond that of a civilian, for the Government was, by the payment of his pension, only performing its contract after his period of service had expired. The Government and Parliament had no business they had no right—to pass a measure which would bring that man within the operation of the Mutiny Act, and enable the Government to tear him from his home and subject him to flogging. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the pensioners had run away at Manchester. He was totally ignorant where they ran away from; but let the Government take care if they put arms in their hands, they did not run away and leave their arms behind them. He trusted in God that these men would not be induced to massacre their fellow countrymen merely to keep the present Government in power. What have her Majesty's Ministers done for the people and for the country to justify them in asking Parliament to strengthen their hands in older to keep the people in their present state of degradation, and not allow them to meet and convey their complaints to their ears or to the ears of their Sovereign? Yet, that was the object of this measure. What an ominous silence had been observed by the Government with respect to Ireland. One object of the bill was to allow these pensioners to volunteer for garrison duty, and so set free a certain portion of the regular army, who were now doing garrison duty in this country to act against the people of Ireland. Why, then, not at once say, that the state of Ireland required additional forces, and that they (the Government) could not spare more from this country without substituting some other? But let the Government look at the state of Ireland, and say what they had done for that country. Let them look at the state of things which presented itself to their view. The masses of the people were meeting day after day, and their own Lord Chancellor declared their proceedings were high treason, and yet the Government did not dare to treat them as such, (though the other day they had sent the rev. Mr. O'Neill, for twelve months to Stafford goal merely for making a very foolish speech abusing the Duke of Wellington, Sir R. Peel, and abusing also most justly that House. For that Stupid speech O'Neill had been prosecuted and tried, and the Government had succeeded in obtaining a conviction. Now he could read passages from speeches made by
650
Members of that House in Ireland ten hundred fold worse and more calculated to excite a breach of the peace than anything addressed by this individual to some 300 or 400 men in Staffordshire; but the Government dared not to go near those individuals. But when they had turned their backs upon this Session of Parliament they would, he did not doubt, exercise very different measures towards Ireland, and that proclamations like those of last year in this country would be issued. It was understood that this year her Majesty would have visited Ireland. Why had not the Government consented to allow her Majesty to afford the same gratification to her Irish subjects as last year she had given to the people of Scotland? He believed if her Majesty did go to Ireland she would be received from one end of that country to the other with enthusiastic approbation and delight. She would he believed, see no disposition on the part of the Irish people to throw off the yoke of England. It had always been said that Irishmen were loyal even to weakness, and he believed her Ma-Majesty, if she went to Ireland, would see a full illustration of that saying. But why did not her Majesty visit this year that part of her dominions? Why, for the simple reason that those by whom she must be accompanied dared not to show their faces in that country. That was not the first Sovereign they had served so. They did the same thing to William 4th, in the year 1830, when he had promised the citizens of London to attend a festival they had prepared for him. The greater number of the present Ministers were in power then, but they durst not show their faces in the City of London, and William 4th was obliged to forego the satisfaction of visiting it, and the citizens of London the honour of entertaining their Sovereign. That was the last act of the Tory Government of that day, and he trusted that this measure would be the last of the present Administration. Why should it not be so? He knew that they were backed by a majority who supported them against the wish of the country in every iniquitous measure, and allowed themselves to be dragged through the mire. Now and then, indeed, a little spite was let out, but it went no further; indeed, it was a sort of spite of which the right hon. Baronet might well be proud. But he wished to know if this augmentation of the standing

651
army was the only remedial measure Her Majesty's Government had to offer the people of this country? Nobody knew better how to dress up an argument or a measure than the right hon. Baronet, and his speech the other evening was a most plausible one. The right hon. Baronet offered a little "soft sawder" to the hon. member for Salford, and a little sugar candy to the hon. Member for Lambeth, who were deluded into the support of this bill. There was nothing whatever to justify the passing of such a bill, and every Member of that House ought to feel it his duty to oppose it. The disappointment of the people, at the close of the session, at Her Majesty's Government having nothing to offer them but this dangerous and unconstitutional measure would be very great, and more particularly in the manufacturing districts. Would this bill carry anything like comfort or solace to a distressed population? Would it give employment to the poor, or food to the hungry, or clothing to the naked? They knew it would do no such thing. It would lead only to increased expenditure of the public money, to the augmentation of Government patronage, and to great heart-burnings and discontent in the manufacturing districts. If the parties named in the bill were ever called out to act in these districts the consequences must be most serious, involving, perhaps, loss of life amongst those engaged in the discharge of the duty imposed upon them. The presence and services of the regular troops produced no exasperation and bitterness of feeling to rankle in the minds of the population after their departure. They might, indeed, leave cause for great grief behind them, but no exasperated feelings against men who properly performed their duty. But if these pensioners, who lived among the people, enjoying with them the rights of citizenship, were called out, was it to be supposed that they and their houses would not be marked objects by the populace? The yeomanry were sufficiently objectionable, but the employment of these pensioners in large manufacturing towns would be more so. He, therefore, implored the House and the Government to pause before they proceeded with this bill. He called upon the House not to place the rights and liberties of the people of this country at the caprice and whim of any Minister of State, whoever he might be. If they did so they must be prepared to consider
652
themselves no longer as free citizens of a free country, but to live and die the slaves of a military despotism, because military despotism was the only ground upon which the bill rested, and the only object which was sought to be established by it. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the bill be committed that day three months.
Mr. Williams, in seconding the motion, reminded the House that already there was a standing army, including engineers and marines, of 145,000 able-bodied men; there were 80,793 men on half-pay, out of which 25,000 were described in the army estimates as unfit for service. Taking the number proposed to be put into active service by this bill, the military force would be increased to 202,000. No fewer than 17,600 yeomen were mentioned in the estimates for this year, to which five regiments had since been added. Then there was the Irish police force of 5,000 men, essentially a military body equal to any of the like number in Europe; the county and metropolitan police force amounted to 11,490 men; altogether the whole available military or armed force at the command of the Government would be 240,000 men. No one who had any regard for the rights and liberties of the nation could view such a state of things without alarm. It was the pride of our ancestors that they were governed without military force, and one of the greatest sovereigns of Britain had boasted that her guards were her people. Every man who was interested in the preservation of life and property in this country must resist every despotism and attempts to establish a military despotism. This measure would not remove the distress and dissatisfaction which pervaded every class in this country except the oligarchy, who lived by taxation and derived their power and influence from monopoly. Let the Government take warning from experience. Large masses of their countrymen were reduced to a rate of wages upon which it was impossible for them to live. They were not pressed down by their employers without necessity, for their employers were as greatly distressed as themselves. A million and a half were receiving relief from poor rates. Ten millions were living on the lowest description of food, potatoes and oatmeal, and food searcely fit for hogs; and even of such miserable fare they could not get enough. Their dwellings, wretched

653
hovels and cellars, were of the same character as their food. According to eminent medical testimony the ordinary average of mortality should not exceed one in fifty-four, but in Liverpool, for instance, through the badness of food and lodging, it was as one in twenty-eight. Let Her Majesty's Government remember that to such sufferings amongst the labouring population were attributable all the incendiarisms of "Swing," and the outrages and tumults that had followed them even up to the very last year. Transportation and imprisonment had been extensively tried, but the root of the evil was not removed. The people in South Wales were at this moment in a state of insurrection, a part of the country where rebellion had not been known for 400 years past. He observed a noble Lord opposite smiling; but he would tell that noble Lord that he must not depend upon the strong arm of military force to put down discontent excited by distress. If only one company of soldiers should refuse to tire upon the people he would not give six months' purchase for the noble Lord's title. Let them look at France. The Royal Guards of that country joined the people in attacking the Bastile; and it was found that the 25,000 foreign troops in that country were unable to put down the distress and discontent which had arisen there from the same causes which now affected this country. He besought the Government not to depend upon such means as this bill to tranquillize and satisfy the people, but to have recourse to sound measures, founded upon the feelings and interests of the people. The right hon. Baronet, in 1835, said, that no Ministry could stand without a majority in that House and the confidence of the nation. The right hon. Baronet had got the majority, but without him that majority would be nothing. His talent was the very source of the power of that majority, brief as it was. He besought the right hon. Baronet to compare the description of the happiness of the English people as given by Lord Chancellor Fortescue in his clay, with their wretched condition at present, and then let him ask himself if he could rest satisfied with passing such a measure as this. The right hon. Baronet might take a proud position if he would at once propose remedial measures for the prevalent distress. But, instead of that, he allowed himself
654
and his Government to be made instruments of extortion for the support of the oligarchy. Holding these views, he had great pleasure in seconding the amendment.
Sir H. Hardingewould lose no time in answering an observation of the hon. Member who had just sat down, who had declared that no dependence was to be placed in the British army. [Mr. Williams. I beg pardon—I never said so.] He was satisfied that every man in the army sensibly and deeply sympathized with the distress of his fellow-subjects, but at the same time the army knew that when called on by their officers they had a duty to perform—a duty which they would perform with energy and firmness, whilst at the same time they exercised the utmost mercy and forbearance. He would also say, with respect to any attempt to tamper with the loyalty of the army, that, composed as it was, of men as incorruptible as they were brave; all such insinuations as those they had lately heard, and heard of, would fall as powerless on their minds as he hoped they would fall powerless on the good sense of the country. When the hon. Member talked of the abuses of a standing army, he told him that in his opinion an army constituted like ours, was a protection rather than a detriment to British liberty. We permitted a licentiousness which, under any other constitution than that of Great Britain, might be fatal to the public peace. With us, however, meetings were held and language was employed which no other empire would permit, and which nothing but the confidence of the Crown in the army could justify even our Government in permitting. The hon. Member for Finsbury had used very strong expressions, and had described this bill as a bill which would give a facility to the Government to send forth the army to act as cut-throats. He repudiated such statements with the utmost indignation. He asserted that the only object of the bill was to enable pensioners in riotously disposed districts to perform their duty to their Sovereign more effectually than heretofore. The Crown, it should be recollected, already had the power of calling out these pensioners for the purposes of garrison duty. That power was exercised by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Palmerston) in 1819, and the Parliament in the next Session justified and approved of his conduct. To assert that the same body of men might be called

655
out to act as a police, was in fact only to assert that they might be called upon to act as British subjects should act. In 1830 they had been called on to act in this capacity. In 1832 and 1833 their services had also been required, and in 1839 the noble Lord (the Member for London) had not only called them out, but he had done more; for during the sitting of Parliament he absolutely sent to upwards of fifty places in the manufacturing districts 6,000 swords, 8,080 pistols, and a corresponding number of muskets. Now, he (Sir H. Hardinge) did not at all disapprove of what the noble Lord had done on that occasion; but, approving or disapproving of his conduct, it was at least a proof of the power possessed by the Crown over this body. In fact, the Police Act of 1829 shewed the extent of that power. Under that act the police of the Metropolis, at the order of the Secretary of State could be armed precisely as the justices thought fit. [Mr. T. Duncombe.—Not with fire-arms.] "Precisely as the justices thought fit." These were, he believed, the terms; but whether they would be armed with fire-arms or not in London, at any rate the police could be, and indeed they were, armed with fire-arms in Ireland. But, as he had said, arms had been sent down in 1839 to the manufacturing districts; 500 swords and 400 pistols went to Stockport—a fact worthy of notice by the hon. Member for that place. Now, doubtless, it was quite right to send those arms thither, but let him ask, would it not have been better to put them into the hands of the pensioners after they had been duly enrolled, and when they were in a fit state to serve as a disciplined force? It was both safe and prudent to the public that parties armed should be subject to military law, and it was for that wise and sound constitutional reason that the gentlemen yeomen of the county were invited to constitute a militia instead of being asked to serve without order, discipline, or enrollment. This bill, therefore, so far from having an unconstitutional tendency, was adapted to carry out one of the first principles of our constitution. Then with regard to the harshness of the measure upon the pensioners themselves. He had already explained that a power existed to call out the force. They were liable, in fact, to forfeit their pensions if they refused to obey that call, and the fact was, that in 1819 a great many did so
656
forfeit their pensions. Well, then, the power existing to call them out, and that power being in the special warrant of her Majesty, the question was how they might be called out most satisfactorily to their own feelings. Now, the truth was, that the great body of the pensioners were highly gratified with the arrangement this bill proposed to make. They felt that, in future, instead of a veteran being exposed to an encounter in the street with a younger man than himself, disposed to use his weapon with a lawless violence, which the old soldier could not reciprocate—they felt that henceforth they would go in a body, as they had been accustomed to go when in her Majesty's service, under control, and subject to command. They felt that at present they too often appeared in the public places rather as a rabble than as a disciplined force; and, besides this, they had in many cases a great objection to be called upon to serve as a police. In two instances last year officers had resigned their situations in consequence of being called upon to act in that capacity. The hon. Member had read a letter from a pensioner urging that he was a school-master, and that, as he was not liable to be called on as a special constable, some arrangement ought to be made to prevent his being called upon to serve under the provisions of this bill. Whenever a case occurred in which a pensioner could claim exemption, he assured the hon. Member that that pensioner would not be called upon to serve, and, as service would most probably be very rarely required, those exemptions would be made in a very liberal spirit. For these reasons—because the bill was a constitutional, a safe, and a prudent measure—he trusted the House would concur in passing it. He had consulted the Member for Edinburgh, his predecessor at the War-office, upon the subject, and that right hon. Gentleman had expressed his entire approbation of the measure; and had authorised him to state to the House in his name, that he thought the bill a very proper one, because either they should not employ old pensioners at all, or else they should make them useful in their vocation. With respect to the objection of the hon Gentleman, regarding the time at which the bill was brought in, he begged leave to explain, that it was delayed in consequence of the arrangements regarding the payment of the out-pen-

657
sioners not having been until very recently perfected. With regard to the manner in which the men would be employed, he was ready to pledge himself that they would only be used as a local corps—that they would not be available for general service—and would not be required to march from one part of the country to another, nor out of their own district. To a bill with such moderate and useful provisions he had no hesitation in asking them to give their assent.
Mr. E. B. Rochesaid, that at the end of a Session which had lasted above six months, during which nothing had been done to alleviate the miseries or to redress the abuses of the people, it was not wonderful to him that an attempt should be made to repress the discontent of the masses by the exercise of force. The right hon. Gentleman had declared the measure to be within precedent—he had asserted that the pensioners had on former occasions been called out. If that were the case, what was the necessity for passing the bill at all? If they had these powers before—if they possessed them now, why ask for still stronger measures? Was it that the people were more discontented—was it that the political horizon was looking darker? If so, why not boldly state the fact? As a Government presiding over the destinies of a country like this, it was not by force of arms, but by force of reason and by force of justice, that they ought to guard against the coming storm. In looking for a precedent for this bill, the right hon. Gentleman had referred to the arming of the police in Ireland. He recommended that allusion to the attention of the English Members. When next they were passing coercive laws against Ireland, let them remember that the precedent might be quoted against themselves—that those who would not object to carry out the principle as regarded Ireland would not object also to carry it out as regarded England. The gallant officer stated that when those pensioners were called out they could not be used for any other than local purposes. That might apparently be true, but substantially it was otherwise. Though the clause said their services were limited to local districts, yet the Government might make these districts as extensive as they thought proper. The 4th clause gave those pensioners the power to volunteer for garrison duty, and clothed with the authority of the present bill the Govern-
658
ment might hold out any inducement that they thought proper for the purpose of prevailing on these men so to volunteer. They might offer them 2s. or 2s. 6d. a day in addition to their pensions; for, as disturbance increased, the value of those men's services would be enhanced—as funds went down pensioners would rise in value. This bill, then, would enable the Executive Government to garrison the whole country, and the standing army would then be completely at their disposal; in fact, the pensioners would be placed in the position of a standing army, and they would be available for any purpose. He rose, however, more immediately with the view of adverting to one remark which fell from the right hon. and gallant Officer who had just spoken, and in that remark he fully concurred—he quite agreed with him as to the fidelity of the army; but there had been observations made in another place by a noble and learned Lord on something that Mr. O'Connell had been reported to have said in Ireland on the subject. For his part, he fully adopted all that Mr. O'Connell had been reported to say. He wanted to know if he, as a free citizen of a free state, was not at liberty to speak in praise of the British army? If he believed it to be the bravest and the best, why might not he state that to be his belief? If he thought that the non-commissioned officers of that army were not treated as they deserved who was to prevent his saying so? In every other army promotion from the ranks was a matter of frequent occurrence. In the army of France the instances of such promotion were full fifty times as numerous as in that of England, while in point of merit the British army was superior to the French. Those were his opinions, and he could see nothing improper in stating them. He did not suspect the army, neither did he say that the right hon. and gallant Officer suspected the army; but the Gentlemen opposite suspected the army. Those who composed the army could not be men and not know that they were ill treated. It happened in other countries that men who rose from the ranks were presented with the baton of a marshal. The British army could not overlook such facts as those. As to the bill, he regarded it as a dangerous precedent; it gave to the Government the power of calling out 76,000 men. There had been many measures proposed during

659
the present Session of Parliament, the importance of which the Government themselves acknowledged; still those measures were delayed or withdrawn on very slight grounds of opposition, and the present bill was urged forward with the utmost pertinacity. With respect to Ireland the Government had military possession of that country. He should like to know how much more comfortable they felt upon that account. They attacked the leaders of the people for tampering with the army. As one of the leaders of the people he would say to them, you now possess a military occupation of the country, how long will you continue it? The people had the real possession of the country—it had been granted to them by an immutable decree of Providence, and it should never be usurped by man. The military possession of the country might be conformable to the military genius of the Government; but to the people of England he should say that they had established their personal and political rights by the sacrifice of their blood, and he hoped they would not be guilty of anything so suicidal as to stand by and see martial law proclaimed in any part of her Majesty's dominions. The Government of England must know that they did not possess the Government of Ireland—that the clergy kept the peace of that country; so long as the Queen's Ministers kept within the limits of the law, so long would the peace of the country be preserved, but if the law were once infringed no man could foretell the result; on the shoulders of the Ministry, however, must the responsibility rest.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, he did not concur with those hon. Members who showed so much constitutional jealousy of this measure. The Crown at all times possessed the power of calling out these 70,000 or 80,000 pensioners. The present bill added nothing to the power which the Crown always had of calling out the whole of those men. By the regulations under which the body existed they received their pension not only as a reward for the past but as a retaining fee for future services, and they were liable to be called on to serve in any part of Europe. With regard to the first portion of the bill it left the law precisely as it had previously been, but, as he understood the bill, its effect would be to enable the Government to avoid the necessity of calling out whole
660
classes of those men, as by the existing regulations they were bound to do. The bill, then, would get rid of an expensive and operose process, for as the law stood the men could not be called out without a proclamation, requiring all who received a certain rate of pension to repair to specified places, and when they arrived at those places many of them would be found unfit for duty, and then they must be sent back and their travelling expenses paid, thus occasioning great cost and inconvenience without any compensating advantage. Formerly the pensioners were paid by persons engaged in the collection of the revenue; of late, however, the payment of them had been entrusted to half-pay officers of the army. These officers could at any time make out a list of toe men fit for duty in their districts, and thus the number really required might be brought into active service without there being any necessity for calling out whole classes. The men might be called on by name, without demanding the presence of them in the mass. The other portion of the bill would have the effect of placing those men under the Mutiny Act, just as if the whole class to which they belonged had been called out. The selected few would then be under the same regulations as the aggregate, and to this part of the bill be confessed he did not see that there was any objection. As the law stood, the Government possessed the power of embodying those men without the consent of Parliament, but they could pay or clothe them only to a very limited extent, and for a very short time, without coming to Parliament for supplies. There was a sum of 109,000 l. applicable to civil contingencies, a part of which might be applied to the pay and clothing of those men; but for anything beyond that Ministers must come to Parliament. So much for one part of the measure. In the former state of the law the Chelsea pensioners were liable to be called upon to act as special constables, when they would be entrusted with arms, and yet placed under very little restraint. The bill, however, would organize them as soldiers, and place them within the provisions of the Mutiny Act. To him it appeared highly important for the interests of the civil part of the population that the pensioners when called out should be placed within the provisions of the Mutiny Act, and governed by strict rules of discipline. Of

661
necessity their recent habits would tend to great laxity of discipline if such regulations were not enforced, and to keep them from casual excesses would be extremely difficult. He repeated that he saw no reason to object to the bill, for it merely gave to Ministers the means of more usefully exercising the acknowledged power of the Crown subject to their Parliamentary responsibility.
Mr. Brightsaid, I believe the opinions of military men on questions of constitutional liberty have never been held to be of much value, and certainly the speech of the right hon. the Secretary at War is not calculated to make those opinions stand higher in the estimation of the public. The right hon. Gentleman has asserted that a standing army is one of the greatest safeguards of constitutional freedom, and that, in consequence of the existence of an overwhelming military force, the Government is enabled to permit great freedom in the expression of opinion, and to tolerate the holding of great meetings, and to allow what the right hon. Gentleman is pleased to term, even a licentiousness of liberty, and this from the consciousness that whenever these demonstrations become serious, and likely to produce evil results, they have the power to come down upon them with the soldiery, and to prevent any danger to the public peace. But does not the right hon. Gentleman know that the very existence of this loud clamour on the part of vast masses of the people, and the holding of these large meetings, is in some degree evidence that already there has been some infraction of constitutional liberty, and that there are grievances unredressed which the people can no longer bear? I would regard that as more favourable to constitutional freedom, which calmly, but anxiously, investigated the grounds of complaint, and honestly removed them, then that which permitted even a licentiousness of liberty in meetings and speeches, and yet enabled the Government to deny that justice for which the people called. I know not if this be the first time a standing army has been held in this House to be an ally of constitutional freedom, but I trust so monstrous a doctrine will never again be uttered here. But whatever may be the opinions of honourable Members opposite on this point, I am sure, out of doors, there is a great unanimity of feeling upon it. A standing army favourable to constitutional freedom! I hold it to be impossible that when men have relinquished the dignity of
662
manhood, and have stooped to become mere machines, and this they necessarily do when they enter the army, they can be counted on as the firm supporters of the rights and liberties of their fellow-men. The right hon. Gentleman, in justification of the bill before the House, appeals to the practice of a former administration, under which the noble Lord, the Member for Tiverton, held office. He has mentioned the year 1819, and the administration of Lord Castlereagh. Does the right hon. Gentleman imagine that a measure is just, and wise, and necessary, because Lord Castlereagh adopted it? or does he for one moment suppose that the people of this country will judge favourably of this measure because a similar one was brought in by a Government which, above almost every other, is hateful to all who have any respect for the rights of the people? And then as to the noble Lord, the Member for Tiverton, it is marvellous, when anything bad is to be done, how much justification for it may be found on this side of the House. But is that noble Lord always an authority with the Government, and will the right hon. Gentleman be content to act in other cases upon his advice or example? What has that noble Lord told the Government during this very session? Has be not over and over again declared that the discontent of the people arises from the sufferings they endure, and that these sufferings spring from the destruction of their industry by the restrictions and monopolies which the present ministers came into power to perpetuate? Has he not asked yon to reduce the import duties on the necessaries of life, on the articles of human subsistence, and have you in that case held his authority at a high value, and deemed his advice such as you were bound to act upon? No; the noble Lord's opinion is worthless when he counsels proceedings in accordance with the interests and feelings of the people, and is held to be infallible only when it is on the side of harshness and the denial of justice. It has been asserted that the pensioners themselves are favourable to this bill. I doubt this greatly. Only this morning I have received a letter from a pensioner, in which he complains heavily of the harshness of this bill; and I will read to the House, with its permission, a portion of that letter. He says,—
"Is it not a great hardship, I think I might say a great injustice, that poor fellows who have served upwards of twenty years, or may

663
be, like myself, upwards of thirty years, should be compelled to leave their families and employment, or throw up their pensions, for which they have served the better part of their lives? Sir, I think you will agree with me that nothing can be more distressing than, after a man has settled down to a quiet citizen, fondly imagining that he has discharged his duty to his sovereign and his country, and has now only to live for his family, that such a man should again be dragged forth to serve, or throw up the small pension he has received for his long service."
So much, then, for the argument that the pensioners are enamoured of this bill. It would be worth nothing if it were true; but from the letter read by the hon. Member for Finsbury, and from the one I have just read, it would not appear that amongst the pensioners themselves there is any great demonstration in favour of the measure. I do not doubt that the officers who are to command these new forces would prefer swords, and pistols, and muskets to the constable staff, and, in the presence of an infuriated mob, they might feel themselves more secure; but their ease, and comfort, and security is not the question before the House. The question is, shall we grant to the Government greater powers of repression whilst that Government refuses all redress of the heavy grievances of the people? The circumstances of the manufacturing districts are put forward as a reason for demanding the passing of this bill. Now what are those circumstances? The population of those districts are suffering very great and long-continued privations; they also suffer from a sense of wrong, and of intolerable injuries inflicted upon them by this House. And the natural, the inevitable fruit of this suffering, and this consciousness of injustice, is a threatening attitude towards those who are supposed to have the power, but have not the will to mitigate the one, and to redress the other. I live in the manufacturing districts, and am well acquainted with the character of the population, but that the House may have testimony of more weight than mine, I will read an extract from a report presented last year, to this House, by a commission appointed to inquire into the state of the Borough of Stockport. Speaking of the people employed in the cotton trade, the report says:—
"We find, in connection with the large earnings of this class, industrious habits of no common stamp, regulated and secured in great measure by the peculiar nature of their em-
664
ployment; and a degree of intelligence already much in advance of other classes of the working people, and still growing with the general growth of popular education. It appears, also, that when in the enjoyment of prosperity, they avail themselves, to a great extent, of the advantages of provident institutions, and that partly through this, and through other circumstances, equally creditable to their character as a working people, they avoid almost altogether dependence upon poor rates. On the occurrence of general distress, we find them neither a pauperized mass, nor readily admitting pauperism among them, but struggling against adversity, beating far and wide for employment, and in many cases leaving their country for foreign climates, rather than depend upon any other resources for subsistence than those of their own industry and skill. Those among them who have not been able or willing to leave a place where at present their labour is of little or no value, have been found enduring distress with patience, and abstaining, sometimes to the injury of health, from making any application for relief; while others, who have been driven reluctantly to that extremity, we have seen receiving a degree of relief sufficient only to support life, often with thankfulness and gratitude, and generally without murmur or complaint."
And in conclusion the report says:—
"We feel assured that the sufferings of a population, whose general character and condition are such as we have described them, will meet with sympathy land consideration from all classes of their fellow-subjects; and that the interests of that branch of trade which has furnished such a population with employment, will be held entitled to peculiar attention from the legislature of the country."
And I can say, in confirmation of the opinion expressed in this report, that the public have sympathized with the unhappy sufferers in that town; and further, I may add, that in this House alone, has there been an utter disregard of the terrible privations which they have endured; and the fortitude and magnanimity with which they have borne their misfortunes, has been all too little to create within these walls, one single generous impulse in their favour. A little more than a year ago, a deputation from the manufacturing districts waited upon various Members of the Government, to state to them some facts connected with the situation of the people in those districts. That deputation gave the Government a great amount of information respecting the state of trade, the want of employment, and the distress amongst the people; they affirmed their belief that such calamities could not long be

665
peaceably borne, and that unless relief could be afforded, the discontent would become, not only alarming, but seriously dangerous to the public peace. I well recollect the manner of the right hon. the Home Secretary on that occasion. He expressed his deep sympathy with the sufferings of the people; but from that hour to this neither he nor any one of his colleagues has introduced one single measure to the consideration of this House, in any degree calculated to restore prosperity to the industry and comfort to the homes of the people. The distress exists still; the laws which destroyed the trade of a rapidly increasing population exists still; and what do the Government now propose? To do tardy justice? To remove the restrictions? To let the people work who want to work, and would have work if the law did not prevent it? Nothing of the kind. There is no sign of repentance on the part of the Ministers, justice, relief, are asked for, and the people are answered by a Bill to raise a new body of military to keep the discontent of the suffering, and the oppressed from becoming dangerous to the repose of hon. Members opposite. I was in the manufacturing districts last year when the disturbances took place. My house is within 200 yards of the place where near ten thousand men and women assembled daily, and often twice a day, during the turn out. There was no violence against the persons or property of their employers; but there was a conviction, based upon long and grievous experience, that they were ill used; that they had wrongs of no common magnitude; that this House was regardless of their petitions and remonstrances, and that any change in their condition must be for the better. The town in which I reside was, for some days, in the possession of a numerous body of the turn-out workmen. They had the power, if they had had the disposition, to do serious mischief; but scarcely a sixpence worth of damage was done to any property in that town during the whole of these unhappy transactions. But have the people no excuse for these proceedings? Can any Member of the Government point out any single concession of any moment made to the people, except under the influence of fear? Were there no grievances in Canada before the breaking out of the insurrection in that colony; Canada had her grievances, and her people, over and over again, complained to this House that they had no impartial adminis-
666
tration of the powers of the Government. Did hon. Members opposite come forward with a remedy? No; the abuses were continued, were even defended on both sides of the House, until the news of the rebellion arrived, and then, wonderful to relate, the leaders of both parties discovered at once the precise remedy which was required. Ireland had grievances; her Catholic population protested against being made the slaves of a minority, of being sacrificed to the bigotted and merciless Orangemen of Ireland. They demanded to be freed from religious disabilities. And what did hon. and right hon. Members opposite? They denied the right which the Catholics claimed; they declared it inexpedient and dangerous to grant it, and it was only when a noble Duke in the other House of Parliament declared that it was now only a question of concession or of rebellion, that you consented to do that which it is now universally acknowledged should have been done long before. And Ireland has grievances now—both sides of the House admit the grievances. Ireland is in an attitude not a little threatening, and when things become a little worse, the leaders of both parties will discover, probably in the course of a few hours, what are the precise remedies to be applied. The people of the United Kingdom asked for a reform of this House—for a better representation of the people—and their prayer was, for a long period, despised and neglected. They asked that stumps of trees and old walls should no longer send Members to this House, but that the thousands who inhabit Manchester, and Leeds, and Birmingham, should have a voice in your deliberations. You refused it. It was a just demand, but there was no clamour. It was needful for the good of the people, but it was not then needful to secure you from violence. You dared to refuse it. But the usual results followed; a storm arose before which you quailed, and you were for a time swept almost from before the sight of the public. Now we have grievances; we have a law which prevents our trade—which denies the right to labour, for themselves and their families, to multitudes of honest and industrious individuals. The people ask you for nothing that is yours, but for that which is their own, and which you have taken from them for a time. The population increases, and trade does not increase with it, and therefore suffering and competition increase. The country

667
was in trouble when the right hon. Baronet came into office. He pretended to be able to remove those troubles. He brought in a new Tariff and a new Corn Law, and although he did not pretend that these measures would entirely remove the evils under which the country was labouring, yet he said he trusted and believed they would mitigate those evils. Now, why would they mitigate those evils? Because they were steps in the way of free trade, or in the way of greater restriction? Of course, because they were in some degree free trade measures. Then, if the way of free trade be the way to mitigate the sufferings of the people, I ask, in the name of common sense, why not go further in the same direction? if monopoly be right and wise, let us have it fully and without stint; but if free trade be the policy for this country, then let us have free trade. The question for this House to determine appears to me to be a very simple one indeed. Shall we give the people the means to live comfortably by their honest labour, or shall we afford to the Government which refuses them justice, the power to coerce them, and to render it safe to be unjust? Is this policy to go on for ever? I know the state of the country. Within the present year I have been in almost every county, and in communication with large numbers of every class. There is ground for great discontent, and great discontent exists, and so long as those grounds remain, I hope the discontent will remain also. It is not in Lancashire and Yorkshire only that the dissatisfaction prevails, it is not alone in the mining districts of Northumberland and Durham, or of Staffordshire and Wales, but in the agricultural counties there is intense suffering, and a growing feeling in opposition to the policy which has so long been pursued. I am persuaded that this policy must soon be given up, or it will be needful to arm one half of the people to keep down the other half. And let not the Government suppose that the middle classes will for ever give in their aid to support the aristocracy against the rights of the most numerous class. Even last year, a stronger sympathy than had ever before been shown, was manifested by the middle classes in the northern towns, in favour of the suffering operatives. They knew that three millions had asked to be admitted to electoral rights; that as many had asked to have their trade free, and their bread untaxed; and that all their petitions had been disregarded by the Go-
668
vernment. Be assured, then, that we are rapidly approaching the time when the middle and working classes will be found united in one firm confederacy against the domination of a class and of principles which have inflicted such deep injuries upon this country. For myself, I will be no party to the giving increased power to a Government which gives no evidence of a disposition to redress the wrongs they have admitted, but will cordially support any proposition which may serve to prevent the passing of this most unnecessary and coercive bill.
Mr. Protheroesaid, he could not participate in the fears which had been expressed respecting a standing army. The experience of the hon. Member for Durham in his progress through England, might of itself have convinced him that his fears in this respect were visionary, and he would ask the hon. Member for Cork whether his Colleague's progress through Ireland furnished any evidence that the free expression of public opinion was prevented by reason of a military force. Let the army be ever so strong, public opinion would have its weight in this country. He confessed he entertained not the least dread of the effect which the measure now proposed by the Government might have upon public opinion. He drew a broad distinction between public opinion and violence. He looked upon the bill as a measure of police—as a measure necessary for repressing violence; and he must say, that he could perceive nothing that was inconsistent with sound sense in the observation of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, that under particular circumstances a standing army was conducive to the preservation of public liberty. He happened to be in the neighbourhood of the borough which he represented, in Yorkshire, during the disturbances in the manufacturing districts last autumn, and he knew that the desire which was then uppermost in the minds of the staunchest Whigs and Radicals was to obtain the means of affording protection to property. They represented the danger which was incurred, owing to the want of troops, and complained of the Government for not having acceded to their proposition for having a barrack in that neighbourhood. He thought that much greater danger to liberty was to be apprehended from violence than any force which might be maintained for its suppression. He knew not how his sentiments might be received by

669
some of the gentlemen near him, but for his part, he thought it was casting an unjust reflection upon public opinion in this country, to suppose that it could be injuriously affected by such a measure as that before the House. In judging of a measure of this nature, he would allow himself to be guided to some extent, by the character of those who proposed it. He was opposed in politics to the right hon. and gallant Member who brought the bill forward, but he was one of the last men from whom he would expect any unconstitutional proposition to emanate. The right hon. and gallant officer was too brave a man to assail the constitution by such petty means. He also felt bound to declare that he did not think any one had a right to attribute to the present administration, a sanguinary disposition, or a desire to have recourse to coercive measures. He daily read attacks on the Government on account of what was termed their supineness and tameness of spirit, as evinced in their determination not to coerce a large portion of the empire; but in those very attacks he found proofs of the wisdom and temperance of the Government. Seeing no ground for alarm in the character of those who brought the bill forward, he looked at the bill itself, and it appeared simply a measure of police—to facilitate the calling out of a body of men, and making their services available for the protection of life and property. These men would form a local force for the protection of particular districts. If Ministers meditated an attack on the liberties of the country, would they look for an instrument in such a paltry force as it was proposed to embody under the bill? He had entered the House rather disposed to disapprove of the measure; but the speech of the hon. Member for Finsbury, instead of confirming that impression of his mind, had, by the overcharged picture which it contained of the danger to be apprehended from a standing army, induced him, perhaps, to take a more favourable view of the measure than he otherwise should have done. He supported the bill as a measure for the protection of life and property against the violence of misguided men; and he believed that it would not have the effect of preventing the hon. Member for Stockport from continuing his efforts to convince the people of England of the propriety of repealing the Corn-laws, nor of impeding Mr. O'Connell's course in Ireland, Some hon. Gentlemen seemed to
670
entertain a very erroneous opinion respecting public opinion. He had supported several motions for extending the provisions of the Reform Act; but taking that measure even as it stood, it was a very good one, and gave representation of the people in Parliament, and however much he might regret that the right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power, and the Whigs out of power, he would not disguise the fact that the present Government was placed in power by the will of the people. He would recommend his friends near him to work on the minds of the people, and endeavour to change their sentiments. It was not a standing army or Chelsea pensioners that could maintain either a Con. servative or Whig Government in office; the only basis of power in this country was public opinion.
Mr. Hume, after what had fallen from the hon. Member for Halifax, felt bound to express his opinion that the House of Commons, as at present constituted, did not represent the feelings and wishes of the people. He believed that much of the dissatisfaction which prevailed, had its origin in the conviction which the people felt that they were not fairly represented. There was only class representation in that House; it represented merely the rich landed proprietors; but the mass of the working classes were not represented. It was most unwise, on the part of the Government, in the present state of the country, to press forward a measure such as that before the House. There was already a sufficient military force for the service of the country; and if Ministers thought more was required, they ought to have proposed an estimate for it, in the regular way. Ministers had now been in office for two years, and during that time the distress of the country had gone on increasing. The people were borne down by excessive taxation, and yet Ministers proposed to add 10,000 l. to the annual charge. He repelled entirely the idea that a standing army was necessary to the preservation of public liberty. At the same time, standing armies were now very different things from what they formerly were. It was impossible now to separate the army altogether from the people. The growing intelligence of all classes made that impossible. Already this year the House had voted 101,000 men of regular troops. It was understood at the time that of that force 6,000 men were to be disbanded; he

671
should be glad to learn from her Majesty's Government that this had been done. Of that force 50,000 men were now in this country. In the meantime the debt of the country was increasing, for he saw by the papers before the House, that the right hon. Baronet had added two millions and a half to the debt during the last year. The right hon. Baronet might, perhaps, find at last that it was possible to tighten the cord too much. There was extreme danger in the present situation of the country; and here, at the close of a Session, during which nothing had been done for the relief of the people, they were going to give power to the Government to raise an additional force of ten, twenty, or thirty thousand men. Let them bring in measures calculated to relieve the distresses of the country, and there would be no occasion for any measures like this.
Mr. Newdegatewas understood to say, that to the Members of the Anti-Corn-law League and their agitation must be attributed a large portion of the excitement that at present prevailed in different parts of the country. He approved of the proposed bill, which would give the Government the services of men whose known good conduct might prevent the effusion of bloodshed, if, unhappily, the same excitement should prevail this year as did last year about this time.
Mr. Cobdenrose to defend the members of the Anti-Corn-law League, against the attack of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. Of all men none were less likely to desire popular commotions. The property of those gentlemen was not invested in broad acres, which would remain though cavalry and artillery crossed them in hostile array. The property of the gentlemen of the Anti-Corn-law League was invested in a manner that made it peculiarly liable to injury from popular violence. No; to put down that body, something must be said more effectual than accusing them of a desire to encourage the employment of physical force. With regard to the measure now before the House, he could not say that he entertained any apprehensions that the liberties of the country would be endangered by embodying the small body of men whom it was proposed to embody. Nor, on the other hand, did he look upon the army as the means of working out any project for the improvement of civil liberty. Still he would advise the Government not to rely upon the army for the maintenance of
672
tranquillity; and he must say the measure, take it altogether, was a very insidious measure, and it would be a disgrace to the Gentlemen on that, the Opposition side of the House, if they did not do everything in their power to prevent it from passing into a law. He thought the country was much indebted to the hon. Gentleman who had called attention to the bill in the way that he had done. The right hon. Baronet opposite came into power for the purpose of deluding the people of this country. He would not call the Government a great imposture—that might be an unparliamentary expression—but he would say that the right hon. Baronet and his Colleagues had kept office by delusion. The right hon Baronet, before coming into power, had held out promises that he would propound measures to meet the difficulties of the country, but since he had been in office, he had not propounded any measure as a specific for the great distress under which the people were suffering. If the right hon. Baronet had ever had any plan in his mind for the relief of the country, except trusting to the chapter of accidents, he had never enlightened the House of Commons as to the nature of that plan. Every other party in the House, every fraction of a party, had its remedy to propose. He had his remedy, and he had endeavoured to carry out his remedy through the medium of public opinion, Others believed the difficulties of the country could be removed by other means: Some thought the great remedy for the existing distress would be to give more relief to the poor. Some were for giving the people playgrounds to amuse themselves in; others were for giving them more Church, but no remedy whatever was proposed by Government, and every remedy submitted to them from any other quarter was evaded by them. Under such circumstances, was the Government in a position to come to that House, and ask for increased powers to coerce the people? He had that day received an astounding statement from his own borough:—Of the 889 voters of Stockport, 374 had either failed or were fast dropping into the mass of the unrepresented classes. Nearly one-half of the constituency! And yet Government had no plan to propose for their relief. The working-classes were fast falling into poverty—the middling classes were fast following them. The danger was less in the cotton districts than in other parts of the

673
country, for, notwithstanding the malignity with which they had been attacked, the master manufacturers in the cotton districts were still paying the most remunerating wages. In those districts, the large capital invested in the works compelled them to employ their men long after the manufactures had ceased to yield a profit. There were other districts, however, in which much more danger was to be apprehended, and some of the hon. Gentlemen would find it so. Those parts of the country would give them more trouble, he believed, than they had ever yet experienced in any of the cotton districts. Give the people employment, however, and they need be under no apprehension of any interruption to the peace of the country. In 1835, Demosthenes himself could not have got an audience together if he had preached sedition; but the people were fully employed then, and wheat was at 40 s. a quarter. When the prices of food were low, there never were any disturbances in the country. But he was not now going to dwell on his own remedy for our difficulties; he would do that when he got among the constituencies of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Mr. Newdegatein explanation, was understood to say, that a member of the body to which he had alluded had taken a very decided part in the late turn-out.
Dr. Bowringcalled on the hon. Gentleman to name the individual to whom he had alluded, and he would venture to say, that the Anti-Corn-law League would most anxiously investigate the charge. With respect to the measure before the House, he could look upon it in no other light than as an addition to our military force. It could not but add to the expences of the country, and it could not but exasperate the public discontent that already existed. If, at the termination of a long Session, which, laborious as it had been, would be known hereafter as the Do-nothing Session, the Government had nothing to show as the result of their labours but an arms bill for Ireland and an arms bill for England, could they suppose that great dissatisfaction would not be produced? He must say that they would have to meet their constituents with mournful countenances, and among those constituents, he fully believed, the conviction would be strengthened that nothing but a change in the representation would afford the people the relief of which they stood in need.
Mr. Borthwicksaid, that the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government could not be fairly charged with not doing everything in his power to remedy the distress of the country; and as to the principles of free-trade, the right hon. Baronet had done more to carry out those principles than all the Whig Governments that had ever been in office. Now, the hon. Gentlemen opposite called on the Government to carry those principles still further, and told them, in spite of all that had been done, the distress was greater at present than it had ever been. What encouragement was this to proceed with measures that had been found to be utterly inefficacious? He had given his support to her Majesty's Government, but in so doing he had not acted like those towards the farther end of the Ministerial benches), who reminded him of a quadruped celebrated in sacred history, that on a memorable occasion had exclaimed:—"Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day?" When Government came to the House, and asked for power to put down dangers which, although contingent, were of a formidable character, and not distant in prospect, he did not dare to take on himself the responsibility of refusing the demand. He had not been able to hear, in the speeches made from the opposite side, one reason why, in the present state of things, this bill should not pass into law. It was often said, that Government were bound to protect the property of the landed interest, and the property of the manufacturers; but he thought there was another description of property which they were not less bound to protect—that of the misled multitude, who were harangued almost into insurrection by the speeches of hon. and eloquent Gentlemen, in this country and in Ireland. He would not enlarge on this topic; but he would express his opinion, that a broad and conciliatory policy would do more to pacify Ireland than all the Arms Bills which Government could introduce.
Sir W. Somervilleobserved, that having voted for the second reading of this bill, he thought it right to state that he had done so under an erroneous impression as to its object. Seeing the period of the session at which the bill had been brought forward, and the hour of the night at which its second reading had been moved, he thought the measure went to the regulation of mere police details. But after

675
the debate which had taken place this evening, he found it was a measure which placed very large powers in the hands of the Government, and went, in point of fact, to augment the standing army. That being so, he should not oppose the bill from any want of confidence as to the manner in which her Majesty's Ministers would use those powers, for, however he might regret and differ from the course they had pursued with respect to Ireland, he must admit they had shown no disposition to employ coercive measures; but he could not give his consent to an augmentation of the standing army. He could not consent to place in their hands powers to enable them to increase the present enormous force in Ireland, more particularly, as though grievances had been admitted to exist on all hands, not one measure of conciliation had ever been suggested.
Mr. Collettconsidered this measure even more objectionable than the Irish Arms Bill, and as such he should oppose it.
Mr. Brothertonbelieved the measure to be intended solely for the preservation of the public peace, and although he was in favour of all those measures which had been referred to by his hon. Friend near him, and which were for the amelioration of the condition of the people, and calculated to promote the welfare of society, yet he had always the spirit in the House to say he was not in favour of physical force, or of anything which tended to a breach of the public peace. The view he took of this measure was not that it would augment the standing army, but that it merely gave power to call out the pensioners in case of disturbances in any district to aid the civil power. Having a desire for peace, and having also full confidence in the peaceful habits of the people in the manufacturing districts, he never thought it would be necessary to call out the pensioners. If the public peace was preserved there would be no necessity for this bill, but if the peace was disturbed there was no man who would not wish that means should exist for its preservation. Although his Friends near him were in favour of liberal measures, they seemed not to be averse to the people showing their feelings in a hostile manner, Now, he would never countenance that mode of proceeding, and he must say, he did not feel with regard to the measure, in the same way as his hon. Friend had expressed. He had great deference for their opinions, and whether he should vote for or against
676
the measure he wished to put upon record his sentiments with respect to it. He was convinced the bill contemplated no increase of the standing army, and he thought his hon. Friends injured their cause by the exaggerated statements which had been made on his side of the House.
Mr. Hawessaid, it had been his misfortune the other evening, when the bill was brought forward, and when his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury took so strong an objection to it, to differ from his hon. Friend, and he had made up his mind to repeat to-night the vote he had given on that occasion. He understood the Government to state that they considered the public service required this bill as a precautionary measure. He could not regard it as an addition to the standing army, for even as the law now stood, it was in the power of the Crown to call out the whole of this force, even at great inconvenience to the very parties in whose favour his hon. Friend had made so eloquent an appeal to-night. Under existing powers, the whole class might be called out and marched to a certain spot, where selections were made, and the rest sent back to their homes. But this bill went to remove this inconvenience, and gave power to select from the whole body those who were able and effective; and what was the constitutional objection to that course? It was not adding to the powers already possessed by the Crown, but it operated favourably to those liable to be called again into active service. He would always stand up for the preservation of the public peace, because upon its preservation depended the best security for the progress of rational liberty. He, therefore, differed on this occasion from his hon. Friends on his side of the House; and though he advocated views different from those entertained by the Government, he should do all in his power to aid them in maintaining the peace of the country.
Colonel Sibthorpsupported the bill, and thought both the House and the country were greatly indebted to the right hon. and gallant Secretary at War for its introduction.
The House divided on the question that the words "now read" stand part of the question: Ayes 92; Noes 16; Majority 76.

List of the AYES.

A'Court, Capt.

Antrobus, E.

Acton, Col.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Allix, J. P.

Baillie, H. J.

677

Baring, hon. W. B.

Hornby, J.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Hutt, W.

Blackburne, J. I.

Jones, Capt.

Bodkin, W. H.

Kemble, H.

Boldero, H. G.

Knatchbull, rt. hn Sir E.

Borthwick, P.

Lincoln, Earl of

Boyd, J.

Lowther, J. H.

Bramston, T. W.

Masterman, J.

Broadley, H.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Broadwood, H.

Meynell, Capt.

Bruce, Lord E.

Newdegate, C. N.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Nicholl, rt. hn. J.

Chetwode, Sir J.

O'Brien, A. S.

Clerk, Sir G.

Packe, C. W.

Clive, Visct.

Palmer, G.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Cripps, W.

Peel, J.

Damer, hon. Col.

Pollington, Visct.

Darby, G.

Pringle, A.

Denison, E. B.

Protheroe, E.

Douglas, Sir H.

Rashleigh, W.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Duncan, G.

Rose, rt. hn. Sir G.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Ross, D. R.

Escott, B.

Round, J.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Sanderson, R.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Sibthorp, Col.

Flower, Sir J.

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

Forman, T. S.

Somerset, Lord G.

Fuller, A. E.

Stanley, E.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Stanton, W. H.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Tennent, J. E.

Gore, M.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Trotter, J.

Greene, T.

Vivian, J. E.

Hale, R. B.

Wall, C. B.

Hamilton, G. A.

Wood, Col.

Harcourt, G. G.

Wood, Col. T.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Wood, G. W.

Hawes, B.

Young, J.

Henley, J. W.

Herbert, hon. S.

TELLERS.

Hope, hon. C.

Freemantle, Sir T

Hope, G. W.

Baring, H.

List of the NOES.

Bowring, Dr.

Plumridge, Capt.

Bright, J.

Roche, E. B.

Brotherton, J.

Scholefield, J.

Clements, Visct.

*Somerville, Sir W. M.

Cobden, R.

*Wakley, T.

Collett, J.

Wawn, J. T.

Ewart, W.

Hill, Lord M.

TELLERS.

*Hindley, C.

Duncombe, T.

Hume, J.

Williams, W.

Main question agreed to.
Order of the Day read.
On the question that the Speaker leave the Chair,
Mr. Humeprotested against the further progress of this measure. He complained
* Absent from the Noes on the next division. which were otherwise the same.
678
that her Majesty's Government had not fulfilled the promise they had made early in the Session. The right hon. Baronet had admitted that distress prevailed amongst the people, and he declared that it would be the endeavour of the Government to provide means of relief and of employment for the industrious classes. Instead of doing anything of the kind, although every interest in the country was daily growing worse and worse, the present measure of coercion was brought forward by the Government. That was extraordinary conduct; but not more so than the argument of the hon. Member for Lambeth, that because there was a bad Government requiring physical force to support it, that hon. Members would vote for this bill. No one in that House was more anxious than he (Mr. Hume) to support and maintain order in the land. [Oh!] He was glad to hear hon. Gentlemen opposite groaning. It was a sign that their consciences reproached them. That was not the case with him. Hon. Gentlemen must be prepared to groan, if they could bear to see their fellow men starve and die by inches. The hon. Member for Stockport had made an appeal to the right hon. Baronet, which had not been answered. Whether the right hon. Baronet considered that appeal not worth answering, or that a sufficient case had been made out in support of his measure, he did not know; but in the absence of any promise or intimation from the Government that they were prepared to propose measures to remedy the existing distress of the people, he would not consent to strengthen their hands. He would move, therefore, that the House will, upon that day three months, resolve itself into the said committee.
Mr. W. Williamswished the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to state the legal authority upon which the pensioners were to be called out in the way proposed.
Sir H. Hardingesaid, that by the warrant of 1806, which followed the act called Wyndham's Act, which warrant was signed by General Fitzpatrick, it was declared that any out-pensioner not offering himself upon any proclamation being made by the Crown, or not joining garrison or the veteran battalions, should forfeit all claim to pay or pension. By every subsequent warrant, that rule not being revoked, every pensioner not obeying the summons of the Crown to attend and be enrolled was liable to the same penalty.

679
On one occasion, in 1819, when the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton called out a number of pensioners, several who refused to serve suffered the loss of their pensions. The act of Sir J. Hobhouse was to the same effect. Lord Howick, when Secretary at War, in a letter to the commissioners of Chelsea Hospital, expressed himself to the same effect. But, whatever privileges the pensioners were entitled to at the time of their enlistment, they would enjoy the full benefit of them. It was impossible under this bill to do any injustice to the pensioner.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, the bill went much further than that. If a pensioner were called out to act as a special constable or to do garrison duty, and refused, he would forfeit his pension. But was that all in the bill? The right hon. Gentleman, as Secretary at War, could make certain regulations for these men when they were called our in aid of the civil power. When had we that law in England before? When were these men put under the Mutiny Act before? [Sir H. Hardinge: "Always."] Then why insert it in this bill? By this bill these pensioners might be flogged, imprisoned, or shot. They might be tried by courtmartial and executed. That could never be done before. He did not see any law-officers of the Crown present to give their opinion; but he defied the right hon. Gentleman to prove that pensioners or volunteers could be treated so before. They might deal so with a yeoman while engaged on actual duty. Could they drill these pensioners formerly eight days every year? and would not such a proceeding be an insult to the people of the various towns in which that drilling took place? The Secretary at War was to make allowances, too, from the public money to defray the expense of that drilling. It was a novel principle of law, unknown in England before; but it should not become the law of the land if he could prevent it. The conduct of the hon. Member for Lambeth was certainly most extraordinary. There was a corrupt House of Commons and a large standing army, therefore he must support this bill. There was a bad Government, but the hon. Member for Lambeth must support and strengthen it by physical force. By the old law the pensioners ought to have six weeks notice; under this bill they would not have a single day's notice. He supposed that if
680
the bill went into committee, the Government would resist every amendment, in order to keep the country ignorant of the real nature of this most despotic measure. The doctrine of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was most strange; he said, the larger the standing army, the greater the security for the civil rights of the people. He denied it. The right hon. Gentleman said, the army should be confided in; who doubted it? If it were not so, said he, should we allow the meetings and the licentiousness of the people to go on? Licentiousness of the people! Why, the people had a right to meet and discuss their grievances, and petition for their redress. The people did not hold that right upon the fragile tenure of the caprice of a Secretary at War or the whim of a Government. Why was this bill brought forward in the middle of August, and without any proper notice of its approach? It appeared to have lain in the War-office for some time, and to have been brought forward (though several other measures were abandoned) now in order that it might be hurriedly passed. But he would resist it; and though only sixteen had just opposed it, he trusted the minority would increase until it became the majority for throwing out this objectionable bill.
The House divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:—Ayes 92; Noes 13:—Majority 79.
House in committee.
On the first clause, her Majesty may order out pensioners to be enrolled.
Mr. Williamswished to know what would probably be the expense of calling out these corps?
Sir H. Hardingereplied, that it would be impossible to estimate the cost of calling out the corps, because there might be no necessity whatever for calling them out. When they were called out they would be paid 2s. a day in addition to their ordinary pension allowance, but this payment would not be required if there were no disturbances, and the only other possible charge would occur in the event of a drill or inspection, for which they might be called out eight days in the year, during which days they would be put upon similar pay.
Mr. Williamssaid, the whole of the matter was this—there were 47,000 men capable of serving, and that number, in-

681
cluding officers, clothing, and accoutrements, might absorb annually 2,000,000 l. sterling.
Mr. Hawessaid his friends behind him seemed to think that this body might be enrolled and called out to perform regular military service. He did not understand anything of the sort, and for his own part, if they were to have a military force, he thought it would be better to have a disciplined than an undisciplined corps. The Government opposite was unpopular, but it was not the way to oppose it, to obstruct its measures for the preservation of the public peace.
Sir H. Hardingesaid the difference of expense between calling out a militiaman and a pensioner would be just so much as the difference between 7s. and 2s. a day. The former sum was the pay of a cavalry yeoman, the latter item was what he proposed to give the pensioners. It was quite a mistake to suppose that this force would be called on to perform military duty; as he had before stated, their services would be limited to their own districts.
Mr. T. Duncombethought the right hon. Gentleman was quite wrong as to the employment of the force. The services of the men were not to be confined to one particular district. The fourth clause of the bill enacted that they should serve as garrison soldiers in any place to which they might be ordered.
Sir R. Peelsaid this bill would be no extension of the powers of the Crown. In point of fact, it substituted voluntary for compulsory service. The Government was only actuated in this instance by a desire to preserve the public peace, and as for establishing military rule it was ridiculous to suppose that they contemplated any such object. In point of fact, their power was much greater under the present system than it would be under that proposed to be constituted. He thought this would be a popular corps. When the yeomanry cavalry were called out in the course of last year, nothing could equal their devotion to the public service and their exemplary forbearance; but if disturbances arose in the great manufacturing towns, and the yeomanry corps coming from the rural districts, it was impossible to eradicate the impression, however admirable their conduct, that they were calling in one class of the population to suppress the disorders of another. He did not think the present Government
682
could be reproached with having had recourse to unconstitutional powers. Last autumn, although they might have been justified in calling for extraordinary powers they had not done so; they relied on the efficacy of the ordinary law, and were content to be responsible with it. But they must have instruments for enforcing the ordinary law. They asked for no departure from the ordinary law. Here was the cheapest force to be employed: they only asked for a regulation of the power they possessed. When they proposed this bill to Parliament, so far from being viewed by the House of Commons as a coercive measure, they thought they would have received credit for it. Instead of sending down 1,000 stand of arms to one place, and 500 to another, placing them in the hands of disorganized and undisciplined troops, they thought it would be much better to place them in the hands of those who were accustomed to military life and habits, under the control of officers who would be responsible for their good conduct. At the present moment the pensioners might be called out by the magistrates and armed by the Crown. The Crown would still be responsible for the exercise of the power intrusted to it under this bill; and that power would only be exerted in case of absolute necessity. The bill proposed nothing more than the regulation of a power the Crown now possessed, and rendered Ministers responsible for its exercise. With respect to the expence, it did not follow that 500 would be called out in aid of the civil power; but until Parliament provided additional means, those which the Government had were so limited as to consitute a sufficient control over the extent to which the force would be called out. He ventured to say, when Parliament saw the amount of expense incurred, hon. Members would be surprised at the apprehensions entertained, and he would be very much disappointed if they did not admit that this would be a much cheaper and better force than volunteers or yeomanry.
Mr. Humehad no doubt this was a better force than the yeomanry; indeed, he would much rather see an increase of the regular force than have recourse to the yeomanry; but why should they not limit the amount of this new force? When grievances were admitted to exist, and when no attempt was made to remedy them, a call for additional forces would

683
be looked upon with great jealousy by the country. The great evil was the want of employment, and after rejecting every remedial measure the Government called for further arms.
Mr. Williamsmoved in line 10, after the words "Her Majesty," to leave out the words "from time to time," in order to insert those words—"during twelve calendar months from the passing of this bill."
Mr. Humehoped, if that amendment were not acceded to, a clause would be introduced, as in the Irish Arms Bill, limiting its duration to a certain number of years.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, the House of Commons would have the same check in this case as had existed for forty years with regard to the yeomanry. Every year a vote in supply would give the House of Commons a control over the whole expenditure of the force. Last autumn he had received repeated and most urgent representations from the magistracy to send down arms to be given to volunteers; but, on constitutional principles he had felt the strongest aversion to such a measure unless the parties had been subject to military discipline and control. He had rejected the urgent applications he had received to arm those men, and considered it much safer to leave their forces comparatively inefficient when not armed, rather than arm men who were not subject to military control. Last year at Wigan, at Bury, at Preston, and Blackburn, there were bodies of soldiers stationed, but gentlemen came up from Chorley, distant, not more than nine miles from those places, and pressed the Government in the most urgent manner that soldiers should be stationed at Chorley. Persons intimately connected with the hon. Member for Stockport were understood to be parties to that application. The Home Office was beseiged by day with deputations from all the manufacturing districts, requesting that soldiers might be sent into every quarter, and if there had been 10,000 men at his disposal they would not have been more than sufficient to meet the applications that were made. He was quite satisfied, that the prudent and moderate use of this measure, if it should pass into a law, would supersede the necessity of all that uneasiness, and would provide in various localities, a moderate sufficient military force, at the smallest cost to the public, and in a manner
684
most consistent with constitutional principles—men accustomed to military discipline, placed under the strictest military control, never removed any great distance from their local residence, and embodied only so long as the circumstances which called them together might appear to warrant.
Mr. Haweswas strongly in favour of limiting the bill to two years, and to the end of the then next Session of Parliament.
Mr. Cobdendid not think, that any Member of that House ought to be restrained from opposing a measure of that nature, merely because he was connected with an establishment which might be exposed to injury from physical force. He thought, that he ought not to be twitted with anything that might have happened at Chorley in his absence. Application might have been made to the magistrates by persons connected with his establishment; but such a circumstance was not to preclude him from exercising his independent rights as a Member of that House.
Mr. Brightsaid, that the Government claimed the right in the Queen's name to call for the military services of the whole population. Now, he denied any such right. There was no right to impress men for the navy, and none for the army. They were now arriving near to the 16th of August, the anniversary of one of the greatest outrages that ever was committed in the manufacturing districts. Ministers were now contending for a maintenance of the same sort of measure. The real question, after all, was not different in the present day from what it was twenty years ago.
Mr. Williamswould withdraw his amendment if Ministers would agree to the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose.
Colonel Sibthorprecommended her Majesty's Government to make no further concession; they had conceeded too much already.
Finally the amendment was modified to insert the words "not exceeding two years from the passing of this act." And the committee divided on the question, that those words be inserted:—Ayes 27; Noes 78 Majority 51.

List of the AYES.

Bannerman, A.

Bright, J.

Bowring, Dr.

Brotherton, J.

685

Clements, Visct.

Pechell, Capt.

Cobden, R.

Plumridge, Capt.

Collett, J.

Protheroe, E.

Duncan, G.

Roche, E. B.

Duncombe, T.

Ross, D. R.

Ewart, W.

Scholefield, J.

Forster, M.

Wakley, T.

Hawes, B.

Wawn, J. T.

Hindley, C.

Wood, G. W.

Hutt, W.

Wyse, T.

Morris, D.

TELLERS.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Williams, W.

O'Brien, W. S.

Hume, J.

List of the NOES.

A'Court, Capt.

Henley, J. W.

Acton, Col.

Hope, hn. C.

Allix, J. P.

Hope, G. W.

Antrobus, E.

Hornby, J.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Jones, Capt.

Baring, hn. W. B.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Blackburne, J. I.

Knight, F. W.

Bodkin, W. H.

Lincoln, Earl of

Boldero, H. G.

Lowther, J. H.

Borthwick, P.

Masterman, J.

Bramston, T. W.

Maxwell, hn. J. P.

Broadley, H.

Newdegate, C. N.

Broadwood, H.

Nicholl, rt. hn. J.

Bruce, Lord E.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Peel, J.

Bunbury, T.

Polhill, F.

Burreil, Sir C. M.

Pollington, Visct.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Pringle, A.

Clerk, Sir G.

Rashleigh, W.

Clive, Visct.

Rose, rt. hn. Sir G.

Corry, rt. hn. H.

Round, J.

Cripps, W.

Ryder, hn. G. D.

Darby, G.

Sanderson, R.

Denison, E. B.

Sandon, Visct.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Scott, hn. F.

Duncombe, hn. A.

Sibthorp, Col.

Escott, B.

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

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Somerset, Lord G.

Flower, Sir J.

Stanley, E.

Forman, T. S.

Sutton, hn. H. M.

Fuller, A. E.

Tennent, J. E.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Trench, Sir F. W.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Trotter, J.

Gordon, hn. Capt.

Wood, Col.

Gore, M.

Wood, Col. T.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Wortley, hn. J. S.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Young, J.

Hale, R. B.

Hamilton, G. A.

TELLERS.

Harcourt, G. G.

Fremantle, T.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Baring, H.

Mr. Humemoved, that the Chairman do leave the Chair. He was determined to offer every opposition to the bill.
Mr. Hutthoped his hon. Friend would not persist in offering that kind of opposition to the bill. Whatever might be their opinion of the measure, the Government had called for it as necessary
686
in the event of their requiring additional means of preserving the peace, and he did not think any opposition of a merely obtructive nature, ought to be offered to it.
Mr. Hindleycould not understand how his hon. Friend (Mr. Hutt) could propose to give the present Government the control of what almost amounted to an additional standing army. He would not consent to give such powers to the present Government. From that Government he had no hope—there was, in his opinion, no hope for England, as long as that, Government remained in power. Yet there was every prospect of their having the means of prosperity at home. The harvest promised to be a good one; all was good as far as Providence was concerned; but every thing appeared had that depended on the Government. They on that side were determined that the Government should not govern the country by force. Let them govern by reason. They should not dragoon the country,—at least, he, for one, would offer a determined resistance to all attempts to give them the power of doing so. He would give them the power of doing all that was right to preserve the peace, but no more But the truth was that the people, whatever might be their distress, had no desire to break the peace. There was his own district (Ashton), where there were 10,000 men out of employ; yet there was no necessity for any force to keep the peace. The right hon. Home Secretary himself knew that there were not more than five or six policemen there to keep the peace. He would give Government a guarantee that Ashton would keep the peace, and he believed that the peace would be preserved throughout the country if the Government and the Legislature were prepared to do the people justice. But he would not consent to give the Government this force for the purpose of enabling them to commit injustice.
Sir C. Burrellobserved that this measure was justifiable on the ground that prevention was better that punishment. When confusion and anarchy prevailed it was then late and difficult to take measures against them. A little timely precaution in the provision of such a measure as this might prevent bloodshed.
Mr. E. B. Rochethought they were borne out in offering to this bill a strenuous opposition; let them call it a factious opposition if they would; but they were

687
justified in such a course, because they were opposed by a large and increasing majority. No man agreed more than he in that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech in which he dilated with great eloquence on the benefits derived from peace and order in this country. He would not regard it as a party question. If, indeed, it had been proposed by the Whigs, his opposition would have been as violent or energetic as it was; and, looking at the manner in which the present Government had used the powers now in their hands, and the indications of the leaders of the Whig party, he would rather give great powers to the former than to the Whigs. But at the same time his principle was this, that he would not give unlimited power of raising in any shape an armed force by a Government who had refused to listen to the just demands of the people, and he would address himself particularly to his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, whether, at the end of a fruitless Session, he would give to the Government such unlimited powers?
Sir J. Graham: He thought that the period of two years was too limited for the operation of the act, and he had originally suggested that the period should be five. Any arrangement that might lead to a general agreement for some prolongation of that period, coupled with an assurance of something like unanimous support, would be worth considering, otherwise he could not consent to an alteration the effect of which he believed would not be conducive to the public peace.
Mr. T. Duncombeobserved, as the bill was supported on account of the disturbances in Wales and Staffordshire, he was induced to ask if it were contemplated that those disturbances should last more than two years? If the Government agreed to two years, there would be an end to any other than a reasonable opposition to the bill; but certainly on one point a stand would be made—the number of men to be enrolled—which ought not to exceed 10,000.
Sir J. Graham: If the hon. Gentleman would give notice of the amendments they intended to propose in the usual form, they should receive the consideration of the Government; and the bill might be proceeded with to-morrow without loss of time.
Mr. Williamswould move for the in-
688
sertion of words limiting the number of men to 10,000, and in the second clause he would move that the whole of the force be officered from the half-pay list; and that the duration of the bill be limited to two years.
Captain Bernalsuggested, that when any part of the force was called out, the county in which it happened ought to be held responsible for the cost.
Mr. T. Duncombewould move, that the warrant calling out any part of the force should first be published in the London Gazette. The right hon. Baronet said that full information respecting the force was to be laid before Parliament; yet he found no clause to that effect in the bill. He would move one, and move the entire omission of the 4th clause, and the insertion of words to render the force entirely a local one.
House resumed. Committee to sit again.
House adjourned at a quarter past one o'clock.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1°. Public Notaries; Turn-
588
pike Acts Continuance; Municipal Corporations (Ireland); Militia Pay.
2a. Teachers of Schools (Ireland); Holyrood Park; Designs Copyright; Customs; Mandamus Appeals; Warrants of Attorney; Sudbury Commission; Grand Jury Presentments (Ireland); West India Islands Relief; Applotment of Rates (Dublin).
Committed.—Ecelesiastical Jurisdictions.
Reported.—Theatres Regulation; Hackney and Stage Carriages; Highway Rates Act Continuance.
3a. and passed:—Admiralty Lands.
Private.—1a. John F. Sang's Naturalization.
Reported.—Gibson's Estate; Anderston's Improvement and Police; Glasgow Maxine Insurance Company; Lagan Navigation.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Brougham, from Mr. Arnold, by Lord Campbell, from Mr. H. Siddons, and by the Earl of Glengall, from the Proprietor of the Liverpool Theatre, against the Theatres Regulation Bill.—From Tipperary Union, for Amending that portion of the Irish Poor Law relating to Electoral Divisions.—From Bantry, for the Encouragement of the Irish Fisheries.—From Cork, against the Repeal of the Union.—From Southampton, in favour of the County Courts Bill.

THEATRES REGULATION BILL.
Lord Wharncliffemoved, "That the Report on the Theatres Regulation Bill, with its amendments, be received."
Lord Brougham, on the part of Mr. Arnold, requested to know whether it was the intention to allow the minor theatres in London to play the regular drama when they pleased, and whether, if so, the English Opera-house would be considered as coming within the catagory of minor theatres.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that when a theatre had obtained a licence from the Lord Chamberlain, he apprehended it might play what dramas it pleased.
The Earl of Glengallsaid, that if the other theatres in and around London were to have the privileges hitherto confined to the patent theatres, the patent theatres ought to be at liberty to represent Italian operas, and other entertainments, which hitherto had been prohibited to them by the Lord Chamberlain.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, that his reason for acceding to the Bill, was, that he looked upon it as intended only as a measure of police, the object of which was to give the Lord Chamberlain the power of preventing performances calculated to offend public decency and morals. Beyond this, he conceived it was not intended that the Lord Chamberlain's power in the matter should extend. He did not apprehend that the Bill gave the Lord Chamberlain any authority, after he shall have licensed a theatre, to dictate to the manager what entertainments he shall provide for the public. The province of the Lord Cham-

589
berlain would simply be, as he conceived the matter, to take care that no conduct, no entertainments, offensive to public decency and morals, should be permitted. As to the entertainments, in every other respect, he considered they would be left entirely to the manager's discretion, it being no part of the Lord Chamberlain's duty to say, whether they should be drama, regular or irregular, or singing or dancing; whether the performers should be from the west or from the east, whether the language should be English, Irish, Iroquois, or Italian. Indeed, the Lord Chamberlain's office was an utterly unfit place for any such interferences to emanate from; and, certainly, no man of respectability and station, and adequate means, would come forward to take the management of a theatre, if in his arrangements as to the performances, he was liable to be thwarted, not by the Government, indeed, not by the Lord Chamberlain, but by some underling at the Lord Chamberlain's office.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that whatever power the Lord Chamberlain now had, he would continue to possess; the extent of his jurisdiction being increased to all theatres within twenty miles of the metropolis.
Lord Campbellsaid, that unless he had put the same construction upon the Bill as the noble Marquess had just stated to the House, he should not have supported it. He regarded it as giving the Lord. Chamberlain power to give licences, and to take care that public decency and morals were not insulted; in other respects, he conceived the manager who had obtained a licence would not be interfered with.
Report brought up, Bill to be read a third time.

FINANCIAL STATE OF THE COUNTRY.
Lord Monteaglerose to bring under the consideration of their Lordships, the resolutions of which he had given notice, and which had been printed. He would make no apology for undertaking the duty he was now about to discharge, of endeavouring to show the necessity and expediency of a general revision of our finance; although he would have been much more gratified had this task been undertaken by an individual better qualified than he was to discharge it efficiently. At the same time, connected as he had been with the
590
finances of the country, he might naturally be expected to take a great interest in the question, and he hoped that some indulgence would be extended to him, if he endeavoured to bring the subject fairly before their Lordships. Besides ordinary motives which ought to induce, and he had no doubt would induce their Lordships to consider the finances of the country, there were at the present time peculiar circumstances which he thought rendered it especially fitting and expedient that some attention should be devoted to this subject. It was in the recollection of their Lordships, that last year the Parliament was induced for the first time, he believed, in the history of the country, to pass a property-tax in time of peace. It was far from his intention at the present moment to revive the discussion which took place upon that occasion. He was willing to assume it to be right and fitting that such a measure should be adopted. But, having passed that bill, having taken a step not only without precedent, but on the admission of the noble Lords and their colleagues by whom the measure was introduced, a step open to considerable objection and requiring special justification, he thought it was only right and becoming that, at the expiration of a year from the passing of such a measure their Lordships should pause to review the effects which it had produced. He had after some reflection not only hesitated in bringing this question forward, but he had postponed it to a late period of the Session, though he was aware that, by so doing, so far as the effective discussion of the matter was concerned, he had prejudiced his own cause. But he had adopted this course because he thought it advisable that the whole of the financial arrangements of the other House should be completed before their Lordships undertook to discuss the subject. He was far from saving that cases might not arise, as had been the case on the first proposition of the property-tax—which would warrant their Lordships in undertaking a preliminary discussion on financial subjects; but he considered that, generally speaking, it behoved their Lordships to consider the financial affairs of the country when they were in a state of completeness, rather than while the committees of supply were still open, and while there was a doubt as to the ultimate decision of the House of Commons. Before he went more immediately into the question, he wished to relieve their Lordships from any apprehension that he

591
was about to digress beyond the limits of the resolutions of which he had given notice. His intention merely was to refer to the present condition of the public finances, and ask their Lordships, and through them to ask the country, to consider the financial position in which we were now placed. Their Lordships would remember that the change of Government which took place in 1841, was effected mainly upon financial grounds. He did not mean to say that noble Lords opposite might not have objected—and did not object—to the general policy of the late Government; but he meant to assert that the specific motion by which they were successful in effecting a change of Government was a motion specifically relating to the state of the finances of the country. In referring to that motion and to the principles which were laid down at the time of its proposition, he did so—not for the purpose of exciting a party discussion—but for the purpose of bringing before the House the relative condition of the public finances in 1841, and at the present time. The motion brought forward on the 24th of August, 1841, specifically stated apprehensions were that the want of confidence in the Government rested on the circumstance that the public expenditure had, of late, in each of several succeeding years, been allowed to exceed the annual income. On that occasion it was directly and repeatedly asserted by the proposer and supporter of the amendment to the address, that apprehensions were felt by them that the Ministers of the Crown were pursuing a dangerous and ruinous course as to the finances of the country, and that in consequence of their mismanagement in this respect both Houses were called upon to declare that her Majesty's Government did not possess the confidence of Parliament. It was stated that some most decided, vigorous, efficient, and certain scheme ought to be proposed for the purpose of extricating the finances of the country from the immense difficulties in which they were involved. That for the last four years the revenue had been annually diminishing; and in the course of that time the expenditure had exceeded the income by not less than five millions. It was stated, further, that the financial difficulties had been met on the part of the Government principally by tampering with the savings banks, by borrowing money from them, or at least what was equivalent, by converting part of their stock in Exchequer bills, in addition to the permanent funded debt of the
592
country. Such a proceeding was said to be, if not contrary to law, at least highly objectionable, and that resorting to this system year after year, of propping up a fallen revenue without the knowledge of Parliament, was an unconstitutional proceeding, and one which no Government ought to have recourse to. It was further stated, as a charge against the Government, that the balances in the Exchequer had been greatly reduced, with a view of meeting their financial difficulties. This was described to be a very improvident mode of dealing with the difficulty against which they had to contend, and if it were resorted to upon every such emergency as had then recently occurred, the result would soon be that there would be no floating balance at all. It was also stated that during the course of the last few years additions had been made to the annual charge of the public funded debt of the country, for which no provision whatever had been made by Parliament. It was further stated, that the Government had acted injudiciously by the too hasty adoption of the Post-office scheme. All these things together, it was added, showed a mismanagement and want of arrangement on the part of the Government which was quite unpardonable, and that the finances of the country ought not to be entrusted in such unskilful hands. He referred to these statements in order that their Lordships might compare the charges then urged against the then existing Government, and the relation of facts contained in the resolutions he was now about to submit to the House. He would take upon himself now, as he did then, the duty of condemning the means adopted to produce an impression of danger in the public mind as to the finances of the country, by adding up year by year, the amount of the deficiencies, although on some occasions the annual amount of the deficiency in the revenue had been provided for during the ensuing year; but there was then, as there had been since, a want of correctness in dealing with the question, as several of the deficiencies of previous years, whether provided for or not, had been added together, and the whole amount of apparent deficiency was given in the last year. It thus appeared that the amount of deficiency which it was necessary to provide for was larger than it really was. Their Lordships might as well have been told that the accumulated deficiencies produced year by year by extravagance, or even by proper expenditure, during the war, formed one

593
great deficiency, which they were bound to provide for in any one year. If, however, this mode of stating the question as to the increase of deficiency, in four successive years, was to be taken as it had been by the noble Earl who proposed the motion in 1841, the rule was equally applicable to the present Government. If the argument was good in 1841, it must be equally good now. He found, then, the deficiency for the financial year ending April 1842, was 2,354,000 l., and in April 1843, it amounted to 2,421,000 l.; which deficiency, according to the rule laid down and the mode of argument adopted by the noble Earl showed an amount of 4,775,000 l. Now, if to this amount were added the probable deficiency of the present year, there would appear a sum as a deficiency of a most alarming kind. He did not state this to show that the House and the country had to deal with a deficiency of this amount; but he thought that mode of stating the question was a fallacy then, as he thought it now. The next statement to which he would allude in the speech of the noble Earl, in 1841, was his condemnation of the practice of funding Exchequer bills belonging to the savings banks. Now, this practice had taken place as well since as before the accession of the present Government to power. It so happened that this power was vested in the Government and trustees of the savings' banks by statute. By an act of Parliament which passed in 1828, and which was framed by as ingenious and as able a man as could be on financial subjects, he meant Mr. Herries, the commissioners of the savings' banks were enabled to deliver up to the Government any Exchequer bills they might possess in exchange for stock. They had, therefore, the full power of doing that which had been made a ground of censure in 1841, and he now contended, as he did at that time, that the question of law or the legality of the transaction could not be disputed. In addition to this, by a bill which had recently passed, the present Government had taken an increased power of the same kind, enabling them to convert Exchequer bills for public works into funded debt. This power, however, was perfectly safe both in the hands of the present and of the late Government. The power was to enable an amount of the unfunded debt to be changed into funded, and provision was made for this under the act he had alluded to, in the same way that similar powers were conferred under other
594
acts of Parliament of the like nature. The next point which was formerly alluded to and censured and to which he should now advert, was the practice of diminishing the balances in the Exchequer, and which, it was alleged was done with the purpose of evading the financial difficulties. It was then stated that this diminution of the balances in the Exchequer was a most improvident mode of proceeding. The reduction of these balances had however still gone on, and the balances had diminished to a degree never known before. In April, 1843, the amount of the balances in the Exchequer was 1,390,000 l., while, in 1836, the amount of those balances was 6,069,000 l. The present balance in the Exchequer was less than one-fourth what it was in 1836, and two fifths less than it was in 1841. He did not attribute any blame to the Government for this, but the very circumstance which gave rise to that deficiency now, also occasioned it when the political opponents of the present Government were in office. There had also been a large increase in the deficiency bills, which in July 1843, amounted 8,560,000 l., this being the largest amount of deficiency that had occurred under this head during the last twelve or fourteen years. It was also urged against the late Government that it had added greatly to the permanent debt of the country. He did not deny this, but it had been a necessary increase, involving blame to no person. If blame were to attach to the Government for that which arose from necessity, the least that could be done was to go into the consideration of the causes which led to the increase of the funded debt. He recollected that during the time he was in office a charge was brought against the Government of having increased the funded debt to a large amount, and this increase, it appeared, arose from the charge of twenty millions for slave compensation, when slavery was abolished in our colonies. This charge was made altogether with the view of making an attack on the Government most unfairly, by those who wished to show that, while the public charges had augmented, the resources of the country were diminishing. This uncandid and unfair proceeding, had been adopted by those who wished well neither to one course nor the other. It had also been objected to the late Government, that it has needlessly sacrificed the revenue by the two hasty adoption of the Post-office reform. He had nothing to reproach himself with on this point, nor had he done any-

595
thing, when he brought forward the plan of the change in the Post-office, to deceive the public or either House of Parliament. He had always contended that in adopting that plan they must calculate on a large deficiency in the revenue; and he always refused to consent to it, and, above all, to bring it forward, unless accompanied by a pledge that Parliament would make good to the revenue any deficiency that might arise from the change. Though it had been suggested, that such a pledge was inoperative and of no avail, he had had the satisfaction of hearing that very pledge referred to by the Government which succeeded that of which he was a Member, and made the foundation of a claim upon the House and upon the public to support the measures for increased taxation. It was gratifying to him to find that he had augured rightly of the House of Commons, as well as of that House of Parliament, in declaring he was sure there would be no hesitation on the part of Parliament, having given the pledge fully to redeem it. He had stated the objections, as shortly as he could, that had been urged with respect to the state of our finances in 1841; and he felt that the objections which were applicable to the Government of that day, on financial grounds, were as applicable to the Government—if they were urged, though he had no wish to urge them, of the present day. An Address was moved to her Majesty, and was carried in both Houses of Parliament, involving the objections which he had stated to the financial proceedings of the then Administration, and a change in the Government was the consequence. It should be recollected, that in the Parliament just then called together, the party of noble Lords opposite had obtained the great support of the constituencies of the country, and they had obtained the largest majority in the other House, that any Government had secured since the passing of the first Reform Bill. The new Government appealed to the House of Commons, and made a request which, under the circumstances of the case, could not be regarded as unreasonable—namely, that they should have time to consider the measures which they might deem expedient to bring forward. The new Government being placed to power by the vote of a large majority of both Houses, asked for time to prepare their measures; and Parliament, in addition to acceding to this request, gave them as great a proof of its confidence as had ever been given to any
596
previous Government. He indeed believed, that there was no similar instance of such a case in the history of England, and certainly not an instance of such power as he had alluded to being given at the instance of a political opponent—he meant the power of raising money by selling stock in the open market whenever they thought it requisite for the public service. Some proposition of this kind might appear necessary at that time; but it was an ingenious suggestion on the part of a right hon. Friend of his, who was a political opponent of the Government. He thought, that he was not going at all too far in saying that this was an instance of as great confidence as he ever recollected to be placed in a Government. After time had been given to the Government to mature its plans, a day was fixed for submitting and explaining to the other House the financial scheme of the Government, and never on any occasion of this kind was greater anxiety shown to know what that plan was. Anticipations were most anxiously expressed to ascertain what course the Government would pursue, and measures of the largest importance were naturally looked for. He was not at all surprised that the public anxiety was so great on the 11th of March, when it was known that the propositions of the Government were to be laid before the House of Commons. He did not wish to refer more than was necessary to what occurred in the other House; he therefore would observe, that his noble Friend (the Earl of Ripon), whose absence he much regretted, made, on the 19th of July last year, nearly a similar statement to that made in the other House in March. He would now proceed to allude to the financial statement then made, and he would not detain the House by going into any details of the income and expenditure for a series of years; but would merely refer to the balances. They were told, that the Government by its financial arrangements calculated that there would be a surplus revenue of 520,000 l. on the 5th of April, 1843. Now they had passed that time, and instead of finding a surplus, as Ministers anticipated in both Houses, there appeared to be unfortunately for the country, a deficiency of 2,421,000 l., which showed a deficiency between the anticipations or calculations of the Government, between July 1842 and April 1843, of not less than 2,940,000 l. This was a singular discrepancy between the estimate and the receipts. But in looking to the result, the

597
Government were enabled to take into their account more than half a million which they received from China. They never could have expected or calculated on such an increase in the revenue of the year when they made their estimate, but it was a perfect God-send to them. In addition to this, they received not less than 1,300,000 l. for duties on corn, which amount also could not have been anticipated by her Majesty's Government. Indeed, both that and the other House had repeatedly been told by her Majesty's Ministers, that they disclaimed taking corn into calculation as a matter of revenue or taxation. But if a calculation were taken on the average amount received in the shape of corn duties, it would appear that there was an excess of revenue last year from this source of upwards of 800,000 l. Taking these amounts and the balance sheet, as prepared to the 5th of April, it appeared that there was a difference between the receipts and the estimates of not less than 2,900,000 l. This showed a discrepancy of revenue as compared with the anticipations of the noble Earl in that House, and the right hon. Gentleman in the other House, most frightful to contemplate. It was quite right to say on behalf of the Government, that they had taken an estimate of the property-tax on the produce of the whole year. Of that they had only received a part, and they were entitled to take credit for the sum which constituted the balance due, and deduct it from the deficiency to which he had alluded. The difference was 1,290,000 l. between the actual and the estimated amount of the property-tax; but there was a deficiency of 2,900,000 l. in the course of the year, which would give 1,610,000 l. as the deficiency of the year. He had delayed bringing forward this motion until they had before them the balance sheet of the July quarter, and he trusted, that the noble Duke and their Lordships would see that there were reasons connected with the public service which had rendered it expedient that he should do so. If they had discussed the question in January, it would have been to the great advantage of the Government; and if he had selected April to bring forward the subject, the country would not have seen the question in its proper light; he had selected the present period, in order that the Government might obtain the advantages derivable from the improved quarter which had just terminated. It was true, that upon looking at the balance-sheet of
598
July, an improvement was observable, for the deficiency was apparently reduced to 651,000 l. But that calculation included the sum of 1,100,000 l. of money received on account of China, and the sum of 1,300,000 l. of corn duties; so that, although the amount of the balance against the country was greatly diminished, it was by no means extinguished, and an excess of expenditure was shown over the receipts. But it might be said, that there had not been such an improvement as had been anticipated. He, however, was far from bringing this matter of deficiency forward as a subject of accusation against the Government, but at the same time he must say, that so large a deficiency as appeared—a deficiency measured by millions upon millions—had never yet come under his observation. It was of more importance to consider from what the deficiency had proceeded than its amount, and whether they could trace it to any definite cause, for until they were able to do that, they could not estimate their future prospects, nor learn where the remedies should be applied. He found that deficiency was not in any one particular branch, but that it ran through the whole of the various items of receipts of the year now just past. In the Customs, the anticipated receipts were 21,500,000 l. The result, although 1,300,000 l. had been received from corn duties, showed a deficiency of 746,000 l. In the Excise there was a deficiency of 1,200,000 l., though the addition—the unfortunate addition he would call it—had been made of 250,000 l., by the increase of duty on spirits in Ireland. The sum of 283,000 l. was deficient in the stamps, though 160,000 l. was expected to be derived from the new stamp laws in Ireland. There had been a falling-off, too, in the assessed taxes. The causes of these results were pretty obvious. When the Government had introduced the bill for the addition to the duties on Irish spirits, a friend of his had asked him whether he intended to have a song of triumph on that occasion. He said that he thought of no such thing, because that was unwise which gave undue elevation to one's friends, and gave great advantages to one's opponents. He had that objection, besides, to do so which was suggested to Henry 4th by the burgomasters of a town, who, when asked why they had not fired a salute, had answered, "Sire, nous n'avons pas de canons." He thought, however, that the Government had made an error in not reducing the duty to its original low

599
rate. They had had the experience of twenty years, and all he asked them to do was, to see what was the amount of duties which had produced the greatest return to the revenue. They had not done so. He hoped that they would succeed in the course which they had now taken; but he thought, that after the experience which they had had, they would have done well to have taken the smaller amount of duty in preference to the larger. Then with regard to the stamps last year, had the produce augmented? The measure on this head had been a failure in its results; it had been most injudiciously conceived. The law was this; that when in a conveyance another conveyance was recited, a double duty was imposed—a duty not only upon the new deed, but on that also which was recited. He thought that the application of this law to Ireland was most injudicious. He did not wish to use harsh words, but there were persons abroad who talked of fixity of tenure, and he thought it was most injudicious to hold out any inducement to effect merely verbal agreements instead of leases, considering the difficulties which might arise in respect of the rights of the tenants under them; and therefore he thought that the Government would do well to take into consideration the necessity for reducing the duty. He was not disposed to be a party to any charges against the Government for the commission of mistakes. He could not help remarking upon this, because there never had been any error of the late Government, however unimportant, even the mistake of the clerk at the Table in passing a bill, which was not held up to public view as a proof of their utter incompetency. He felt that such a course was most unjust, and so considering it, he deemed that he was doubly bound not to imitate that course in respect of the present Government. He had shown the failure of the calculations in respect of the return to be expected from Irish spirit duties. From Irish stamps a gain of 160,000 l. had been expected; the actual increase was only 46,000 l. He would come next to the coal duties; but he would not discuss this question further than to say, that the increase of duty on coals exported, was defended on the ground, that it might be politic, at least, to avoid facilitating the measures of our manufacturing rivals, by providing them with this means of entering into effectual competition with this country; and he referred to this point, because he should have occasion to refer to
600
the principle so enunciated when he came hereafter to discuss another part of this subject. The coal tax had proved a failure, at least it had not produced the amount which the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had anticipated. But he feared that it would prove to be altogether a failure, because, if the House remembered that the competition which was to be apprehended was of a nature which could not be at once produced—that time must be allowed to afford the opportunity for the application of capital abroad, they must admit that they had not yet arrived at the final results of the measure: for that sufficient time had not been given for the opening up of those resources of our continental neighbours which time and capital would bring into operation. He regretted this for many reasons. There were no more important political results than might arise from making foreign countries dependent on England for coals. He did not want to interfere with the independence of other countries, but he could not help observing that the mutual dependence of nations, by reason of their mutual wants and their mutual means of supplying the wants of each other, formed the real foundation and the best security for the peace of the world. The next subject of revenue to which he should refer was timber. The Government had taken a large step in reference to timber, but was it a wise one? They had made as their witness, by adopting his opinion in reference to this subject, one of the wisest, most rational, and most sensible, and, he must add, most experienced official men that he had ever known—Mr. Deacon Hume. He had told how greatly to the advantage of the consumer, they might add to the revenue an amount of some millions. But not only had the Government not done this, but they had sacrificed 600,000 l. per annum. That was the calculation which had been made by the Government, but the result was, in fact, even less satisfactory, because the loss was not 600,000 l. only, but 680,000 l, But under what circumstances had they sacrificed the whole of the colonial duties on timber? Had they taken that step solely with a view to the interests of Canada; and had they obtained their object? Those who represented the Canadian interests had deprecated this reduction. The necessity of the case would have been shown if the colonial timber trade had been found to be diminishing year by year. But from 1838 to 1841,

601
the colonial timber duties of England had risen from 346,000 l. to 465,000 l. per annum. Therefore there was an increasing duty and a thriving trade, and yet they had selected that trade above all others to be the object of experiment, and of a reduction of duties. But if they were right in taking this step, they had done it after a most improvident manner. They had done it by stages; there were two steps to be taken in two years; but every one who was acquainted with the nature of trade must know that when there was an anticipation of the reduction of duty, after the expiration of an interval, the whole trade was paralysed—men lived from hand to mouth, and the whole system of trade became suspended and deranged. That was the objection which he entertained with respect to the timber duties. But he wished to call the attention of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Wellington) to a point which was incidental to that of the timber trade, and to which it was most desirable that the Government should give their most serious and mature consideration. Their Lordships were aware that, at the present moment, and when the reduction of the timber duties would be ultimately carried into full effect, the duty on colonial timber would be only 1s., while that on foreign timber would be greatly higher. What was proposed to be done by a bill on the Table of the House, in respect of that portion of the territory of the state of Maine lately in the possession of Great Britain, or at least lately claimed by this country? First of all by treaty, and then by act of Parliament, they agreed to make a reduction in the duties on all the produce coming from that territory, reducing the duty to that receivable on colonial produce. That was one of the objects of the Ashburton treaty in the first instance, and of the Customs' Bill now before the House in the second; therefore, when that bill was passed into a law, all timber, the produce of Maine, would come into this country upon paying the duty imposed on colonial timber. They had entered into reciprocal treaties with various countries—with Sweden, for instance; and in those treaties they had agreed to give to those countries the privileges of the most favoured nation. He wanted to know whether, if the Swedish minister in this country came with this treaty in one hand, and the act of Parliament in the other, and said, "You have covenanted to give me the privileges of the most favoured nation
602
—you have given to the United States of America, or at least to a part of it, the right to introduce their timber at a merely nominal duty, I demand from you the rigid fulfilment of this treaty, let in the timber of Norway and of Sweden," or if Sweden have a surplus amount of corn, "Let in our corn at the colonial scale of duty," could such au appeal be rejected? He was persuaded that the matter was well worthy the attention of her Majesty's Government, for in such a case as he had suggested, they could not, consistently with good faith, reject the demand made upon them. It might be said, that this was a privilege given to only a part of the United States; but suppose we gave to the wine of the Garonne the privileges conceded to the wine of Portugal by the Methuen treaty, would not that be a violation of the treaty? It might be said likewise that this territory was formerly British territory, and that when it passed into the hands of America, it carried with it the interests of British territory. If that was true, Normandy and Aquitaine carried with them all the advantages of British territory; the United States themselves would possess the same privileges. He dwelt on this, because there was no doubt that it was matter of no small importance, and before they proceeded with the bill, he might venture to ask the noble Duke that there should be laid on the Table of the House the papers with respect to the reduction of these duties, and of those on Carolina and African rice, which would throw great light upon the subject. If, however, any difficulties should stand in the way of their production, he would not press the point; but he now wished to call the attention of the noble Duke to the point in dispute. In the cases to which he had already alluded, the anticipations of the Government had not been realized. He would now refer to one in respect of which their expectations had been more than fulfilled, he alluded to the article of coffee. Her Majesty's Government had reduced the duty on coffee, and in doing so they had acted wisely. They had approached the case with a bolder spirit than any of the other questions; and what had been the result? Where they had made the nearest approach to what was ordinarily called the free-trade principle, they had sustained a loss of only 48,000 l. instead of 170,000 l., which they had anticipated. The peculiar circumstances of the times had tended to render this case even less strong than it otherwise would

603
have been. The people were in distress, and were labouring under the severest pressure; they had high prices to pay for bread, they were unable to command even the necessaries of life; but if there had been abundance of wages, abundance of employment, and a good demand for our manufactures, depend upon it there would have been a gain by the reduction of the duty on coffee, instead of a loss to the revenue. But that which was more material for present consideration was the prospect afforded by the year into which we had just entered, and there were circumstances connected with the financial arrangements of the country which were so peculiar and so extraordinary, and which struck so deeply into the principles upon which the finances of the country ought to be administered, that he must call their Lordships' attention to them. The total income estimated for, during the present year, was 50,150,000 l.; that was, including the full amount of property-tax, which was taken at 5,100,000 l. The Government had made a considerable reduction in the public expenditure, and he was disposed to give them full credit for their exertions in this respect; that reduction was very nearly 1,000,000 l. The total expenditure as it was estimated, was 49,387,645 l., leaving a surplus, therefore, of 763,000 l. He was sorry to say, that this supposed surplus would prove as delusive as he had shown to their Lordships that of the previous year had been; and he asked their Lordships to see whether they had any chance of this anticipated surplus of 763,000 l. He was told that this surplus was to be applied in reduction of that deficiency which was left last year unprovided for. That of itself was not very satisfactory. There was an admitted deficiency of 2,400,000 l., and all that was to be applied to its reduction was this sum of 763,000 l. But was it certain that they should get even that sum? It was, he thought, more than doubtful. To make up that amount of surplus revenue, there had been taken into account the whole of the money which there was any chance of receiving from China. The Government had already received 1,300,000 l. up to July, all of which they had applied to the public service; and in the estimates which had been laid upon the Table, they had calculated the miscellaneous receipts at 1,120,000 l., including the Chinese money. But what was to be done with the claimants on that money? One would imagine that when
604
money was received on one hand, and there were persons entitled to receive it on the other, the natural course would be to hand it over to them at once. But the Government did no such thing; but they took the whole of the money—applied it to their own use—called it income—and then entered into new debts, in respect of the claims which were brought forward. He would illustrate his meaning. Let them suppose that a man sold a portion of his estate which was subject to a mortgage, and that he received 10,000 l. or 20,000 l. for it; but that instead of paying off the mortgage with that amount, he paid it into his banker's hands, and spent it as income and gave a bond to the person who was entitled to receive the mortgage money; it was obvious that that would be a very improvident proceeding. But that was exactly what was done in this case by the Government. They had 1,200,000 l. to provide for opium; 800,000 l. to provide for the East India Company; 600,000 l. for the Hong merchants; and then there was that which he was sure neither the noble Duke nor the country would wish to see overlooked or forgotten, such reward as should be thought fit and just for the distinguished army and navy which had been engaged in recent operations in China. But this was all forgotten—the Government had spent the money—it was all gone, and they had to provide for the consequent deficiency, either by creating a new debt, or by leaving matters to chance and accident. When such duties arose, however, accident ought not to be trusted to; but when the money came from a particular quarter, the duties properly belonging to it should be discharged by its appropriation to them. The estimates of the income, at 50,150,000 l., however, were also drawn up upon a consideration of the prospects of the year, and of the on-coming harvest. He hoped that we might still look for the blessing of a good harvest; but was it wise to trust to the chances of fine weather; was it fit to depend upon the state of the barometer, the certainty of the winds of heaven, or the stability of the clouds? He should not dwell longer on this subject; but he would take the liberty of asking their Lordships whether, if matters remained unchanged, there could be any chance of the repeal of the property-tax? He was far from attributing to the Government any design, in respect of their financial measures, to make it absolutely necessary that that tax should be conti-

605
nued; but he must say that if they had wished to take such a course as would render the removal of that tax difficult, if not impossible, they could not have taken one snore fitted for such a purpose than that which they had adopted. The effect of the measures which they were taking would be that of raising money at three years' date; a course which in the commercial world would produce reflections upon their credit; these three years would just overlap the time for which the property-tax was passed; and then how unjust, but how strong, would be the argument that there were demands on the Government which must be satisfied, and that grounds existed, therefore, for the continuation of the tax. He would hope that there would be at no time any reluctance on the part of the country to contribute any amount of taxation which the good faith of the country and the public service might require; and he trusted also that no Government would ever be found to continue a property-tax one single hour, without showing the clearest necessity for so doing. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack (Lord Lyndhurst), who had opened this question to their Lordship's consideration, and whose resolution now stood on the Journals of the House, had put that argument forward as the justification of the proposition—that it was not sustainable upon any other grounds than that it afforded a certain means, when no other available means existed, of meeting the public wants. Nor had the Government any excuse for the continuance of such a tax. Because, at what amount had they estimated the property-tax? They had estimated it at 3,700,000 l., while it had produced 5,100,000 l. There would be, therefore, an increase upon the estimate, in the course of the three years during which the tax was proposed to continue, of no less than 4,200,000 l. But could the difficulties which now existed be surmounted? He should be extremely sorry that any observations of his should lead to the supposition that there would be any great difficulties which the country had not the full means of overcoming. Economy was one of the means which might be adopted. By economy he did not mean that paltry, cheese-paring, miserable economy, of which men would be ashamed; but that wise and liberal economy which was, as compared with the other, as a diamond is to a piece of broken glass. And he thought that he could show that there was ample scope for
606
the application of such economy. In 1835 the right hon. Baronet who was now at the head of her Majesty's Government was First Lord of the Treasury, and he proposed the estimates, he was bound to assume, in such a manner as best suited the exigencies of the public service. In that year they were calculated at 14,123,000 l.; in the present year the same estimates, even after the deduction which had been made, amounted to 18,779,000 l. showing that there was an excess of expenditure in this year over the one he had referred to, of no less than 4,600,000 l. It must stand to reason that that which could be done in 1835—although he did not mean to say that it could be accomplished at once—could be done in 1843. They had made a beginning by the reduction of a million, and for that reduction he gave them full credit. They must go further, or they might depend upon it the Government would fare worse. He did not think that if the present Government, strong as they were, had made Parliament fully aware of what they would do when they came into power, they would have been strong enough to get there. [Lord Wharncliffe: "It was your own Parliament."] Would they try their own Parliament now? If they were to declare plainly now to all what they intended to do, he did not think that their own Parliament would be very different from what they would have found the Parliament of the late Government. The next step was to extend, in all possible ways, the industry of this country. He asked the Government to act on their own principles, which they propounded when they framed the tariff of last year, when they went as far as the most earnest free-traders could desire: he could not, indeed, believe that they did not mean to go the whole length, because of all those who had studied under the political economist, whether it was Adam Smith or Mc Culloch, he had never seen such promising pupils as noble Lords opposite. Indeed, he had never seen greater progress made than in the present over the last Session. There was a bill now in progress, which he would support, allowing the exportation of machinery from this country to all other countries, free from all restrictions as to duty. A more startling proposition than this would have been a few years back could not have been anticipated: few things would have more alarmed the country. He thought the noble Lords were right in their measure, but of all the mea-

607
sures of free-trade which had ever been devised, whether of Corn-laws, of the tariff, or of excise, the repeal of the export duty on machinery was by far the most extensive and startling. They had been told last year with respect to the coal duties, that a duty ought to be imposed on the exportation of coal to check the manufactures of other countries, and in the very next year, such had been their progress in economical science, noble Lords opposite had been so successful in their studies, that though last year they would withhold the exportation of coal to stop foreign competition, they would this year send out the machinery which would be worthless unless it were worked by this very coal. Indeed, noble Lords were more bold in proposing measures than he could have been, because if he had proposed such a measure he would have been held up to the whole country as having sacrificed its interests, just as if the late Government had held their hands idly before them, like the present Government, in relation to Ireland—in which he thought they had acted wisely—the late Government would have been said to be accomplices of O'Connell in Ireland, and they would have been charged with wishing to encourage Repeal. That was precisely the difference between the two sides of the House with respect to commercial questions. Before he closed his remarks he desired to clear himself from making the charge, or from wishing to suggest to others anything like a despondency at the present state of the resources of this country. He had stated that the accounts of the last year were unfavourable, and that the prospect of the present year was not promising, but he did not doubt the power, the resources, or the wealth of this country, or its power of bearing taxation. He believed that the taxation in this country was less in proportion to its capital than other countries, and that in comparison with them it was lightly taxed, and, moreover, that the taxation was less than in former times. He did not think that there could be a greater proof of the progress of wealth in this country than the difference between the assessment to the property-tax and the estimate made by the Government. That estimate being 3,700,000 l., and the produce rising to 5,100,000 l. The following was the comparison between the estimate and assessment of the property-tax:—
608

Estimate.

Amount.

Excess.

Schedules

A, Land, &c.

1,600,000

2,333,000

633,000

B, Tenements

150,000

330,000

180,000

C, Funds

646,000

800,000

154,000

D, Profits of Trade

1,220,000

1,496,000

276,000

E, Offices

155,000

248,000

93,600

3,771,000

5,100,000

Not including Scotland.

A paper on the Table showed likewise the great resources of this country. It was a paper showing the amount of the terminable annuities, and the time of their expiration, which would add most satisfactorily to the income and resources of the country; 3,923,000 l. a-year of these annuities would expire in or before the year:—

TERMINABLE ANNUITIES WHICH FALL IN BEFORE 1864:—

£.

s.

d.

Annuities for terms of years

2,506,529

4

2½

Ditto lives

831,665

10

3

Add Annuities to Bank of England falling in in 1867

585,740

0

0

Total which will fall in in 1867

3,923,934

14

5½

[Lord Brougham: "We shall all be gone before then."] The noble Lord's enjoyment would begin in the present year, and he would have an advantage in reversion as well as in possession. There would be a reduction in the present year of 100,000 l., and nearly 700,000 l. would fall in during the next five years, during which he hoped the noble and learned Lord would live to enjoy the advantage. When they recollected the amount of capital which was covered by that amount of interest, he did not think that the capitalists of this country, or of any foreign country although the present difficulties of the country might be pressing, could believe that they were worth material notice in estimating the national power and resources. The noble Lord apologized for the length at which he had addressed the House, having only made his statement, he said, with the view of calling the attention of the country to the facts embodied in the following resolutions, which, in conclusion, the noble Lord moved:—

"1. That this House observes with much concern and disappointment that the expectations held out of a surplus revenue, exceeding 500,000 l. for the year ending 5th April, 1843, have not been realised; but that there has been an actual deficiency of 2,421,000 l., notwithstanding the imposition of a tax on property, the application to the public service within the year of 511,406 l. obtained from the government of China, and a receipt ex-

609
ceeding 1,300,000 l. as duties upon grain imported.

"2. That the charge for the permanent debt has been increased during the last two years, the Exchequer balances have been reduced, and upwards of one million in Exchequer Bills held by the trustees of the savings' banks have been converted into stock.

"3. That, under these circumstances, it is most peculiarly the duty of the Legislature and of her Majesty's Government to enforce the strictest economy which is consistent with the public service, and to adopt all such measures as may increase the ordinary revenue, by insuring to British industry, whether agricultural, manufacturing, or commercial, its widest and freest extension and its largest reward, thus averting from the country the calamity of the re-enactment of a tax upon property in time of peace, and promoting the well-being and prosperity of all classes of her Majesty's subjects."

The Duke of Wellington: I am sure my Lords, if it were necessary for the noble Lord (Lord Monteagle), who has been so long accustomed to the superintendence of the finances of this country, and who has so frequently discussed the subject in this and the other House of Parliament, to apologize for drawing your Lordships' attention to the subject, it is still more necessary for me to apologize for venturing to follow him after the able speech he has made to your Lordships. My Lords, I regret exceedingly that my noble Friend the President of the Board of Control, who equally with the noble Lord has had the management of the finances of the country in his hands, is not able to attend here, in order that your Lordships and the public might have had the advantage of hearing from him his views and the views of the Government upon the question which the noble Lord has submitted to your consideration; and that this duty should have fallen to one who has comparatively but little information on the subject, and only such as he could obtain during the short interval between the period at which the noble Lord gave notice of his intention to bring forward this question and the present moment. My Lords, I confess I wish that the noble Lord had limited his address to the subject-matter of the resolutions which he has laid on the Table. The noble Lord has adverted likewise to bills upon your Lordships' Table which you will have to discuss in the course of the present Session, to questions of commercial and international policy which must come under discussion, and
610
to the financial budget of the present year, which certainly forms no part of the resolutions upon which it was understood the noble Lord intended to address you. I admit the budget of the present year may be deemed a part of the subject; but still, considering that the noble Lord was aware there was nobody in this House who could be prepared to state details and answer the objections he has made with reference to the budget of the present year. I think he might as well have limited his address to what is distinctly the subject of discussion, namely, the accounts of the year which elapsed on the 5th of April last. With respect to the budget of the present year, I hope it will be deemed satisfactory. What has been stated has been an estimate. I admit that the last estimate stated has proved to be fallacious, and it is possible that this estimate may be so likewise. The noble Lord is aware that Chancellors of the Exchequers are liable to such mistakes. But, as far as I can have any knowledge of it, I believe that the estimate will be found correct, and that the surplus expected will be produced on the face of the accounts. If that should not be so, it will be for the Minister of the time to come forward with a proposition to Parliament to make good the deficiency, and it will be for the Parliament of that day to decide what shall be the mode adopted of meeting that deficiency. All I can say is this—that there certainly is no plan, there can be no plan now for propoposing any particular tax, and most particularly there can be no plan for proposing a tax which it was the intention of the Government, and their engagement at the time, that it should not be continued one day longer than was necessary for the public service. That was what was stated at the time, and I have never heard of any intention to continue it one day longer than it was intended, excepting it should be absolutely necessary for the public service. With respect to the other matters to which the noble Lord has adverted—the effect of the American treaty, the Customs' Bill, and the exportation of machinery, these are points on which I will not follow the noble Lord, leaving those subjects to be discussed when they come regularly before your Lordships. I now come to the question more immediately under consideration—the first resolution moved by the noble Lord. It is certainly true that the esti-

611
mate taken in the course of the last Session of Parliament for the finances of the year has proved fallacious. The Customs have not produced the sums at which they were estimated, notwithstanding the receipt, under the head of Customs, of a large sum from the duties on corn, which was not included in the estimate. But there has been a failure in certain duties which were estimated—such as the wine duty, which paid about 600,000 l. a year—the duty on foreign spirits, to the amount of 200,000 l.; and there have been the various reduction made with the view of relieving commerce. There has been a failure in the various small articles, which have not produced the amount of revenue expected; while on the other hand, the loss upon some of the reduced duties has been less than was expected. On the whole no doubt, there has been a very considerable diminution of the sum expected from the Customs. In the same manner, the Excise has not produced the sum expected. The sum expected, including what was expected from the Irish spirit duties, was 13,500,000 l. There was the total failure of the duty on malt, to the extent of 880,000 l.; but I do not complain that the noble Lord, who has been Chancellor of the Exchequer, and accustomed to these discussions, should not have stated that in general it was considered that the large amount which was the produce of the corn duty was by way of compensation for the failure of the excise on malt. I have taken some pains to acquire correct information on this subject, and the result of my inquiries is, that the high price of corn, from the scarcity of the season, was the cause of the great receipt of duty in the Customs, while the same misfortunes of the season had affected barley, and there had been a considerably smaller receipt in the excise from malt. The one compensated the other, and on the whole the produce has been pretty nearly what might have been expected in an ordinary year of both. But there has been a very large decrease not only in Ireland, but in England and in Scotland, in the amount of the spirit duty—in Scotland to the amount of 400,000 gallons, in England to the extent of 200,000 gallons; this also has caused a considerable reduction in the amount of the Excise; so that taking all these together, I think I have shown reason for a very considerable reduction in the amount of the revenue; not owing at all
612
to any alteration of duty, but to the greater habits of temperance throughout the country, the consumption of spirits had decreased very considerably, and it has shown itself not only in the diminished revenue derived from foreign spirits, but also in the revenue derived from home-made spirits. The deficiency upon the estimate arises also from another circumstance to which the noble Lord has not averted; namely, the credit taken in the estimate for the full amount of the property-tax was calculated as between April and April. It was calculated that we should have received the sum of 3,700,000 l., as between April and April, whereas the sum collected was only 2,400,000 l. The remainder has not yet been all collected. A portion was collected between April and July, but that amount was not collected up to the 5th of April, that is to say, between April and April. That, therefore, is another reason for the deficiency the noble Lord has referred to, as between our estimates of income and our actual receipts. But the expenditure, my Lords, notwithstanding one additional source of expense which the noble Lord did not advert to, has been less than the estimate by the sum of 228,000 l. There was, however, a payment on account of the China war, which is stated in the accounts as being more than the estimate by the sum of 300,000 l., and likewise a payment on account of a certain forgery of Exchequer-bills, which has been a good deal discussed in this House of Parliament, which, my Lords, I suppose is the reason why the noble Lord did not mention it. That sum, my Lords, formed a large item in the account up to the 5th of April, 1843. If you put all these things together you will find that, after all, the state of the accounts up to 5th of April, 1843, is not quite so bad as the noble Lord wishes to represent it. One of the noble Lord's resolutions, however, has reference to the balances. I beg him to observe that his statement, as far as regards the month of April, 1843, is not correct on the face of the papers. I speak of the balance from the month of April, 1842, to the 5th of April, 1843. On the face of the account the balance in the Exchequer, up to the 5th of April, 1842, was 857,291 l. The balance on the 5th of April, 1843, was 956,599 l. Therefore the balance in April 1843 exceeded the balance in 1842. But the noble Lord

613
has referred to another sort of balance. He has taken us back to the year 1836, when, he says, the balance was four millions and some odd hundred thousands. With respect to the statement of that balance I have nothing at all to say, but I would remind the noble Lord that between the year 1836 and the year 1842 several years elapsed, during which there was a deficiency in the income that was necessary to cover the public expenditure. Those successive years of deficient income were necessarily followed by the practice of applying the balances in the Exchequer—of clearing the Exchequer of every thing that might be found therein. By this means those balances became reduced in April, 1842, to the sum stated already. The balance now, my Lords, is, as I have said, considerably more than it was in the last year. Now, I don't say, my Lords, that it would not be desirable to have a larger balance in the Exchequer than there is, but when we come to talk of matters of this sort we must found our arguments and statements upon official documents, and not look to other matters that may be found elsewhere. My Lords, I have now adverted to the subject of the state of the Customs' duties, to the balances in the Exchequer, and to the state of the property-tax—the subjects in the first resolution of the noble Lord; and I have likewise observed on what the noble Lord stated as to former balances in the Exchequer. I admit that they have been larger than they are now, but I confine myself simply to the papers on your Lordships' Table and the resolutions, and I deny that the balance in the Exchequer has been diminished between the two periods I have referred to; that is to say, between April, 1842, and April, 1843. I now come to the next resolution. The noble Lord has stated that the charge for the permanent debt has been increased during the last two years; that the amount of Exchequer-bills has been reduced, and that upwards of 1,000,000 of Exchequer-bills, then in the hands of the trustees of savings-banks, have been converted into stock. I have already stated, my Lords, what is the fact as to the Exchequer-bills, and I now beg leave to call your attention to the statement of the noble Lord's, contained in his resolution, that the funded debt of the country has been increased. Now, the fair way of considering the question is not merely to consider the amount
614
of the funded debt, but also the amount and charge of the unfunded debt, because, in point of fact, this funded debt has been increased in order to take out of the market the securities of the unfunded debt. Now, the fair way of discussing this subject will be for you to consider the amount of the charges on the funded and unfunded debt previous to and subsequent to the formation of the present Administration, and at the present moment. I will refer to the facts on this subject. The amount for the interest and management of the public funded debt was on the 15th of January, 1841, 28,256,324 l.; on the 15th of January, 1842, it was 28,701,458 l.; on the same day in 1843, it was 28,609,708 l. Now, what was the unfunded debt at the same time? for that is the fair way to consider it. The unfunded debt was for the years 1840–41, 21,626,315 l., at an interest of 2½d.; for 1841–2, it was 18,293,000 l., at 1¾d.; and for 1842–3,it was 18,182,000 l., at 1½d. The annual interest on the first sum (21,626,315 l.) was 740,000 l. 2s. 6d.; for the third amount (18,182,000 l.) it was 414,779 l. The charge for the funded debt at the commencement of the present year was 28,609,708 l.; for the unfunded debt it was 414,779 l., making together 29,024,487 l., a reduction of the annual charge upon the funded and unfunded debt since 1841, of 2,071,863 l. But there is an addition to this reduction on account of the charges incurred on stock created to supply the deficiency as estimated for 1841–2, being the last budget of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. That amount was 85,815 l. The income for that year was 48,310,000 l. The estimated income was 50,777,432 l., leaving a deficiency between the estimated and the actual income of 2,457;433 l., which was made a debt at an expense of the sum I have just named—85,815 l. per annum to be added to the annual interest of the funded and unfunded debt. The noble Lord, therefore, will see that it is not exactly the fact to state that there has been an augmentation of the funded debt, at least in the point of view stated in his resolution; but it is true to state that there has been an addition to the expense of the funded debt, caused by the arrangement made by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide for the deficiency between the estimated and the actual income of the last budget of the late Administration. The other charge in

615
the second resolution relates to the alleged reduction in the amount of Exchequer bills, and states that upwards of 1,000,000 of Exchequer bills, in the hands of the Trustees of Savings Banks, has been converted into stock. Now let us look to the history of this. It appears, in the first place, that there was a practice of making advances in Exchequer bills for public works, and that certain of those Exchequer bills which had been issued for that purpose, had come into the hands of the Trustees of Savings Banks, and no provision had been made for their being paid paid off. But it was deemed expedient to make provision for the paying off of those bills, and Parliament passed an act. It was not done on the mere authority of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but an act was passed for the purpose, requiring first, that advances for public works should be made, as they ought to be made, in cash, and not in Exchequer bills; and further directing that provision be made for the payment of these Exchequer bills, to which I have just referred, for which no previous provision had been made; and this is what the noble Lord has come and compared with what passed before; and talks of the two transactions as being of a similar description; whereas the difference is just the difference between a course taken by a Government on its own authority, and a course taken by a Government under the sanction and direction of an act of Parliament. The debt was incurred to pay off those Exchequer bills; but how did the noble Lord make out that the value of these bills comes into the account? I think, my Lords, that I have now shown you, that the two first resolutions of the noble Lord are not borne out by the papers or by the facts. I hope your Lordships will concur with me in giving a negative to these resolutions. I don't think it necessary to follow the noble Lord further than I have done through his statement with respect to the budget of this year. We were, of course, liable to error as to that budget, as it is proved our predecessors were with respect to former budgets. I concur, however, entirely with the noble Lord in feeling the utmost confidence in the resources of the country. I think I have shown you that some of the causes which occasioned the deficiency of this year may not exist in the coming year; and I hope, my Lords, that we
616
shall have the means of fulfilling all the engagements the public have entered into.
Lord Broughamsaid, however irksome and tedious this subject of figures and finance might be, it was one that ought gravely to be laid before Parliament and the country. Therefore his noble Friend on his right required no apology for introducing the subject; but he could not in all respects—nor, indeed, in almost any respect—agree in the resolutions which his noble Friend had proposed. He had examined with all the lights he possessed this most difficult subject, and coupling the facts stated by his noble Friend the noble Duke opposite, with the results which he saw, he felt bound to take a course which he he felt imposed on him by the views he took on the subject of the property tax. He felt bound to support that tax; but to support it with a qualification—that qualification being that it should exist only so long as it was absolutely necessary. But while giving the tax that support, he at the same time felt bound to inquire and see whether there might not exist a reasonable prospect of getting rid of that grievous and almost unjustifiable tax. He felt how unequal he was to enter into this question with his noble Friend; first, from his long experience in finance, and having held the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer; and secondly, from the attention he had bestowed and continued to bestow upon this dry and thorny, and somewhat slippery, subject. He remembered Mr. Tierney's saying, "There was no subject which abounded so much in mares-nests as finance." Whether his noble Friend had that night discovered any of those curious structures he would presently inquire; but, notwithstanding the dry and thorny and slippery nature of the subject, he felt bound to go into it with his noble Friend, whose long experience, however, made that congressus Achilli still more unequal. Though his noble Friend was not in office, and now sat on the Opposition side of the House, yet, in fact, as far as this subject went, he was as good as if he were in office, because he was an officer of the Exchequer, with this material superiority over the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the one was moveable, holding his office during pleasure, whereas his noble Friend was immovable, holding, happily for him, his office for life. His noble Friend, therefore, could make the attack

617
with all possible safety and security, whereas the Chancellor of the Exchequer was bound to adopt one particular line of conduct he being in a moveable position. That gave his noble Friend an advantage over the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but then his noble Friend had also another advantage over him, for his noble Friend could go to the Treasury and Exchequer, and obtain all manner of information; the doors of the Treasury were barred against all unfortunate individuals not in office; and they were left to fish as best they could, and grope their way through the papers which his noble Friend had caused to be laid upon the table of the House. Such being the great inequality of terms upon which they stood, he hoped it would be a sufficient excuse for him in case he fell into any of those errors to which Mr. Tierney alluded, and which his noble Friend had somewhat exemplified that night in his own proper person. His noble Friend who had last addressed them had really afforded a most important and useful practical answer to a very large portion of his noble Friend's speech, when he said that his noble Friend had laid down resolutions respecting the revenue in times past, but that, not contented with that, he went away into a totally different question—the state of the revenue in the next year, which was no part of his resolutions. And certainly his noble Friend had called their attention to the state of the budget this year—to the revenue since the 5th of April. Had he been aware that his noble Friend's speech would have been of a de futuro character, and not of times past only, he should have made himself acquainted with the details, as he had endeavoured to do with those details that were connected with the motion his noble Friend had submitted to the House. And though his noble Friend who spoke last was master of those details, and had answered his noble Friend head by head in his various statements, yet both his noble Friend opposite and himself were left to sink in the budget and estimates of this year, because they had no notice that those subjects were to be brought on. Now, how did the matter stand with respect to the property tax, of which he had already said a little, and of which he should say something more, of which he was a humble but public supporter last year, on account of the inevitable necessity of the case? His noble Friend took
618
the first half-year, and said, that instead of a surplus of half a million, there was a deficit of nearly five times as much, that is to say, of 2,421,000 l. If his noble Friend had been advised to bring forward his motion on the 14th of April instead of the 14th of August, he might have contended to that effect, and endeavoured to show a deficit to that amount, because at that time the deficit upon the year arising from the arrears of the income tax not collected, did amount to something like 2,421,000 l.; but his noble Friend, unfortunately for their Lordships, because they were now sitting in the dog days instead of in April, and unfortunately for his argument, because it shook his case and cut away the ground from beneath his feet, had deferred his motion to the 14th of August; and how stood the case now? He found that, to the 5th of July, there had been collected 2,421,000 l. arrears of the income tax which ought to have come in on the 5th of April, and which if it had so come in would have filled up the deficit, and made the calculation precisely correspond with the result; but, delaying it until now, there had been got in 2,421,000 l. of arrears. He was very glad that it had not been got in before; for it would have produced a great pressure on the people, and would have been a greater cruelty upon the taxpayer. If no money had been got in, then no deficit could have been made up. But, what was the consequence of getting in the 2,421,000 l. now, on the 5th of July? He asserted most positively, for he knew it to be true, that the deficit was reduced from 2,500,000 l. to 650,000 l., and no more. But then it was said by his noble Friend, that that included 500,000 l. of opium money, and 1,300,000 l. of duty upon corn. His calculations were quite independent of the general state of the balance sheet. He merely spoke of one subject, the property tax collected between the 5th of April and the 5th of July. "But then," said his noble Friend, "the last was a very flourishing year, on account of the God-sends of the opium money and the corn duty." He would only allude to the very clear statement of his noble Friend who spoke last, which explained the calculation of the 500,000 l. money as a God-send; but were there no other things sent from Heaven during the same time? He rather thought it was a mixed operation of angels, black as well as white.

619
But suppose that Heaven had been moved to bestow a God-send, had not Acheron and Styx been moved to get a something more—something as unexpected as a Godsend—some devil's-send, or fiend's-send, as a set-off against that God-send? Surely there was first 300,000 l., the extra expense of the Indian Chinese war—that was a fiend-send. The estimate was 800,000 l. the actual expense was 1,100,000 l. But that, said his noble Friend, left 200,000 l. more to be accounted for. But he had got something more. The fiend was actuated to something more than the Indian Chinese war. The fiend instigated sundry forgeries of Exchequer bills, and more than 200,000 l., he believed 262,000 l. was the actual amount, as his noble Friend had stated, was that fiend-send of forgeries of Exchequer bills, making altogether 562,000 l. fiend-send, to the set-off against the 500,000 l. God-send. Therefore there was an end to that part of his noble Friend's calculations; for if there were an accident upon one side of the account there was a greater amount of accident upon the debit side of the same account. But then said his noble Friend, "There is the corn duty of 1,300,000 l. that is not accounted for;" and "Oh!" said he—for his noble Friend was very figurative and fanciful upon the subject, "are you to trust for your revenue to the barometer, to the seasons, to water, rain, or temperature—to things so fickle as the elements, so inconstant as the winds?—God forbid!" That was just what he (Lord Brougham) had always said. He had always argued in that way; but then unfortunately he always argued against his noble Friend, because formerly his noble Friend trusted to the perfidious winds, the unstable waters, the fickle elements. That was their budget of 1841, which, however, they never recovered. It was the fixed duty of 8s. which was to be part of their revenue: and he maintained, as did certain great political economists, that there was nothing so bad a subject of revenue as one which made them depend upon the winds and water and fickleness of the elements, whether they had that revenue or not. When his noble Friends on that (the Opposition) side of the House revisited Downing-street in an official capacity, and when they, according to their own account, would have nothing to do but to dissolve the present Parliament, though they had better not lay that flattering
620
unction to their souls, nor allow it to enter into their imaginations that they had any such proximate chance of again coming into office,—but should that be the case, and his noble Friend then brought forward his 8s. duty on corn as a means of revenue to support a failing exchequer, he should remind his noble Friend of the 14th of August, 1843—of what had passed that evening—of the fickleness of the winds, which his noble Friend would then have forgotten—and when his noble Friend nailed his weather-cock to the mast, and said that it should never change, he should remind him of that night, that his weather-cock would change, and that he could not trust to the winds or the rains, and that it was, therefore, a bad source of revenue. But his noble Friend said that that 1,300,000 l. ought not to be taken credit for, because it came from corn. He said quite the reverse; they ought to take credit for it; or, if they were not, then they ought not to debit themselves with a million upon the malt duty. In the same proportion that they lost upon the one, did they gain upon the other. The two were connected, precisely as were the two counterpoises one against the other at the end of a balance wheel. When corn was cheap they did not import. When the weather was favourable, they had a good harvest and cheap grain—a great blessing, as they all knew, to the people, but not greater to the people than to the revenue, because in the same proportion as corn was cheap, malt was cheap, and spirits were cheap; and in the same proportion as food was cheap, the consumption of the people, their luxuries and comforts, were increased; and, therefore, it stood demonstrated, that in proportion as the harvest was good and grain was plentiful, the consumption of malt was increased, and the tax upon malt rose; but in the same proportion as malt was cheap and the tax upon it rose, in the same proportion came down the importation of corn. Therefore, they lost the 1,250,000 l. upon which his noble Friend relied, as the duty upon the importation of corn, for the same reason that they increased their home consumption and increased their duty upon malt. One balanced the other; and, therefore, instead of cutting out the million and a quarter of the corn duty from this calculation, he would not cut out the one or the other, either the surplus of the corn duty or the

621
deficit of the malt duty—or he would take out both, so that he might not fall into one of those singular structures, more curious than valuable, to which Mr. Tierney referred, when he said that persons were very apt to find mare's nests in finance. That disposed of the main point in this question—of all that was material—and he might save himself the minor details, the mere fringes of the case; nevertheless, he must detain their Lordships, just in referring to the income-tax, to add that they who supported it were not so wrong as his noble Friend seemed to think. If last year he had felt it necessary to look for any arguments in favour of the income tax, and his noble Friend had at that time delivered the speech he had just addressed to the House, it was to that speech that he should have looked; because the whole of that address, the gloomy prospects he held out, the necessity he urged for examining our financial difficulties in their details—there being a deficiency of 2,500,000 l. in one point of view, and somewhere about 5,000,000 l. or 6,000,000 l in another—the whole of that statement, he said, or even a half or a quarter of it, was the most peremptory conclusion that could be drawn in favour of the property-tax, and the greatest support ever given of the only ground upon which every one said the tax was bareable—viz. its absolute, its paramount necessity. The more was the difficulty shown when all they were able to do barely brought them out of it. But his noble Friend said, that even with the income-tax there was a deficit. Then what would it have been without? If with a property-tax there was a deficit, what would it have been without it? The inhabitants of the three kingdoms might have been consuming slave-grown sugar, and a bounty might thus have been offered upon every negro torn from his native land, exposed to all the horrors of the middle passage, and sold to the planters of Cuba or Brazil. That was part of the project of the late Government, and for the purpose of enabling people to obtain sugar at a penny (he believed it would only be a farthing; but he was willing to state it at a penny), a pound cheaper, the result would have been that 80,000 more slaves would have been seized and sold this year than last, a consequence to which he could not look without absolute and utter abhorrence. It was his earnest hope that during the three
622
years to which the income-tax was at present limited, the finances would so improve as to enable the country then to escape from this grievous and almost intolerable burthen. He had a very confident hope of that. But, said his noble Friend, what they had done was to increase the funded debt 3,000,000 l. To be sure they had, but that was by funding Exchequer bills; and, if they had done that, they had decreased the unfunded debt in the same proportion. Now, his noble Friend on the woolsack was senior or second wrangler at Cambridge; but, eminent mathematician that he was, he did not know more accurately than his noble Friend the noble Duke, who was no wrangler, that the shortest line between two given points was a straight line, and the noble Duke always took it, and had done so on this occasion, and said his noble Friend the noble Duke—"Don't talk about 3,000,000 l. being added to the funded debt, I will shew you by the returns the true calculation. Take all the expenses of the funded and unfunded debt; add the two together, before the period in question, viz., July, 1841, when we came into office, and then add together the expenses of the funded and unfunded debt for the corresponding period since, and see which sum is the greatest. That is the way to try the expense." He would put a case to illustrate the matter. Their Lordships were probably none of them in debt, or if by chance any peer were involved, of course he intended to pay all demands upon his purse; but what would be thought of the prudence of a man who selling an estate for 20,000 l., and being 10,000 l. in debt, proceeded to spend the whole 20,000 l., and to pay no part of his debt? Yet this was the course his noble Friend recommends as regards the funded and unfunded debt. The incumbrance, as well as the income, must be duly considered. The man who sold the estate for 20,000 l. must recollect that his debt of 10,000 l. would require 400 l. a year at an interest of only four per cent.; and besides that, had he signed no bonds? had he no judgment creditors? had he no simple contract debts? Had he put his name to no bills of exchange? The party replied, O yes, a creditor had taken out judgment, but he thought he was only to mention the mortgage. Instead, therefore, of talking of 10,000 l., the party ought to speak of 14,000 l., because the bond debts and judg-

623
ment debts amounted to 4,000l. What then did this matter turn out to be? In the early period mentioned by his noble Friend, the whole yearly expense of the funded and unfunded debt was 29,296,000l. The whole expenditure now after funding 3,000,000l. of Exchequer Bills, was 29,024,000 l., making a difference of 272,000l. The expense, therefore, of the debt was less now than it was before the 3,000,000 l. was funded. Nor was there any mare's nest—any hocus pocus—in all this. The reduction had been effected in a manner most benoeficial for the public though not so for the public creditor; and, as any old Chancellor of the Exchequer well knew, there was no debt more popular than the Exchequer Bills. He did not, therefore, much pity the holders for the results of the operation, which had certainly been the greatest reduction which he ever remembered in the interest of any part of the public debt—funded or unfunded. In the first instance the a mount of interest was 2½d.; it then fell to 1¾d.; and it was now down to 1½d. Thus, two-fifths of the interest was reduced on Exchequer Bills. Yes—his noble Friend would say—but they must, of course, be at a great discount! No such thing. They were at the former period mentioned by his noble Friend at 15 s. and 16 s. premium, whereas they were now at 59 s. premium. This, he thought, was the greatest proof that could be afforded of the vitality and strength of public credit in this country. It showed the abundance of capital, the strength of credit, the vitality of our commercial system, and of the system upon which the country's finances reposed. But this evidence was not confined to the case of Exchequer Bills. What was the price of stocks two years ago, the period with which all these comparisons had been made by his noble Friend? In 1841, the price of the three per cents. was 89—they were now 94. That was also a favourable circumstance. It was a proof that there was nothing suspicious, or jealous, or timid, in the mind of the fundholder, or else the inevitable consequence would have followed—that of the falling down of the funds. His noble Friend, in the beginning, middle, and conclusion of his address, had exclaimed, "Far be it from me to make a party speech!" He declared that he was not going to make a factious
624
speech—but a calm calculation connected with figures. He (Lord Brougham) was, however, unable to say, that there was anything less unreal in these self bestowed praises of his noble Friend than in his noble Friend's arguments themselves. For, whether or not his noble Friend's speech were free from faults of prolixity and obscurity, it was not entirely free from party; on the contrary, a great deal of it was full of party. Indeed, the whole was more or less of the nature of party, as the comparisons carefully instituted between the late Government and the present, as financiers, and the attempts to show, that the present had failed altogether to realize their calculations; and that there was likely to be as signal a failure in that prophetic spirit with which it seemed all former Chancellors of the Exchequer had been endowed above all the sons of men. All this was somewhat in the nature of party—not the worse for that perhaps; at least his noble Friend could not be blamed for it; but then, comparing the speech as described by his noble Friend, with the speech as delivered, the promise with the performance, there was as great a failure and "falling off" as in any of his noble Friend's "estimates." Some portions of his noble Friend's speech he exceedingly regretted, for the manner in which they alluded to certain principles in which he concurred with his noble Friend. The whole speech had been somewhat in the tone of a "song of triumph," which his noble Friend had affected to deprecate; and it had been a peculiar sort of selfpraising—that of the Pharisee when crossing his arms complacently upon his breast, he said, he thanked Heaven he was not as other men, "extortioners;" and had his noble Friend stopped there, he would not have been any the less a pharisee than in adding a laudation of himself; and there was this feature in the ordinary and open species of self-praise, that it was straightforward and candid, exalting of ourselves, not unamiably and artfully depressing our opponents, as was the course adopted by his noble Friend, who had devoted his pharisaical efforts to contrasts unfavourable to his successors. For his part, he preferred the more open and direct sort of self-laudation. However (Continued the noble and learned Lord), my noble Friend referred to the great questions with which more or less his party have sought to identify themselves, and took credit for

625
the support (more or less limited) which those principles have received from the present Government; and, of course, there was nothing of party in all that! Nothing like party in the use he attempted to make of these topics! "You, of all men," (was the tone of my noble Friend's taunts) "you of all other men, to adopt these principles! to take a leaf out of our book! to favour the policy we projected! we, the consistent and courageous supporters of liberal and enlightened measures we, who have all our lives been advocating and expounding the views you have ventured, presumed, thus to plagiarize." Why, my noble Friend should rather have thanked the Government for what they have done. Had he as sincere an attachment to his principles as he apparently was in supporting his party, I should suppose my noble Friend would have been happy to find his principles forwarded, by whatever party, and have said "I will not impute it to you as a fault; I will say nothing which might discourage you, or induce you to relax in your course;" instead of which, his speech was one continuoustaunt against the party in power, for at all following out the principles recommended by the party out of power. This it was that raised his noble Friend's bile, and excited his choler, and led him to point his sarcasms for the benefit of those who happened to be displeased with the advance of Government in that direction.
"Quod petiit, spernit: repetit quod nuper omisit,
"Æstuat, et vitæ disconvenit ordine toto;
"Diruit, æedificat, mutat quadrata rotundis."
This was the spirit in which my noble Friend seemed to speak on this subject: the capricious and selfish spirit which appears accustomed to the use of principles as a sort of cloak to cover party projects. Far otherwise one should suppose would be the tone of a man chiefly desirous of seeing his principles forwarded, who would say, "The smallest donation thankfully received" "But then," said my noble Friend, tauntingly to the party opposite, "why did you not show your principles before you get into office? if you had you never would have got there!" And then he sarcastically asked, "Will you dissolve now?" Why, I dare say, my noble Friends opposite, are not desirous of dissolving, because they are very well contented with Parliament as it is. Probably they might be rather disposed to
626
say, in answer to my noble Friend's sarcastic appeal—"We like the Parliament you elected for us very well, I have no wish to trouble another." Your Lordships know that there is seldom "much love lost" in these cases; and that, as the present Government appear to like the Parliament pretty well, the probability is, the present Parliament does not very much dislike the Government. I give the Government due credit for their discernment on this head, and their correct notions of their own interest. But, then, my noble Friend wrought himself up to the delusion, that as (happily, I should say—unhappily, as he would express it) the Government have gone a certain extent in liberal commercial policy, a dissolution would replace his party in power! My Lords, I don't believe a word of it! I conscientiously believe there is no foundation for it. It is one thing to feel a little sore on account of unexpected measures on the part of the Government, and another thing to be prepared to seat their opponents in power; particularly when those opponents are principally crying out against their successors for having at all followed them in the course, which they at the same time affirm has not been followed out to a sufficient extent; and just so long as my noble Friend's party adhere to this practice of attacking the Government for adopting their predecessors' principles, so long will that party find the country indifferent, or opposed to them. My noble Friend fell into the same course as to Ireland. "Some say, the Government are pleasing nobody there," said my noble Friend, and I should certainly think that better than displeasing everybody; "others that they are doing nothing;" and that is not the worst charge that might be made against an Irish Administration, though there was hardly a just foundation for my noble Friend's taunt. (Lord Monteagle—no taunt.") Oh, yes! my noble Friend said, "if Lord Normanby or Lord Fortescue had adopted the same course, what would have been said?" But, my Lords, at all events, no one says of the present Government that they are aiding and abetting sedition—that they are patronising and encouraging agitation—that they are the friends of covert traitors. Some, indeed, say, they "might have been" more active (though I see not how they could, or that they could have done more than they have); all that they are

627
accused of, however, is mere error of judgment; they are not suspected, as others have been, of a desire to truckle to traitors, and a design to foster agitation for the purposes of party. These, then, are the main features of the case that has been brought forward. And as to the anticipations expressed by my noble Friend of utter failure in future financial calculations, I have only further to say, that the single practical question is, what is our position at present?—not what it was four months before. Therefore, I take the year ending the 5th of July, and there has been since the 5th of April, a making up of the deficit to the extent of 245,000 l. nor is that the whole of it, for between the 5th of July and the 14th of August, the deficiency was, in all probability, further reduced. Now, as to the money in the Exchequer at two different periods (I have taken some pains to ascertain): it was in July, 1841, 1,004,000 l.; July, 1843, 1,830,000 l. showing a very considerable increase—nearly twice as much as it was only two years ago, when the present Government came in. My Lords, I see no reason whatever to despair of the financial prospects of the country. I hope and trust the saving effected by the Government will be continued and increased, and that above all, there may be an utter discontinuance of these detestable wars, of which we have of late years had much deep reason to complain. (Lord Monteagle, "Scinde.") And, as I am put in mind of Scinde, I may, perhaps, mention (which otherwise I should not have adverted to) that my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Bath, who, but for professional avocations, would have this Session brought forward this subject, has communicated to me, that his intention would have been to advocate the occupation of that country on account of its necessity; and from the sources of information he disclosed to me, I gather—what amounts nearly to demonstration—that Scinde, if well managed, would supply a large surplus revenue; so that here is another item for the favourable side of the account. But, at all events, I hope that the Government, by reducing all unnecessary expenditure, and, above all, by avoiding execrable, if useless wars, will justify our looking forward to a period when we may get rid of the income-tax. I supported the income-tax for no other reason than because of the deplorable state of
628
our finances, which exhibited a deficiency of 2,240,000 l., and having got over that, we may, and in no long time, look to have the tax expunged from the statute-book.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, that however anxious his noble and learned Friend might be to get rid of the income-tax, yet he hoped, when their Lordships came to consider the transactions which had taken place in Scinde, they would not find a justification of the conduct of Lord Ellenborough in the mere circumstance that the territory of Scinde was capable of yielding a surplus revenue. He trusted that it would not, on that account, be held that there was the slightest reason for our taking possession of that territory. He was not about to blame the Government, as the noble and learned Lord by some unaccountable mistake supposed his noble Friend had done, for having taken one step in common with the course laid down and advocated by the late Government. On the contrary, he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) wished to express his approbation, as his noble Friend had done, of the course so taken by her Majesty's Government. This his noble Friend did in most precise and distinct terms. His noble Friend had said that the adoption of the Exportation of Machinery Bill was a strong step to be taken by those who were not in the habit of going so far in the way of free trade. But he certainly added, that as compared with the present Government, he, if in office, would go a league in the same direction in which they had only gone one step. His noble Friend had spoken of the coal duties. He trusted the Government would seriously re-consider that subject. The tax had not raised near the sum it was contemplated it would yield, while it completely put down one-third of the shipping employed in that trade. Great fault had been found with his noble Friend's calculations with regard to the deficit of the year. But not only did his noble Friend make allowance for the payment of any sum on the 5th of July on account of the property tax, but he even took the same estimate which Sir R. Peel himself adopted. Sir Robert Peel—the Prime Minister—did not attempt to deny that, on the whole, there was a deficiency, even after taking into account the payment from China. But, although the prospect was now amended, still there was a great deficiency. That deficiency was allowed by Sir R.

629
Peel to be between 500,000 l. and 600,000 l. whereas he had calculated to have a surplus of 500,000 l. It was said that if these resolutions had come immediately after the 5th of April, they might have been more fairly adopted. But this, at best, only showed that the thing was only one of degree; the argument would remain the same, though the figures might not exactly correspond. It was, however no fault of his noble Friend that the financial year was made up to the end of April. It was quite true that, in finding fault with the financial measures of her Majesty's Government, his noble Friend was only touching upon the estimates. But there were circumstances which sometimes made the estimates of very great importance. He never recollected to have heard or read of so great a change of language as that which was used to night, from the language which had been used in 1841, when an exactly similar subject was then brought under discussion. In 1841 a discussion was raised upon the estimates of the then Government, and that Government was turned out of office for making false estimates, as far as their Lordships were concerned, The charge, in 1841, was, that the Government had gone on for three or four years with a deficiency increasing, instead of there being a surplus; and the argument was, that the then existing Government were not fit to be trusted with the management of the public affairs. What was the language on that occasion of the Earl of Ripon, who was not at this moment in his place? When he moved their Lordships to censure the Government of that day, the noble Earl said:
"That in the matter of finance the country was in the greatest possible state of mismanagement, and that he felt himself bound to state that he could not think their Lordships could do otherwise than express an opinion that her Majesty's Government did not possess the confidence of that House."
What was the excuse offered for imposing the property tax? It was said—
"We want certainty; we must have recourse to a property-tax, because you have gone on for years and not fulfilled the estimates you have made."
Now, if it appeared that those who imposed this great burthen—a property tax—upon the country for the sake of certainty were totally in error in their calculations, and had still a deficit instead of a surplus, it was a strong reason why their
630
Lordships ought to vote for the very moderate resolution now proposed. He should be glad if he could share in the hope expressed by the noble and learned Lord, that in the course of the next two years the property-tax would be taken off. He did not, however, see one shadow of a foundation for such a hope; because it had been argued that if there had been no income tax there would have been a greater deficiency than at present existed. If there was a deficiency now, what would it he if we were without a property-tax? Such was the argument used; how then, when there was this great deficiency now, could any one say there was a chance of seeing the income-tax taken off at the end of two years? The budget, of which the country had heard so much, as the great achievement of a great statesman, was in fact founded upon error and miscalculation. The income-tax had kept the Government in office, but the people felt that it was not likely to be repealed in two years, and that the tariff was no compensation for it.
Lord Monteagle: Before I reply generally to the arguments which have fallen from the noble and learned Lord, I must remove one very erroneous impression which appears to have been made on the mind of the noble and gallant Duke opposite. He seems disposed to complain of having been taken by surprise, because my arguments have been directed against the Budget of the present year, and our future prospects, whereas, the resolutions of which I have given notice, were pointed exclusively at the past. My Lords, those resolutions were proposed for the object of bringing on this discussion in a more convenient form than if it had been introduced, as it might have been, and, as it would have been, but for my wish to accommodate the Government, as a discussion incidental to any one of their financial measures. But in giving my notice I expressly stated, that my intention was to bring under the consideration of this House the whole state of our finances. Therefore, the noble Duke has not any possible right to complain of being treated unfairly or being taken by surprise. Having disposed of this objection, I must as distinctly contradict an insinuation of the noble and learned Lord. He seems to think, that in bringing forward my statement, I have profited by the official means of access to facts and documents,

631
which my appointment as Comptroller General of the Exchequer, affords me; I have done no such thing. I have carefully abstained from so doing. The documents on which I rely are all public, are all Parliamentary, they are all on your Lordships' Table, and I have never been guilty of what I should consider the unworthy act, of making use of my official station to harrass the servants of the Crown with whom I am acting. On the contrary, as Comptroller General, I have acted towards them precisely as I should have done to my own political friends. The noble and learned Lord has asserted, that I have made a strong party attack on those whom he now protects. I have not sought to do so, further than was the necessary result of my reference to facts, and to the conclusions which were inevitably deducible from a comparison between the state of things in 1841 and 1843. Indeed, I have omitted and avoided many obvious topics lest I should deal too much in crimination and attack. For instance, the decreased receipt of the duties on wine and foreign spirits. This for the most part is attributable to the unsatisfactory mode in which the negociations for commercial treaties with France and Portugal have been conducted by the Government, and the failure of those negociations on the part of that Government which promised so much success in its diplomacy. An important and industrious class, the merchants concerned in the wine trade, have been kept in a state of uncertainty and have at length been subject to enormous losses by the acts of the Government. To that class I might if I pleased have appealed, and I might have excited their indignation against the Ministers, from whose acts they have suffered. In like manner I passed over the question of the sugar duties altogether, I resisted a very great temptation, had I been inclined to a mere party attack. I did not make that attack because I understood the negotiations with Brazil were suspended only and not closed, and I therefore was unwilling to make any statement which would embarrass the Government; this could hardly have failed being the case had I contrasted their propositions as made by Mr. Henry Ellis, with their conduct on the Whig budget of 1841. I may, however, warn my noble and learned Friend, not to commit himself too strongly by any very unqualified declarations
632
against the admission of foreign sugar into consumption here. I warn him that he will find this to be very inconvenient in respect to himself and to his Tory allies hereafter. A renewed commercial treaty—we shall probably conclude with the Brazils, and it is obvious that no such treaty can be accepted by the people of England, unless it shall admit of a much more extended intercourse with Brazil, creating a much freer commercial intercourse between the two countries and a more enlarged consumption of the articles of colonial produce of which sugar is the chief. But had I made a party speech as my noble and learned Friend has suggested, would the offence have been one so entirely unpardonable? My Lords, I acknowledge myself to be a party man brought up and attached to the principles of the old Whig party of England. Bound too, in affection and in confidence to the leaders of that party my former colleagues, to those principles I still adhere. From that party I will not separate myself. From me they shall receive the same support while sitting at this side of the House which they would have received from me in office. I do not change my political opinions in any respect. The noble and learned Lord has been pleased to refer to what Mr. Tierney, called the "slippery questions" of finance, and he has attributed to me the discovery of those curiosities in natural history, which he designates as mare's nests. I apprehend that an amateur financier runs as much risk of making these discoveries as any professional workman like myself. For a young naturalist like the noble and learned Lord entering on his course of observation for the first time and without experience, I must say that his success has been this evening pre-eminent; his discoveries of mare's nests could not have been rivalled even by the most veteran financier. Let us see whether this proposition can be clearly made out. But first let me dispose of a preliminary charge. He says that I selected the date of the 5th of April, as the basis of my calculations in order to strike a blow at the Ministers. I did no such thing. I selected the 5th of April, because I was bound to do so, because it was the close of the financial year, and because it was the very period to which the calculations of the Government exclusively applied. But in order to give to that Government the benefit of any subsequent improvement in the revenue, I

633
myself moved for the balance sheet to July, thus giving them the means of illustrating their arguments by reference to the subsequent traces of more favourable events. My noble and learned Friend, however asserts, that if I had given credit to the Government for the receipts of property-tax in the July quarter, the April deficiency would have been effaced. Let us bring this assertion to a test. The deficiency in April exceeded 2,400,000 l.; therefore, if his assertion be well founded, the receipt of the property-tax in the July quarter ought to have exceeded this sum. Was this the case? So far otherwise was it that the receipt of property-tax was but 961,000 l., thus showing an error, or a mare's nest of more than 1,400,000 l. in the calculations of our amateur Chancellor of the Exchequer. A second mare's nest is to the full as great as the first. He refers to the reduction of the interest on Exchequer bills as a conclusive proof of the successful administration of his friends in the Government. My Lords, they might as well claim merit for the changes in the atmosphere. The variations in the interest of Exchequer bills are determined by the general state of the money market, and in the demand which exists for profitable investments. If the general state of commerce is stagnant, as unfortunately has been the case, if there be no active tendency to energy and speculation, capital is ever thrown back on the public securities, the prices of stock and the premium on Exchequer bills must advance, the interest of money falling. But I think of all mare's nests, this discovery will be considered in the city the most stupendous; and the good citizens who frequent Lombard-street and the Stock Exchange, will be indeed astonished when they hear that my noble and learned Friend refers to the low interest of Exchequer bills as the proof of prosperity, and to the stagnation of the money market as evidence of financial success. Again, he has charged me with unfairness, in referring to the interest on the permanent funded debt only, excluding the floating securities. I did so because I compared the charges brought against the late Government with the charges which might be made against the present Cabinet. We were condemned for an increase of the permanent debt, even when that increase was attributable not to any Ministerial extravagance, but to that great act of national virtue and justice
634
which added 20,000,000 l. to our debt for negro emancipation. For this no credit was given. Neither was any reference made to upwards of 7,000,000 l. of Exchequer bills, either funded or paid off. My argument was therefore thoroughly logical, being founded on data furnished by my opponents. My Lords I think this third and most monstrous mare's nest is to be found in these unfounded charges of my learned and noble Friend. He charges me with ingratitude for receiving with a taunt the proposal for allowing a free exportation of machinery. Such was not my argument. I contrasted, and called on the Government to reconcile the free exportation of machinery with the grounds laid down by themselves to justify their increased export duty on coals. Let us tax the coals of the foreigner, it was said, to prevent his competition with native and home industry. If this argument stands good, why facilitate the export of machinery to render foreign competition more effectual. These two propositions cannot stand together. I will ask by which of the two is the Government disposed to abide. I call on the House to notice one most important and remarkable omission in the replies attempted to be given to my argument. No one noble Lord has ventured to deny that we have carried to the public account every farthing received from China, whilst we have contracted a new and postponed debt to the Opium merchants and the East India Company for claims with which the Chinese remittance was previously chargeable. We spend the money justly applicable to the satisfaction of our engagements, and we meet those engagements by an issue of bills payable three years after date. I ask whether this course could have been adopted by any merchant or commercial firm solicitous of maintaining credit. To this inquiry no answer whatever has been given, or has even been suggested. My Lords, had I desired to make a party speech, I might have endeavoured, however ineffectually, to rival those abilities which during the late Government were so ably but so very bitterly employed in reviewing each Session of Parliament. I might have described the Legislative budget of the Government, I might have pointed out their Legislative deficit, at least as stupendous as the deficit in their incomes. I did not do so, and yet abandoning those party advantages,

635
I am now to be held up as making a party speech. I leave this task to another time and to abler hands if it should be found necessary hereafter. I am contented with proving the utter failure of those financial calculations which we are called upon so greatly to admire, and so very gratefully to acknowledge. I cannot do the one any more than the other.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, the noble Lord's resolutions stated positively, with respect to the year ending with the 5th o April, 1843, that there had been a reducftion of the balance in the Exchequer in respect of that year. He did not pretend to reply to the noble Lord as to the year 1836. He had made no comparison with the balance of 1836. He took the words of the resolution; those words were, "the balances have been decreased." The balances had not been decreased in that year, was what he (the Duke of Wellington) said.
Lord Monteaglereferred to the balances on the 1st of January, 1841, and the 1st of January, 1843, to show a deficiency in the latter year as compared with the former.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, what he called upon their Lordships to do was to vote on the resolutions as they were before the House.
Lord Broughamsaid, he understood his noble Friend had, during his short absence, been pharisaically, as before, crossing his hands on his breast, and praising himself at the expense of others; and he himself was the person at whose expense the self-eulogy was this time performed. He was by implication taunted with not being a good party man—a praise he was not over anxious to earn, seeing the conduct of your good party men in so many cases. He was by like implication charged with quitting his party. Now, this he peremptorily denied, at least in the noble Lord's sense. He had from Lord Melbourne, and under his hand, dated in April, 1835, a most full and most ample discharge from all remains of all party obligations—a positive avowal from the noble Lord's chief, and then chief of the Whig party, that he (Lord Melbourne) or his colleagues, or the party, had thenceforth not the smallest vestige of a claim upon him (Lord Brougham) and that they would at all times be ready to confess that be (Lord Brougham) violated no party duty and broke no party
636
tie, in whatever course he might choose hereafter to take with respect to the Whigs. He was to be at perfect and absolute liberty. This he had never before mentioned, either in public or in private; though he had been unceasingly assailed by the despicable and desperate adherents of the Whigs out of doors, and chiefly in the press, with having estranged himself from their masters and employers. It is true that no one of the party in Parliament had ever ventured upon the perilous experiment of saying a single word on the subject, and he now defied them all to say one word on it or to deny his statement in any one particular. If they did, he had some other things to state which also he had hitherto withheld, and which might prove less palatable. Let them ask Lord Melbourne whether or not his statement were at all exaggerated—whether it were not below, and much below the truth. However, he appealed not to Lord Melbourne, but to the whole of their Lordships, whether he had availed himself of his, discharge from the Whig army—whether he had acted upon the principle so justly avowed in 1835 by Lord Melbourne and his Cabinet, though to-night forgotten by one of them, that protection and allegiance are reciprocal duties—whether, when protection was withdrawn, nay, changed into proscription, he had withdrawn his allegiance. He appealed to the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) and his noble and learned Colleague (the Lord Chancellor), whether he had not manfully and strenuously, though it might be feebly, stood by the Whig Government and Whig party in the time of their utmost need, after they came into place in 1835, without anything like power. Who carried through all their measures in the stormy and important Session 1835? Who fought for them throughout, and successfully, their Municipal Reform Bill? On that he gave, as on all other measures, his hearty, and daily, and hourly support. But not only his conscientious support, he gave them a party, nay, a factious support, which they were as thankful for at the time as they were forgetful of it ever after. So passed the Session of 1835, and in the vacation he never having on anyone occasion left them, or done other than support them, was assailed all through that vacation, as his reward, with the most foul and unwearied abuse and even ribaldry, by the supporters

637
of the Whig Government, both in the English press and in the field of Irish intrigue and agitation. He did not blame the heads of the party for the proceedings of those most despicable calumniators. He knew that some of his noble Friends had expressed extreme disgust with their base proceedings. They only took the benefit of those proceedings while they relieved their consciences by blaming them freely, and, in some instances, rewarding their authors. So ended 1835. In 1836, he never had been a day in London during the Session, being confined by illness to the country. But the Whig abuse of him continued in all quarters, not appeased by his silence, or relaxed by his absence. In 1837, he resumed his place in Parliament, and he continued to support the Government, nay, to receive the usual party summonses to attend the House, and the usual invitations to party meetings out of doors; the former he obeyed, the latter he declined attending to. But except on the Canada Bill, he never offered one word against any of their measures; nay, he defended them all: even on that bill he only made a single statement of his objections, and as inoffensively as it was possible, rather confining himself to a protest on the journals, than giving rise to any great discussion in the House. Next Session showed a material difference. He had warned them openly of his views on the Reform Bill, and his advocacy of the rights of the working classes; and the finality declaration of Lord John Russell came forth, in which he never could agree. He still less agreed with them on slavery; and, above all, on their oppressive and unconstitutional measures of appointing dictators in Canada. This led to much difference of opinion; but he never went with any marked and regular opposition to them, till their conduct in May, 1839, made all further party alliance utterly impossible. When he found them turn their hacks upon all constitutional principle—abandoning the old Whig and Liberal principle of looking for support to the Parliament and the people, creeping and sneaking back into place on a petticoat intrigue, a bedchamber quarrel, content to hold office against the two Houses, one of which they never had had, the other of which had now rejected them—standing against Parliament on the mere personal favour of the Crown, and con-
638
fessing their belief that the people were against them, by not daring to dissolve and appeal to the country,—when, above all, he found them bent upon cleaving to place, without the vestige of power to carry any one measure, and sacrificing to the most sordid views their whole principles and their duty to the State, then, indeed, he felt that his alienation was converted into hostility, and he had ever since been much more their adversary than their supporter. But he defied any one of them to point out either the instance of his opposing them, before 1838, or the single instance of his throwing any personal spleen, or gratifying any desire of vengeance against any one of them. Above all, he openly, and in their presence, defied all and each of them to show the single instance in which he had abandoned one principle, changed one opinion, or shown the least inconsistency with his known principles and opinions, by him held during the thirty or forty years of his now somewhat long public life.
Resolutions negatived.
House adjourned at half-past ten.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1a. Sessions of the Peace (Dublin); Exchequer Bills; Fisheries; Consolidated Fund.
2a. Turnpike Acts Continuance; Militia Pay; Arms (Ireland); Poor Relief (Ireland); Foreign Jurisdiction; Coalwhippers.
Reported.—Sudbury Commission; Grand Jury Presentments (Ireland); Applotment of Rates (Dublin); Holy-rood Park; West India Islands Relief; Designs Copyright; Customs; Mandamus Appeals; Warrants of Attorney.
3a. and passed:—Teachers of Schools (Ireland); Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions; Highway Rates Act Continuance; Theatres Regulation; Hackney and Stage Carriages.
Private.—Reported.—Liverpool Fire Prevention; Bermondsey and Rotherhithe Roads; North Esk Reservoir.
3a. and passed:—Gibson's Estate; Anderston Improvement and Police; Glasgow Marine Insurance Company; Lagan Navigation.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Beaumont, from the Proprietor of the Marylebone, Theatre, against the Theatres Regulation Bill.—By Lord Wharncliffe, from Clare, and Sligo, in favour of the Arms (Ireland) Bill.—By the Earl of Charleville, from Wexford, against the Repeal of the Union.—From Sudbury, against the Sudbury Commission Bill.—From the Coalwhippers of London, Stepney, and other Places, in favour of the Coalwhippers Bill.

EXCHEQUER BALANCES.
Lord Monteagle, in moving for certain returns, showing the state of the balances in the Exchequer at different periods, read the following tabular statement, in illustration of his speech on Monday evening:—

689

BALANCES IN THE EXCHEQUER.

Jan. 1.

£

1841

1842

1843

China Money.

1836

6,069,458

Jan. 5

3,858,465

3,653,810

1,390,059

1837

6,049,372

April 5

874,302

857,291

956,599

511,000

1838

4,127,973

real bal.

465,599

1839

4,594,884

July 5

1,004,957

2,304,553

1,835,014

803,000

1840

3,707,425

balance

1,032,000

1841

3,858,465

1842

3,653,810

Or deducting the total receipt of China money of the year

1843

1,390,059

1,314,406

The real balance

520,608

Returns ordered.

THEATRE REGULATIONS.
Lord Wharncliffemoved the third reading of the Theatre Regulations Bill.
Lord Campbellbegged to move an amendment upon the 15th clause. That clause empowered the Lord Chamberlain to prohibit, at his pleasure, the representation of any play whatever in any theatre within his jurisdiction. He (Lord Campbell) was quite ready to invest the Lord Chamberlain with full powers to prevent any performances which were calculated to offend public decency, or to peril the public peace; but beyond this he did not think that officer ought to interfere with a manager's arrangements. He did not propose to omit any of the words of the clause, but merely to guide the Lord Chamberlain in his exercise of this power, by proposing these words before the existing clause:— "Be it enacted, that for the preservation of good manners, decorum, and of the public peace, it shall be lawful for the Lord Chamberlain, for the time being," the rest of the clause remaining as at present.
Lord Wharncliffeobjected to the amendment, because it would restrict the powers of the Lord Chamberlain within
690
narrower limits than they had at present, whereas the object of the bill was not to restrict his powers, but to extend his jurisdiction. The Lord Chamberlain was a great officer of State, a Member of their Lordship's House, and always ready to defend any proceedings which might be deemed an abuse of his powers.
The Lord Chancellorwould suggest an alteration in the amendment of his noble and learned Friend, which he thought would remove all objection to it. He recommended that the words, "whenever in the opinion of the Lord Chamberlain it was necessary for the promotion of good manners and decorum, or of the public peace, to forbid the performance of any stage play, farce, &c."
Lord Campbellhad no objection to adopt the suggestion of his noble and learned Friend.
Amendment altered and adopted.
Bill read a third time and passed.

ARMS (IRELAND) BILL.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that in rising to move the second reading of the Irish Arms Bill, he felt sure that the House was aware that a law similar to that which be now proposed to their Lordships to enact by this bill had been the law of Ireland for half a century. The law he alluded to was enacted in Ireland so far back as 1786, and the same measure, in a more extended form, was enacted by the united Parliament in 1807, and further amended and enacted in 1810. This law was continued by various acts to the 4th and 5th of her present Majesty, which act would expire at the end of the present Session. It, therefore, became necessary to adopt this bill. There were some important alterations in this act, to which he would address a few words. The other alterations which had been made referred to the mode of carrying the act into effect, and which would be more directly referred to in committee, and he felt sure that when they were explained they would not be objected to. The principal alteration which had been made in the bill was the insertion of a clause, by which it was enacted that licenses for bearing arms must be obtained that the arms registered must be marked, and that persons should be named by the Lord-lieutenant who should fix the mark on the arms so licensed to be kept. He regarded this as a valuable amendment in the law, for there could be no doubt that the

691
marking arms should be a check on incendiary offenders who went about plundering arms. The marking arms would have the effect of preventing the carrying arms away in Ireland. If a House was plundered of arms, and they were carried away, on being searched for and found, it would most likely lead to the apprehension and conviction of the persons who were guilty of this offence, which, he regretted to say, was one common in Ireland, and very injurious to the public peace. This was the principal alteration in the measure. He was not aware of any other material alteration to which it was necessary for him to call attention. The object of the measure was to re-enact those laws which referred to the registration of arms; but the law likewise extended to the restriction of the importation of gunpowder and ammunition, and also restricted the manufacture of gunpowder and ammunition in that part of the United Kingdom. The bill contained a clause to enable justices at petty sessions to try offences under this act, and the decisions of the justices at these sessions was liable to revision. He should now move the second reading of this bill, and he should also move that it be committed on Thursday.
Lord Camoysfelt that he need offer no apology for coming forward at that early stage of the debate to address the House, for as he entertained a strong opinion on the subject of this bill, he thought that he should be departing from his duty, if from any fastidious feeling he refrained from expressing his opinions, and from saying non-content to the second reading of this bill. He might be charged with great presumption in putting forward his opinion against those of noble Lords opposite; but he entertained such a strong objection to this bill, that he should not hesitate in declaring his opposition to it. He could not forget that the past policy of the noble Lords opposite to Ireland had been coercion, and they had consequently kept up perpetual irritation and excitement in Ireland, and therefore he had no confidence in the political opinions or sagacity of noble Lords as regarded the Government of Ireland. The noble Lords opposite, with the exception of a very few years, had possessed the Government of Ireland since the union, and for upwards of forty years, with the exception of the year 1829, when there was a short lucid inter-
692
val, they pursued the same career in that country. If he referred to the proceedings of the Government of the noble Viscount, who was in power during the interval he had alluded to, it would be found that such had been the effect of the prudence and moderation and justice of those at the head of affairs, that an immediate and striking effect was produced in the general tranquillity, and peace, and freedom from outrage that appeared, and from this circumstance Government was enabled to remove a very large portion of the army from Ireland; this showed the beneficial effects that had resulted from a change in the system of the Government. For his own part, he saw no reason in the present state of Ireland, which could justify the passing an Arms Bill for Ireland. He had heard nothing in the reasons urged by the noble Duke, nor had he seen anything in the opinions expressed by the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, when he defended this measure, which he thought could justify it, and the noble Lord himself only quoted the opinions of Colonel Macgregor and Colonel Millar, the heads of the constabulary force in Ireland in justification of it. As for the marking clause, which had been adverted to by the noble Duke although it might in some instances prove beneficial, it would in other cases be attended with great inconvenience. Robberies of arms were offences of very frequent occurrence in Ireland; and by this bill they gave public information—information which it was in the power of any one to obtain—as to the persons who possessed arms, the places in which they were deposited, and the description of those arms. Information was thus given to all persons who wished to steal arms of the places where any description of arms might be obtained. If an attempt at robbery was unsuccessful, and the arms were left upon the premises, the fact of their being marked afforded no evidence against the parties perpetrating the crime. Was there then any necessity for the adoption of this bill. He conceived that the Legislature should not pass such a bill as this unless it was absolutely necessary. In the debate which arose on passing a bill of this kind in 1807 he found some opinions similar to those which he entertained expressed on the subject. He found a protest, in which was the following striking language:—
"1st. Because the reasons which have been urged in debate do not appear to be sufficiently

693
strong to compel me to agree to the passing this bill, which can be justified only on the plea of necessity, and which, being contrary to the principles of a free constitution, ought (if unfortunately necessary) to be enforced for the shortest time possible; and yet, in the present case, it has been pertinaciously refused to limit its duration to one year; and, on the contrary, it has been declared in debate, that it would have been better if it had been made to continue for a still longer period of years. 2d. Not applicable. 3d. Because it appears to me that the best way to conciliate the people of Ireland to a union with this country is by convincing them that in all our acts towards them, we are as tender of their liberties as we are of our own, and that we will on no account suffer that to be done to them, which we will not as readily, and on the same grounds, submit to ourselves."
This protest was signed "Ponsonby," and by other noble Lords.
He might be told that noble Lords on his side of the House proposed a similar bill to this, and therefore he should not oppose this measure. He did not deny that they had proposed similar bills, but he denied that this was a ground for abstaining from opposing it, because there might not be the same necessity for it now as there was formerly. He denied that there had been any factious opposition to this measure in the House of Commons. [The Duke of Wellington: I never said a word of the kind.] He did not say that the noble Duke had, but other persons had made this charge. In his opinion hon. Members would not have deserved the name of Irishmen, if they had not opposed this Arms Bill to the utmost, and they had effected this good by their opposition, that they had succeeded in materially lessening the evils of the bill by the course they are taken. This was not a time when any bill of this kind, calculated to excite great irritation, should be passed. He found another protest in the journals of the House, of the date of 1819, which was directed against an Arms Bill for England, and although it was a measure which was limited in its operation to particular districts, it excited great opposition, and produced the following striking protest:—
"Because the right of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, is secured to British subjects by the ancient laws of these realms, is declared to be so by the Bill of Rights, and is, in the words of Mr. Justice Blackstone, 'a public allowance of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are
694
found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.
"2. Because this law is, in its very nature, peculiarly liable to abuse. Interest, credulity, malevolence, revenge, party violence, and indiscreet zeal, may, equally with a sense of duty, contribute to call it into action; and the powers given for its execution, of breaking either by day or night into any house or place where information may have been received that arms are kept for illegal purposes, must unavoidably expose the persons and property of his Majesty's subjects, to injury and violence, which cannot be sufficiently guarded against by the provisions made in the bill for that purpose. This is not a mere apprehension. Experience proves that such effects may be expected from it. In Ireland, it is well known, nothing more contributed to irritate the people, and to provoke acts of private resentment and revenge, than the abuses which took place, and particularly the insults which were offered to women, in the exercise of a similar power."
That protest was signed by Earl Grey and ten other peers. If the difference between the mode of governing England and Ireland were to be kept up, it could excite no astonishment that the people of that country demanded the repeal of the union. The debate which referred to the proposition for the repeal of the union was occasionally referred to, but he did not recollect to have heard the address which was made in that debate by the noble Lord (Lord Monteagle), as an amendment to the motion, at all alluded to. He found in that address the following paragraph:—
"In expressing to your Majesty our resolution to maintain the legislative union inviolate, we humbly beg leave to assure your Majesty, that we shall persevere in applying our best attention to the removal of all just causes of complaint, and to the promotion of all well-considered measures of improvement."
Now the whole of the Conservative party and a large portion of the Liberal party supported that address. He would ask whether that address had been acted up to? It was perfectly notorious that it had not. It was therefore not all surprising to him that such a demand had grown for the repeal of the union. He was opposed to repeal himself on conviction and reflection. He had heard it said that repeal and separation was necessarily the same thing. This he denied; and this denial had repeatedly been asserted by the Repealers themselves. But he had a stronger ground to rely upon than their own assertions—namely, that their interests were opposed to separation. Repeal, how-

695
ever, might lead to separation, not in one or two years, but in the course of ten or twenty years, or more; and if it could lead to separation, a prudent person should abstain from supporting it. This was one ground which operated with him; but he had another reason. At one time he was ready to confess that his mind was rather strongly inclined in favour of repeal; but the Government of the noble Viscount (Viscount Melbourne) since then had taken away the chief ground for repeal—namely, the hopelessness of justice for Ireland under a government in this country. If, then, he thought that the power of the noble Lords opposite would be permanent, and there was no hope of the redress of the evils of Ireland from that quarter, he confessed he should have very great doubts in refraining from joining those seeking to obtain repeal. He had spoken of unredressed grievances, and he might be asked what they were. He would say at once, and without hesitation, the state of the Church in Ireland. He admitted that the Church was a delicate matter for him to touch upon, but as he considered that to be his duty, he should not hesitate. The church in Ireland had been designated by all kinds of severe names: it had been called the monster evil of the country; it was said to have been the frequent cause of much of the misery which afflicted Ireland; and it had also repeatedly been pointed out as the badge of slavery and the badge of conquest in Ireland. Whenever the people of Ireland had asked for the redress of any grievances, the Church was always put forward as the ground for refusing to listen to their demands. It had repeatedly been said—Do not enlarge the political franchise of the people, because you will give increased power to the Catholic population as against the Protestant Church. If the prayer was for corporation reform, the objection had been constantly raised—Do not grant it, for if you do, you will add to the power of the Catholic priesthood. This had been the constant and reiterated ground of objection which had been raised to every concession in Ireland. It was said that the property of Ireland was Protestant: he admitted that it was; but this was not an argument for the Protestant Church. The establishment of a Church, as he had always understood, was for the salvation of souls; and he thought that such an argument was dangerous, for it
696
designated the church as a human institution, and it implied that it was to be talked of as nothing else. It was also said that if the Established Church was not in conformity with the property, at least, it should be of the religion of the majority. It was then argued that England and Ireland, forming a United Kingdom, that the Protestants ought to have an Established Church for both countries. He denied this on the authority of what had been done in Scotland, where this country had not acted in the same manner. If the proceeding were right in Scotland, it was wrong in Ireland; if it were right in Ireland, it was wrong in Scotland. But then the question arose whether they were the majority. He had heard that one-half of the population of England and Wales did not belong to the Established Church. He might refer to facts which apparently proved this. He found that about four millions of signatures were attached to the petitions which were presented to the other House against the educational clauses of the Factories Bill, and he thought that he might safely infer that not any of the persons who had signed those petitions were members of the Established Church, and he might also infer that few women or children signed these petitions. If these data were correct, it would appear that one-half of the people of England and Wales did not belong to the Established Church. Now put the case thus: there were seven millions of members of the Established Church in England and Wales, and in Ireland about half a million more. In Ireland again there were six millions and a half of Catholics, and a million of Catholics in England, so that in the two countries the number of members of the two Churches was nearly equal. He did not mean to abide this argument; but if the argument as to the majority of each country was to be abided by, the one Church was as much entitled to an establishment as the other. He begged also to add, that he did not concur in the proposition for paying the Catholic clergy; but he was prepared to maintain that where national property was taken, it ought to be appropriated for the benefit of all classes. Having said thus much, although, as he had already stated, he was opposed to the repeal of the union, he could not say that he was adverse to the agitation which was now going on in Ireland. He knew per-

697
fectly well that the grievances of Ireland would never be redressed except by agitation, and he said that the people of Ireland did not deserve liberty unless they continued a course of agitation until their grievances were redressed, and everything connected with Protestant ascendancy was removed from that country. He begged to state, in conclusion, that he had been actuated by no other feeling, in bringing forward his views on this subject, than a desire to benefit the entire community.
The Earl of Winchilseahad listened with considerable attention, and with no less surprise, to the speech of the noble Lord who had just sat down, and sincerely did he wish that, before the passing of the bill of 1829, that noble Lord, as the representative of the Church to which he belonged, or some other Member of that House as such representative, had declared the object for which the bill, in the opinion of the members of that Church, was to be granted, namely, the destruction of the Protestant Church in Ireland; for it was upon a most sacred pledge and promise, by oaths which all thought to be inviolate, that the concessions made by that measure were granted. In adopting the course which he had taken on that subject, he had felt that he was tearing asunder, not only those feelings which had bound him to the government of the day in their public capacity, but that he was severing himself from men whose private friendship he had enjoyed. He had entertained strong views on the subject of that measure, and he had not hesitated to declare his conviction that its adoption would lead to consequences which he had predicted—consequences, every one of which had fallen out as he had predicted them. The noble Lord had told the House that the great grievance of Ireland was the Established Church of that country. In 1829 they had been told by persons who had been examined before their Lordships' House, upon their oaths, that if the concessions sought were granted, the Church would be rendered secure, and that no power could ever be exerted in any way to diminish, far less to destroy, its influence. Let them now grant the prayer of the noble Lord; and the time would not be far distant when the Established Church would cease to exist in any part of the dominions of her Majesty. It was not as a political engine only that he con-
698
sidered the maintenance of the Established Church to be of importance; but he considered it to be of importance with a view to the maintenance of those principles established at the time of the Reformation, which the great body of the people of the united empire considered as the ground-work of that religion, on which all our national greatness was founded. He declared that if he had ever used any terms of disrespect, or such as gave pain to any member of the Church of Rome, he entertained the sincerest regret for it; he was disposed to give, and did give, every toleration to that Church, but he could not conscientiously concede principles which were subversive of civil and religious freedom. It had been proved that Protestantism had secured to this country such liberty as no other country enjoyed. He had warned the House against the measure of 1829; and he had then told them that that concession granted, the Catholics would never be contented until they had seen every Protestant institution subverted. He was glad that the noble Lord had spoken out. He had always made a distinction between Roman Catholics and Papists; and he believed that the Popish party in Ireland would do everything for the destruction of Protestant institutions. With regard to the bill now on the Table of their Lordships' House, he appealed to the noble Lord whether, looking at the existing state of things in Ireland, he believed that it was not by one-half more appalling than that which had induced Lord Grey to propose the Arms Bill of 1833? They saw bodies of men—the whole mass of the Roman Catholic population of Ireland, and nearly the whole hierarchy of that country—united with the avowed object of the destruction of the Church, and that was the object which the noble Lord himself admitted he had in view. He called upon their Lordships then to support the Government on this bill, and on every other measure which could tend to restore peace and tranquillity to that distracted and unhappily, he would say, long misgoverned country—Ireland.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, that although he concurred in some parts of the observations of the noble Lord who had spoken second in this debate, he could by no means arrive at the conclusion to which the noble Lord had come, upon the subject of the vote which he should give on this

699
occasion. He must say for himself that he felt anxious to give an opinion on this measure, for he thought from the nature of the bill itself, but much more when considered in connection with recent events in Ireland, it ought not to pass that House without the most serious attention on the part of their Lordships. It was a bill, as had been said by the noble Duke, which had been frequently proposed by various Governments, and had been acceded to by Parliament, being alleged to be a necessary means for carrying on the Government and preserving the peace and tranquillity of Ireland; and although he must state that from such information as he had been able to obtain, he by no means found that those persons who had been most zealous in preserving the peace, and who were engaged in the local administration of justice, were at all confident as to the effects to be produced by an Arms bill—though, on the contrary, he found many who entertained doubts as to what those effects would be—and although doubts existed in his own mind as to its having that degree of efficacy, which would be necessary to recommend such an assumption of power; yet when he considered that the Government had been before entrusted with the powers now sought to be conferred upon them, and when he looked at the present state of Ireland, he could not bring himself to withdraw from the Government any one power calculated in their opinion to maintain peace and order in that country, which they came to that House to ask for. He said that to withdraw from the Government any power which they might ask for would be unwise; but he said so irrespective of another point to which he would allude—of the amendments and alterations of the old law which had been made in this measure. He might be permitted to doubt, whether, on the whole, considering the extreme irritation of the Irish public on this subject, it was worth while for the Government to ask that any additional powers should be conferred on them by this bill—a course calculated to create that sort of feeling which they had good evidence from what had passed elsewhere had been excited. At the same time he was ready to admit that he was convinced that in making this addition to this bill, noble Lords opposite had been actuated by no other motive than that of endeavouring to make this bill efficacious for its object. He had no doubt they had asked for these additional powers as being
700
calculated to make the bill effective, but at the same time there remained to be set against this measure the additional feelings of irritation which some of the alterations in the law were calculated to produce. He was glad to see that some of the alterations of the most obnoxious nature which had been introduced, when it was originally proposed to Parliament, had been withdrawn; and whatever might be thought of the occasional warmth with which this bill had been opposed, and although great allowances were to be made for the natural sensibility of the Irish upon questions involving their national honour, he could not avoid saying with respect to the general character of that opposition, if opposition it could be called, that it had been of the most useful description—of a nature entirely free from anything like the taint of party. There had never been a bill the divisions on which exhibited a greater variety of sentiment among those who usually wished to think and act together, but, governed by the importance of the occasion, in many of the questions which had arisen upon this bill, support and opposition had been alike given to or withdrawn from her Majesty's Government, without reference to party distinction, there being the greatest desire exhibited to make this bill as efficacious on the one hand, and as free from objection on the other, as it could be made by the most assiduous attention. The result was most salutary, for it had brought the bill into their Lordships House in a shape in which, whatever doubts might be entertained with regard to the balance of inconvenience on the one hand or advantage on the other, yet justified him in refraining from offering any opposition to it. The bill had been altered to a degree almost beyond precedent, and however long, tedious, and inconvenient the discussions upon it had proved, still they had in the result proved most salutary, and no fewer than forty-three amendments had been admitted into the bill, of which seventeen only, he believed, could be said to be of a verbal nature. But some of the amendments were of great importance. They found that in the discussion of the bill, not only had the description of arms to which it related been more clearly defined and explained, but the authority under which a search for arms could be made had been explicitly marked, and where before a most irritating, and, because irritating, a most dangerous power was given to the officers of the Government of entering houses for

701
the purpose of searching for arms at night, which had been more dreaded as being liable to abuse than any other power which could be confided to them, a clause had now been introduced, so framed that the search could only be made under the authority of two justices, and in the actual presence of one justice of the peace. This was a very great, and he thought a very valuable alteration. He could not think, at the same time, that this bill, though demanded by the Government, was more particularly called for by the circumstances of the country at the present moment, and he founded this observation upon that which was notorious to all their Lordships, namely, that the class of offences which it was the particular object of this bill to check and control, had actually fallen off in point of numbers. The noble Duke himself (the Duke of Wellington) in an argument on the state of Ireland, which he had addressed to the House on a former evening, had told their Lordships that there was a great diminution of actual crime as compared with those seditious movements which the noble Duke had then—and he confessed, he thought justly condemned. And the noble Duke on that occasion had made statements which afforded a remarkable view of the tranquillity which existed in Ireland, as connected with that sort of outrage which it was the object of this bill to meet. He now held the statements of the noble Duke in his hand, and the result of them was that, on comparing the amount of offences of June, 1843, with those of June, 1842, there was an immense diminution, amounting to not less than one-half. And what was most remarkable was, that the particular character of offence, namely, the offence of demanding arms, had actually fallen off one-half from one year to the other; the number of charges for demanding arms in the month of June, 1842, being twenty; and that in the month of June, 1843, being ten only. But he was ready still to admit that it would not be convenient that her Majesty's Government should be deprived of any power which they had been hitherto enabled to exercise, and for which they deemed it necessary or expedient to ask; and he must say that, even if it were not absolutely necessary that those powers should be given, if the withdrawal of them in the present conjunction of affairs might be attended with any sense of increased insecurity he for one should not be disposed to consider it his duty to call on the House to refuse those powers
702
to the Government. Upon the grounds that he had now stated, therefore, he did not feel himself called on to offer any opposition to this bill. But it was impossible, when they looked at what this bill was, and at the time at which it was introduced and came before that House, immediately before the conclusion of a long and laborious and protracted Session, they could not help, at the same time, considering what the bill was not. It stood before the House in bold relief, marked as being the only great measure connected with the pacification of Ireland which had been introduced by her Majesty's Government. He must, therefore, say, that the House was bound to consider what it was not. It was not, and could not, be a new link between the Government and the people; it could not be the means of dissipating popular clamour and popular prejudice,—it could not disable any demagogue from maintaining or extending the influence which he now possessed; it could not be the means of softening, allaying, or destroying any political or religious animosities, it touched none of the sources of evil or motives for disturbance. He, therefore, could not allow this bill to pass its present stage without earnestly entreating their Lordships, and entreating her Majesty's Government to consider how much remained behind this bill that was wanting to procure anything like the restoration, or the creation, if they might so call it, of a tranquil, and peaceful, and safe state of things in that part of the United Kingdom. Many were the suggestions which had been offered on this subject. They had naturally been alluded to on various occasions in the course of former debates, though not, unfortunately, as the result of the deliberations of her Majesty's Government; but the time must now be near, when her Majesty's Ministers must look to measures which went beyond the actual surface of society—which struck at the root of the evil—when they must look to the foundation of the mischief instead of to the immediate proposition of measures calculated to allay momentary difficulties. The bill now before the House, even if it was necessary, was not a remedial bill in the large sense of that word. If they succedeed in extinguishing some of the sparks which were emitted from the volcano, did not the volcano itself still remain? If they pumped the water out of the hold of a ship, did that leave the ship safe and secure, and fitted to struggle with the waves, and to meet

703
the opposing tides? It was the duty of the Government to look for an amendment of the law which should go to the framework of society in Ireland, if they fulfilled the office of a Government. He did not feel himself called on to take on himself any of the functions or responsibilities of the Government on this question; but wishing to conceal nothing of his views, considering that there was no occasion to conceal those views, because he had already, on previous occasions, expressed the same deliberate opinion, he did most confidently state, that one of the remedies for the actual state of Ireland must be found in a provision for the Roman Catholic Church. He spoke confidently on this subject, with a confidence not inspired by any opinions of his own, not inspired by any speculations or observations of his own on this subject: but he spoke of it with a confidence founded on the fact, and it was a fact which was susceptible of proof, that of all the great men who from time to time had expressed an opinion on this subject—some of them willingly and as an act of justice—some of them unwillingly and reluctantly—but yielding to the force of expediency and to the force of the times, had been brought to concur in the expediency of adopting what had been called Catholic Emancipation; he would venture to take on himself to say, that there was not one of them, without a single exception, who had taken a part in advocating that important change who had not carried with him the conviction of the necessity, either precedently to that change, or as an accompaniment of it, or as immediately following it, of a provision for the Roman Catholic clergy. Why, Mr. Pitt was of that opinion, and his was a name, he should have thought, which should possess some authority in that House, and which should carry some authority with it among the numerous classes of this country. He would state only what could be shown to be the opinion of Mr. Pitt, and he knew that this opinion was expressed in public communications by him. It was a bold thing to prophecy what would be found in any quarter to which he had no access, but without knowing where the confidential correspondence of Mr. Pitt with Lord Cornwallis, that excellent, great, and good Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, was, he would venture to say, that if at any time that correspondence should be brought to light, it would be found that Mr. Pitt had insisted on that as a result to which he was inclined, and
704
thought it necessary to give way. Mr. Canning, Lord Castlereagh, Mr. Grattan he might enumerate all the great men of late years—he might enumerate all who had taken a leading and commanding part in the discussion of this question, had entertained the same views; all seemed to have come down from those places whereon they stood in arrayed or other questions against each other, and forced by the cogency of circumstances to take up one and the same position, and to unite in declaring their conviction that this provision must be made, and ought to have been made at a much earlier time. That opinion had been given long ago; had the experience of the last ten or twenty years convinced their Lordships that these great men were mistaken in the view which they took. Had it not, on the contrary, proved to them that such a step would tend to secure the permanent continuance of that union which it was the interest of all to maintain. He had the strongest confidence on this subject, not only from those who had advocated these opinions, but from those who had opposed them. He found the same opinion repeatedly expressed in Parliament, as well as in print; but once and once only had it been brought to the test of a vote in Parliament—of the House of Commons. It was now something like seventeen years ago; it was in 1825, when a noble relation of his, with whom he was not politically connected, he meant Lord Francis Leveson, had made a motion in the House of Commons to this effect. He did not make that motion, however, without great consultation and many communications with others—with all persons who were interested in the great question of Catholic emancipation, with which the motion was connected. They one and all concurred in the propriety of making the motion; it was made, and, unlike that for Catholic emancipation, which had to win its way to the public conviction through a long series of debates, and through minority after minority, until at last the minority became a majority, on the first occasion of that proposition being made, a majority of forty-eight was obtained. That proposition was most ably supported, and was most feebly opposed. He said so from no disrespect to the talents and station of the persons who thought themselves bound to oppose that proposition. It was, however, opposed by Sir R. Peel and by Mr. Goulburn, both of them Members of the Government; but did they state any objection in principle to it?

705
Not at all. He would read the words Sir R. Peel had used upon that occasion. The right hon. Baronet said distinctly "that he would not have objected to the principle of the vote if the House had agreed to remove the Roman Catholic disabilities." Mr. Leslie Forster, one of the most determined opponents of the Catholic claims, had taken the same ground, and the whole of those arguments showed that they did not resist the expediency or principle of the motion under certain circumstances, but opposed it at that moment because it was considered a facility towards obtaining other political concession sought for by the Roman Catholics. All who deeply reflected on the subject, could not but come to the conclusion that some settlement of the important question was essential to the satisfaction and peace of Ireland. He was not pointing out in what way the provision ought to be given, that was the duty of others; but he would say in what way it ought not to be given, it ought on no account to be supplied by an apportionment of the existing resources of the Established Church in Ireland, since nothing but inconvenience, irritation, and complaint could ensue from an attempt to divide the same provision between the two churches. He believed that this would be attended with the fate of all forced petitions—that neither party would be satisfied, and that it would remain an endless source of contest and bitterness. He was not here, however, to say that the Protestant Church in Ireland required no reform and regulation, but that reform and regulation ought to depend upon its own merits, and be consistent with its own objects, and ought not to be mixed up with the separate question of an establishment—he meant a provision for the Roman Catholic clergy. He agreed with much that had fallen from his noble Friend who spoke second in the debate. He thought the argument which was so frequently brought forward in favour of the maintenance of the Irish Church, namely, that the bulk of the land belonged to Protestants was altogether preposterous. If, indeed, it were a question what system of instruction should be established by law for improving the method of training and breeding of cattle, or how the draining of the soil could be made most efficacious, it might be a good reason for maintaining any particular system, that it coincided with the general opinions of the landowners; but on this question, which was not the cultivation of acres, but the religious
706
culture of a whole people—the civilization and morality of a whole country,—if it was to be effectual at all they could not expect that the establishment founded on the belief of less than 1,000,000 inhabitants, and confined to them, should be capable of administering—because it was that of the landowners, and conveying the comforts of Christianity, the lights of Christian doctrine, to those who would not receive them through such a channel, and promoting effectually the civilization and happiness of the whole community. He therefore, thought they would be compelled to provide, in some shape or other, for that great public service, as he believed they were in a position to do, while they maintained the Protestant establishment in Ireland, and without allowing it to be considered in any respect a bar to a provision for the Roman Catholic priesthood. With all respect for the decisions of preceding Parliaments he must say that they had fallen into a great error in the only step taken towards a provision for the Roman Catholic clergy—he alluded to the College of Maynooth. He thought, that the establishment of Maynooth, unaccompanied by any other provision, and any other method of teaching, far from tending to amalgamate the different classes of the community, tended to separate them. Instead of effecting what was the obvious policy of the Government—establishing as large a system of education as possible; they had made it as narrow a system of education as possible; and, instead of teaching what it was their object to teach—doubtless the orthodox Catholic theology, and every thing liberal in science besides, as far as it was practicable—they had made it as purely a theological seminary as possible. With the limited means allowed to it they had also made the priesthood a priesthood of the peasantry, practising many virtues undoubtedly, administering many consolations, highly respected by those with whom they were immediately connected—but at the same time, while human nature remained what it was, partaking in all the passions, all the feelings, all the infirmities, and all the prejudices of the particular population with which they were associated. He thought a different establishment should have been encouraged as connected with Maynooth for the education of the priesthood of Ireland, equally respecting that independence which they were justified in claiming, and which must be respected

707
in any arrangement which ought to be made for the permanent, real, complete pacification and tranquillity of Ireland. He had touched more particularly on this point, because he felt it was perhaps of the greatest importance connected with the permanent improvement of that country. There were other topics which he might particularize, of considerable importance. Above all, Parliament should be induced to abstain from that narrow principle of legislation for Ireland, overlooking the great considerations of peace and tranquillity, and having regard to more paltry, more insignificant, and mere financial considerations; sobriety would be profitable to the Government even were it to rob the Exchequer. No later than last year Parliament imposed additional duties upon all law proceedings and conveyances in Ireland. No measure could have been more injudicious than that, which would have the effect of checking the ordinary transmission of land from one person to another, and clogging the natural distribution of wealth. No man would suspect him of wishing to encourage any transference of property not accomplished by due forms of law; but he was persuaded that it would be a great advantage to Ireland if small sales out of large properties were facilitated and encouraged. The old and injurious class of middlemen had been got rid of, and by no further interference than affording facilities to sales of land, it would not be difficult, by degrees, ot raise up a middle class between the large proprietors and the lower order of peasantry. The heavy tax recently imposed upon conveyances in Ireland had a directly contrary tendency, and it was, therefore, to be deemed impolitic. There were many other topics connected with the improvement of Ireland, into which he would not permit himself to go; but it was impossible that the House should not see that it was impossible to allow things to remain as they are. It was impossible for any Government to continue to say to persons placed in the present situation of the people in Ireland exposed to the influence of human passions—"Remain quiet and we shall be obliged to you; you are in an anomalous position; be content to remain in it a little longer." These palliatives might do for a while; but the time was rapidly coming, he thought it had already arrived, when no such palliatives would be sufficient, and when they must, with all the fortitude and deliberation which the magnitude of the subject required, look
708
the real difficulties of Ireland in the face, and endeavour to find a practical remedy for her grievances. He did not call for any sudden measure. He neither wished nor expected any sudden stroke of policy which was at once to reform and tranquillize that country, it would be madness to expect such a coup de main. But he said no time should be lost in considering questions connected with Ireland, and when they were ripe they ought to be proposed and laid before Parliament, with all the authority, determination, and sanction which the Government could give them. Unless that were so, such a bill as that they were now called on to read a second time might, he sincerely hoped, produce temporary alleviation and a diminution of disturbance; but at the same time it would be accompanied with irritation in that very quarter which it was most desirable to conciliate; he meant that porsion of the population of Ireland which was untouched by anything like seditious agitation at present, but still was open to all the influences he had described. They must also remember that all the measures which were brought forward, however justifiable in the motives of those by whom they were originated—however well intended in themselves—were brought forward
"Suppositos cineri doloso"—
connected with many passions, with many prejudices, with many resentments of the past, which could not fail to damage their usefulness, impede their progress, and prevent them having that full scope of success which he hoped. From whatever quarter and from whatever government they might come, he trusted that any measure in favour of Ireland would be met in a proper spirit. The present had appeared to him a proper opportunity for stating his views upon this great and vital question, and, subject to the doubts he had mentioned, admitting that it was the duty of Ministers to maintain right and to protect property, not more for the sake of the richest than the poorest, and wishing all possible good to the industrious class abounding in Ireland, he had come to the decision of giving his vote for the second reading of the bill before the House. At the same time, he reserved to himself the right of watching its operation, and reconsidering the bill if it appeared to be disadvantageous; but he could not sit down without again exhorting the Government to look the causes of disturbance in the face with a

709
view to the application, not of a temporary and imperfect, but of a complete and lasting remedy.
Lord Brougham.—My noble Friend who had just taken his seat has so entirely expressed the opinions and the feelings which I entertain on this most important question, both as regards the present penal measure—for I agree with him it is anything but a remedial one—and as regards the other, if possible more necessary, if not so urgent remedial measures, that I ought to apologize to your Lordships for rising after the admirable and statesmanlike, and conciliatory and eloquent address, which he has delivered upon the present occasion. Nor, my Lords, should I have risen after my noble Friend for the superfluous purpose of expressing my opinion in favour of this bill on the grounds on which he has rested his approval—nor should I have thought it necessary to rise after him for the equally superfluous purpose of repeating my opinion upon the subject of a provision for the Catholic clergy to which he has adverted, and which he remembers that I have but recently discussed in this place—not for the first time, having frequently broached the topic before—had it not been for something which was said by a noble friend of mine (Lord Camoys); had not he taken a course of argument which the delicacies, if I may so speak, of party etiquette, rather than his own judgment, and his own feeling, prevented my noble Friend who last spoke from adverting to almost at all. But, my Lords, I must really beg leave to say, that I heard with unfeigned astonishment the speech of my noble Friend—with an astonishment equal to that impressed on the mind of my noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Winchelsea), but unaccompanied with that mitigating feeling which it brought to my noble Friend's mind—of self gratulation at the fulfilment of his former prophecies; I, on the contrary, had to labour under the astonishment commingled with bitter disappointment. For, differing from my noble Friend opposite toto cælo on the subject of the Catholic claims, I was one of those who held cheap in those days the predictions of my noble Friend opposite and of the other adversaries of the Catholics—I was one of those who held most cheap of all their prophecy that no sooner should the Catholic claims be granted than some such speeches as we have heard to-night
710
would not fail to resound through the walls of Parliament. His prophecy, I grieve to say, has been fulfilled—my prediction has to-night been signally frustrated. But the chief thing in my noble Friend's speech which I have to complain of is the total forgetfulness of all history—of the history of the Catholic question itself—which pervaded my noble Friend's speech, and formed the substratum of it. "When did the noble Lord opposite," said my noble Friend, "ever show anything in their policy towards Ireland other than a disposition by their measures to offend, to irritate, and to annoy?" To annoy whom?—to offend what portion of out fellow-subjects?—to irritate what part of the Queen's subjects has the policy of my noble Friends opposite been unremittingly directed? The Roman Catholic part of the empire? Were they irritated and annoyed by the policy of the noble Duke opposite in 1829 to carry their emancipation? by means of which policy it is that we enjoy the advantage of having heard the speech of my noble Friend himself standing at this Table in this House of Parliament? Here was one act of forgetfulness, one loss of recollection, but not the only one, though the first, the most eminent, and the most remarkable. For it seems according to my noble Friend, there never was anything but coercion from the other side of the House, and no coercion from this. My Lords, I deny that. I myself, being a Minister of the Crown for four of those years over which the panegyric of my noble Friend, extended, upon which panegyric,—namely that we were incapable of coercive measures towards Ireland, was grounded, the argument of my noble Friend, that you might safely trust us with Arms Bills, but not the noble Lords opposite, I myself must plead guilty to having, in 1833 and 1834, enacted, and continued, and carried into execution, one of the most stringent coercion bills that I believe ever existed in this country towards Ireland. That bill, too, was suffered to expire, but it was continued in a modified form by the noble Viscount in 1835; it was only in 1840 that the Venue Bill was allowed to expire; that very Venue Bill, which I was told the other night was to all intents and purposes a coercive measure, was continued till 1840. But says, my noble Friend, the times were then different—there is no occasion now for such measures—every-

711
thing now is perfectly quiet—there are no great public meetings—no seditious harangues—no levying of money for the purpose of forming a fund, the avowed and professed object of which is to tear the empire in pieces by severing the two countries as far as their legislative union is concerned. Why, there was no such fund in 1838 and 1839, there was no levying of contributions from the poor peasantry, there was not even a rent to pay the individual agitator then dreamt of; a tribute there might have been, but no rent; at that time no one got up at public meetings and boasted of the hundred of thousands assembled, and the discipline with which they marched from their habitations to their places of muster—no harangues boasting of the men being under such discipline, that the Queen's troops themselves were not more under the word of command of their sergeants and corporals than these repeal mobs were under the control of their repeal wardens. Finally and above all, there was no such thing then as I have read of within the last three hours—of seven different publications proceeding from the same authority of the repeal committee and speeches by priests at meetings; one of whom, called inspector of the repeal wardens—the sergeant and corporals of these parties—every one of these publications, and all the addresses of the priests and the lay agitators being directed specifically and by name to the Queen's troops, telling the people among other things—telling them not to be afraid of the soldiery, for that under a red coat there might beat a green heart, telling them also not to mind the threats of the Queen's Ministers in Parliament, that they would use the troops to put down agitation, for that the soldiers are citizens, and have an affectionate feeling towards them, and telling them, finally, that half the army is composed of Irishmen; on that boast founding a false and infamous inference, that that army will not do its duty when commanded to put down agitation. These things, my Lords, did not happen in 1838 or 1839, and yet we in those years continued the measures of coercion, and also this Arms Bill, which the noble Lord opposes by his speech, though he does not follow that speech up by the only motion that could give effect to it—a motion to read the bill a second time this day three months. I hope, however, that a motion to read it this day
712
fortnight would be sufficient. [The Lord Chancellor—Ay, or ten days.]—I wish I could say this day week, though I can hardly venture to hope that. My noble Friend, (Lord Camoys) is however, it appears, a Repealer and an agitator of a peculiar kind, says he, "I am not a Repealer at present, but if you do not do so and so, I will be for repeal; and then—" What then? Will the empire be severed? No. He thinks that the legislative union may be at an end, and that there may be two Parliaments sitting in the two countries at the same time, and yet that the countries would not be severed. My Lords, I will not stop to answer such a proposition as that. If, on calm consideration, my noble Friend abides by it, he is, I may venture to say, the only man in either House of Parliament who would venture to put forward such an argument. The price which my noble Friend tells us we are to pay for his abstinence from the repeal agitation, is the total abolition and extinction of the Established Church in Ireland. In this he differs most widely from my noble Friend, the noble Marquess who has just sat down, and from almost all your Lordships; and he is under a marvellous oblivion of the history of the past—he is under a strong forgetfulness of circumstances that have taken place in his own time, and still more of what took place in this very House, the very place where he has delivered his speech to-night—he has exhibited a most extraordinary oblivion of his own personal history—a total erasure from the tablets of his memory of what he pronounced two years ago, standing in the very place from which only a little hour ago he addressed your Lordships for the purpose of enabling us to give an estimate of the value attached to the securities inserted in a paragraph of the oath taken by Roman Catholic Members of Parliament. My noble Friend at the time I refer to, standing on this very spot, addressing not your Lordships, but a higher tribunal—my noble Friend, I say, who now cries out for the extinction of the Church in Ireland, after denouncing other pestilent heresies, thus swore:—
"I do swear to defend to the utmost of my power, the settlement of property in this realm as established by the law."
Therefore, of course, he must be against the doctrine of fixity of tenure;
"And I disclaim, disavow, and abjure any

713
intention to subvert the Church Establishment as settled by law within these realms."
So that two years ago he had no such intention as he has expressed to-night; but my noble Friend goes on,
"And I do solemnly swear that I never will exercise any privilege to which I am or may be entitled."
Including, of course, the privileges of a Peer of Parliament, which is the highest of all—
"To disturb or weaken the Protestant religion, or the Protestant Government in the United Kingdom."
Now, if any priest of my noble Friend has told him that a nice distinction can be taken judicially between the Protestant religion and Government and the Protestant Church established in Ireland, I say to my noble Friend, that he cannot avail himself of any such distinction; for he goes on,
"And I do solemnly, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do make this declaration, and every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words of this oath, without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatever, so help me God."
My Lords, I have lived long in the world. I have seen many examples of the effects of the wilful courses of designing men, and of the influence they have gained in prosecuting their wicked designs on less powerful minds, of less steady characters, of minds less capable of self-defence. I have seen both here and abroad the effects on weak and on youthful minds, the effects of the operations of the Catholic priesthood for the accomplishment of their sinful and sordid objects, and I have seen in this country the consequences of political seduction by similar means and for similar objects. But, knowing, as I do the honourable nature of my noble Friend, his pure motives and the candour of his diposition, I do profess and declare, that I never yet saw so melancholy and striking an exhibition in my whole life of the effects of such insidious arts on such minds as has this night been exhibited by the marvellous declaration of my noble Friend. It is only a lesson, my Lords, to you, and I am sure it ought to be to the Government, of the absolute and overwhelming necessity of looking to the education of the Irish people in spiritual things; of looking to their condition under the control of a priesthood
714
so educated as that which now instructs them and misleads them, and now alternately agitates and seduces them—men, ignorant of the most salutary branches of human knowledge—destitute of that true enlightenment in which both sound principles and good feelings find their best root, and from which they draw their purest and most wholesome support—it affords us this lesson, my Lords, and at the same time, gives me a most new, a most powerful and irresistable, and at the same time, I must confess, a most unexpected confirmation of all those opinions on this most vitally important subject which I have never ceased to entertain since I came into the Government in the year 1830. My Lords, my noble Friend, the noble Marquess, has so shown to you the uselessness of Maynooth, that you cannot stop in dealing with that institution. Either you must abolish it altogether, and restore the priesthood of Ireland to their former education on the continent—an education which had some liberalizing effects, and produced priests much more fit to be intrusted with the consciences of men than are those who are educated at Maynooth—either you must do this, or you must enlarge that institution; extend to the education of the priests all the salutary branches of human knowledge which are now excluded from them; plant its roots far and wide in the literature of the human race; draw forth the letters and the improvement of the age, all that wholesome sap which, rising through the trunk, will not merely produce leaf and blossom—will not merely give the appearance of an educational establishment—but will yield sound, solid, precious fruit of charitable opinions, of liberal views, and of that wholesome and rational religion, which is the best prop of pure morality.
Lord Camoysbegged to say one word in explanation, after the attack which had been made upon him by the noble and learned Lord. If he had understood the oath taken by him in the manner in which the noble and learned Lord had explained it, he certainly could not have spoken tonight as he had done. He thought the the noble and learned Lord would see that he had given a wrong interpretation to that oath. If the noble and learned Lord was correct, then there must be some Members of their Lordships' House who were not upon equal terms with others

715
There was on the part of some a diminution of constitutional power. When the question of the oath was before the House of Commons, it was Mr. Wilmot Horton who proposed that on all questions affecting the Church, the Catholic Members should neither vote nor speak. That was objected to by Sir Robert Peel himself, because it was not the intention of the Legislature to limit the Catholic Members in any manner in their legislative capacity, but they were to be put upon exactly the same footing as to voting and speaking as the Protestant Members. And when, afterwards, Sir Charles Wetherall stated, that the Catholics could not be supposed to take this oath in their legislative capacity, Sir Robert Peel acknowledged that that was the real state of the case—and that he never meant to bind them in their legislative capacity. Therefore, he (Lord Camoys) had an undoubted right, as well as any of their Lordships, to express his opinions upon any subjects before the House, without reference to that oath, He had mentioned this in his own defence. after the attack which the noble and learned Lord had made upon him.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, before I proceed to address your Lordships on the question immediately before the House, I must enter my protest against the construction put upon the oath imposed upon Catholic Members of this House, by the noble and learned Lord near me, great as his authority is, and which construction seems to be in unison with the opinions of noble Lords opposite. [Cries of "No, no" from the Ministerial side of the House.] I had certainly so understood it from the cheers which attended the noble and learned Lord's speech; but I am glad to find it otherwise. I am quite willing to admit, that the animus imponentis ought to govern-the interpretation of this oath; but till both Houses of Parliament shall concur in a resolution, setting forth some distinct construction of it, different from that in which it is commonly understood, in which it certainly was accepted by the Catholics, and which I believe to be the only constitutional interpretation of it, I maintain that we have a right to that interpretation, namely, that Catholic Members of either House have precisely the same right to discuss and to decide upon all questions which may come before them as any other Members, even though those
716
questions trench upon the Ecclesiastical Establishment of the country, and may involve an alteration of the law in her regard. At least, my Lords, I, for one, would not condescend to sit in this House upon any other terms; for I would not subject myself to be taunted upon every occasion, by one noble Lord or another, with a violation of my oath. Why, my Lords, there is hardly any question that can come before us in which, in the opinion of one noble Lord or another, the interests of the Establishment may not be presumed to be involved. Even a common Turnpike Act might suffice for the purpose, when it is questioned, for example, whether or no double tolls should be taken upon a Sunday. In fine, there would be no end to it. But in this particular case, I maintain it to be the noble Lords opposite who are the enemies of the Establishment rather than ourselves. For I am thoroughly and intimately convinced that any curtailment of the Irish Church under existing circumstances, must necessarily be beneficial to the Establishment in general, for as long as she is so decidedly the Church of the minority as she is now, so long will she be liable to the same species of attack, of assault, indeed, I may call it, which is now made upon her, and which, if not checked by timely reform, must assuredly end in her total destruction. For my own part, I had much sooner see the Established Church in possession of all her legitimate rights, than have her broken up to be scrambled for under the voluntary system. I will say but one word more upon this matter, but I do feel it to be humiliating to think that the descendants of the few Peers who remained stedfast to the ancient faith—to that faith which was professed in this country when this House was first formed, when all our institutions were framed, and when the liberties of the country were achieved, that they alone are to be told that they do not enjoy the same privileges as the rest of your Lordships, above all, the privilege of free discussion, without which this House would be a mere mockery. I will now proceed to deliver the observations I had intended to lay before your Lordships, beginning by acknowledging that after the able manner in which the question has been discussed by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) it would appear useless if not presumptuous in me to address the House upon the present occa-

717
sion, neither should I have risen at all did I not deem it imperative on those who hold the opinions which I do, to urge them upon the Government, relative to what is now passing in Ireland, and with which this bill is more or less connected. My Lords, the more we deplore the agitation and excitement which now so lamentably prevails, the more anxious should we be to discover the causes, and to apply the remedy. Those causes, my Lords, as it appears to me, at least, are too obvious to require much consideration—still 2,000,000 of pauper vagrants upon her soil during the greater portion of the year—the same fruitful sources of misery and crime in undiminished activity—the general, as well as particular interests of her people altogether neglected—no attempt whatever made either to better their condition, or to win their affections to the Government, but on the contrary rather, seeing that their feelings are outraged by neglect and rebuke—a whole nation condemned to manifest injustice on many points, and yet the Government declaring that concession has already been carried to its utmost limits. Such, my Lords, are the causes of all the turmoil which assails you—it is neither the demagogue nor the agitator, but the Government and the Parliament, that are the real instigators of the movement. Not one single measure of grace has ever been offered to Ireland—neither Catholic Emancipation, nor the extinction of Tithes, nor Parliamentary nor Municipal Reform, even such as they exist in that country, not one of them but have been rather extorted from your prudence, than conceded by your justice; and yet, my Lords, you are astonished at the ingratitude of the people for past favours, and at their clamour for new ones. My Lords, I do not stand here as the advocate of agitation, still less as the apologist of the manner in which that agitation is carried on—very far from it indeed—but, in considering the abstract principle, while I admit that a strong and paramount necessity can alone justify it, still I do think that they who are nearest to the evils which it is sought to remedy by these means, may be the best able to judge of that necessity, and consequently have a right to their own views as to the justice and expediency of their present course; and I very much question indeed, my Lords, whether we ourselves, as I have already in-
718
timated, have not been mainly instrumental in producing this state of things—for have not we, in fact, taught them the science of agitation by so long turning a deaf ear to their complaints? Have not we too long shown them, that clamour and intimidation are their best, if not their only resource? My Lords, it is not in a spirit of disloyalty that they seek for repeal, but because their connexion with England has not hitherto brought them any sufficient relief for their grievances; it is because even a reformed Parliament has hitherto failed to do justice to Ireland, that her people are now become the willing believers in the doctrine, that universal suffrage, or, in other words, a wild democracy, is alone suited to their condition: it is because the Government to which they are now subject, neither gives them relief nor sympathy, that they would hail with delight even the tyranny of a dictator as a better chance of redress: it is because their legitimate representatives are either unwilling or unable to right them, that the ignorant despotism of the multitude, or the tumultuous freedom of a plebeian state, whichever it should be called, would be considered by many as a happy substitute for a more orderly form of government, even for that which has been so long the boast of England, but which, if not properly used, would seem to be little better than another. My Lords, Ireland is now, I believe, the only Catholic country in the world, Poland, perhaps, excepted, and the exception is not a very enviable one, which is not governed as such; but it is not only not governed as such, but it is governed in a directly opposite sense. In respect to Ireland, your whole policy is Protestant. In making these observations, I trust your Lordships will believe, that I do not mean them offensively either to this House or yet to the Government, but they are the result of the most mature deliberation that I am capable of giving to the question: in respect to Ireland, then (and after what has happened, I now feel that I am treading on dangerous ground in approaching this part of the subject), it does appear to me, as it always has appeared, that your whole policy is Protestant; it is riot so elsewhere, for in your colonies your policy is very different—but here, this policy guides you in every view you take of Ireland, it shews itself in every part of your administra-

719
tion. You have between 7,000,000 and 8,000,000 of Catholics in that country, but you have not one single Catholic in any post of honour. In Ireland you refuse anything like an adequate provision for the education of the poor, and of the priesthood of the poor, because that poor and that priesthood are Catholic, and yet, my Lords, you are astonished at the occasional ignorance and barbarism of the people, and this Arms Bill is to be your remedy. You refuse even the slightest aid towards the erection of places of divine worship for the people, because that people are Catholic—and remember, my Lords, the sums you have voted, for that self-same purpose, to the rich Church of the majority in England, and the sums that you have appropriated from the still richer Church of the minority in Ireland, so that. as it is computed, no less than 400 new churches have arisen in that country during the last thirty or forty years for a mere handful of her people, while for churches for the immense majority, poor and afflicted as they are, you have neither voted nor appropriated anything; and, though they are so much needed, that in some cases the whole population are compelled to worship in the open air, while the officiating priest alone is sheltered under the cover of a shed, a spectacle, my Lords, not to be seen in any other province of Christendom; and, in very many places, not half the congregation are able to enter the chapel for want of space, but are equally compelled to worship in the open air as best they may, exposed to all the inclemencies of the weather, and altogether out of hearing of any instructions that may be given by the clergy; and then again, my Lords, you are astonished at the occasional ignorance and barbarism of the people, and this Arms Bill is to be your only remedy; while, on the other hand, Protestantism is so favoured, that, in very many cases, you have a church and a pastor absorbing all the revenues that were intended for the people, but with hardly, perhaps without, a single worshipper from among the people. And what, my Lords, is the result of this Protestant policy over a Catholic country?—for after all, religion is not to be estimated by property, as I understand it at least, but by souls—what, I ask, is the result? Why! that you have the most discontented, the most troublesome, the most dangerous, the most miserable population
720
in Europe to contend with, in what ought to be the happiest and the most flourishing portion of the empire,—you have a whole people, throwing themselves, in despair of better treatment from you, into the wildest scheme that ever entered into the mind of man for the amelioration of any country; though, after all, it may serve them a good turn, and obtain for them another instalment of justice, and though in the interval it do but increase the evils it is intended to remedy. Such, my Lords, is the result of governing Ireland by sectarian feelings, with a view only to Protestant interests. You have the example of Holland and Belgium before your eyes; you know that under the late sovereign of Prussia, the Rhenish provinces would gladly have availed themselves of any opportunity of throwing off their allegiance; but you know also that, under the conciliatory policy of the present Sovereign, the case is widely different—a sovereign who even subscribes largely out of his privy purse for the restoration and embellishment of Catholic Churches. Yes! my Lords, the government of Ireland is now at least an anomaly in the history of modern Europe; it neither reflects honour upon the feelings, nor credit upon the sagacity of the country. How different is it elsewhere! in France, in Holland, throughout Switzerland, throughout Germany, wherever you have a mixed religious population, there also have you a perfect equality of rights, each has an equal claim upon the consideration of Government; but here, in this free country, you have laid it down as a maxim, established it as a fixed policy, that there shall be but one State religion, and that, without any reference whatever to the religion of the people, just as much as if the people formed no part of the State—though here, my Lords, I am not altogether correct, for in Scotland, you have admitted Presbyterianism to the rights of a State religion, though the great bulk of her landed proprietors are Episcopalian; nay more, you have even suffered her people to carry those rights with them across the water, and to enjoy, in some measure at least, the privileges of a State religion in the very heart of Ireland; while the religion of the original Irish is so neglected and despised, that you are ashamed even to enter upon the same terms of courtesy and alliance as every other Protestant state without exception, with the most ancient

721
sovereignty in Christendom, and though your interests so intimately require it, merely because he who represents that sovereignty is, at the same time, the spiritual head of their Church. My Lords, the people of Ireland are too well instructed in their grievances not to have a clear perception of them; amongst others, they know full well, the claims they have upon the property set apart in former times for their benefit, and it is because you have too long neglected to make that property do its duty to them, that you are putting all property into jeopardy, and bringing about a general insecurity in all claims upon the land. My Lords, till you discard this narrow policy of governing Ireland on sectarian views, you never can do justice to the people, nor gain their affections to the Government: it is all very well to disclaim any such notions, but what will that disclaimer avail till we see a directly opposite policy from that pursued at present, in active operation? My Lords, this Arms Bill, useful and even necessary as it may seem for certain objects—though, if Ireland were governed as it should be, why should it be more necessary there than either in England, Scotland, or Wales? Even for Wales you ask not for an Arms Bill, because you have adopted the wiser policy of sending down a commission to inquire into her grievances, with an understanding that they are to be redressed; but if, because you will not pursue the same course in Ireland, you must needs have an Arms Bill there, however useful it may be for certain objects (though even that seems very doubtful)—at all events it will neither tranquillize the country, nor relieve her grievances; no, nor yet the bringing down of a dry, abstract Message from the Crown to say that Repeal shall never be! but bring down a message from the Crown to say that Repeal shall never be, because the Government are determined to exert all their energies to improve the condition of the people, and to relieve their grievances in a full spirit of justice and conciliation; and you would neither require an Arms Bill on the one hand, but you would regain all the ground that you have lost upon the other: neither, my Lords—notwithstanding what has fallen during this debate, and in others which have preceded it on the same subject,—neither do I altogether despair of this, for the noble and gallant Duke, who, upon a former
722
occasion so manfully combated and overcame all the obstacles which then interposed, as they now interpose, between Ireland and her internal peace, and indeed the internal peace of the whole country, is again a Member of the administration. Let him once more despise the prejudices of those who would oppose it, and stand forward to remove those just grounds of irritation and complaint which now so fearfully and so extensively prevail. Then, indeed, will every honest man rally round the Government, to vindicate the dominion of the law, to maintain the rights of property, and to secure the integrity of the empire. Under the late administration, Ireland was comparatively tranquil, and would have been perfectly so, had they been allowed to carry out their views to their completion; but, as that was not permitted, most unhappily not permitted, I did hope, so just and necessary did it seem, that they who succeeded them would of themselves have undertaken what they would not allow their opponents to accomplish. But in this expectation I was completely deceived, and the bitter fruits of their misgovernment are coming to maturity even sooner than one could have anticipated; for it is already paralizing all our energies by placing us, as has been well expressed in another place, in a sort of political checkmate; it is risking the peace of the whole country, and with it the stability of all our institutions, by an obstinate adherence to a system of government which is become altogether impracticable—a system, of which past experience ought long since to have taught us both the injustice and the folly—which produces nothing but interminable dissension at home, and abroad makes us the pity of our friends and the derision of our enemies. England, my Lords, is not herself in so very satisfactory a condition as that you can afford to allow Ireland to remain in her present awful state of disaffection and excitement. You complain justly of the violence of the repealers, but let it be remembered that, in some instances at least, that violence has been even exceeded by those who are opposed to them—at all events, deprecate that violence as we may, there it is—and there it is as the natural, if not necessary consequence of your own misgovernment and it is as such, and as such only that you can deal with it: to quell it by coercion is impossible, concession and con-

723
ciliation are your only resource. Let me then conjure your Lordships not to pass this bill unaccompanied by others of a very different complexion; they who are disposed to judge of the present from the past, irrespectively of the change of circumstances and of feeling, are sure to be mistaken—for that change too clearly indicates that Ireland can no longer be either neglected or misgoverned.
The Earl of Wicklowdeeply regretted that Parliament was called upon to pass such a bill as the present, but it must be borne in mind that the circumstances of the country were such as that men of all parties in Parliament and out of it agreed in thinking it necessary. If the Government had satisfied themselves with a mere renewal of the former measure, not one word of opposition would have been uttered. The opposition had arisen from some new clauses, which were considered peculiarly stringent; but those clauses were absolutely necessary to make the bill operative. Without them, it had been found, the law was ineffectual. The noble Baron had read a protest of Earl Grey against an Arms Bill in 1819, but Earl Grey had himself subsequently introduced a much more stringent measure than that which he protested against in 1819. He believed that the noble Lord (Lord Camoys) was the only Member of either House who had come down to Parliament to declare that the Established Church ought to be suppressed; for although he (the Earl of Wicklow) was aware of the violent and exciting language that had been held by those who had seats in the other House, yet those individuals had not availed themselves of those privileges to use that language, and they had not uttered it in their places in Parliament, as the noble Lord had thought proper to do. He (the Earl of Wicklow) must express the extreme gratification with which he had listened to the speech of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Lansdowne)—a speech which had done that noble Marquess high honour; for, instead of making this great question a matter of party quarrel, he had come down to the House, and had stated his opinions upon the general subject openly, manfully, and fairly. With regard to the subjects alluded to in the latter part of that speech, he (the Earl of Wicklow) admitted that measures such as the noble Marquess had spoken of were necessary for Ireland, and he had firm
724
confidence in his own mind that her Majesty's Government would not fail to consider well what those measures should be. But upon this last occasion he felt anxious to impress upon them as strongly as he was able, if they meant to tranquilize the country, and lay the foundation of peace happiness, it was absolutely and indispensably necessary that they should turn their attention to a liberal and handsome provision for the Roman Catholic Church. He believed that was the only Protestant country in Europe in which there was no connexion whatever between the Roman Catholic clergy and the State. But there was such a connexion abroad; and by way of example, he might mention the tranquillity which that connexion produced in the dominions of the illustrious person then sitting near him [the King of Hanover, who occupied a seat next to the Duke of Wellington]. He could not conceive why this country should be an exception to the rule. He knew it might be said that the Catholic clergy would not accept a provision; but that was the very reason why such a course ought to be adopted. He must, however, at the same time, declare that he would rather see no provision at all made, than one which was not ample. Most happy and willing should he be to have his own property taxed, fully and entirely, for such a purpose; and if the Government should deem such a course expedient, he should not only not object, but he should hail with delight a proposition that the property of the country should be taxed for that object. He had been accused of condemning the Catholic clergy; but he had been altogether misunderstood. His object upon the occasion alluded to had been, as it was on the present occasion, to offer to the Government his strong recommendation that provision should be made for the Roman Catholic clergy, and if he had then spoken of that body as a degraded class, his intention had not been to apply that term to them as arising from any fault of their own, but he had meant to convey that they were degraded by their being obliged to collect from the voluntary contributions of a poor and wretched peasantry, that aid which they ought fully and entirely to receive from the state. The noble Marquess had referred to the subject of Maynooth College, and upon that subject he (the Earl of Wicklow) must say that it would be better that no institution of the kind should

725
have been founded than that it should remain upon the footing it was at present. It was a miserable specimen of the parsimony of this country. To abolish it now was out of the question: but he would rather see almost any course tried than see that institution remain in its present degraded state. Every encouragement should be given for the introduction into that university, as well as into the priesthood of the country, of men of a better order in society, the sons of the gentry, as was the case in the Protestant Church. It was only by a proceeding of that kind that they could succeed in raising the character of the priesthood. He would ask their Lordships, if they had some considerable time ago established a better class of men among the priesthood, whether they would have had a hierarchy acting as the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church were now doing, after having signed, in 1829, the paper which he would now read to their Lordships? The noble Earl read the document, signed in 1829 by every Roman Catholic prelate, which, after describing the state of the country at that period, declared that no longer should the Roman Catholic Chapels be devoted to political and party purposes, and that the clergy should confine themselves to their clerical duties instead of interfering with politics. Now, could it be believed that, of this whole body of prelates (and there were but few of them deceased), none, save one honourable exception—the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, could be found to remind his brethren of their signatures to that paper in 1829? He did hope that the Government would listen to the advice thrown out by the noble Marquess, and would employ the interval between the prorogation of Parliament and its next meeting in giving a full and deliberate consideration to this great subject; for he was convinced that never would peace and tranquillity be restored to the country until this step were adopted. Although he regretted the necessity for this bill, he found that it had the support of men of all parties, not even the noble Baron having ventured to propose its rejection, and he should vote with the general body of the House in its favour.
Lord Beaumontsaid, that he would have been well contented to have remained silent on the present occasion, and left the discussion of the bill to those noble Lords, who from their connection with Ireland
726
are naturally the best authorities on the subject, but after the extraordinary course this debate had taken, and the strange doctrines he had heard avowed by certain noble Lords, he (Lord Beaumont) dared not remain silent, lest his silence might be construed into an acquiescence in those sentiments and opinions, the expression of which had been so severely but so justly castigated by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham). He (Lord Beaumont) must own that he addressed the House under feelings of bitter regret, for the debate of that evening had given him deeper pain than he had ever experienced during any former discussion in that House. He found himself not only separated as "wide as the poles asunder" in sentiment and opinion from his noble Friend (Lord Camoys), but also he regretted that he was obliged to add (differing from his noble relative Lord Shrewsbury) who, although not going so far as the noble Baron, had still in some degree appeared to justify the lawless agitation going on in Ireland. "My Lords (continued the noble Baron earnestly), I will not now enter at length into the delicate discussion which has been raised regarding the oath taken by Catholic Members of Parliament. Suffice it for me to say that I read it in the literal sense, and can conceive no doubt as to its intended meaning, and that I should therefore feel myself deeply dishonoured and eternally disgraced, if reading it as I do, and understanding its purport, which appears to me written in language as clear as words can express, I should venture to give a vote contrary to the interests of the Established Church. My Lords, I care not if I am the object of vituperation the most coarse from one whom I contemn as the dust beneath my feet; I care not for public abuse, and I stand unmoved by personal attacks, from whomsoever they may come, but so long as that oath is administered to me as a Peer of this realm, so long will I refuse my assent to any measure, by whatever party proposed, for injuring in the slightest degree the Established Church. While I say this for myself, I am far from casting any reflection on my noble relative (Lord Shrewsbury), who expressed a different opinion, but at the same time qualified that opinion by saying that a measure might be imagined, which while it diminished the revenues of the Church and apparently impaired its in-

727
fluence, would eventually consolidate its power and therefore really promote its influence in a permanent sense. If he entertains that idea of the question alluded to, and should view a curtailment of the Church in Ireland in that light, I will not investigate whether a vote in that case would or would not be strictly comformtable to his oath, but of this I am fully persuaded that however he might err in judgment, he would on no consideration act contrary to the dictates of his conscience. I charge no one with an intentional or deliberate violation of his oath; but my interpretation of the oath is such as I have stated it to be, and I leave it to those who would act differently than I should feel myself bound to do under such an obligation, to reconcile their conduct with their oaths. But my Lords, what alarms me on the present occasion, what astounds me more than anything else in the present debate, and convinces me more than ever that it is necessary for the Government to take some more active steps to put down this agitation, which like a deadly poison, is envenoming and corrupting the social system of the empire, is that to-night I have heard here in this House—sentiments expressed directly tending to fan the flames of rebellion, opinions uttered calculated to encourage the monstrous acts of men who are leading multitudes of their fellow-men on, to an abyss of havoc and confusion,—words actually cheering on our misguided countrymen to the brink of that ruin which must, sooner or later, open beneath their feet, and engulph them and their country, in one common destruction, if their present excited condition continues. What, my Lords, already is the case? Is no harm already done?—has no evil already followed this lawless agitation? It may be said, and perhaps truly, that it has not as yet, nor is likely soon, to assume the more palpable shape of open rebellion; but, even if permitted to remain a little longer in what is called its peaceful state; is nothing to follow as its natural and inevitable effect. The winter, my Lords, is coming on, and then those men, who, instead of garnering up, by their labour in the autumn a store for the winter, have wasted the harvest-time in attending repeal meetings, will find themselves deprived in multitudes of employment, and without that little balance in hand, which in former years they amassed by their labour in our fields. They who
728
have been ever poor, will then become utterly destitute; the sums which the male adults have hitherto carried across the channel when the corn was got in, will no longer come in to eke out the scanty means of their numerous families. Rent will be no longer paid, general distress must prevail to a greater extent than hitherto, and, my Lords, men starving will do much. It is when things have arrived at this state, as inevitably they must do, that I dread the effects of the present agitation, for if, even now, designing men can exercise so baneful an influence, and seduce the people from their proper avocations, it cannot be doubted, but what they will have greater weight with a distressed peasantry, and that a starving population will be moved to a yet more pernicious course by the same malignant agency. He, (the noble Lord continued) therefore, gave the Government the Arms Bill not only readily but with regret, that it was not accompanied with other measures calculated to repress at once, this mischievous agitation. And, he must acknowledge, that in so readily giving to Government this, the only measure of precaution they asked for, he was actuated by another motive, namely, a wish to increase the responsibility of Ministers, and take away from them all excuse as to future inefficiency in the means placed at their disposal by Parliament. If the House refused this measure of precaution the Government might say, when agitation had grown into rebellion, that you had crippled their powers of resistance and thus transferred a moiety of responsibility and subsequent blame from their shoulders to the two Houses of Parliament. He could not, however even now exculpate her Majesty's Ministers from all blame in the present position of affairs; for they had let go by, the opportunity afforded them, on their accession to power, of taking a comprehensive view of the wants of Ireland, and submitting to Parliament some extensive and wisely conceived plan of policy which might have been cooly considered and deliberetely adopted for her relief. The state of Ireland was, at that time, calm, and the Government, all powerful, and then was the fitting period to have probed the evils existing in her social system, and pursued some scheme which might have tended to their remedy; instead of this wise course, they had waited till violence precipitated the consideration of those questions which

729
in the hour of peace, they had refused to entertain, and whatever measures were now proposed, those measures must appear as concessions to clamour and unlawful intimidation. He (Lord Beaumont) fain would see the word concession, altogether expunged from the statesman's vocabulary, for it implied an involuntary, not to say cowardly, yielding up to apprehension and threats, that which in their free convictions they considered advisable to withhold. Again, when the Repeal meetings first assumed a formidable character, and the Irish Government dismissed, and rightly dismissed, those magistrates who attended such meetings, the Government, instead of halting half-way in their measures, should have proceeded against those who were far more deeply involved in the system of agitation than the superseded magistrates, and who had called together, and been the most conspicuous ringleaders at these lawless assemblies—the consequence of the half-measures pursued by Government had been, that while irritation had had been created and disaffection increased, agitation and insolence had been rather encouraged than put down. A few words as to the remedial measures which had been suggested. Several noble Lords appeared to be of opinion, that the payment of the Roman Catholic priesthood by the state, would give the state an influence over the people through the instrumentality of the priesthood. In this opinion he thought there was an error; and he would proceed to show why he believed the measure, if adopted, would not lead to the result expected. The Irish Roman Catholic clergyman was, in his present condition, essentially part and parcel of the people; he was the same and identified with them in tastes, in habits, and in feelings, having sprung from and constantly mingled with them. From the cabin, where he had passed his childhood, he went to study at Maynooth, and there he met others who, like himself, had been selected from the humbler classes of the people to fill the vacancies in the priesthood. There was no difference in the tastes, ideas, and prejudices, of his new associates from those he had left upon going to college; he acquired no new impressions, and returned from Maynooth the same as when he had gone to it. He was not only of the people but dependent on them; for if a priest showed any leaning towards the aristocracy he
730
would soon lose the affections of the people, probably be superseded in his office of parish priest, or certainly be counteracted by the appointment of coadjutors. In the existing relations, therefore, between the priests and the people, the former were all-powerful with the latter, and falling into the hands of a clever able and unprincipled agitator, they were all-powerful only for evil. If, as has been suggested, the priests were paid by the State, there was little doubt but persons of a higher station of life, men of a different sort of education and dissimilar habits, would seek the ministry and enter into orders; but then this class would not be the people's men, would not associate with them to the same extent, and the people would begin to look on them not only as their spiritual but their social superiors, with whom they had no common interest and front whom they were to a certain degree separated. Their present influence in public and political matters would cease and they would be no longer able to restrain or lead the people except in matters purely spiritual. It was, therefore, a mistake to suppose that the Government would be able, through the agency of the priests, to have the people with it, if the priests were to be paid by the State, for their very independence would destroy their influence. Whatever were their inclinations, the priests in that case would be kept aloof from politics, for the leading agitator himself would then say, and perhaps correctly, that it was more becoming in the clergy to remain within the sphere of their spiritual duties and not interfere with worldly affairs. The great evil which checks all improvement in Ireland is, the want of sufficient occupation for its increasing population, and the pauper-character of the tenantry consequent upon the endless subdivision of holdings. If an estate were divided into small takes, some even as low as three acres, it would be impossible either to do justice to the land, or for the tenant to maintain himself on the produce of his occupation. If, on the contrary, the holdings are of a proper size, and the rent fairly fixed according to the value of the land, men of some substance would alone be able to settle down on them, and price of labour would adjust itself according to the demand as it does under similar circumstances in England. But if you attempt to bring this about now, you must commence by clearing the

731
estate, and what then is to become of the numerous ejected small occupiers? To eject them without providing for them elsewhere, or in some other manner would be to inflict a great injury and create a new evil as great as the one you endeavoured to remove. There were but two ways to meet the circumstance, two remedies which might partially relieve the distresses of Ireland—the one was to create employment on a large scale by the introduction of manufactures, and the other to prosecute an extensive system of emigration. The former was riot in the power of Government, because it could not create a market for manufactures, nor could it establish them on a sufficiently large scale without an enormous outlay; but Government had the means to forward if not carry out the latter proposition. It might adopt some uniform plan, and lay before the country such minute and correct information as to the lands to be colonized, that the emigrant would know with certainty his prospects and be able to calculate his necessary expences. But as emigration was at present carried on, neither certain information could be gained by those who are anxious to go out, nor reliance placed on the promises of the numerous companies who have obtained grants, but deceit had been practised to such an extent, the system of advertizing so outrageously abused, and the colonists, in many instances so cruelly abandoned, that the people had a notion that they were only going from bad to worse, and were, therefore, content rather—
"To bear the ills they have,
Than fly to others that they know not of."
The noble Lord, after some further observations on the present character of the emigration companies, continued by saying, that he saw no possibility of improvement in Ireland till either increased occupation was found at home, or an advantageous outlet provided for the surplus population. It was in a gradual amelioration of the domestic existence of the Irish peasantry that he placed more reliance than in any scheme to pay the Roman Catholic priesthood: although with regard to the latter proposition, he would promise, whenever such a measure was brought forward not founded on the robbery of the Established Church—a Church he had sworn to maintain—that it should have his best consideration if not his support. He was
732
unwilling to detain their Lordships, by dwelling at present on either the good or the difficulties which might attend the proposition, but he was inclined to look more favourably on some measure of that sort since he had heard it advocated by his noble Friend, the noble Marquess near him (the Marquess of Lansdowne), and highly approved of by his noble Friend, the noble Earl opposite, (the Earl of Wicklow). After a few other observations the noble Lord concluded by assuring their Lordships that he would not have trespassed at such length on their time, had it not been for the sentiments which he regretted to have heard fall from two noble Lords who sat on his side of the House, for as to the bill itself he thought it of little comparative importance, and one which the Government had a perfect title to ask for. He therefore gave it his cordial support.
Lord Campbellsaid, that the noble Baron who had just sat down was against all concession, and was for nothing but coercion. But he would appeal to the noble and gallant Duke, the author of Catholic emancipation, and inquire whether he voluntarily and spontaneously brought forward that great measure, and whether it were not forced upon him and upon the Government of that day by coercion, within the meaning of that term, as understood by the noble Baron who had just addressed their Lordships. The noble Baron seemed to regret the privilege he held of sitting in their Lordships' House, and ready to do all in his power to depress the religion he professed. He would object to the terms which had been used against, and the imputations which had been cast upon his noble Friend who had spoken second in the debate. In the first place it had been said, that he had forgotten, such was the state of his memory, to mention the act of 1829, or which was passed about that period. He excepted that measure, in express terms, as he also did the year 1829, which he had denominated a lucid interval. He also spoke of Catholic emancipation, for which he was grateful, and in which he evidently rejoiced. Another Peer had charged his noble Friend with being guilty of perjury, in having—
Lord Brougham: Any Peer, presuming to speak in his place in Parliament, and to allege that one Peer had charged another with perjury, was guilty of conduct indecorous and disorderly. The noble Lord

733
had not been charged with perjury, but merely with forgetting the words of his oath. There was a distinction between the oath taken by a Member of Parliament, and that whereby an individual swore to speak the truth.
Lord Campbellresumed: So his noble and learned Friend took a distinction between the technical legal oath, for violating which an indictment could be laid, and a conviction had, and the breaking of a solemn oath, in taking which, as solemn an appeal had been made to the Almighty as in taking the other. The noble Baron (Lord Camoys) had been charged with breaking the latter oath. [Lord Brougham: With having forgotten it: with a departure from the terms of the oath.] Was not that the same as breaking the oath? He must say that he conceived the charge to be most indelicate. The noble Baron who last addressed their Lordships had put a construction upon that oath, which was binding upon his conscience; and he would do well to abstain, and from his high and honourable character he was sure the noble Lord would obstain from voting on any question relating to the Protestant Church. But he would remind their Lordships that another construction was put upon that oath. He had lately read the pamphlet of Mr. Lynch on that subject, and in mentioning him he introduced to their Lordships a most competent authority. That gentleman had published a pamphlet, in which he insisted, that in giving to that oath its just construction, it did not apply to Members of Parliament in their legislative capacity, but that it was binding upon them only to obey the law. Such was the interpretation contended for in the other House of Parliament. He was not aware that it had been canvassed in their Lordships' House, but it had been canvassed in the House of Commons, and for the construction there put upon the oath Roman Catholic Members strenuously contended. George 3rd, and he would speak with reverence of that venerable monarch, and particularly in presence of his illustrious son (the King of Hanover),' who was now enjoying for a period the pleasures and festivities of this country as a subject of Queen Victoria—George 3rd was in a mistake on that subject. That venerable monarch imagined that the coronation oath was binding upon his con-science in his legislative capacity, and for
734
that reason he would sooner have resigned his Crown than have given the royal assent to Catholic emancipation. The oath was represented to him as binding on him only as chief magistrate, in administering the law, as Parliament and the legislative authority had rendered it. It was binding upon the king in his administrative, and not in his legislative capacity. Such was the opinion given to the monarch on the subject by Lord Kenyon—a man who could not certainly be charged with at all times advocating liberal views. The same opinion had also been given by his noble and learned Friend who now occupied the Woolsack. Viewing the coronation oath as the illustrious Sovereign he had just named did, he never would have given his assent to an act of Parliament in any degree diminishing the rights of the Protestant clergy, or extending the privileges of the Roman Catholic priesthood. Mr. Lynch had contended—and to the satisfaction of some of the most intelligent, honorable and learned men—that the oath which is required to be administered to Catholic Members in either House of Parliament was to be taken in precisely the same sense. That oath was compulsory on them to obey the law, but left them at liberty to vote as they chose on any act of Parliament before being passed into a law. If the oath was binding on the sovereign, in his legislative capacity, how could he have given his assent to the Irish Temporalities Act, by which two archibishoprics and eight bishoprics had been extinguished? With regard to the bi then before the House, he entirely concurred in the views expressed by his noble Friend, the Marquess of Landsdowne. He only regretted that the measure should not be followed by others of a conciliatory character, when conciliation was so imperatively required. It was only be concession and conciliation in his opinion, that the peace of Ireland could be permanently secured.
Lord Broughamsaid, that Mr. Lynch had certainly raised the question of the interpretation of the Catholic oath in the pamphlet to which his noble and learned Friend had referred; but he took the plain literal sense of the works. His difficulty was to understand what the oath did mean if that interpretation was not to be taken. He did not object to his noble Friend, or any other Catholic Peer, taking part in any question relating to the Es-

735
tablished Church, and if he or any other Catholic Peer bonâ fide believed that in agreeing to any measure, or even in propounding any measure, he was not pulling down, but strengthening the Established Church, he was quite ready to admit his noble Friend's right so to act. You might pull down a beam in order to strengthen the House—to save the whole from dry rot for instance; but it was, to say the least, a very clumsy way—he would not say a very Irish way, because that might offend his noble Friend—of strengthening the House, to pull it down altogether. He would not enter into a discussion of the Coronation oath. It was true that the revered monarch of whom mention had been made, from over-tenderness of conscience,—which was highly creditable to him,—had considered that it applied to him in his legislative instead of his executive capacity. But, to return to the question of the Catholic oath, his opinion clearly and most distinctly was—he would not quibble about it—the terms of the oath made the deponent swear that there was no mental reservation in what he said; that there must be a bonâ fide belief in the individual, and that he must have the intention in concurring in any measure he might take part in, to do no harm to the Established Church. With respect to his noble Friend (Lord Camoys), he had only said that he had forgotten the oath, because his noble Friend said, that he had the wish and the bonâ fide intention to see the Protestant Establishment extinguished. His noble Friend had undoubtedly a right to entertain those opinions if he chose, but he had not a right to give them effect.
Lord Camoyshad never stated that he should not be satisfied until he had seen the extinction of the Church. He merely said, that Ireland could not be content until her grievances were redressed.
The Marquess of Headfortobjected to the bill, and contended that it was unjust to legislate for Ireland by coercion and penal laws. The bill before their Lordships had the character of a coercive measure, and the knowledge of its being passed into a law would cause the greatest dissatisfaction among the people of Ireland. They could not now govern Ireland by penal laws. Conciliation—where conciliation was requisite—the enactment of just and equal laws, when such were unanimously and clamorously called for—
736
were the only means by which they could expect to satisfy and tranquillize Ireland. By pursuing such a policy, they would no longer hear anything about Repeal of the Union—that last and desperate remedy, which misgovernment made the Irish people at present anxious to obtain. As for himself he need hardly tell their Lordships that he was opposed to that desperate measure. He conceived that if it were ever obtained it would be ruinous, not only to his own country, but destructive to the empire of which it formed a part. But Ireland had many and great grievances of which to complain. In looking into the ecclesiastical establishment of that country could there be any doubt that the vast resources of the Church were far too much for its purposes and its wants. The population embraced by the Protestant Establishment did not amount to more than 700,000, and the revenue of that establishment amounted to 500,000 l. Were the resources of the Church limited to its real wants and necessities, there would remain at the least a surplus of about 250,000 l., and why not devote this large surplus to some great national purposes. He would be the last to propose any material diminution in the resources of the establishment, if he thought that such would be likely seriously to affect its efficiency and respectability. Some of the surplus resources at present possessed by it might be beneficially applied—the paying the Catholic priesthood—a course from which he anticipated, not only a benefit to accrue to the priests themselves, but also to the whole Catholic population of the country. He trusted that it would not be long before some such measure would be adopted by Parliament. Among the other pressing grievances of which Ireland had to complain was the limited character of the constituency. She demanded a larger constituency—a great extension of the elective franchise. She was also but meagrely represented in the councils of the country, and should have a much larger share in parliamentary representation. Much had already been said about the relations subsisting between landlords and tenants. If the landlords of Ireland oppressed their tenantry by exacting exorbitant rents from them, and taking other measures which hurried them into insolvency, they must expect to be sufferers. But one of the greatest evils which at this

737
moment oppressed Ireland was, undoubtedly, the want of employment for her people. Absenteeism was, to some extent, answerable for this, as was also the embarrassments into which many of the landlords were thrown, and which prevented them from giving that employment to the labouring classes which it would otherwise be in their power to do. To remove these evils, there appeared to him to be two remedies, either of which might be advantageously pursued; first, for the Government to assist, either by the construction of railroads, or the adoption of great national works, such as the reclaiming of waste lands: and secondly, the organization of a thorough and efficient system of emigration. He had thus endeavoured to set forth the reasons why he opposed the measure then before their Lordships, and should oppose any measure based as it was upon coercion. He charged the Government with not having brought forward any efficient measure of good government for Ireland in the present alarming crisis of affairs. He would make use of an expression which, from repeated use, might now be regarded as stale, and hackneyed, but which was nevertheless one of great importance, especially at the present moment, namely, "Do justice to Ireland," and in doing so, he would advise them, as they valued order and tranquillity, to do it speedily and impartially. They could redress the grievances of the Catholics, without inflicting injury upon the Protestants. In benefitting the one, they were sure to benefit the other; while they could not inflict injury upon the Catholic, without also entailing injury upon the Protestant. But so long as they chose to abide by coercion, agitation would ever continue, and keep on its baneful and destructive course. But let Government come forward and finish the work of emancipation, which was so nobly commenced in the year 1829, and he could assure them that they would then have no need of maintaining a large military force in Ireland, but that they would possess the hearts of the entire Irish people, then united for the first time in one great common cause, the object of which was the preservation of the laws of the country, and by such a course alone could the tranquillity of Ireland be maintained.
The Marquess of Clanricarde: In consequence of an incidental remark which
738
had fallen from his noble Friend, who spoke second in the debate, a great deal had been said as to the nature of the oath obligatory upon Members of Parliament. He was sincerely sorry that the slightest doubt should be entertained as to the proper construction to be put upon that oath. He well recollected at the time when Catholic Emancipation was carried, that it was understood that Catholic Members were to exercise their judgments as unfettered as other Members of Parliament. If he felt inclined to adduce any authority to their Lordships on the subject, he would quote from one of the speeches of Sir Charles Wetherell, and a more competent judge could certainly not be named. If any serious doubts were entertained on the matter, it would be only fit and becoming for the safety and dignity, both of the nation and the Parliament, that such doubt should be instantly removed. It was certainly due to the Upper House, and especially to the Roman Catholic Members of that House, that these doubts should be dispelled as speedily as possible. Having said so much upon that point, he meant to say but very little upon the bill then upon the Table. He supported the measure for reasons already laid before the House by a noble Lord (Lord Lansdowne), and also for another reason, which was, that it accorded with the wishes of the gentry and magistrates of Ireland. He had, however, but little faith in the efficacy of the bill. He did not believe it would be of more practical importance than other measures of a similar kind had been. It contained some features which rendered it more objectionable than others which had preceded it. The branding clause did not appear to hint so very objectionable. He did not see why a gun should not be marked and delivered over, when required, to an officer for inspection, as well as that a permission from Government should be purchased to shoot a partridge. He thought that an arms bill might be devised which would be efficient and useful. The tendency of the present bill was to make those on whom it was to operate conceal their arms, and it would be difficult to describe to their Lordships the ingenuity and cunning with which they managed to conceal their arms in that country. The best and safest Arms Bill would be one which should present a temptation to the people to come of their own accord and have

739
their arms registered, by giving them the assurance that, when registered, they would be allowed to retain them for their own security.
The Marquess of Londonderrythought Her Majesty's Government ought not, especially in the present state of Ireland, to abandon those means of obtaining tranquility in that country which had been employed by former Governments; and he believed their Lordships would record their opinions in favour of this bill. In all the discussions which had taken place on Irish affairs great differences of opinion had prevailed; and he believed that if the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord were adopted, a lenthened discussion would be raised in another place, which, considering the opposition which had been offered to the Arms Bill in that House, would probably be carried on for several weeks. The noble Marquess opposite had complained that Government had not proposed other measures relating to Ireland; but if the noble Marquis reflected on the number of nights which had been occupied in another place in the discussion on the Arms Bill, he might infer that had other measures with reference to Ireland been introduced they might have encountered similar opposition. A noble Friend of his (the Earl of Roden), whom he highly honoured, and who was well acquainted with the general state of Ireland, had the other night given utterance to some very strong opinions; but he must say that his noble Friend on that occasion seemed to be relying on partial information, and his knowledge was apparently confined to a particular district in the province of Ulster. He resided in a district of that province; add he had received from his own neighbourhood, and from other portions of the province, statements of a widely different character from those made by the noble Lord. He had received a communication from one of the best informed men in the county of Down, which contradicted the statement that universal terror and alarm prevailed among the Protestant population of Ireland. The letter was from a gentleman residing in the neighbourhood of Belfast, who stated that there was no foundation for the statement that great alarm existed in that district, and that the only intelligence he possessed respecting the districts in which agitation prevailed was gained from the public papers. The writer also stated that a great Protestant
740
meeting had been appointed to take place on the 7th of September; and he understood notice had been given that a counter-meeting would be held on the same day; that he feared a religious strife would be excited between the Protestants and Roman Catholics; and that he believed, if no notice had been taken of O'Connell or of his proceedings, the agitation would speedily have subsided. It seemed that a great meeting was to be held on the 7th of September, in order to organise the Protestants of the district. He deprecated such a course, for he believed no advantage would be derived from meetings of this nature, which only tended to excite political and religious party feeling. He had read with great pleasure the eulogium which had been pronounced by a right hon. Baronet in another place on the conduct of the Irish Protestants; and he trusted the Protestant inhabitants of Ireland would still continue to pursue the course they had heretofore adopted. He believed the Protestants would, as one man, act upon the recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman to whom he had referred, and that they would not attempt to organize meetings which might only show their numerical inferiority to the Roman Catholics. He believed the danger of the present crisis was every day diminishing, for O'Connell had, as was sometimes said, come to a fix; he could neither move forward nor go back, and the meetings which he had some time been holding were on the decline. He felt confident that the Government would continue to have forces in Ireland which might act in case of need, though God forbid that such necessity should arise. He believed the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) would adopt measures for reinforcing the troops in Ireland, so that there might always be means at hand of keeping that country in subjection. He trusted that during the recess no noble Lords—nor indeed any other individuals—would endeavour to get up in Ireland, and especially in the northern districts, any counter-meetings to those which were now in progress; and he believed if they abstained from such proceedings and confided in the executive Government, they would next session find that the country would be restored to a state of tranquility. He had thought it his duty, as he had received communications on this subject from many persons residing in his own neighbourhood, to

741
state to the House the general opinion of the Protestants of Ulster. [The Earl of Roden—No, no.] He had before differed from his noble Friend. He had differed from him as to the propriety of holding meetings of the character to which he had referred, because he considered it desirable to avoid every step which might create disunion in the ranks of the Protestants. He was convinced that, if an attempt were made in the province of Ulster to get up this sort of—he would not say "flare-up" but—meeting, it would only lead to a great meeting of the Catholics. If the noble Duke had not an army to back the Protestants, in case an attempt should be made to subvert their altars, to destroy the church, and to deprive them of their property, he (the Marquess of Londonderry) was convinced that these assemblages of undisciplined multitudes would afford them no protection. They must be defended by England; and, if necessary, by English armies. He was convinced, that the Protestants of Ireland would rally round the gentry of that country, without having recourse to such meetings as those to which he had directed their Lordships' attention. He would venture to say—and he might say the same with respect to all the gentry of Ulster—that there was not a man upon his estate who would not stand by him; but he did not wish to take them at his heels to the great Ulster meeting. He thought they might rely upon the determination of the Protestants, backed by the military, to defend the Church and the throne of these realms.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Adjourned.