Sitting of 9 June 1843

MINUTES.
ELECTION PETITION. By Lord John Russell, from Durham, against the undue election for that Borough of Lord Dungannon.
BILLS Public—.Committed.—Poor Relief (Ireland).
Reported.—Pawnbrokers Trade (Ireland)
Private.—2° Todhunter's Divorce; Drumpeller Railway.
Reported.—Northampton Improvement; Balfour's Estate; Sutherland Roads; Kendall's Divorce; Plymouth Roads; Carriages and Boats Regulations; Topsham Improvement; Admiralty Lands.
3°. and passed:—Great Bromley Inclosure.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Sir G, Staunton, from the Coroners of Bucks, for Better Remuneration.—By Messrs. Trelawney, R. Yorke, Busfield, Hindley, C. Berkeley, Scholefleld, Watson, Allix, B. Wood, Attwood, W. Ellis, Forster, Brocklehurst, and Cobden, Lords J. Russell, and Pollington, Dr. Bawring, sir J. Hammer,
1298
and Colonel G. Langton, from a great number of places, against, and from twelve places, in favour of the Factories Bill. — From Sowerby and Bradford, for further Limiting the Hours of Labour in Factories.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from Cooper and other Chartists, for better Treatment in Gaol; and from Bridport and other places, for Inquiry into the Treatment of Political Offenders.—From Peterhead, for Amending the Act relating to the Merchant Seamen's Fund.—From two places, for the Repeal of the Roman Catholic's Relief Act, and against any further Grant to Maynooth College.—From Rochdale, for some means to abate the nuisance of Smoke from Factories.—From Cheltenham, Horbury, and St. Olaves, (Southwark) against the County Courts Bill.—From Rothley and other places, for Inquiry into the Allotment System.—From Derby, for Carrying out Rowland Hill's plan of Post Office Reform.—From Birmingham, for the Repeal of the Union.—From Peter Campbell, against the Irish Arms Bill.—From Sheffield, for reinstating the Irish Magistrates who have been dismissed, into their offices.—From an Anti-slavery Society, for further Inquiry into the Slave Trade. —From Dundee, for abolishing the exclusive Privileges of Guilds and Incorporations of Scotland—From Cheltenham, in favour of the Scientific Societies Bill.—From Whitburn, Sabden, Hamilton, and Falkirk, for the Total and Immediate Repeal of all Corn and Provision Laws.— From St. Albans, Redburn, Codicote, and Hexton, for for Church Extension.—From Medical Officers of Workhouses in Ireland, and from Tipperary Union, against the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act.—From Devenish, and other places, against any further Grant for Education (Ireland).

LORD ELLENBOROUGH—THANKS OF THE HOUSE—INDIA.
The Speakersaid, he had to acquaint the House that he had received a letter from Lord Ellenborough, the Governor-general of India, acknowledging the receipt of the thanks of that House to the officers and men engaged in the late campaign in Affghanistan, which, with the permission of the House, he would read. The right hon. Gentleman read the letter as follows—
Agra, April, 21. 1843.
" I have had the highest satisfaction in communicating to the army engaged in the late campaign in Affghanistan, the unanimous thanks which had been voted to it by the House of Commons.
" It is gratifying to me that the House should have thought fit to acknowledge the part I had in supporting the military operations."
I have the honour to remain,
Sir,
Your most obedient Servant,
ELLENBOROUGH.
The right hon. the Speaker
of the House of Commons.
Ordered to be entered in the Journals.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
Sir A. L. Hayasked whether it were the intention of her Majesty's Government to introduce any measure in the present Session to regulate the settlement and endowment of quoad sacra ministers in Scotland, and whether it were intended to ask any grant

1299
of public money for the purpose of such endowments?
Sir James Grahamsaid, that it was the intention of the Government in this Session to bring in a bill for the purpose of better supporting large parishes in Scotland, and for facilitating the endowment of ministers, but it was not intended to make any application to Parliament for any grant of money for that purpose.

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN—PRINCESS AUGUSTA OF CAMBRIDGE.
Sir R. Peelannounced that he had a Message from her Majesty. It was brought up and read from the Chair as follows:—
" VICTORIA R.—Her Majesty- thinks it right to acquaint the House of Commons, that she has given her consent to a marriage between her Royal Highness the Princess Augusta Caroline, eldest daughter of his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, and his Royal Highness Frederick, Hereditary Grand Duke of Mecklenburgh Strelitz.
" The many proofs which the House of Commons has afforded of their affectionate attachment to her Majesty's person and family, leave her Majesty no doubt of their readiness to enable her Majesty to make a suitable provision for her Royal Highness on this occasion." V. R,
Message to be taken into consideration on Monday.

DISMISSAL OF MAGISTRATES. (IRELAND.)
Mr. Wysesaid, that he would now repeat the question he had put to the right hon, Baronet the Secretary of the Home Department on a former evening, and which he then declined to answer without formal notice. Mr. Clanchy, of Charleville, in the county of Cork, in a letter, on the 24th of May, in- reply to a communication addressed to him by Henry Sugden, esq., secretary to the Lord Chancellor, asking him whether ha had attended a repeal dinner at Charleville on the 18th instant, had stated—
" That he did attend a dinner at Charleville on the 18th, given to Messrs. O'Connell and Roche, at which were persons differing in opinion on the subject of the Repeal, as well as on other matters of politics—that Messrs. O'Connell and Roche were the representatives in Parliament whom he had supported at the last general election, and purposed doing so at the next—that neither at this dinner nor at any meeting, had he given any opinion on the act of union, but that his intentions were to
1300
support such measures only as would promote the interest of Ireland, and at the same time strengthen and preserve the British connection."
He had further been informed that at that dinner the usual toasts had been given, but not that of the Repeal of the Union. Now having this statement before him, the question be had to ask the right hon. Baronet was, whether Mr. Clanchy had received a supersedeas on the 28th, subsequent to this explanation, and on what grounds he had been thus peremptorily removed from the commission of the peace?
Sir J. Grahamhad made inquiries on the subject, in consequence of the question which had been put to him on a former evening by the hon. Gentleman, and the result of that inquiry was the information that a meeting had been held at Charleville on the morning of the 18th of May, and that it was succeeded by a dinner in the evening, and that the only justice of the peace present at that meeting and dinner was Mr. Clanchy. That dinner and meeting had been designated by Mr. O'Connell as a Repeal meeting and dinner. In consequence of the attendance of Mr. Clanchy at that dinner the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had thought it necessary to remove him from the commission of the peace.
Mr. Wysewished to ask the right hon. Baronet was this course of proceeding on the part of the Government to be considered as the precedent by which they intended to rule their conduct in future, in reference to the magistracy of Ireland.
Sir J. Grahamhad already stated that in each case of magistrates openly manifesting themselves in favour of Repeal, the decision would be made by competent authorities, and according to the circumstances of each case.

AMENDMENT OF THE POOR-LAWS.
Mr. R. Yorkewished to ask the right hon. Baronet whether, considering that they were then in the month of June he intended to discuss an improved Poor-law at large, and if he did, when?
Sir J. Grahamhoped the House would do him the justice to remember that he had never intimated any intention to introduce a measure the object of which would be to operate a large change in the exiting law. On the other hand, several clauses were postponed last year, and he

1301
did promise that those clauses should be introduced in the course of the present year, in the shape of a new bill. It was impossible, however, for Government to bring forward its measures, when adjourned debates made the postponement of important Orders of the Day unavoidable, as had often been the case during the present Session. He was quite prepared to re-introduce the clauses to which be had referred relating to the Gilbert Unions, to an improved system of education for pauper children, and to some regulations respecting Poor-law guardians.

RIOTS NEAR DUNGANNON.}
Mr. Ross,wished to know from the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland whether the Government had received any official account of the outrages committed by an Orange mob against some Roman Catholic inhabitants of the vicinity of Dungannon; and whether it was in contemplation to introduce any measure to curb the violence of those partisans?
Lord Eliotsaid Government had received accounts of the outrages of which the hon. Member spoke: they were shortly these: a meeting of persons, inhabitants of the neigbourhood of Dungannon, assembled at that town for the purpose of petitioning Parliament against the Repeal of the Union- While so engaged, information was brought, to them, that a small party on their way to take part in the proceedings had been assaulted and beaten at the village of Carland, a few miles from that town. On hearing this, a small body of the meeting;, consisting of 400 or 500 persons repaired to the village, and not finding the persons who. had been the aggressors, wreaked their vengeance on the Houses, A good many of these were more or less injured, but the, amount of the damage done to the property had been very much exaggerated. The whole of the damage done, to the property did not exceed 85l, He was not, for a moment, about to extenuate the character of an outrage of this sort; but on the other hand, he thought it right that it should not he over-stated or exaggerated,. Government had taken all the measures their power, to apprehend the offenders, and bring them to justice, and rewards had been offered for that purpose. The police had arrived on the spot within five minutes of the. commencement of the disturbance, and order was immediately re-
1302
stored. The military had been sent for immediately afterwards, but their presene was pot required.
Sir V. Blakesaid, the proclamation issued by the Government mentioned, that considerable injury had been done to the houses in the village. Hon. Members would be astonished to learn, that this considerable injury was neither more nor less than the razing to the ground of forty-eight houses.
Lord J. Russellthought the only course Government could take in a case of this kind, was to prosecute the persons who violated the law. If they ware Roman Catholics who assaulted Protestants going to a public meeting, they should be prosecuted; and if there were persons calling themselves Protestants, who destroyed the houses of Roman Catholics, the law should at the same time be vindicated, and put in force against them. What the noble Lord said as to, the value of the property destroyed might be misunderstood. Though the cabins which had been wrecked might only be roofed with straw or thatch, yet that was no measure of their value for the eyes of their owners; the loss might be as great to the inhabitants of one of them, as that of the most valuable mansion would be to its proprietor,
Lord Eliotwas obliged to the noble Lord for giving him an opportunity of explaining. It was stated in the newspapers, that the houses in question had been razed, and that account seemed to have reached the right hon. Baronet opposite. He held in his hand an account of the damage done to each particular house, which stated: in one, a pail broken; in another, three or four shelves; and so on. He admitted, that destruction of property had taken place to an extent very serious to the poor people in question; but he made this statement to show that the damage had net been of such, extent and magnitude as, was represented in the, newspapers. It had not extended to the razing of houses, but was confined) solely to the destruction of certain household property.
Subject at an end.

EXPEDITION TO WATERFORD.
Sir H. W. Barronwished to put a question as to an occurrence which had created great excitement in the city of Waterford. On Sunday last, a war-steamer had; come up the river, to the great surprise and

1303
alarm of the inhabitants of the city and neighbourhood, and landed a large armed force with bayonets fixed, and the officers with their drawn swords; and the first question asked by the officers, on their landing, was, " Where are the rebels?— are the barracks taken? " All this created very naturally an extraordinary degree of excitement in that most peaceful district. He wished to ask the noble Lord if he could give the House any information as to the cause of this military expedition into so peaceful a neighbourhood?
Lord Eliotthought there was no foundation whatever for saying that the officers had asked, " Where are the rebels?" and that this was merely one of the embellishments of the story. The fact was, that the Commander-in-chief had received such information as induced him to think, that some addition to the garrison of Waterford was necessary. He recommended that such an addition should be made, and the troops were despatched to Waterford accordingly. He believed it was not found necessary that this addition should be permanent, and they had subsequently returned to Dublin.

CANADA CORN-LAW.
The Order of the Day for a committee of the whole House on the Canadian Wheat Bill having been read,
On the question that the Speaker do leave the Chair,
Mr. Lawsonsaid a few words in support of the bill.
Mr. Humewas glad the hon. Member had had an opportunity of expressing his opinion that the bill would be beneficial both to agriculture and manufactures. He was only sorry the advantage to the country would be so small. The question was solely one of principle. The right hon. Baronet had said he would stand by a sliding-scale, but this measure was a complete contradiction to this declaration, and showed that the cabinet, as regarded the Corn-laws, were completely divided. He thought this bill would make no very great change, one way or other; but as the Canadians wished to have it, he regarded it as a politic and wise measure, though, as far as the country gentlemen's interests were concerned, it would affect them very little. Other causes were at work, which would affect them in a very different way, and they would have reason to regret the obstinacy with which they
1304
had supported monopoly from other causes than the Canada Bill. His object was to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet to the effect of the corn monopoly in interrupting the intercourse which England ought to carry on with the civilised world. That was the great evil by which commerce, at the present moment, was so straitened and shrunk. It would he true wisdom and policy in the agriculture to extend the principle of this bill to ail corn coming direct from the United States. If they did not extend the market for British goods, trade would still further decline, there would be no moans of finding employment for our increasing population, and there would be no return to the agriculturist for his capital. Look to the present state of our manufactures, even that of cotton, in which we most excelled. Something was to be learned from the circumstances connected with the seizure of 400 bales of calico lately imported from the United States. It was important to the commercial interests to know that so great was the progress which America had made in the cotton manufacture, that the export from the United States of the coarser qualities, was greater than that from England. Even at this moment Bengal was receiving them from America, though paying duly double that on English goods. Instead, however, of any measure being proposed to relieve us from our difficulties, there was a proposal to increase the taxes, and he hoped the House of Commons would not consent to such a monstrous demand. It was an insult to the people to squander away their money in supporting new branches of the royal family. Of what use was it that Ministers should act as the leaders of the House with a large majority at their backs, if they were afraid to give effect to those principles which they had declared to be just? The Canada measure would do nothing to relieve our difficulties. He called on the right hon. Baronet to take into consideration the state of the whole commerce of the country. To look before him in time, and not to suffer its energies to be undermined in every quarter of the globe. Look at Ireland, into which Government were pouring troops, without any reason. They were treating Ireland as they had done Canada, before the revolt. Let them do justice to it, as they now did to Canada, and they would not require that increase of military force

1305
which would add to the public expenses and to our financial difficulties. He thought it most discreditable to a strong Government, that they should shrink from bringing forward the measures they knew to be called for, when they had the power of carrying them.
Mr. G. Palmerdesignated the bill as most mischievous to the agricultural interest. As the House had allowed the second reading, he would not oppose the present stage, but he wished to know by what provision the noble Lord would prevent American flour from being brought into this country under the pretence of being of Canadian manufacture. He contended it would be impossible to do so. The admission of American corn free of duty, flour being excluded, would not be half so injurious as this measure. No corn would be introduced by the bill, but flour only. Now American flour, after having paid the duty, would be better six months after it had been ground than any English wheat that could be produced. What was the cause—whether it were attributable to the climate he knew not—but it was the fact, that American flour, three years after importation, was as perfectly good in quality as if it was just out of the mill; but he should like to see the English flour that would be good six months after grinding.
Lord Worsleydid not feel justified in offering further opposition at this stage of the bill.
Colonel Sibthorpexpressed his regret at being compelled to vote against the Government on this occasion, and expressed his intention of taking the sense of the House on the third reading of the bill. He believed that the right hon. Baronet meant well; but he must be pardoned if he said that he believed in this instance the right hon. Gentleman erred in his judgment.
House in committee on the bill—bill passed through the committee.
The House resumed. Report to be received.

POOR-LAW (IRELAND)
On the question that the Speaker do leave the Chair for the House to go into committee on the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill.
Mr. Redingtonrose to move, that the bill be referred to a select committee. Having closely watched the operations of the existing law, he by no means desired
1306
to obstruct the passing of the present bill during this Session; on the contrary, he was satisfied that the present Session should not be allowed to pass without adopting many and important alterations, with the view of rendering the whole measure palatable to all classes of the Irish public. Some change of the existing law was absolutely necessary; but he also thought that the bill now introduced required several alterations and amendments. He had been in favour of the original law, and of the principle on which it was based, because he had felt that some large measure of statutory relief was required in the great and wide-spread destitution of the lower classes in Ireland. He had been in favour also of those clauses of the original bill which had conferred on the commissioners great and most extensive powers, but he had been much disappointed; and for the sake of the principle of the bill itself he much regretted the fact, at the manner in which the commissioners had exercised the powers reposed in them by the act. He had not been one of those who expected that the measure would have been received with much favour by the great body of the people, inasmuch as it was in character new to them, and it brought considerable additional taxation, which could not fail to create some degree of discontent in the already impoverished condition of that country. But when he saw how the act had been worked out, he felt that the greatest operation had been made to countervail the benefits of the principle, and was calculated in the greatest degree to increase and perpetuate discontent. The instances were numerous, in which the powers vested in the commissioners had been most unwisely and arbitrarily exercised. To go through all those cases in detail would exceed the patience of the House, but he might be permitted to advert to a few. In very many instances, the sites for the union workhouses had been selected by the commissioners, and taken or purchased by them on most exorbitant terms, as compared with the value of lands in the immediate neighbourhood—and those expensive sites had been chosen and taken without the concurrence of the boards of guardians, and in some case before the boards were actually aware of any such intention. Again, the workhouses had been erected upon a scale of unnecessary splendour, and had entailed on the unions

1307
enormous expense—this, too, without the concurrence of the guardians—and when the respective boards complained or remonstrated, their complaints and remonstrances procured them no redress; from the arbitrary decision of the commissioners there was no relief. It must have struck the commonest observer, whether a resident or a temporary sojourner in Ireland, that the Poor-law workhouses had been erected on the most expensive and magnificent scale—they stood forth in painful contrast with the dwellings of the people among whom they were placed. In fact, the dwellings of even the wealthier classes in Ireland could not pretend to compete in style and expense with those workhouses. Such was not the case in England, nor should it be the case in any country. No private individual ever managed his own affairs with less prudence or economy, than had the Poor-law commissioners managed the important interests entrusted to them. In some instances, the building of the workhouses had exceeded the original estimates by sums so large as 1,500 l. and 2,000 l. And this great additional expenditure had been incurred without the concurrence, nay, often without the previous knowledge of the boards of guardians. Another great objection to the conduct of the commissioners was, that they had excited the suspicion of the Irish people by the arbitrary exclusion of the public, and particularly of the public press, from the meetings of the guardians. And to that rule of exclusion they doggedly adhered, against the express and urgent wishes of the boards themselves. The rate-payers were most anxious to see, or to be made acquainted with, proceedings that so nearly concerned them; and it certainly seemed unjust, as well as impolitic, to attempt to deny them that privilege. It had been urged that, as the poor-rate would impose on the great majority of individual rate-payers no heavier payment than that of 5d, or 6d. in the pound, it could not really affect the interests of the people much, nor afford any ground for exciting among them jealousies or discontent. But they who thus argued, either did not know much of that country, or permitted their own observations and experience to be overruled by mere conjecture, or they must admit, that a large mass of the rate-payers felt the payment of that small sum quite as great a burthen and hardship, as the payment of a much
1308
larger rate was felt by persons differently circumstanced, and took as keen an interest in the object and mode of its allocation. The commissioners had further gone out of their way, and, by unnecessary interference, incurred much unpopularity, in prohibiting the boards' giving a Christmas dinner to the paupers. He was most desirous that the existing law should be at once and materially altered. In the provisions of the bill now before the House, he saw many things that were objectionable. He must condemn the contemplated increase in the number of ex-officio guardians, as tending to supersede pro tanto the guardians elected by the rate-payers, and consequently to diminish the interest of the rate-payers themselves in the well-being of the poor, and to greatly increase the already strong jealousies and disapprobation evinced towards the whole measure in very many localities. One change proposed by this bill was, that 8l. householders in towns should be subject to exemption. Now, why should the 8l. householders in such places as Dublin, Waterford, Cork, Limerick—persons who were on an equality, he supposed, with the 10 l. voters here—be exempted from the payment of the rates? It was only by gentlemen practically conversant with the details that this bill could properly be discussed, and it was with a view to render its provisions as perfect as possible, that he begged to move it be referred to a select committee upstairs.
Lord Eliotcould not acquiesce in the proposition. If it were adopted, he believed, whatever might be the feeling of the committee, the whole matter would be re-opened, and the remainder of the Session would be consumed in the discussion of the abstract question of a Poor-law for Ireland; no report would be made, or if made, not in time to be acted upon. The bill consisted of clauses which every Gentleman was now in a condition to discuss, and no real advantage would be gained by referring the bill to a committee upstairs. The hon. Gentleman had pronounced a diatribe against the commissioners; but it was the duty of those who sought to impugn their conduct, instead of making individual charges without notice, to move for a committee of inquiry; but even admitting the allegations respecting valuations and improvident contracts to be correct, he

1309
did not think they furnished any argument at all against the measure as now proposed. He would not at present enter at all upon the details; they would best be considered in committee. He had several amendments to propose, which he would have laid on the Table yesterday, had there been a House. The principal one was in the tenth clause, with a view to guard against the possibility of any interference with the elective franchise. Considerable feeling, he was aware, existed upon the Subject of the Irish Poor-law; but there was every desire on the part of the Government fairly to discuss every provision, and there would be no disinclination on their part to pay the utmost attention to every suggestion or recommendation that might be made with a view to render the measure as complete and satisfactory as possible.
Mr. M. J. O'Connellwas inclined to support the proposition of his hon. Friend; but, after the statement of the noble Lord, he hoped it would be withdrawn. He admitted, that the guardians had not managed the valuations in a proper manner, but he strongly objected to leave the valuations, which were the basis of the elective franchise, entirely in the hands of the commissioners.
Sir R. Fergusonsupported the amendment. The great defect in the bill was, that it proposed no sufficient check upon the powers of the commissioners.
Lord Bernardsaid, that he would oppose the amendment of the hon. Member for Dundalk, for referring the bill to a select committee, as it would be neither satisfactory in itself or to the country, With regard to the concessions proposed by the noble Lord, be never could See the advantage of the 7th clause. If the valuation were bonâ fide, it was unnecessary, and if not, it would not make a good valuation. He deprecated the concessions which had been made by the Government, in giving up the clause increasing the ex officio guardians, and said, that the expression of opposition arose from misapprehension. It was supposed that the guardians ex officio waste to be increased to one-half instead of one-third of the whole board, in proof of which he quoted the following from the Dublin Evening Post:—
" The new bill introduced by Lord Eliot might justly be described as an act to deprive the ratepayers of all confront in the administration of the law, and to vest the entire power
1310
of management in irresponsible officers chosen by the Crown, for such would be the inevitable effect of the clause increasing the number of ex officio guardians from one-third to one-half."
Again, the hon. and learned Member for the county of Cork in one of his speeches said,'—
"The bill introduced by Lord J, Russell was an atrocious bill, and he rejoiced in having opposed it on principle and detail, yet bad as it was it gave the people a selection of two-thirds of the guardians who were in general sufficient to prove an obstacle to the domination and tyranny of the commissioners, but under the new bill one-half of the guardians were to be ex officio, and the commissioners would only have to get a majority of one out of the other half, in order to have a sufficient number to carry their measures."
He did not mean to impute intentional misrepresentation, as he knew it was a common error. He believed that the alteration in this respect, originally proposed by the noble Lord, would have done much to remove the grounds of complaint from those who were the owners of property. What possible good could it do to exclude magistrates from the board, if all political grounds of objection were removed, all political powers taken away? on the contrary, would not. the results be most beneficial if magistrates, gentlemen of intelligence, of experience, and of property, Were willing to undertake what he could assure the House Were onerous duties, the attendance of weekly boards and visiting committees. He then directed the attention of the House to the 22nd clause, which by requiring a month's notice instead of a week, placed difficulties in the way of the owners of property exercising their right to claim their votes, and contended that on that ground the ex officio guardians ought to be increased, and alluded to the cumulative and proxy votes not having afforded to the landed property that protection which was intended, and instanced the case of the Bandon Union, where the number of owners and proxy voters were very small compared with the votes of the occupiers of property. He believed the cause of the failure (or rather the partial want of success) of the law was, that the Poor-law was made the basis of the Municipal Franchise, and this, associating it with political interests, made it a fruitful field of party agitation. It is evident there must be something more than meets the eye in a discontent which did not manifest itself as it did in England, in complaints about the separation of

1311
husband and wife—of parent and child, and to severities of the workhouse system. Each clause in the bill was carefully considered. First—the 4l. and 8l. exemptions; then the ex officio guardians were thrown into the scale, while the popular attention was directed to see in favour of which party the political beam would gravitate. He would show what had happened in Cork, by reading an extract from the letter of a gentleman which he had received:—
" In the first place, the coming into operation of the Municipal Act depended upon the declaration of the Union; and the board first elected for the Cork Union, the majority of whom were Liberals, prematurely forced on the declaration of the rate before we had the machinery completed for the working of the act; to which is to be attributed in a great measure the difficulties we have since laboured under; and further, the municipal franchise depending on the Poor-law valuation, which, and the times for striking the rates being dependent on the acts of the board, it is quite evident that party politics entered into the decisions of the board."
He had presented a petition from the aldermen, and others of the Custom-house Ward in Cork, in which were these words:—
" Your petitioners further beg to call the attention of your honourable House to the injurious effects of the Irish Corporations on the working of that great experiment, the Irish Poor-law, by parties becoming guardians of the unions in cities and corporate towns, not for the purpose of promoting the benevolent objects of the act, but that by political majorities they may be enabled to use the Poor-law valuations as engines to create a franchise. In the first place, the coming into operation of the Municipal Act depended upon the declaration of the Union, and the board first elected for the Cork Union prematurely forced on the declaration of the rate, before we had the machinery completed for the working of the Act, to which is to be attributed in a great measure the difficulties we have since laboured under; and further, the Municipal Franchise depending on the Poor-law valuation, which, and the times of striking the rate being dependent on the acts of the board, it is quite evident that party politics entered into the decisions of the board."
The instances were frequent where guardians had openly avowed that they had become so on account of political and partisan objects, and with the view of furthering political and party interests. He thought the House ought never to have granted to the commissioners so much political influence. The power of fixing
1312
the amount of the Poor-law franchise, which at the time of the passing of the law, would have been a delicate subject for discussion now in the House, was left to him to determine. They had also the power of fixing the boundaries of electoral divisions. These were matters susceptible of being made subservient to party and political purposes, and they should have been placed on a footing raised not only above suspicion, but above the possibility of it. Again, he thought it equally unwise to have delegated to the commissioners, the selection of chaplains. He did not wish to revive any discussion of a religious nature, he would not therefore, further advert to that particular objection. Another cause of discontent was, the supposed intention of consigning to the Poor-law commissioners the administration of the medical charities of Ireland, which supposed intention had done more to injure the Poor-law than any other cause whatever; but not only had the law been made unpopular by being the basis of the municipal valuation, but to this was added another ingredient, that it was supposed that the Poor-law valuation would be made the basis of the parliamentary franchise. There now was no chance of improving the law, except by freeing it from the obstructions and difficulties created by its association with political affairs. Let the valuation be placed in the hands of the executive, above the reach of party politics and local interests. Let the administration of the law be conducted on the direct responsibility of the Executive Government. He had already given notice of his intention to move a resolution as an instruction to the committee, which, if put in practice, he was sure would work well; it was, that the business of the central board should be conducted in London instead of Dublin; so long as it was managed in the latter place, so long would it be subjected to party influences and party jealousies. Even at present, every appeal was practically made to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Home Department.
Sir D. Norreysrose to order, and suggested, that the noble Lord had wandered from the question at issue.
Lord Bernardreally thought, that he was not now out of the strict line of the debate that had been usually the practice to allow, and surely not so much as hon. Members had been, throughout the recent discussion on the Irish Arms Bill. He could not help saying, at the same

1313
time, that the law had not had a fair trial in Ireland, for no law could be administered, when those who ought to administer it sought to frustrate it. In a pamphlet addressed by Mr. Godby, Sheriff of Lei-trim, to the landowners of the county, after advising them to give the bill their support, he says: —
" Far from this being the case, I hear an universal outcry of complaint before any one can have any possible ground to know that there is ground for it. I find among the ratepayers opposition to the collectors—among the guardians opposition to the commissioners —and to the very principle of the act, among the whole population, a disposition not to make the best of the law, but as far as in them lies to embarrass its working. Now, if this be the case, how can it succeed? The objects of the best law in the world will be defeated, if those to whom the execution is entrusted, are determined to defeat them. They first endeavour to make it fail, and then complain because they have been successful."
If he (Lord Bernard) could think that anything said within these walls could reach the people of Ireland, he would implore those who opposed the law to reflect what would be the effect of their conduct on their own interests. It was commonly said, by the capitalists of England, even before the late melancholy events in Ireland—" How can you expect us to invest money amongst you when you cannot collect your own poor-rates?" He firmly believed, that if this and other sources of agitation ceased, and agriculture were earnesly prosecuted, the produce of Ireland would be twice as much as it was. He thanked the House for the attention with which they had listened to him.
Sir D. J. Norreysquite agreed with the noble Lord as to the unfortunate effect of the connection between the municipal act and the Poor-law. For that, however, hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House were not responsible. If it had not been for some words which were introduced into the municipal bill by the present Lord Chancellor, none of this bad result would have to be deplored. There was one point connected with this subject on which he begged to ask the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) a question—he meant the removal of Scotch and Irish paupers from England to their respective countries. The commissioners did not appear to have referred to the subject in their report in a way that was calculated to be effectual, so as to establish a reciprocity, in this respect, between the coun-
1314
tries. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to state what was meant to be done in the matter?
Mr. Sergeant Murphysaid, the connection between the municipal franchise and the poor-rates in the Cork union had led to much inconvenience. So great was the political ferment, and so much had the workhouse been converted into an arena of political discussion, in order to strengthen the Tory interest in the city, that many of those who otherwise would have gladly aided in carrying out the law, had been obliged to discontinue their attendance. With respect to the removal of paupers, the evil was monstrous. In Cork they were accustomed continually to see shiploads of paupers who had been embarked in the port of London, set ashore and turned adrift among them. In addition, the paupers from the country infested the streets. Now, considering that they had from 1,650 to 1,800 paupers of their own to support, it was most grievous to have between 200 and 300 paupers thrown on the union from time to time, without having anything similar to the law of settlement in this country to provide for their transmission to their proper localities. Surely, it was not just, that the labouring classes of Ireland, after having wasted their strength and employed the best part of their lives, in lending their aid in the construction of the public works, and gathering the harvests of England, should when decay rendered them no longer serviceable, be thrown back on the destitution of Ireland, where, from the lapse of time, their local connections had cooled in their attachment, and were no longer so ready as before to render them assistance. How they were to be relieved from this constant influx of paupers from England, ought to occupy the immediate attention of Government. He was fully disposed, from all he had seen of the noble Secretary for Ireland, as well in public as in private, to give him full credit for wishing to act, with respect to this measure, in a spirit of perfect fairness. For himself, he was quite ready to meet the Government in the same spirit. There was one observation he had to make before he sat down, and that was, that in his opinion, the commissioner was undoubtedly too much in the habit of following his own judgment, instead of listening to advice from those whose local knowledge gave them a right to offer it. An instance of this had occurred at Cork,

1315
where the commissioner had had the workhouse built on a quarry, the effect of which was, that the building could not be drained and, of course, miasma and deleterious effects might be apprehended.
Mr. G. Hamiltonsaid, as the proposition of the hon. Member for Dundalk was not to be pressed to a division, he would not take up the time of the House by adverting to it; but he would avail himself of the opportunity of stating, that it was his intention to move some clauses in reference to the manner in which the clergy were at present rated. With regard to the present Irish Poor-law, he felt that it was very imperfect; and he did not hesitate to add, that its imperfections had been greatly aggravated by the injudicious administration of the Poor-law commissioners in many cases. He was most anxious to see the measure improved. He had had the honour of a seat in Parliament when the measure was first introduced, and he could not forget, that it had exhibited an almost solitary instance of an Irish measure being discussed and carried through the House without any exhibition of party feeling. As a measure, therefore, proposed by the late Government, and supported by the late Opposition, he felt that it came to the present Government under very peculiar circumstances. He thought it was entitled to a fair trial; the time and circumstances had not admitted of that fair trial as yet; and he thought, also that Members on all sides of the House, ought to co-operate in rendering it now as efficient as possible. Although fully sensible, as he had stated, of its imperfections, he could not admit that the measure had been altogether a failure. He thought the state of the workhouses, as respects the class of their inmates, exhibited anything but an indication of failure. If, indeed, the workhouses had been filled with able-bodied men, he should have despaired of the result of the experiment; but such was not the case; the persons who asked admission into the workhouses were, for the most part, the aged, the infirm, and children, and in cases in cities, able-bodied women. No one, he thought, could complain that relief had been administered to such classes; and indeed the consideration of the comparative comfort which those poor people enjoyed, went very far, in his estimation, to overbalance any objections that were made to the system itself. There was another point likewise in which he thought the poor
1316
laws had operated beneficially. He was perfectly aware — as had been already stated—that in large towns the boardrooms of guardians had been made arenas for violent political discussions and struggles; but he believed that was very much confined to towns. He could not help thinking that in the country unions the administration of poor relief had tended to an amalgamation of parties in bringing together on neutral ground men of different classes and politics. It had been his lot to have been engaged in three very hard-fought election contests for the county in which he lived, all of them attended with no ordinary political excitement; the parties who had opposed him most strenuously, were the very parties who constituted the great majority of the guardians of his union, and yet these same persons—differing from him in politics—differing from him in religion—differing from him in almost everything, except in the desire of benefitting the poor—had on two occasions elected him the chairman of the board. He stated this simply as an illustration of the effect which had been produced in connexion with the Poor-law system in diminishing hostility, and softening down party feelings. There were one or two matters which he felt would contribute greatly to the better working of the system in Ireland. He thought nothing would tend more to improve it than if Government would throw themselves more upon the good sense and good feeling of those who administer the law locally—be meant the boards of guardians; and if the Government would pin their faith less upon the commissioners—he thought also the executive government ought to be made more directly responsible for the administration of the system—or the Poor-law commissioners made directly responsible to the Irish Government. At present there was a divided and an uncertain responsibility, which he thought very objectionable. He was sorry to have to add that he feared the present bill would go a very short way indeed in remedying the defects of the system. He was well aware that many most important suggestions had been offered to Government by persons of practical knowledge, and most fully competent to give them the best information. He regretted that those suggestions appeared to be overlooked or disregarded by the noble Lord—amongst them he might enumerate that evil to which the hon. and learned Member for Cork had alluded—

1317
the transmission of paupers from England; I that the Government had no intention of and he could assure the hon. Member that? he fully agreed in every word he had spoken on that subject, and felt the hardship as strongly as he did.
Sir J. Grahamwas anxious that the House should go into committee with as little delay as possible, because it was in the committee that the details of the measure could be best discussed, and therefore, under ordinary circumstances, he should be most unwilling to prolong this debate; but as the hon. Baronet opposite, as well as the hon. and learned Sergeant and the hon. Gentleman behind him, had remarked upon the subject of the removal of Scotch and Irish paupers from England, he would, with the permission of the House, offer a few words in reply to them. It was, he need scarcely observe, hardly possible in an Irish Poor-law bill to deal with this subject. In England there was the right to relief and the law of settlement. In Ireland there was neither. In England a removal took from one specific spot to another specific spot. With respect to Ireland the removals were to a country, and not a specific place. He admitted that both with respect to the Scotch and Irish paupers the law as it at present stood did inflict upon those who had been resident in England very great hardships. The pauper, who had helped to increase the wealth of England by his labour, ought to have some greater consideration shown to his health and comfort when he was worn out than at present fell to his lot. He intended to introduce a bill on the subject before the close of the Session, which might lie over during the recess, so as to give some time for consideration, and be was not without hopes that checks might be devised to guard against abuses in the plan he should propose. With respect to the question of franchise, he must disclaim, on the part of the Government, any intention to interfere with the franchise in establishing the connexion, as it was called, between the Municipal Act and the Poor Relief Act. The Government was inclined to adopt the sum of 10l. with regard to the larger towns in Ireland, but upon further consideration, and viewing the effect which the rating would have upon the municipal franchise, they had adopted the lower sum. If it could be shown in committee that any particular sum would interfere with the exercise of the municipal franchise, the point would be mooted in committee, and it would then be found
1318
that the Government had no intention of interfering with the franchise. The several impediments to the working of the Irish Poor-law could then be smoothed down, and it would be seen that the Government was anxious to do all in its power to ameliorate the condition of the poorer classes in that country.
Mr. Redingtonwould, with the permission of the House, withdraw his motion.
The amendment withdrawn. House in committee on the bill.
On clause 1 being proposed, enacting " that the lessors of property of less value than pounds to be rated for the same," it was proposed to fill the blank with the word "eight."
Sir R. Fergusonobjected to fixing the standard of rate in any part of the country, as he thought it would be better to adapt it to circumstances. In Londonderry many holdings under 5l. were in arrear of rent; whilst in other neighbouring places such was not the case. The noble Lord, the Member for Bandon, said the rate was a light one, and never exceeded 10 d. in the pound; but in his electoral division, it in some instances amounted to 2s. 6d. He would therefore move as an amendment, that the Poor-law commissioners might be empowered to issue an order from time to time, directing the guardians of an union to make a rate according to circumstances upon property not exceeding 8l., and to include both lessee and occupier. The clause as it now stood, whilst relieving all holders under 4l., would throw the burden upon the landlords. As the law at present stood, all parties had a common interest in the rate being levied; but the clause now proposed by the bill would bold out an inducement to landlords to get rid of their poorer tenants.
Lord Eliotthought the power proposed to be vested in the commissioners by the amendment was too arbitrary. The recommendations of the commissioners in the first instance were, that occupiers under 5l. should be exempt, or that the rate should be paid by the landlords. Persons at present holding under 5l. were exempted from the payment of the county cess, and as it had been represented to Government, that the subdivision of holding in the west of Ireland especially, was carried to a very great extent, it was supposed that 4l. would form the best average. If, however, a uniform rate was considered

1319
objectionable, and another mode would be more applicable to the circumstances of the country, any suggestion to that effect should receive due consideration. He was not at present, however, in such a position as would enable him to give his consent to a proposal of that kind, though he could not, at the same time, say he would oppose it.
Mr. S. Crawfordobjected to any additional powers being vested in the commissioners. It should be for the House, and not the commissioners, to fix the amount of property to be assessed.
Mr. George Hamiltoncould not agree in the proposition of his hon. Friend, the Member for Londonderry city, for he thought it would be productive of a constant struggle between landlord and tenant —the one claiming, and the other resisting the exemption; he was, however, very favourable to the exemption of the occupiers of small tenements, but he thought the clause liable to serious objections. It was the principle of the present Poor-law, that the occupier is liable to one moiety of the rate on the grounds, and in consideration of, the profits of occupation; and the landlord to the other, on the grounds of his ownership, but occupiers of very small tenements, scarcely removed from pauperism, who are unable to pay, and the recovery of the rate from whom would be attended with distressing results—and these the bill proposes to exempt. But if inability to pay was the ground of exemption in the case of such small holders, the exemption ought to have been extended to lessees of similar holdings. There was another great objection to the clause as at present framed. It appeared to him to introduce a new principle—it made the landlord liable not only to his ownmoiety as owner, but to the moiety to which his tenant was liable, in consideration of the profits of occupation. Again, from the exemption being confined to cases of tenants at will, it appeared grounded upon the supposition, that the landlord would recover from his tenant the amount of the rate, in the shape of an increased rent. If this were the case, the effect of the clause would be to shift the odium of collection from the collector to the landlord; and it would also be said, " Is it fair to disfranchise the tenant?" If it was not so, if the occupier in those cases is supposed to be totally exempt—why place one class of landlords, because they happen to have
1320
tenants at will, on a different footing from; other landlords? He should have thought; that the fairer and better plan would have been to exempt all tenants under a certain value, and to leave the landlord, as; at present, liable to his moiety of the rate. He feared the clause, unless so altered, ' would occasion great dissatisfaction.
Sir R. Ferguson,would withdraw his amendment, or allow it to be negatived, and bring it forward again on the report.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. Redingtonmoved to fill up the blank with the word " four" instead of " eight."
The Committee divided on the question that the blank be filled with " eight;"— Ayes 119; Noes 18; Majority 101.

List of the NOES.

Acland, T. D.

Gladstone, Capt.

Acton, Col.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Aglionby, H. A.

Gore, W. R. O.

Aldam, W.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir,

Alford, Visct.

Greenall, P.

Antrobus, E.

Grogan, E.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Hamilton, G. A.

Baillie, Col.

Hamilton, W. J.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Hardinge, rt.hn.Sir H.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Hayes, Sir E.

Bateson, R.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Bernard, Visct.

Henley, J. W.

Blackburne, J. I.

Herbert, hon. S.

Boldero, H. G.

Hodgson, F.

Bowring, Dr.

Hope, G. W.

Boyd, J.

Hussey, A.

Brotherton, J.

Hussey, T.

Browne, hon. W.

James, W.

Bruce, Lord E.

James, Sir W. C.

Buckley, E.

Jermyn, Earl

Bunbury, T.

Jervis, J.

Burroughes, H. N.

Jones, Capt.

Christopher, R. A.

Kemble, H.

Collett, W. R.

Lefroy, A.

Connolly, Col.

Lincoln, Earl of

Coote, Sir C. H.

Mackenzie. W. F.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Cripps, W.

Manners, Lord J.

Damer, hon. Col.

Marsland, H.

Darby, G.

Masterman, J.

Denison, E. B.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Dickinson, F. H.

Meynell, Capt.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Mitcalfe, H.

Douglas, J. D. S.

Morgan, O.

Drummond, H. H.

Morris, D.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Murphy, F. S.

East, J. B.

Napier, Sir C.

Eliot, Lord

Neeld, J.

Ellis, W.

Newry, Visct.

Flower, Sir J.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Forester, hon. G.C.W.

Northland, Visct.

Gisborne, T.

O'Brien, W. S.

Gladstone, rt.hn.W.E.

O'Conor, Don

1321

Palmer, G.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Thesiger, F.

Polhill, F.

Thornely, T.

Pollock, Sir F.

Trelawny, J. S.

Pringle, A.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Rice, E. R.

Trollope, Sir J.

Roche, Sir D.

Verner, Col.

Ross, D. R.

Vesey, hon. T.

Round, J.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Russell, Lord J.

Wilbraham, tin. R. B.

Sheppard, T.

Wood, B.

Smith, rt. hon. T.B.C.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Smollett, A.

Wrightson, VV. B.

Sotheron.T. H. S.

Young, J.

Stuart, W. V.

TELLERS.

Stuart, H.

Freemantle. Sir T.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

List of the NOES.

Barnard, E. G.

Scholefield, J.

Collett, J.

Tancred, H. W.

Corbally, M. E.

Tuite, H. M.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Watson, W. H.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Westenra, hon. J.

Gore, hon. R.

Williams, W.

Hindley, C.

Wyse, T.

Hollond, R.

Martin, T. B.

TELLERS.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Redington, J.

O'Connell, M. J.

Crawford, W. S.

The three first clauses of the bill were agreed to.
House resumed. Committee to sit again.
House adjourned at half-past Twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—His Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland (the King of Hanover.)
Reported.—Merthyr Tydvil Stipendiary Magistrates.
Private.—la Fox's Estate; Earl of Gainsborough's Estate; Chalgrove Inclosure; Great Bromley Inclosure; Ballochney Railway.
2a. Saltcoats Harbour; Bristol and Gloucester Railway; Glasgow Marine Insurance Company.
Reported.—South Eastern Railway Extension; Belfast Harbour; Forth Navigation; Sowerby and Soyland In closure; Neath Harbour; Liskeard and Caradon Railway; Piel Pier; Southampton Docks.
3a. and passed:—Bannbridge Roads; Scarborough Harbour; Glasgow Paisley and Greenock Railway; Lord Gray's Estate.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Bishop of Chester, from Stockport, against the Union of the Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.—By the Earl of Bandon, from Bandon, against the Repeal Agitation in Ireland.—By the Earl of Rosebery from Linlithgow, for better Remuneration of Scotch Scholmasters.—By the Duke of Richmond, from Chichester, for Medical Reform.—From a Law Society, against the Bankruptcy Act.—From Oxford, Piddington, and Stoken, for Church Extension.—From the Clergy of York, in favour of Church Rates.— From the Mechanics Institution of Chichester, for Exemption from the Payment of Rates and Taxes.—From Sheffield, for Restoring the Irish magistrates that have been dismissed from the Bench.

LORD ELLENBOROUGH—VOTE OF THANKS.
The Lord Chancelloracquainted the House that he had received from Lord Ellenborough, the Governor-general of India, the following letter, in return to the thanks of the House communicated to his Lordship by the Lord Chancellor in obedience to an order of the House of the 20th of February last.—
" Agra, 21st. April, 1843.
" My Lord Chancellor, —I have had the highest satisfaction in communicating to the army engaged in the late campaign in Affghanistan, the unanimous thanks which have been voted to it by the House of Lords.
"It is gratifying to me that their Lordships should have thought fit to acknowledge the part I had in supporting the military operations.—I have the honour to remain,
" My Lord Chancellor,
" Your Lordship's most obedient servant,
" ELLEN BOROUGH."
"The Right Hon, the Lord High Chancellor."

PRINCESS AUGUSTA OF CAMBRIDGE. —MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN.
The Duke of Wellingtonannounced that he had a message from her Majesty, which was read by the Lord Chancellor, as follows; —
" V. R.—Her Majesty thinks it right to acquaint the House of Lords that she has given her consent to a marriage between her Royal Highness the Princess Augusta Caroline, eldest daughter of his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, and his Royal Highness Frederic Hereditary Grand Duke of Mecklenburgh Strelitz.
" The many proofs which the House of Lords has afforded of affectionate attachment to her Majesty's person and Family, leave her Majesty no doubt of their readiness to enable her Majesty to make a suitable provision for her Royal Highness on this occasion.
Message to be considered on Tuesday.

DISMISSAL OF MAGISTRATES (IRELAND).
The Marquess of Clanricarde:In asking the question of which I have given notice, there is not, I think, much apology due, in the present state of Ireland, not only from any one connected with that country, nor would there be from any Member of this House who may desire to know distinctly the grounds on which the Irish Government have taken the step to which I mean to allude. I therefore rise to ask a question, the object of which is, to ascertain distinctly on what principle the Irish Government have proceeded, and are proceeding, in dismissing certain gentlemen from the commission of the peace in Ireland, and from the office of deputy-lieutenants. I shall make no comments on these proceedings, my object being to obtain information as to the facts. In order to make my object clear, I shall have to point out certain discrepancies in letters addressed by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to the magistrates I have referred to, and which certainly involved the views of the Government in such obscurity, that we ought to hear on what principles they have determined to act. In the letter ad-
1290
dressed to Lord Ffrench, to which I felt it my duty to call your Lordships' attention some time back. It is stated:—
" It has been his earnest desire not to interfere with the expression of opinion by any magistrate in favour of repeal, although from his first arrival here he deemed it inconsistent with the determination of her Majesty's Government, to uphold the Union between Great Britain and Ireland, to appoint as a magistrate any person pledged to a repeal of that Union. Her Majesty's Government having recently declared in both Houses of Parliament their fixed determination to maintain the Union, it becomes the duty of the members of the Government to support that declaration."
And the whole matter is wound up thus:—
" This view of the case, which the step taken by your Lordship has forced upon the attention of the Lord Chancellor, will compel him at once to supersede any other magistrates who, since the declarations in Parliament, have attended like repeal meetings."
I do not mean to make any commentary on this, for I think it is pretty clear from it what the intention of the Government then was. It is dated the 25th of May, and on the 29th May there is another letter addressed to Mr. Otter, in which there is this phrase:—
" If you had confined yourself to a statement of the grounds of your resignation, the Lord Chancellor would have been anxious to satisfy you that Government had not any intention to interfere with the constitutional right to assemble and petition for the repeal of any act of the Legislature."
It is impossible not to see that those words allude to the act of Union. Now, I certainly did understand from the former letter, that after the declarations of her Majesty's Ministers in Parliament, every magistrate who took part in the repeal agitation, was to be dismissed; yet the letter which I have just read would lead to a contrary conclusion. But, my Lords, that is not all, for it appears that a letter was addressed to Mr. Clanchy, inquiring whether or not he attended a repeal dinner. His answer is, that he did attend a dinner to Messrs. O'Connell and Roche, the representatives of his county. This is his letter:—
" Charleville, 24th May, 1843.
"Sir—In reply to your letter of the '23rd instant, I beg to state, for the information of the Lord Chancellor, that I did attend a dinner in Charleville on the 18th instant, given to Messrs. O'Connell and Roche, at which were persons differing in opinion on the subject of

1291
repeal, as well as on other matters of politics. Messrs. O'Connell and Roche are representatives in Parliament for this county. I supported them at the last general election, I purpose doing so (please God) at the next. Neither at this dinner, nor at any meeting, have I given any opinion on the act of Union, perhaps because my ideas on that question may not be as yet perfectly founded. But this I will say, that my intentions are to support such measures only as will promote the interests of Ireland, and at the same time strengthen and preserve the British connection.—Your obedient servant,
" H. Sugden, Esq. D. CLANCHY."
Now, it is impossible to say of this dinner, as was said in the letter to Lord Ffrench, that " it had an inevitable tendency to outrage; " because whether the dinner was given to the representatives of the county, or was a mere repeal dinner, it was absurd to say that it had an inevible tendency to the breach of the peace. There must be a total change in all our habits and proceedings before such maxims are laid down for the conduct of public meetings. I am sure that, generally speaking, the Government would not so act. It is evidently considered, that a mere expression of opinion on the subject of Repeal of the Union, justifies the dismissal of a magistrate, though the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had previously said, that he would not interfere with the expression of opinion as regards, an Act of Parliament. There is, besides, the case of Colonel Butler, whose offence is, that he could not attend a repeal meeting, as he was confined to his bed. It is quite clear, then, that the mere expression of an opinion favourable to repeal is deemed a justification fordismissal. Now I am not saying, that the grounds thus alleged are right or wrong; but I do, think that at this particular moment, the Irish, Government (but when I say the Irish Government, I mean, of course, the Ministers who are responsible for its acts), should let the country know clearly what they mean, and on what principles they are proceeding, in what is already grave, and may he a graver matter—the dismissal of magistrates in Ireland.
The, Duke of Wellington: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Marquess for explaining the object of this question, I certainly was. not aware of the letters to which the noble Lord referred; but he has been so kind as to state to me in writing, that he intended to inquire on what principle these magistrates and deputy. Lieutenants have been dismissed
1292
from their offices, and to that question I am prepared to give an answer. These Gentlemen having been some of the persons to instigate and encourage the assembly of those large meetings in Ireland, on which the first law authority had pronounced in writing the opinion that they had " a tendency to outrage;" that" they were not in the spirit of the constitution, and may become dangerous to the State;" the Lord-lieutenant or the Government could not feel any confidence in the performance of their duties by these magistrates and deputy-lieutenants, who had thus excited these meetings, or who presided at them, or who even attended them. Your Lordships are perfectly aware that on one occasion it was proved that these meetings had a tendency to outrage—indeed, outrage was actually committed. I told your Lordships on a former occasion that there was a great difference of opinion in Ireland on the subject of the repeal of the union. Now, suppose that two assemblies representing such opinions assemble on the same occasion and in the same neighbourhood, why it is obvious that outrage and bloodshed may occur, and it must be likewise obvious that those magistrates and deputy-lieutenants are not officers on whom the Lord lieutenant can rely for carrying into execution measures for the repression and suppression of outrage which he may think proper to take on such an occasion. My Lords, I have besides to observe to your Lordships, that for a very considerable period of time it has been a matter of notoriety in Ireland that the Members of her Majesty's Council, her Majesty's servants in this and the other House of Parliament, declared it to be the positive and fixed determination of the Government to maintain inviolate the legislative union between the two countries. Some of the most distinguished Members of both Houses of Parliament declared, in their places, that they had the same intention; and this declaration of opinion has been communicated to the public more than once, and in no one instance, as I believe, has there been an intention avowed to promote the object of this repeal of the union. Well, then, what must be inferred from the notoriety of that fact? What but that the repeat of the union, so far as a vote of Parliament is concerned, is hopeless 1 It is to be carried, then, by intimidation, by force, and violence, and of course, as the Go-

1293
vernment, whose duty it is to resist and repress such acts of intimidation, force, and violence, whenever they should be attempted, by all the means at their disposition, cannot use such instruments as those who excite the people to appear at their head, the Lord-lieutenant and Lord Chancellor have taken measures to remove them from the commission of the peace, and deputy-lieutenancies of their several counties. This is the principle, my Lords, on which I conceive that the Government has acted. Indeed, there can be no doubt of it. The letters from the learned Judge at the head of the Court of Chancery in Ireland state that there is no desire on the part of Government to prevent any Gentleman from entertaining any opinions he may think proper to adopt upon the subject of the repeal of any Act of Parliament. No one can desire to do any such thing: but what we say is, that we must endeavour to preserve the peace of the country notwithstanding those large meeings—meetings having a tendency to outrage and violence—and, in doing so, we must make use of instruments such as there are in Ireland, and we cannot make use of the services of those who incite the people to assemble at such meetings, and who preside over them.
Earl Fortescuesaid, be did not rise to offer any observations upon what bad fallen from the noble Duke, but merely to correct a misrepresentation which had been made in his absence, both in that House and in another place, with regard to expressions he had used, and acts done by the Government of which he was, for some time, the bead in Ireland. He understood it had been stated in substance in that House, that if precedents were wanted for what he must call the extraordinary proceedings taken by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland—that if precedents were wanted to justify those proceedings, they could be found in the declarations made by him, and in the arts done by the Government of which in Ireland he had been the bead. Now, he held in his hand a correct copy of the report taken at the time of the declaration which had been referred to in that as well as the other House of Parliament, and he hoped to have their Lordships' indulgence whilst he read that part of it which had reference to the subject of the Repeal of the Union, The occasion upon, which the speech in question had been made was the presentation of the
1294
Lord Mayor of the city of Dublin to the Lord-lieutenant—a ceremony which the Municipal Bill had done away with. Before the passing of that measure, however, it had been the custom for the Lord-lieutenant to address himself to the Lord Mayor on being so presented; and he begged to state that, besides the agitation then carried on by the Repealers, he had an additional motive for making the observations to which he begged to call attention, because he had been informed—he could not say how truly—that a portion of the old corporation had expressed sentiments favourable to repeal. After expressing in the strongest and most distinct terms his determination, and that of every Member of the then Government, to maintain the union between the two countries —after stating his conviction that its repeal could not be obtained by legal and constitutional means, and that even if it could be obtained, it would be fraught with equal calamity to both parts of the United Empire, he had proceeded to use the following words:—
" Need 1 say, entertaining as 1 do these opinions, that I have felt it to be my duty to discourage and discountenance, by all legal and constitutional means, the agitation of the Repeal question? Need I say, that I shall withhold all the Government favour and patronage which Administrations are entitled to confer upon their supporters from all those who take a part in this agitation, no matter what claims they may have, upon other grounds, to the good will of the Government? And if I have not had recourse to stronger means or more decided measures for the discountenancing or the suppression of the agitation upon this subject, it is certainly from no sympathy upon my part with the object or the feelings of those who are embarked in it; but because—although most strongly deprecating the agitation I continue to feel the same respect I have always entertained for the constitutional light of the people, openly to meet, and freely to discuss any acts of the Legislature which they may consider, however erroneously, prejudicial to their interests, or the interests of the country; so long as that discussion is carried on in a proper manner, with the view of obtaining, by legal and constitutional means the consent of the Legislature to the alteration or repeal of any particular act of Parliament—the only object to which the agitation in the present instance is declared to be directed. It is from these causes that, although entirely disapproving, the object of those meetings, and the sentiments expressed at them, more particularly with regard to our foreign policy, that I, at the same time, have not yet considered any danger likely to arise from

1295
those meetings to be such, or the sentiments expressed at them to have produced any such effect upon the general tranquillity of the country, as to justify the interference of the Executive for their forcible suppression, or a recourse to measures which, if not of paramount necessity, are often calculated to foment the spirit?which they seek to allay, and to increase the mischief which they were intended to cure."
Acting up fairly to the spirit of that declaration, he had given no portion of the Government favour or patronage to any person who had taken part in that agitation, but, at the same time, it never had been in his contemplation to take from any person, in consequence of his opinions, the situation he held; and he was sure their Lordships would agree with him in thinking, there was a wide distinction between withholding an appointment and withdrawing it, between refusing to confer an office, and taking it away. He had been anxious to set himself right on this subject, and he trusted this explanation would have that effect.
Lord Broughamsaid, that undoubtedly great excitement prevailed amongst those who held that the people of this realm had a right to assemble in public meetings to petition for the redress of grievances, but it should not be forgotten that the grievous abuse of this right might end in bringing it, in the first place, into contempt; next, into apprehension, and finally, if not in jeopardy, at least into desuetude. He had more than once expressed his decided opinion that the principles which any man entertained—his being free to express them on any measure, however wild and impracticable—his being- free to express them on any measure, however hurtful in its tendency, provided he gave vent to them in a peaceful and becoming manner, like a good subject of the Crown, was no ground whatever for fixing any stigma on that person on the part of the executive Government. He had gone further, and in doing so had had the misfortune to differ from his noble Friend who had just sat down, and who had so well administered the Government of Ireland, in the view his noble Friend had taken of the repeal question, when his noble Friend stated, as he had repeated to-night, that whoever chose to entertain those opinions must in vain look to the Government for favour or patronage. [Earl Fortescue.—No; whoever took part in the agitation for repeal.] —That was a very different matter. Taking part in agitation might be a pernicious
1296
act, and an act deserving more than discountenance and frustration of purpose. If the agitation were of a plainly illegal and perilous nature,—illegal would not be enough,—if it were of a perilous nature, it would afford a sufficient vindication of the course taken by his noble Friend. But he understood that his noble Friend went further, declaring that any one who took part in agitating for repeal would in vain look to him for promotion. But had his noble Friend forgotten that a Member of the other House was promoted to a very high place, although he was known to be a member of the Repeal Association, and was actually the teller of that very small minority when one English Member was found to vote in favour of that object? It was not, therefore, for holding an opinion, but for taking part in public agitation, that his noble Friend withheld patronage. But, with regard to public meetings, if they must be held, they must at least have some colour of being meetings for discussion and deliberation. He had no fear, he never had indulged any fear, of the people of this country assembling according to their undoubted right to discuss their grievances, to discuss and claim their rights, to discuss the measures of their rulers, and to discuss measures of former legislators, and to call aloud for new measures of legislation, and to call aloud for the repeal of former measures of legislation. He was not the man to doubt their right so to meet; he was not the man to feel alarm at their exercising such right of meeting; but then it must be a bonâ fide right to meet, and a bonâ fide meeting in circumstances making it at least within the bounds of possibility that discussion, and deliberation, and due consideration of the measures or the grievances, or the repeal of former measures, might be the object of that assembling of the people. But talk of 200,000 or 300,000 persons meeting to discuss and deliberate! to deliberate, and argue, and reason with one another ! Why, the idea was so preposterous that it almost converted into something of the ridiculous- -of the ludicrous, a matter which in itself was but too serious. He would not be understood to believe all that he was told of the numbers attending those meetings, when he was told that a person had addressed, and boasted of having addressed, between 200,000 and 300,000 persons at once, who all heard What he said! [A noble Lord.—500,000.]

1297
He believed his noble Friend was right in what he mentioned. 500,000 had been boasted of, but he believed, having had some experience, that it was absolutely impossible; it could be nothing short of a miracle. The human voice, human lungs, human ears, all made it impossible for one man to speak to be heard by every member of such immense assemblies. But it was quite enough to hear of an assemblage of 150,000 persons —and that he believed was not over the mark—to induce him to implore their leaders—to induce him to lift up his voice, in the hope, at least, of its being heard in its echoes by them—to implore them, as a friend of the rights of the people, as an advocate for the right of public meeting, as a friend, an avowed and consistent friend of the exercise by the people of the right to meet, to deliberate, and discuss their claims or their grievances—in that capacity he did implore them and their dupes who attended those meetings, not to be led away by vain imaginings, that anything but one thing could by possibility be the object of these assemblages— and that object was not really deliberation —not discussion—not reasoning, not reflective consideration, but to make demonstrations of power, exhibitions of physical force, assemblages intended to intimidate the peaceable and well-disposed, and to make it appear, what in his conscience he believed not to be the truth—that there was no voice raised in Ireland against the dismemberment of the empire. He had said before, that it was his perfect belief that such was the object of these meetings, and all that he had since seen and heard of them, had confirmed him in that opinion.
Their Lordships adjourned shortly after six o'clock.