Sitting of 2 August 1844

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT.—For Dudley, v. Thomas Hawkes, Esq., acc. Chiltern Hundreds.
BILLS. Public. — 1o. Feudal Investiture (Scotland); Heritable Securities (Scotland).
2o. Private Partnerships.
Reported.—Marriages (Ireland); Insolvent Debtors; Charitable Donations and Bequests (Ireland); Debtors and Creditors; Arms (Ireland).
3o. and passed:—Art Unions.
Private.—2o. Duke of Hamilton and Brandon's Estate.
Reported—Morton's Estate.
3o. and passed:—Bishop of Down, Connor, and Dromore's Estate; Gervis's Estate; Lord Lovat's Estate; Gape's Divorce.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Brotherton, from Congregational Union of Ireland, for Legalizing Presbyterian Marriages.—By Mr. Acland, from Rev. C. Miller, for Dissolution of Tithe Commission. — By several hon. Members (9 Petitions), against Insolvent Debtors Bill.—By Mr. Aglionby, from Shipowners of London, for Inquiry (Merchant Seamen's Fund).—By Mr. Wakley, from J. Gaylor, for Alteration of Law (Omnibuses)—By Mr. Hume, from G. P. Andrewes, for Revision of Rules of Queen's Prison.—By Mr. E. Tennent, from W, Bridges, respecting Railways.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS.
On the Motion for the House to go into Committee on the Insolvent Debtors Bill,
The Solicitor Generalproceeded to explain its principal provisions. The provisions branched into three different heads, each of which required a separate and distinct consideration. The first part of the Bill related to the amendment of the law of cessio bonorum; the second, and, undoubtedly, the most important part, proposed to abolish Imprisonment for Debt in executions under 20 l.; and the remaining part of the Bill introduced some Amendments into the machinery of the Court of Bankruptcy. It was his conscientious conviction that the measure would be found extremely beneficial. It had been stated, as an objection to the measure, that it would injure the humbler classes of society by diminishing the facility of credit, but he was rather inclined to doubt whether that was a good objection. For although it might in some cases, be of advantage to people in humble circumstances to get

1707
credit, it was more generally attended by consequences quite the reverse of advantageous. The hon. and learned Gentleman then proceeded to read several passages from the evidence taken before a Committee of the House on the subject, tending to show that the abolition of Imprisonment for Debt would not have the effect of abolishing bonâ fide credit, but only of making tradesmen more careful. Mr. Dampier, who presided over the Stannaries Court, in Cornwall, and had jurisdiction over one hundred thousand persons in cases of small debts, but who had no power of ordering the imprisonment of debtors, gave it as his opinion that the abolition of Imprisonment for Debt would only have the effect of making tradesmen more careful. Any possible injury which might arise from this Bill, was not to be weighed in the balance against the evils inflicted by the present system. Had the House read the evidence on this subject?—They read of six or seven persons confined in a dungeon, with nothing but straw to lie upon. When this Bill was objected to on the ground of mercy to the debtor, he asked them to consider the evils attending the systen of imprisonment. What benefit was it to the creditor to be able to incarcerate the body of his miserable debtor? Was the debtor any more likely to pay what he owed? Certainly not; for the class of persons affected by the Bill had not the means of doing so. In the arguments against this Bill he had not been able to discover any which were entitled to consideration, except that to which he had adverted; and after what he had stated, he trusted the measure would be allowed to go into Committee.
Mr. M. Philipswas unwilling to stand up there as an advocate for imprisonment of poor persons for small sums; but, as the representative of a large trading community, he must express his wish that time should be afforded for maturely considering a measure which was calculated to have so great an effect on the trading portion of the community. He did hope, therefore, that the Bill would be delayed until hon. Members for large trading and manufacturing districts had time to communicate with their constituents on the subject.
Mr. S. Wortley, while he concurred in much of what had been urged by his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, agreed with the hon. Member for Manchester that sufficient time had not been given for the due consideration of this
1708
important Bill. He had a petition from Sheffield, which stated that tradesmen in that town were against the measure. He was not wholly opposed to the Bill, but he was averse from proceeding with it in the absence of all the Members of the legal profession; and he thought more time should be given for considering so important a measure.
Mr. Aglionbyregretted that a measure like the present should have been deferred to the last week of the Session. He had no wish to continue a severely coercive mode of recovering small debts, but he concurred with his hon. Friends near him in thinking that time had not been given for considering this Bill. There were many wise and humane provisions in it, and he did not feel justified in opposing its progress, though he would endeavour to correct some very objectionable parts of it in the Committee.
Mr. Spoonersaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Solicitor General, had made a powerful appeal to the feelings of the House on this subject; but hon. Members must bear in mind that they were bound to legislate upon facts, and not from mere feeling. He knew nothing of law, but he did know, and had much practical experience in trade, and in the system of credit in extensive trading communities; and he had no doubt that such a measure as the present would be injurious to credit in those districts. But if this Bill were good in principle, why not apply it to debts generally. Why deprive the poor creditor of his remedy for recovering a small debt, and continue it to the creditor to whom a large sum was due? He could not acquiesce in the distinction which the Bill sought to establish in both these respects.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that the argument of the absence of so many hon. Members of the legal profession was not well founded. He had great respect for Gentlemen of the long robe, and was always glad of their presence in the discussions of the House; but he could not take their absence as an argument for delaying any important measure before the House. Let hon. Members consider how far hon. Members of the legal profession took a part in the general business of the House. The House generally met in the first or second week of February, and at about the end of that month the Spring Circuits commenced, and the Gentlemen of the long robe generally left the House to attend them. Now, it was well known that the great struggles—he might almost

1709
say, the great annual party struggles for power and predominance, took place in Parliament between Easter and Whitsuntide. Until these struggles were decided and brought to a close, the proper business of legislation could not be said to commence. It was not till then that the regular business of Parliament begun in right earnest. During these struggles they had the advantage of the presence of the lawyers, but it should be borne in mind that, soon after Whitsuntide, the Summer Circuits commenced, and the legal Members again betook themselves to their forensic duties, so that about four months of the Session were spent in their absence; and if no important legal measure were to be brought in unless the Gentlemen of the long robe were present the business of legislation might as well be given up. He therefore, much as he respected lawyers, could not relinquish the exercise of common sense for the sake of Common Law. Then it was said that this measure was brought in at too advanced period of the Session. The reason of that was this:—A Bill was laid on the Table of the other House, embodying the general principle of the present Bill. That, with two other measures of a similar nature, were referred to a Select Committee, consisting, amongst others, of the most distinguished law Lords of that House, and the Bill now before the House was the result of the recommendations of that Committee. It might be asked how he could account for the apparent change in his opinion which induced him to lay before the House a measure so much at variance in principle with another Bill (the County Courts Bill) which he had brought in in the early part of the Session. He would explain. Soon after the introduction of the County Courts Bill he found that another measure had been introduced by Lord Cottenham, having for its principle the total Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt. Finding that the passing of Lord Cottenham's Bill, if the House should adopt it, would render it necessary to make most important changes in the County Courts Bill, he suspended that Bill until he should ascertain the final decision of Parliament on the other. That would account for the late period at which this Bill was brought in. But there were other reasons which induced him to bring in the Bill even at this late period. He was now in possession of certain facts of which he was not aware at the time he brought in his County Courts Bill; and he would say, that the knowledge
1710
of those facts rendered it imperative on Parliament, as a Christian Legislature, not to separate without enacting some measure which would put an end to such horrible scenes as he was about to detail to the House. He had only directed the inspection of four of the County Courts of Requests' Prisons, but he would read to the House extracts from the Reports of one of the inspectors, as not unfair specimens of the state of those gaols generally; and to show that it was such as to render it impossible for Parliament to rise without the existing evils being suppressed. First, as to the goal before alluded to—of the Court of Requests at Birmingham; in the month of January last a petition had been presented to the House, stating the horrors of that place. In consequence thereof he had sent down Mr. Perry, a man of high honour and integrity, and upon whose accuracy he could rely, to inspect the gaol and report thereon. His Report was made up on the 19th of January, and he (Sir J. Graham) was sure that when he read some of its contents to the House they would agree with him, that Howard himself with all his philanthropy had never made larger discoveries of human misery than he was about to announce to them. It would scarcely be credited that at this enlightened period, and with the enlarged views which prevailed throughout the country, such a system of imprisonment could exist as that at Birmingham.
"The prison (the Report stated), consists of the kitchen, cellars, and attics of a house situate in a court near the High-street. The remainder of the building is occupied by the keeper of the Court of Requests. The kitchen forms the day room of the Insolvent Debtors who are waiting their discharge; and the women are, from want of a day room, compelled to sit in that in which they slept. The day-room for the male prisoners has a scullery adjoining, and is eighteen feet in length by fourteen in breadth, and sixteen feet in height. There are besides two cellars, in one of which the prisoners wash themselves. At the time of my visit there were eighteen prisoners in the gaol, and the number has often been much larger. The number of the visitors who may be received is in reality unlimited, as the keeper told me that he had no power to exclude any one, except in case of a riot; and that thep rohibition of spirits was only nominal, and had not been actually enforced. The keeper further stated, that when riots occurred he had called in the assistance of the police, from the persuasion that his life would be in danger unless he did so. The general dormitory of the debtors is a room in the attics, eleven feet in length by sixteen in breadth. On each of the

1711
shorter sides of the room there is a platform raised about a foot from the ground, like the stages in a kennel, and which is littered with loose straw. As my visit was paid early in the morning I saw the debtors in bed, and there were six in the one and six in the other. I was informed that the number had often been much greater, and that very lately there were fifteen on the one side and eight on the other. This disproportion arose from an immemorial privilege which existed in favour of one of the sides called the 'king's side,' the king not being obliged to take up more than seven on his side, although there might be so many on the other side that they were obliged to lie with their heads and feet alternately. The prisoners are very scantily provided with covering, and that is about to be diminished by the necessity of sending a portion of them to be washed. For food they depend on an allowance of bread made to them as paupers, upon application. They had no chapel which they could attend, and no medical aid for them when sick, unless application was made to the parish, in which case the parish surgeon came to their assistance. The prisoners have been allowed to retain swords, staves, and other weapons in their possession, and these were only taken away on the breaking out of disturbances among them. These weapons were used in a kind of mock ceremony, performed when any one was received into the gaol, and which was known by the name of 'chum.' The object of the ceremony was to extract 2s. 6d. from new comers, and that sum was sometimes raised from parts of his clothing."
In consequence of the Report from which he (Sir J. Graham) had just read, he remonstrated with the Birmingham authorities, and called upon them to put an end to such a system of things. In consequence of that remonstrance, some Amendments were made; but even these left a great deal still to be done, as appeared by the Second Report which had been made by him upon the state of the prison. He would not fatigue the House by reading that Second Report, but if he did so, he was satisfied that the House would be of opinion with him that the state of the gaol was still such that it ought not any longer to be continued. The hon. Member for Anglesea had put to him a question on the same subject with respect to the Court of Requests gaol at Kidderminster, and he had directed Mr. Perry to visit that gaol also in the end of June last. He would read to the House the Report which had been made upon that inspection;—
"At the time (said Mr. Perry) when I visited the gaol, there were six male debtors confined under executions from the Court of Requests. They occupied a single room paved
1712
with bricks, the extent of which is twelve feet in length by twelve in breadth, which is destitute of table, bed, seat, or any other species of furniture whatever, and there is no fireplace or any means of lighting a fire. A heap of straw is scattered over the floor of half the room, on which the prisoners sleep, for they have no other bedclothes, and from time to time the worst part of the straw is removed and better substituted for it. The privy occupies a corner of the room, but from the oppressiveness of the stench the prisoners have been allowed to close it with straw. The yard into which the room opens measures thirteen feet in length by twelve feet in breadth, and is so badly drained, that in wet weather the water lies in it to such a degree as to confine the prisoners entirely to their room. This yard is closed in by a high wall, surmounted by an iron lattice. The prisoners are very dirty as they never take off their clothes, and are allowed only two jugsfull of water per day for drinking and washing themselves. Their diet consists of an allowance of the quarter part of a quartern loaf of bread per day, but their friends are permitted to bring them any other articles of food while the officer is there. Iii case of illness there is no means of getting assistance, for though the prisoners might succeed in making themselves heard by the inhabitants of the neighbourhood, they could not afford any help without the beadle who lives in a remote part of the town. Female prisoners, if confined there, were deprived of all separate accomodation and cannot be visited by their own sex in cases of sickness, except while the officer is there."
When it was recollected that the shortest period of imprisonment awarded by a court of requests was ten days, and that a person might be detained for forty days, which period might, by further executions, be extended indefinitely, he (Sir J. Graham) thought the House would agree with him when he said that it would be difficult to suppose any sufficiently strong term to apply to the system of suffering and privation which had been thus exposed. He would not disgust the House by going any further, although he could read to it a Report upon another gaol near Birmingham, and it would be borne in mind that the present state of the Court of Requests Prisons at Birmingham was, though improved, still disgraceful to that town. In progress of time, such a system of things might be amended, but any Government would be acting in a most unjustifiable manner in allowing Parliament to separate without prescribing a remedy. The question, therefore, arose whether the House would deal with the evils themselves or apply the real cure by going to

1713
the law itself which had occasioned them. He believed that it was not for the benefit of the labouring classes that credit should be so loosely extended to them as at present. On the whole, he conceived that the House was bound to provide a remedy for evils such as he had brought before it; but no remedy would be effectual if they did not at once and in a decisive manner abolish a law which he held to be indefensible. He was himself opposed to any reform which could be only effected at the expense of parties who were really innocent of the abuses to be swept away, but if compensation was due to judges or clerks or any one else, it ought to be provided. He had heard the hon. Member for Liskeard lay down a principle that the reluctance to injure innocent parties whom legislation might affect was a serious impediment to salutary reform. He (Sir J. Graham) was not disposed to pursue such legislation, but he could not endure for one moment that it should be said that innocent debtors should be in their persons subjected to such cruelties and that their moral characters should, in consequence, suffer such degradation. He trusted that the House would not, for the sake of any amount of compensation, inflict upon imprisoned debtors three, six, or, perhaps, twelve months longer duration of such miseries.
House in Committee.
On the 1st Clause,
Mr. Spoonersaid, that all he had heard did not satisfy his mind, that he should be called on in so hasty a manner completely to change the Law of Debtor and Creditor and he thought that such an act as would fully correct the evils of the existing system required time for further consideration. It would, in his opinion, have been much better if the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had immediately met the evils which he had stated to the House in the month of January by a Local Act, instead of deferring his remedy to the month of August.
Sir J. Grahamexplained, that his attention was first drawn to the subject by riots at Birmingham, but the state of things there was not singular, and the four Reports to which he had adverted were the only cases which he had been able to examine.
Bill went through Committee.
House resumed. Bill reported.

CHARITABLE BEQUESTS (IRELAND).
Sir J. Grahammoved, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the whole House on the Charitable Donations and Bequests (Ireland) Bill.
House in Committee.
Sir J. Grahamthen enumerated certain Clauses which it was his intention to introduce into the Bill, relating to the doctrines and discipline of the Church.
Mr. Wysesaid, that the alterations would give great satisfaction to the people of Ireland.
Clauses read and agreed to.
House resumed. Bill reported, recommitted, and again reported.
House adjourned at half-past seven o'clock.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public—1a. Fisheries (Ireland); South Sea Company; Merchant Seamen.
2a. Slaughtering Horses; Controverted Elections; Clerks to Attorneys; Consolidated Fund (Appropriation); Spirits (Ireland); Savings' Banks; Woods and Forests Accounts; Grand Canal (Ireland).
Reported.—Duchy of Cornwall Lands; Militia Pay; Criminal Justice (Middlesex); Joint Stock Companies Remedies at Law; Joint Stock Banks Regulation; Customs (New South Wales); Books and Engravings; Protection of Purchasers, etc. (Ireland); Municipal Corporations.
3a. and passed:—Metropolis Buildings; Railways; Unlawful Oaths (Ireland); Turnpike Trusts (South Wales); Church Endowment.
Private.—2a. Tralee Navigation and Harbour.
3a. and passed:—London and Croydon Railway; Swansea Improvement.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Strabane, and 3 other places, for Legalizing Marriages solemnized by Presbyterian and Dissenting Ministers in Ireland.—From Kendal, in favour of proposed Reduction of Duty on Foreign Wood.—From London Friendly Union, for Legalizing the Proceedings of Art Unions.—From Port Philip, New South Wales, for inquiry into the Removal of Judge Willis.—From Guardians of Gloucester Union, for the insertion of a Clause in County Coroners Bill charging the Expenses of Inquests to the County. — From Ossett cum Gawthorpe, against the Truck System.

TUNIS—EXECUTION OF A MALTESE.
Lord Beaumontwished to put a question to the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs on this subject. From questions which he had already put, and Returns which he had received, he believed that the Dey of Tunis and Sir T. Reade, our Consul, had both of them, in this matter, acted strictly in conformity with treaty; but the behaviour of the Consuls of the European nations at Tunis was by no
1670
means so satisfactory, they having protested against Sir T. Reade's conduct and endeavoured to thwart his proceedings; and he now wished to know whether or not the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs had received from those Foreign Governments whose Consuls had taken part in she proceedings at Tunis against Sir T. Reade, such explanation and reparation as he considered satisfactory.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, it was necessary that he should explain to their Lordships the nature of the question just put to him. The case referred to was this:—A Maltese had commuted a double murder at Tunis; he had murdered a Tunisian and a countryman of his own. Now by certain privileges enjoyed by Christian Nations in the East, they possessed right so try criminals, being subjects of their own, by their own tribunals, for crime committed among themselves—this was considered a great privilege, and every Christian Power had a similar interest in its exercise. Now, it appeared to the Consuls at Tunis, that Great Britain ought to have exercised this right of trying this Maltese for the crimes which he had committed, according to English law, instead of handing him over to be dealt with by the Tunisian authorities. There was, perhaps, nothing very unreasonable in this opinion, and he was not surprised that the Consuls should entertain an opinion that the conduct of Sir T. Reade was an abandonment of a privilege always held to be of the first importance to Christian Powers. However, by our treaty with Tunis, there could be no doubt that the representative of Great Britain was bound to deliver up to the Tunisian authorities a criminal under the circumstances of the criminal in this particular case, to be dealt with according to the Tunisian law. We did so, the man was tried by a Tunisian tribunal in the presence of our Consul, and was found guilty—and he had no doubt that the trial was a fair one, there was nothing to complain of on that ground. However, the other Consuls protested against this proceeding, feeling that they had a common interest in protesting against what they considered to be an abandonment of rights which they possessed in common with ourselves. He admitted that this was improper on their part, and that neither they nor their Governments had a right to interfere with us in the execution of a treaty by which we were

1671
bound. They, however, so far succeeded with the Dey as to induce him to respite the criminal, and delay the execution until the matter had been referred to the British Government; that reference was made, and he (Lord Aberdeen) having seen no reason to interfere with the course of justice, gave an opinion that the law ought to be allowed to take its course. The man was accordingly put to death, and he believed most justly so. The noble Lord would, therefore, see that the British Consul and Government had obtained full justice as to this criminal, and that the protest of the other Consuls had no effect beyond that of delaying the execution of the sentence for a few weeks. Nevertheless, he had thought it his duty to represent the facts to the Governments which these Consuls represented; but, as to "reparation," he had no reparation to demand—the culprit in fact was executed. If the Foreign Consuls had succeeded in stopping the execution, he (Lord Aberdeen) might have been obliged, however painfully to his feeling, to have interfered; but, as this had not been the case, and under all the circumstances, he had only felt it necessary, as he said before, to represent the matter to the Governments which these Consuls represented. Up to the present time he had not received answers from all those Powers, but by several of them he believed the conduct of their Consuls had been more or less reprehended. The French Government, however, he regretted to say, could see nothing to blame in the conduct of their Consul. They considered that he had done no more than his duty in maintaining the privileges enjoyed by all Christian Powers, and that we should have insisted on this Maltese having been tried, not according to the Turkish, but according to our own law. Certain of the other Powers had, however, seen the matter in so different a light, that the Governments of Sardinia and of Sweden had both of them recalled their Consuls. The other Powers—with the exception which he had mentioned—had more or less expressed their disapprobation at the course taken by their Consuls: but as to a demand for reparation, really there was no room for any such proceeding. What had taken place had shown that the English Consul had exercised more power and influence than all the other European Consuls put together. The man had been brought to trial, con-
1672
demned, and executed according to the approval of the British Consul. Perhaps he (Lord Aberdeen) might with a little ingenuity—if he had nothing better to do—get up a discussion to show the French Government how much our Consul was in the right, and how much their Consul was in the wrong, but as such a proceeding could lead to no useful result and we had really carried our point, he had been satisfied with expressing the opinions of Her Majesty's Government upon the transaction.
Lord Beaumontwould remind the noble Earl, that our treaties with Tunis were totally different from our treaties with the other dependencies of the Ottoman Empire, or with even the Ottoman Empire itself. There was a treaty existing with Tunis, which specially provided that any party charged with the crime of murder, or any other crime for which the punishment of death was inflicted, should be tried by the courts of that country. So that when Sir Thomas Reade and the Dey were urged to allow the man to be tried in a Christian court, they were urged to break a treaty. He (Lord Beaumont) could not give any merit to the noble Earl opposite for having this man hanged. On the contrary, he thought if credit was due to any one, it was to the Dey. [Laughter.] It might be a laughing matter to their Lordships, but it was no joke to those Christians whose lives were in jeopardy in the Turkish States. He confessed he was somewhat disappointed with the statement of the noble Earl, for he had hoped he would have taken that opportunity of establishing something definite as to our consulate jurisdiction, and he regretted that the French Government had not looked upon the matter in the same light as the other European Powers who had reprimanded their Consuls for their interference.
The Earl of Aberdeenwas at a loss to know what more the noble Lord would have. What did he want the Government to do? Were they themselves to execute justice in Tunis, or were they not rather to see that justice was done to British subjects residing there? In the case to which the noble Lord had referred, the criminal was under the protection of this country, and it was the business of the Government to see that justice was done to him, and that had been done. The noble Lord was mistaken in suppos-

1673
ing that every crime subject to capital punishment committed by a Christian in Tunis was to be tried by the courts of his country; and in this case, if the man had not murdered a Tunisian as well as a Maltese, we might have tried him, and the Dey could not have done it. The Dey had all the responsibility and all the credit of executing justice in his own territory, and it was not for us lightly to interfere; but in this case the Dey delayed the execution of a just sentence until he had consulted the British Government, and the Government had replied that though the criminal was a subject of Great Britain, that was no reason why he should be withdrawn from the execution of justice, and accordingly he was properly put to death. If the man had murdered a Maltese he would have been tried by the Christian tribunal; but he murdered also a Tunisian, and that crime brought him under the jurisdiction of the Turkish tribunals. The Dey, however, showed so much deference to the English Government as to suspend the execution of the sentence until he had communicated with Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Government had given their opinion on the matter, and that opinion had been acted upon—he did not know what more the noble Lord would have.
Lord Beaumontthought some reparation should have been given by France similar to that which had been given by the other Powers who had recalled or reprimanded their Consuls for interfering. So far, however, from that having been done, they found that the French Consul had received all sorts of thanks and testimonials presented by deputations of his countrymen—and for what? Why for opposing Sir Thomas Reade our representative. The question had now become one between France and Great Britain—and the noble Lord did not seem to him to have met it as such.
The Earl of Mintosaid, if he understood rightly the explanation which had been given by the noble Earl, he had seen no ground of complaint in the circumstance of the Consul of a foreign state interfering in a matter purely between a subject of this country, the Consul of this country, and the court to which he was accredited. The noble Earl saw nothing requiring explanation in the circumstance of the interposition of an officer representing another Government in a matter ex-
1674
clusively concerning the subjects and interests of this country. It appeared to him to be a very grave matter.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid the noble Earl had not understood him. He had stated most distinctly that there had been a most improper interference on the part of the Consuls of other Powers at Tunis, and that he (Lord Aberdeen) had represented to all the Governments whose Consuls had so improperly interfered, and represented in strong terms the opinion of Her Majesty's Government in respect to that interference. But as to reparation—he had none to ask, for the man had been already hanged, and the Governments to which the representations of improper interference had been made had condemned the conduct of their Consuls, and reprimanded them, except. France, who had not seen anything to complain of in the conduct of her Consul. It was thought to be a question of common interest with all Christian Powers that they should have the right to withdraw their subjects from the jurisdiction of Mahommedan courts, and the Consuls of the other European Powers thought we had, in some degree, abandoned those rights which all Christian Powers possessed in the Levant, in the course we had taken in regard to this matter; but there was nothing whatever in the matter for which we could demand reparation.
The Earl of Mintohad understood the noble Earl to convey something in the shape of an apology for the conduct of those countries who had so improperly interfered; but he had not heard from him any assurance that all similar interference would be prevented in future.
Subject at an end.

RAILWAYS BILL.
On the Motion of Lord Redesdale, the Bill was read a third time (according to order).
On the question, that "the Bill do pass,"
The Bishop of Londonrose, pursuant to notice, to move an Amendment, to the 6th Clause, to the intent of preventing railways from being compelled to run trains on the Sabbath. By the present system, perfect freedom of action was permitted to all Railway Companies as to the number of trains run upon their lines on the Lord's Day. There was no interference with them, nor, as originally proposed, had this Bill contemplated any such interference—the Clause respecting the Sunday trains not

1675
being compulsory. In the course, however, of its passage through Committee in the other House, an hon. Member (Mr. Thornely) had moved to introduce certain words into a Clause, under which words, Railway Companies would be forced to provide carriages for third-class passengers travelling upon Sundays. The right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), had opposed the introduction of those words; but, after he had ceased speaking, a number of Members, who usually voted with the Government entered the House, and, without stopping to make themselves acquainted with his argument, voted for the Amendment, in many cases, as he believed, under a misconception as to its nature. The effect was that now, for the first time, the Government of this Christian nation professed to interfere to compel provision to be made for cheap travelling upon the Lord's Day. Heretofore, it had been thought sufficient not to prevent such travelling—now, however, measures were about to be taken with a view to compel it. He must say, as a Prelate of the Church of England, that he thought such a step was a step in the wrong direction. The principle had hitherto been to encourage by legislation, as far as possible, the due observance of the Lord's Day; and though the Act of Charles II. which imposed penalties for the non-observance of that day had fallen into disuse, the Legislature had never until now, encouraged by direct enactments, its desecration. He had no wish to interfere to prevent Railway Companies affording facilities to all classes to travel on the Sabbath if they thought fit, and if they found it worth their while they would do so, no doubt; but what he objected to was that they should be compelled by law to provide those facilities. Their third-class trains would not be used, as some might suppose, for short pleasure trips, but being slow trains, they would in all respects be business trains, and would be used by the working classes to go from one part of the country to another, where their was more demand for their labour. They were not the trains which were provided for passengers who were seeking pleasure and relaxation, and therefore they would not answer the purpose of taking the people out on Sundays from crowded cities and towns in order to enable them to recruit their health or increase their enjoyment of life. They were, as he said before, trains adapted for business purposes,
1676
and why should the Government of the country, for the first time, interfere to force Sunday travelling upon the people, by enacting that these business trains should everywhere be caused to run? Besides, let him remind their Lordships, if these trains were to run, the inspectors appointed by the Board of Trade must be out to see them run, and to enforce compliance with all the conditions of the Act. Would not this be the first time that Government officers would be employed, under the requisition of an Act of Parliament, to see that certain parties pursued their business upon the Lord's Day? The Directors of the different Railways, too, were in many cases making laudable exertions to afford opportunities to their servants to attend Divine Worship on the Lord's Day. Let the House observe what an impediment this Clause of the Bill would throw in the way of such an excellent intention. But, as he said before, what he chiefly relied on was the unadvisableness of any Government in a Christian country, for the first time lending its sanction to such a novel principle as that of a compulsory provision for travelling upon the Sabbath. He was not advocating that any restraint whatever should be put upon travelling on that sacred day, when such travelling was thought to be necessary and desirable; whatever might be his own opinion on that point; but what he did require was, that Parliament should not make it compulsory, and therefore he should move that the words "every day," in the 6th Clause, be omitted, in order to insert these words, "every week day except Christmas-day and Good Friday."
Lord Broughamsaid, he was one of those who looked upon every thing which tended to the desecration of the Sabbath Day and the interruption of Sabbath rest as a great evil, and as a breach of duty—and not only as not conducive, but as prejudicial to the interests of the poorer classes, and by that he meant, above all, the working classes; but, on the other hand, they ought to take into account one circumstance, which was a fact of undeniable truth, that so far from the Sabbath being less well kept in this country now than in former times, it was in every way so much better kept, that there was no foundation whatever for the extravagant and exaggerated zeal that many persons displayed, who viewed as the great and crying evil of the present age the desecration of the Sabbath Day: for he must say, that

1677
with the exception of that country which had given him birth, there was not a country in Europe in which the Sabbath was better kept than in England. And if he were called upon to point out that one place in England where the greatest improvement in this important particular had taken place, he should point to that great metropolis in which they then were. When he remembered, some fifteen or twenty years ago, the way in which it was not kept, and saw the great change which had now taken place, he confessed that to him the improvement appeared almost marvellous. For the purpose of having the Sabbath well kept, they must make the day a favorite with the people—they could not by legislation go further—for they would always find in the end that the keeping of the Sabbath must be regarded as a matter of morals and feeling, and not a thing they could enforce by making the desecration a punishable offence. That being the nature and condition of the question, the Parliament ought to take especial care in all they did, and in all they omitted doing in the matter, to carry public opinion with their legislation, and, above all things, they should avoid any thing that might have a tendency to make Sabbath-keeping unpopular. Extreme puritanical rigour, and enforcing the keeping of the Sabbath, was not only bad in principle, and most pernicious in its consequences, but more than any thing else tended to frustrate the object they had in view, and by making the people hate the Sabbath, conduced manifestly and directly to Sabbath desecration. What he was anxious for was a just medium between the ascetic observance of Scotland and the laxity of Catholic countries in this respect; and that was the medium which he thought this country was attaining. He wished to see the people attending their religious duties in the morning, and devoting the evening to healthful recreation and amusement. In some respects this was the case in other countries; but still, as in Paris for instance, though there was a marked improvement upon the habitual and systematic desecration of the Sabbath which had been introduced at the Revolution, there was yet a disregard for that day exhibited in the carriage of timber, and the employment of persons in their every-day occupations, which he should be sorry to see introduced here. If the people went to church in the morning of the Sunday,
1678
what harm could there be in their enjoying themselves in the evening of that day? He was a friend to the maintenance of the sanctity of the Sabbath, and a great advocate for its reasonable observance—but could anything be more cruel than to prevent the poorer classes of Manchester, of Liverpool, and London, who were cooped up in the dark courts and alleys of those towns, and in the garrets, cellars, and work-rooms of Spitalfields, never or scarcely ever seeing the light of the sun during six days of the week, never breathing the fresh air during that time—could anything be more cruel or unjust, than to interfere to prevent these people from walking out on the Sunday and enjoying, not the sight of the sun and the fresh air a little, but a little of the country also, at an expense they could bear? It was, in his view, a good and wholesome observance of the Sabbath to go to Church in the morning, and in the evening to the country and the green fields, and, he said, let the people, in God's name! enjoy the country, if they could do so on that only day, and during those few hours of the week in which they were relieved from the toils of the week. He had lately come up from Brighton, on one of the finest mornings he had ever seen—he knew not why the health and amusements of the people should be made the subject of mirth, instead of one of a question of fellow-feeling and sympathy—he had recently travelled up from Brighton by the railway on one of the finest Sabbath mornings he had ever seen; a train passed at the station where he stopped, and in that train he saw somewhere about 600 or 700 persons as decently dressed as it was possible for them to be, with their wives and daughters, completely filling the cheap trains, and upon enquiry he found that they had to pay 4s. each as the fare to Brighton, 4s. to return, allowing them 4s. to spend there, he found that they thus, for some 10 s. or 12 s., could have the delight of a long and pleasing journey on the railway through the country, of seeing the green fields, and inhaling the fresh air during the journey: and, more than all, of spending some three or four hours by the sea side. Could their Lordships be insensible to the advantages which these poor people thus derived, after having been pent up during six days in the heat, the filth, and the darkness of the streets and courts of London? For his part, his (Lord Brougham's)

1679
heart leaped within him when he saw that large body of his fellow-countrymen and countrywomen enjoying so wholesome and salutary, and, at the same time, so innocent a recreation. Innocent it was in the greatest degree, and enjoyed, as he believed it was, without any of that dissipation and immorality which, if by law they had been compelled to remain in town, either by a direct law to keep them in London, or by placing obstacles in the way of their going into the country, and by which, instead of spending the Sabbath soberly, healthfully, and morally, they would have kept it in the ale-houses or gin palaces which so plentifully studded this metropolis. For these reasons, and being always anxious to see as little prevention placed in the way of the innocent and healthful recreations of the poor during the only time in which they could enjoy them, viz., the latter part of the Sabbath, he trusted that nothing that would interpose any obstacle to these recreations would meet with their Lordships assent.
Lord Monteaglewas anxious to say a few words, not with a view of adding anything to that powerful and noble appeal his noble and learned Friend had made to the sympathies and understandings of their Lordships, but rather to place the question on its right foundation, and remove an impression which might otherwise have been created in the minds of their Lordships by the speech of the right rev. Prelate. The right rev. Prelate might turn to his noble and learned Friend, and say that, without following him through all his argument, that argument was not opposed to his proposition. The right rev. Prelate might say, I do not propose to prohibit Sunday travelling; I want merely to leave matters as they are under the existing law; and if, under that law, people could now obtain that enjoyment which he had so well described, we may very reasonably suppose that they will have equal facilities under the new law. According, as he (Lord Monteagle) did, from the bottom of his heart, with his noble and learned Friend in all his observations, he was anxious to reply to the forcible argument which might be urged against him. He would undertake to prove, if their Lordships adopted the Amendment, matters would not be left in their present condition, or remain as they would otherwise have been if this Bill had never been introduced. Practically speaking, all the
1680
inconvenience that would result from a prohibitory Clause would be realized, if the provision which the right rev. Prelate sought to expunge were not inserted. Their Lordships would remember what was the explanation which had been given by the noble Earl opposite on introducing the Bill; they would recollect how much stress he had laid, and justly laid, on the desire of the Government to give increased facilities for travelling to the poorer classes; and it was quite clear that, to justify the Bill as it stood, these compulsory Clauses were relied upon by the Government as necessary to ensure for the poorer classes the accommodation the Bill required to be afforded to them. If that compulsory Clause was not introduced the Railroad Proprietors would never consent to give that accommodation to the poorer classes. If the noble Earl struck it out of the Bill—if he said that the Railroad Proprietors would give the accommodation without the Clause, then where was the merit of the Government in having such a Clause introduced? Either the Railway Proprietors would do it of their own accord, or they would not. If they did it of their own accord, then the interference of the Government was not required; but the noble Earl knew perfectly well that the means of conveyance supplied to the poor were made as disagreeable as possible, and had acted, in fact, as a punishment upon the poor. It was on that ground that the Government was warranted in interfering, and introducing this compulsory Clause. The Government interfered in one respect for the benefit of the public—why not include in its care a provision exclusively for the advantage of the poor? The right rev. Prelate observed that this was the first instance in which the Government had interfered to compel travelling on Sunday. [The Bishop of London: With only one exception, the transmission of the mails.] But where was the difference? It was a Christian obligation, or none at all. And how did the Government keep the Sabbath in respect of the Post Office? They kept the Sabbath as to the Post Office in London; but let them go ten miles from London, and there their Christian conscience deserted them. All over the Empire the business of the Post Office was transacted on Sunday, and he only found that their Christian consciences applied on Sunday to London,

1681
Dublin, and Edinburgh. They compelled travelling for the mails, but by the Amendment they would refuse to the poor alone the means of travelling. He remembered on one occasion travelling in England to have met with a similar instance of inconsistency. He required to pass the Severn. The authorities of the town where he was permitted a ferry to ply on Sunday, and to transport horses and carriages from one side of the river to the other, but they would not allow any steam-boat to run on that day; the inconsistency in that case being rendered more glaring by the fact, that the ferry was worked entirely by human labour, and the steam-boat by mechanical labour. Now, on what earthly principle were they to allow recreation where human and animal labour was required, and to forbid it where human labour was the least, and where the labour was chiefly mechanical? The right rev. Prelate had said, that these cheap trains would travel at a slow rate. They would not travel at a less speed than ten miles an hour, and that would enable parties to go down to Windsor or to Brighton and return the same day. If a rich man wished to travel on Sunday there was not a railway on which he might not enjoy the luxury, if he pleased, by the higher priced trains; but then the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate, whilst it allowed the transmission of first-class passengers, prohibited—for it amounted to that—the transmission of the poor third-class passengers; when they left the first-class free, they prohibited the poor enjoying the Sunday as a day of relaxation. It had indeed been said, with great truth and force, that they allowed an indulgence to Dives, but they refused any to Lazarus. Were they prepared to say to the people of England, after the proposition had been adopted by the other House of Parliament, of giving equal facilities to the rich and the poor on the Sundays as on week days—that they would take away that advantage to the poor which it was the intention of the Government and the House of Commons to give them; and to leave to the rich—to themselves in truth—the very same advantage? Again, the right rev. Prelate attempted to raise an argument by saying that the Inspectors from the Board of Trade would have to visit every railroad on Sunday. There could not be a more unfounded supposition; because, if the Inspectors were to be em-
1682
ployed on Sunday, there would be the same necessity for their attendance at the different railroads on every other day; and if so, duties were to be imposed on the Board of Trade which, he believed, they would be the first to reject and repudiate The question had hitherto been dealt with as a matter of pleasure, but were there not other considerations that might influence them? Could they not imagine a young workman passing his days of labour faraway from his family, his connections, and the persons with whom he had been brought up, and to whom his constant return was one of the best and surest guarantees for his own good conduct and virtuous life? Sunday, their Lordships ought to know, was the only day on which the workman could visit his family, who were at any distance from him. Let them, then, not introduce any inequality; let it not be said of them, that they were careful of themselves and regardless of others; but let them not do it on a ground which, if it were the one they acted upon, they would be bound to carry the proposition infinitely further than it had been done by the right rev. Prelate.
The Earl of Wicklowsupported the Amendment.
The Marquess of Clanricarderemarked, that the Bill did not compel any railroad to carry passengers on a Sunday. It only established this, that if Dives did travel on the Sunday, so might Lazarus. It did not compel any railway to run on Sundays; but it did compel this, that if a rich man should have provision made for his enjoyment, so also should the poor. If the mere matter of pleasure were to be considered, then he said the poor man ought infinitely to be preferred to the rich, for the rich man had six days in the week for his pleasure—the poor man but one. Then as to business, if it were excusable for a rich man to follow his business on a Sunday, how much more so for a poor man, who had no other day? The plain question was this, whether their Lordships would have accommodation themselves which they would deny to the poor man?
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, it appeared to him, after having heard this discussion, that their Lordships did not entirely understand the Bill; and, perhaps, it might be desirable for their Lordships to adjourn this discussion. Nobody could desire, and it could not be intended by

1683
anybody, to compel the Proprietors of Railways to run carriages on Sunday, and, on the other hand, there was no prohibition to prevent travelling on Sunday. All that was desired by the Bill was this—that the Railroad Proprietors should provide carriages of a particular description, and going at a certain rate, for third-class passengers. Now it was proposed that where other persons travelled on a Sunday, that this class should be prevented from doing so. He begged to submit to the right rev. Prelate one consideration, which he was sure that right rev. Prelate would feel. There was nothing to prevent persons travelling in third-class carriages for three or four days together, in which days a Sunday might intervene. There could then be nothing more unreasonable than to require the third-class passengers to remain stationary on Sundays, when the carriages of other classes were going forward. It could not be the intention of the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate to do this; for, in the first place, persons would by it be put to great expense—that expense falling upon those not able well to bear it; and then he was afraid that it would happen that at whatever place or railroad station those persons might happen, by his Amendment, to be stopped on the Sunday, that they would not find the means of attending Divine Service, because the might not be able to find any place of religious worship capable of holding them in addition to those who regularly attended them. Under the circumstances he thought they ought to adjourn the discussion to Monday next.
Lord Campbellundertook as a lawyer to declare that the Clause was not compulsory, if the Railroad Proprietors thought fit to run no trains on the Sundays. If it were determined to run no train, whether slow or swift, the Clause would not compel them to do so; but then it provided that if the railroad did send on trains for the benefit of the rich, they should, for the benefit of the poor provide third-class carriages. He thought it would be more fair to propose a Clause prohibiting travelling on the Sunday altogether than an Amendment like the present, which drew such a distinction between the poor and the rich.
Lord Broughamsaid, that a calculation had been made as to 700 persons visiting Hampton Court on the Sunday. These 700 were conveyed by means of the
1684
labour of three individuals; whereas, if they went in coaches, to enable them to do so 120 persons must break the Sabbath.
The Bishop of Londonreplied: He had been misrepresented on the other side. His simple object was to prevent the direct interference of the Government on the subject; that the Government should not by its interference facilitate traffic on that day.
The Earl of Radnorwished, if they were then going to a division, that it might be borne in mind that the Clause was one for enabling the poor to travel by a railway train whenever the rich man did so.
Debate adjourned to Monday.

UNLAWFUL OATHS (IRELAND) BILL.
Lord Wharncliffemoved the third reading of this Bill.
The Marquess of Clanricardecalled attention, in connection with this subject, to that system which had been discovered to be in active operation in Shinrone. There could be no doubt that police constables there had been inducing persons to commit crimes. He wished now to know from the Government what steps they had been taking on that subject. He hoped that some stringent measures would be adopted; and for the purpose of showing what sort of witnesses the Crown was compelled to rely upon, he should state a case which was mentioned in the papers of that very day:—
"I suppose you never intentionally told lies?—I did not.
"Will you swear that?—In the first information I swore I did not tell the truth.
"Oh, you did not tell the truth? Now, that was lie the first, was it not?—I suppose it was.
"How long was it after the murder before you lodged the first information?—In the July after.
"I believe you lodged other informations?—I did.
"How long was that after the time you swore the first information?—It was last winter.
"You were in custody at that time?—I was.
"I believe it was in consequence of some religious feelings that you came to swear your second informations. Nay, don't smile, man. The question may appear a silly one, but I wish to have it answered. Now, on your oath, was it not on account of some religious scruples that you went a second time to swear informations?—Witness (doggedly): It was; I could not go to my duty till I had done so.

1685
"Well, I suppose you told the truth then?—I did not [sensation]. I did not wish to bring in myself as one of those that done it.
"And that was lie the second, on your oath?—It was.
"And told for a religious motive?—I wished to save myself.
"And hang as many as you could?—I did not say that.
"But you would swear a lie to save yourself? I would.
"Baron Richards: Stop a moment. Now, listen, witness. Would you deliberately swear a lie to save yourself from punishment?—I would [sensation].
"Mr. Walsh; I think you said, in your examination by the counsel for the Crown, that you saw John and Patric Wade inside the ditch on coming up?—I did.
"Did you state that in your first examination?—I don't know.
"The learned counsel here read the informations sworn to by the witness on the 16th of February, 1844.
"The Court: Now is that information true?
"Witness: It is, except that I denied myself to be one of the party.
"Mr. Walsh: And that is the only lie in it?—It is.
"That is the only lie in it on your oath?—Which?
"That about the stranger you talk of?—It is all true except that I called myself the stranger.
"Mr. Walsh: Now, I will read you another.
"Mr. Scott, Q. C.: Stop; this is not an information; it is only an examination.
"The Court: Every thing that he has stated should be taken into account. I have not the least scruple in giving the counsel for the prisoner every possible assistance in the cross-examination of this witness.
"The learned Gentleman then read the paper.
"To witness: Now, that is your third account?—I dare say it is; but I was keeping myself out all through.
"Mr. Walsh: You talk of John Wade's asking you for a pistol. Are you in the habit of keeping one?—I told him I had not handled one for that year.
"Mr. Walsh: Why, that was only on the 30th of March. Come, tell me on your oath, when did you handle one before the murder?—I could not tell the day; I'm no scholar.
"Mr. Walsh: Come, Sir, I don't want the day, nor even the month; but tell me how many years it is since you handled a pistol?—About five or six months before the murder.
"You were fond of firing at a mark? Look how the fellow laughs! Pray, what did you fire at?—At an old hat.
"With a head in it, I suppose?—No there wasn't.
"And why did you fire at that hat—to
1686
keep your hand in practice, I suppose?—I suppose so.
"Pray, where did you set that hat when you fired at it?—On the top of a ditch.
"Just above it, as if a man's head was in it?—Yes [sensation].
"Where did you get the pistol?—I stole it.
"Were you ever accused of seducing a girl?—No.
"But did you ever swear that you would seduce as many as you could?—I did.
"And you certainly would have done so?—Of course I would [sensation].
"Now, Sir, according to your own account, you are a robber, a perjurer, and a murderer. You have sworn that you helped to knock the man's brains out who was murdered?—I did.
"Now, did that man ever offend you? had you ever any quarrel? did he ever speak an angry word to you, or had you the least cause for murdering him?—No [great sensation].
"How much do you expect, how much blood-money for each person you have hanged?—I don't know.
"And you would live upon that money?—I would."
If the Government were such as to give the people of Ireland confidence in the administration of justice, they would resort to the Courts of Law for protection, and would in time abandon what was called "the wild justice of revenge." He warned the Government against reposing in fancied security; for although Ireland was more free from crime now than it had been for many years, yet he said that there never was a time when the spirit of agitation had sunk deeper into the minds of the people, or done more mischief than it was now doing. He did not question the policy of the prosecution instituted against Mr. O'Connell and his associates, but in referring to the Repeal Association, he must be allowed to remark that a feeling in its favour was rapidly gaining ground, and that that confederacy at present wore a most dangerous appearance. The Repeal Rent had swelled from 100 l. odd in the week, to thousands; and since Easter little short of 25,000 l., if not quite that amount, had been contributed to it by the poorest portion of Her Majesty's subjects. It was a remarkable fact also that at two elections which had taken place recently, the Gentlemen who were elected pledged themselves to attend in the House of Commons whenever the good pleasure of their constituents might permit them, but to attend at the Repeal Association regularly as a matter of duty. At no time had that association presented a bolder front of defiance than at present. During the last week the

1687
following language was used in Dublin:—"What would be the position of the Empire if the Irish should say, 'You have trampled on our rights in peace, how can you ask us to shed our blood for you, or pay you taxes in war?' What would be the result if the Irish people acted thus? He would not, however, speculate on any such contingency, but he would tell the British Government this, that in order to obtain the support of the Irish people, which would enable them to defy the world, they should be prepared to consent to a Repeal of the Union." He mentioned these things, because it seemed to him that the system of the Government with respect to the Repeal question, and with respect to Ireland, had totally and entirely failed, and he thought that those who were about to repair to that country were justified in endeavouring to elicit from the Government some assurance that endeavours would be made to secure, if possible, a greater degree of tranquillity than had prevailed during the last autumn and winter. When the Repeal question was originated in 1834, and when his noble Friend near him (Lord Monteagle) did so much good service to the State, by completely defeating Mr. O'Connell, and demonstrating that the Union was more beneficial to Ireland than to England, a promise was made on behalf of the Crown and of Parliament, that well considered measures of improvement would be brought forward for the benefit of Ireland, and the removal of all just causes of complaint and this assurance had the effect of pacifying the people of Ireland—Repeal was given up for a time, and "Precursor Societies" were established, whose principle was to see what would be done for Ireland before recourse was had to Repeal; the late Government had endeavoured to redeem that pledge, and they succeeded to a great extent in conciliating the confidence and support of the Irish people; but those who constituted the present Government obstructed the measures proposed by the former Government to give satisfaction to the people of Ireland, and it was their duty, on coming into power to consider what they could do to remove the obnoxious views which were in consequence entertained of them in that country, for when the Prime Minister said that "Ireland was his chief difficulty," he must have had in his mind the conduct of his party when in opposition. When, therefore, they took office it was their duty to show that the professions which they had held out of liberal disposi-
1688
tions towards Ireland were sincere, and to prove by their acts that their good intentions towards Ireland were something more than mere expressions. Yet at the end of the third Session of their tenure of office, nothing had been done, and if they went on doing nothing, the demand for Repeal, which had already spread to a fearful extent, would increase to such a degree that the longer they deferred settling it the more difficult they would find it to eradicate it. And not only had nothing been done, but nothing positive even was held out. He would admit that the Bill respecting Charitable Bequests was a most excellent Bill; but it was merely an improvement of an already existing Board, and enabled Roman Catholics to do that which they could do without, the necessity of any new law. With respect to the subject of National Education, they were leaving it in pretty much the same condition in which it had been before. It was true they had increased the grant for National Education; but the increase of the population of Ireland was such that they must either greatly increase the grant or abandon the system altogether. And how, again, had they shewn, in their selection of Bishops, their consistent advocacy of the plan? Why, they had selected for promotion to a Bishopric an individual whose most distinguishing claim appeared to be his bitter hostility to the system of National Education. But if they were desirous that the people of Ireland should believe they were in earnest on that subject, they ought to adopt a different course of conduct. This Session had been barren of laws affecting Ireland, but if it had been barren of laws it had not been barren of Bills, and amongst those which were brought forward was one which was well calculated to increase and strengthen the Repeal agitation in Ireland—he alluded to the Bill brought in upon the subject of the constituency of Ireland and the elective franchise in that country. The constituency in that country had dwindled away, but the Government introduced a Bill this Session, which, instead of having for its object the extension of the franchise, was intended to make the law with respect to registration more stringent, and the effect of which would be to limit the constituency. Why, then, in the present state of the constituency in Ireland, did they introduce a Bill which would have the effect of limiting the constituency? In all their proposals with respect to Irish registration there was an evident tendency to

1689
limit the constituency, instead of providing any means of extending it, a tendency rather to deprive people of the right to the elective franchise than to give facilities for obtaining it. If they intended to act fairly and justly towards Ireland, they ought to take the earliest opportunity of bringing forward a proper measure on this important subject—a measure which would place the registration in Ireland on a fair and just ground. They had recently agreed to a Bill which would place two seats in Parliament at their disposal—he meant the Sudbury Disfranchisement Bill, and he was sorry that before that Bill passed it had not been announced that those two seats in Parliament would be transferred to Ireland, as he trusted they would. It would be a most wise and fair disposal of those two seats in Parliament to transfer them to Ireland, and he trusted that such an addition to the representation of Ireland would be soon made. The county of Cork ought to have an additional representative, for at present so large and populous a county was inadequately represented, and there was no other portion of the empire which had so strong a claim for an additional representative; indeed, the claim of Ireland for additional representatives was so strong that he had no doubt the two Members would be transferred to that country. He should now direct the attention of their Lordships to that most important subject, the administration of justice in Ireland. It was impossible to deny that of late years, until the present Government came into office, the tribunals of justice were gradually growing into favour with the people and obtaining their confidence. He did not mean to say that the present Government were not inclined to do justice to Ireland, but it was not enough to desire that justice should be done to Ireland, it was necessary that such a course should be adopted as would give the people confidence in the administration of justice, and make it, more or less, popular in the country. But had they done so? What had been their conduct with regard to magistrates? They had summarily determined to dismiss a number of magistrates from the commission of the peace for attending Repeal meetings, without giving them any sufficient warning, and the result of that was to remove a great number of popular Magistrates from the Bench, and produce a bad result upon the minds of the people. That course was adopted in some cases on very slight grounds, and in one case in par-
1690
ticular, in the county of Clare, the dismissal of Mr. O'Brien from the Magistracy was a striking instance of the grounds on which they thought fit to dismiss Magistrates. He held in his hand a correspondence between Mr. Sugden, the Secretary to the Irish Lord Chancellor, and Mr. O'Brien. Mr. Sugden wrote to Mr. O'Brien to know if it were true that he had attended a Repeal meeting at Castle Lyons; and to that letter Mr. O'Brien answered that he had attended a meeting at Castle Lyons, which had been held for the purpose of passing a vote of sympathy with Mr. O'Connell, and he added, that a collection took place after the meeting, to which he subscribed 1l., but it was not to any Repeal fund. He added that he was not a Repealer, but if he were he would not be deterred from stating his opinions by any such course as that which had been adopted towards him: and he stated that for twenty years he had been a Magistrate, and no fault had ever been found with his conduct. The result of that correspondence was, that the Lord Chancellor superseded Mr. O'Brien. Now what course had been adopted in England? On the very week on which Mr. O'Brien had been deprived of the Commission of the Peace, a meeting was held in Covent Garden, for the purpose of expressing sympathy with Mr. O'Connell. It was a meeting for exactly the same purpose as that which Mr. O'Brien attended; and at that meeting there were three or four Members of Parliament present, and Gentlemen took part in bringing forward resolutions who were Justices of the Peace. Now, nothing more had been done by the Magistrates who had been dismissed in Ireland from the Commission of the Peace, than had been done by the Gentlemen who attended the meeting in Covent Garden, but no Magistrate had been deprived of the Commission of the Peace for attending the meeting in Covent Garden. Mr. O'Brien said, that he looked upon the chair of a public meeting like that at which he attended as a fit position for a Magistrate, the meeting having been held by the people, under the shield of the British Constitution, to pray for a redress of wrongs. Yet the Government thought it right that Mr. O'Brien should be dismissed from the Commission of the Peace, and Mr. O'Driscoll restored to it. Mr. O'Driscoll, who had been twice dismissed, was restored, although the Government admitted that his conduct was reprehensible, and did not defend his restoration by saying that it was abstractedly

1691
right, but that it had been done in consequence of a memorial which had been sent to the Lord Chancellor. Thus they restored an unpopular Magistrate, whose conduct they did not attempt to defend, and dismissed a popular Magistrate, because he attended a meeting which was held for the purpose of expressing sympathy with Mr. O'Connell. Such a course was an unfortunate course for the Government to take, if they wished to give the people confidence in the administration of justice. Then, with, regard to stipendiary Magistrates, they passed over Catholic Gentlemen and appointed a Protestant Gentleman, Mr. O'Brien, because he was a converted Repealer. Having directed their Lordships' attention to the course which had been adopted by the Government during this Session, he should now direct their attention to the physical condition of the Irish people. The physical condition of the people of that country was a subject which required deliberate and attentive consideration, with a view to ameliorating it, and their Lordships should recollect that it had a great effect on the political condition of the country, because men were more inclined to lend themselves to the views of agitators when they were suffering from want and local oppression, whilst allowing a state of suffering to continue gave an argument to those who were desirous to urge the apathy of the Imperial Parliament to the condition of Ireland. The Landlord and Tenant Commission was mentioned in the Queen's Speech, as intended to inquire into the occupation of land; but he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) would tell them that they might alter the occupation of the land as much as they pleased, but unless they took some steps to ameliorate the condition of the people it would be all vain. In order to ameliorate the condition of the people, they ought to make some attempt to develope the natural resources of the country, for that was the true way of removing many of the evils that now exist; but no step of that kind had been taken. He should now shortly allude to another important subject as regarded the condition of Ireland, namely, the Poor Law. Their Lordships were aware that the Poor Law had been laid hold of in Ireland for the purpose of exciting local discontent, and they ought, therefore, to show an indication that they took an interest in the condition of the poor, by giving attention to that subject. He was sorry to say that things appeared to be in the same position now as they had been
1692
three years ago, with respect to the physical condition of the people of Ireland, but they were in a very different position as regarded the social condition of the Irish people from that which they occupied three years ago. The Repeal agitation had proceeded to a great length: and although he knew that the Government took credit to themselves for not adopting a Coercion Bill, he would remind them that they had acted rightly, for a Coercion Bill, would not remove any of the grounds of the Repeal agitation. If the Government wanted to get rid of the feeling in Ireland in favour of a Repeal of the Union—a feeling which he was sorry to say was strongly entertained, and which was spreading amongst those who were far above the lower classes—they should be prepared, during the next Session of Parliament, to bring forward large, and sound, and well-considered measures for the improvement of the country.
Lord Wharncliffecould assure the noble Marquess and the House that the only desire of the Government was to administer the Government of Ireland fairly and impartially, and that all these measures evinced that this was the only object they had in view. He was not about to follow the noble Marquess through the long historical details with which he had commenced his speech; but should confine himself to an explanation of the conduct of the Government on the different questions which had been alluded to. The noble Marquess complained that the present Government had done nothing for Ireland; that their professions had been great, but their acts insufficient. It was he (Lord Wharncliffe) who, in a speech at the beginning of the Session, had said that the Government were not only anxious to do their duty as regarded Ireland, to keep the peace, and to punish those who so long had kept that country in a state of discomfort and danger, and who had proceeded nearly to the extent of treason; but that when they should have done that, they would be anxious to do all they could for Ireland, and to show that they felt it to be their duty to consider Ireland in every respect as an integral part of the empire, and to legislate accordingly. He then announced that the Government were prepared to enable the Roman Catholics to secure endowments to their priests and Ecclesiastics, and in this respect that they should be placed on a footing in which they should not be subjected to the inconvenience and uncertainty that they had previously ex-

1693
perienced. The Government had redeemed that pledge, and it was universally admitted that they had done so in a proper and conciliatory spirit, a spirit in which they were desirous to act. They had also held out that they would take the subject of National Education in Ireland into consideration. The noble Marquess said, that the head of the Government had given an evasive answer with respect to the subject of Education in Ireland to the Church Education Society in Ireland, when they applied for a grant and that a vote had since been obtained for the National Society. But what was the fact? When the question was put, the head of the Government gave the only answer which he could give until he had an opportunity of fully and maturely considering the question, and he then said that he could not propose any such grant as they wished for. They had redeemed their pledge on the subject of Education, for they had increased the vote for the National Society of Education in Ireland this year. With respect to the grant to the National Society, the Government had done more than held out a hope, for he had expressed a determination to take into consideration the best mode by which the education of the superior classes of the people could be carried on. He was sure their Lordships would admit that in a question of such great importance it was highly necessary to see that steps were not taken in a wrong direction, while at the same time it was necessary to guard against disgusting or displeasing other parties in the country. Even with respect to Maynooth his right hon. Friend had declared that he was not disposed to leave that establishment in its present unsatisfactory condition. He did not exactly pledge himself to any extent; but at the same time he certainly would not have said what he did if he had not intended some real benefit to follow. The noble Marquess had complained that nothing had been done for the social improvement of Ireland, and he had referred to the Landlord and Tenant Commission. He had found fault with that Commission at first, and he still continued to have little hope. But, surely, before attempting to remedy the evils in the social condition of the country, it was necessary for them to know in some authentic shape what those evils were, what were the circumstances of the tenure of land, what the condition of the tenants, and of the cottiers, as respected the landlords, and whether there were any circumstances in their
1694
mutual relations which would enable the Legislature to do anything for their benefit. The Government had taken the subject into their consideration, and, though they had not matured any measures, they had not lost sight of the subject, and he hoped next Session to be able to produce something worthy the consideration of Parliament. The noble Marquess had also found fault with the Government for their conduct with respect to the Registration Bill. He charged it upon them that their object in introducing the Bill had been to curtail the franchise. Nothing could be further from the intentions of the Government; and, on the contrary, if the Bill were looked into fairly, it would be seen that its object was to increase, not to restrict, the constituency. If it could have been shown that a restriction of the constituency would have been the effect of the Bill the Government would have been prepared to take steps to remedy that defect, and to do what would have the effect of increasing the constituency. Although it was not easy to create a large constituency in Ireland, however, he believed that that Bill would have effected it. The noble Marquess next complained that the Government had done most unpopular things with regard to the magistracy. Into the cases of Mr. O'Driscoll and Mr. O'Brien, he (Lord Wharncliffe) would not again enter, as they had been so fully and so recently discussed. With respect to the dismissals from the magistracy generally, he entertained the same opinion that he did at the commencement of the Session. He believed with respect to the greater part of those who had been dismissed from the Commission of the Peace—he did not apply his observation to all—that in the state in which Ireland was at the end of 1843 and the beginning of 1844, it was not safe to leave in the Commission of the Peace gentlemen who attended repeal meetings, which in the course of the discharge of their duty they might be called upon to put down. He believed that the Government would not have done their duty if those gentlemen had been allowed to remain in the Commission. The Government had desired to govern the two countries on equal terms, considering that they had a duty to perform to both. They were bound to defend certain institutions, and to see that the peace was kept, and violence as much as possible prevented; and, remembering that they had those duties to perform, they had endeavoured at the same time to show to

1695
the people of Ireland that they had no ill-feeling towards them,—that, although the people of Ireland had been misled by agitators, who kept up that state of misery and degradation in which they had so long been placed,—it was the anxious desire of the Government to take such steps as would raise their condition and make them a happier people, at the same time, that they would not be allowed to break the peace or to commit violence towards others. Those were, and had been, the objects of the Government. Every Government must a times be unpopular, and must be called on to resist demands which they might consider fatal to the interests of the whole country; but, at the same time, he thought that the present Government could look back with satisfaction to the time that had passed since they had been in office. They had not desired to govern Ireland by corruption or violence, or by means of party; but they had endeavoured, if possible, to govern Ireland as every country ought to be governed, by kindness, by an attention to the wants of the people, and by a desire to do impartial justice among the people. The noble Marquess had also complained that the Government had not attended to the physical wants of the people. Nothing could be more difficult in legislation than properly to attend to the physical wants of a people situated as the people of Ireland were: very much must be done by the inhabitants of the country themselves. But the Government had done what they could. They had given every encouragement to the promotion of that great railway, which he hoped and believed would be of the greatest benefit to Ireland. They certainly had not assisted the parties with money, because they thought such matters were much better left to private enterprise. As his noble Friend had not concluded with any Motion, he would not trouble their Lordships further, but would only repeat the Motion, that the Bill be now read a third time.
Lord Monteagledid not wish to throw any difficulties in the way of the Government with respect to their measures for the benefit of Ireland; but he must say, that if there was any one question more than another which ought to be in a calm and just spirit, it was the consideration of the affairs of Ireland. He thought that a much more important case had occurred than that at Shinrone. The case occurred at the last assizes. It was that of certain parties who had been engaged as witnesses
1696
in a Government prosecution, and their particular duty in this respect being completed, they determined to set up for themselves, and to promote outrages which would afford them employment as informers. They accordingly, amongst other things, planned a train for firing of certain buildings upon the estate of Lord Dunraven. They were, however, detected in these practices, and brought to trial for having instigated the offences and were convicted, and were now suffering the penalty of transportation. This, he thought, would sufficiently explain to Government the necessity for extreme caution in the employment of such instruments. The first question, no doubt, put to those who, having conscientiously resisted Repeal, returned to their seats in Ireland, would be, what has this Session of Parliament produced for the advantage of Ireland? The most satisfactory answer that could be given to that question would be an appeal to the Statute Book, and the Acts agreed upon during that Session; and it would be highly desirable to contrast the beneficial Acts of the Imperial Parliament with the unwise, impolitic, jobbing system of the Irish Parliament. Let it not only be a contrast of the words spoken here, but a contrast of the deeds of the Imperial Parliament with those of the Irish Parliament. Some allowance, he hoped, would be made by the Irish nation for the disadvantage under which they had been placed this Session in that House, in consequence of a judicial question of considerable moment hanging over their heads, which might be said to have deprived all other questions of their relative interest. The object of himself and of his noble Friends on that occasion was not, he assured the Government, to institute a critical review of the acts of the Government during the Session, hanging, as it were a bill of indictment over the Government, which should strengthen their party, or add fuel to the flame of public excitement there, but to lay before the noble Lord and the public suggestions as to the course of policy and legislative acts which they hoped would be brought to maturity in the next Session. The noble Lord, he would with pleasure admit, had fulfilled the pledge which had been given at the commencement of the Session; nor could he possibly be induced to undervalue the measures introduced by Government to conciliate the affections and feelings of the people of that country, particularly that respecting Catholic Charities, which he thought

1697
was certainly the most important of that class of measures introduced into Parliament since the union of the two countries. It displayed the sincere desire of the Government to improve the people, and plainly told every parish priest in Ireland, that it was the intention of the Government to legislate, not in hostility to, but in accordonce with their interests. With respect to a provision for the Catholic clergy, he thought the objection urged against the interference of the Government in this respect was devoid of foundation. There was, he thought, good reason to believe that such a provision would tend materially to improve the condition of the clergy, without giving to the Government any power to control the actions of the clergy, or making them tools in the hands of the Executive. He was deeply sensible, he confessed, of the value which such a measure must possess, and of their merit in having had the courage and good sense to recognise the existence of the Roman Catholic bishops and archbishops in Ireland; for in these cases words were things, and there was not one parish priest throughout all Ireland that would not, by that recognition, feel that a stigma, hitherto attached to them, whether right or wrong it was unnecessary to inquire, was now completely removed; and he did not doubt that the power and control of the bishops over the Roman Catholic clergy would be more beneficially exercised than heretofore. Believing the measure to be an excellent one, he could have wished the Government had taken its decision earlier. Events in Ireland had somehow severed the Protestant clergy from the National System of Education in that country; and now the Protestant portion of the community turned round upon the Government, and rather unwisely complained that that system was almost wholly confined to the Catholics. Had the decision and determination of the Government been earlier made known, it might well be considered it would have produced a beneficial effect in this respect. He could also have wished that the Government had sooner managed to have introduced a plan for the employment of the poor, together with the plan for their education. He believed if they could once get the labouring classes in Ireland to thoroughly appreciate the inestimable advantages they might derive from applying their labour zealously upon their own little holdings, instead of relying upon the contingent receipt of 6d. a day from the
1698
farmers, a great improvement in their condition would speedily be effected. He would remark, for the purpose of warning the Government against falling into the same predicament, that a measure had originated in the other House relative to the franchise in Ireland, respecting which an opinion had gone abroad. He regretted to say that, whether it was the right or the wrong impression, the people, of Ireland looked upon it as an attempt to diminish the franchise, or take it away from a large class of existing voters, the consequence of which had been most mischievous, making converts to the Repeal movement in thousands. He believed the effect of the Bill would be, to increase the number of persons who were to enjoy the benefit of the franchise. He did not refer in this instance to the mere occupation Clause, or tenancy at will. The great danger in those cases was, that as long as the franchise was made dependent on the landlords in Ireland, they would have the power, at any time, to determine the right to the franchise, by determining the tenancy. It behoved every Irishman, in his opinion, to oppose the new Clause introduced into that measure. They had proposed a 5l. franchise, without the possession of the land itself, which he thought would never answer any good purpose, and which he also apprehended must have the effect of defeating the franchise. [Lord Redesdale: But that is the title to the franchise according to the Law of England.] If the noble Lord would give to Ireland the entire of the law of England respecting the franchise, he, and he believed, Irishmen generally, would be content. [Lord Redesdale: Such is the principle of the county franchise.] He wished to be understood, when he said he should be content with the English franchise, that he meant the whole of the franchise in this country. There was another subject he would address himself to, which he thought was one of more importance than all the rest put together—it was that of the endowment of the College of Maynooth. If there could be one announcement by the Government more dangerous than another, it must be that of its intentions with respect to Maynooth, and the education of the Catholic clergy, unless Her Majesty's Ministers were prepared to deal with it largely and generously; offering to that great body a boon worthy of themselves as a Government to propose, and of the Roman Catholics to receive. He was aware of the difficulties to which

1699
the Government might expose itself by touching on the subject of Maynooth. Noble Lords, however, might depend upon it, that if they raised the vote for Maynooth from 8,000 l. to 10,000 l., it would excite just as great an outcry as if they at once came down with a proposition for a measure which would be alike worthy of the British Legislature to offer, and of the people of Ireland to receive. The objection was not so much to the amount of money to be voted, but to the principle involved; and although some parties might conceive the principle to be violated by the present paltry vote, there were others who said that this vote was part of the compact entered into at the time of the Union, and, therefore, the vote must be continued; but if you went beyond it, and gave one shilling more, you would be letting in idolatry, and break down the lines of the Establishment. The outlay would be just the same whether the increased grant was great or small. He conceived the great point for the Government now to adopt was not to limit themselves at present; but if they could not make up their minds to adopt a large and liberal measure, they had better do nothing. Look at the question as deeply involving the interest of a most important portion of the Empire—view it as a government should regard such an important question—namely, the education of the Roman Catholic clergy. Only estimate how great was the object of raising the education of the spiritual instructors of seven millions of the people, and thus make them better fitted for the important station they had to fill as guides for the people, and fitter companions and associates for the country gentlemen in Ireland. He thought that this was a very serious subject; and he hoped that it would meet with full consideration during the recess. He could have wished to have said something respecting the Landlord and Tenant Commission. He did not differ very much from his noble Friend on this subject; but he felt that he could not touch on the subject without diminishing some of those rays of hope which the noble Lord wished to spread. The noble Lord said that he could not recommend any alteration of the Law of Landlord and Tenant at present, as he in the first place wished to have the result of the inquiry before the Commission, and wished to know what was the present state of the tenure in Ireland, and what were the pressing evils which grew out of it. Now he (Lord Monteagle) contended
1700
that the Commission could not give more information than the House had already in its possession. Was not the library full of information on this subject? and they could not get more by any number of Commissions. He had to apologise for having said so much; but he trusted that he had not given utterance to any expression which was likely to excite an angry feeling, or that anything had fallen from him condemnatory of the intentions of the Government.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that his noble Friend who began the debate had expressed great alarm at the Repeal agitation in Ireland. Now he (the Earl of Wicklow) did not wish to underrate it, for he must admit that it was one of a very serious nature when they found that the leaders in this association possessed such great influence over the people, and were joined and aided by the Roman Catholic hierarchy and priesthood in this agitation, and it was impossible not to say that the question was one of importance; but still he felt bound to declare that he did not view it with the same alarm as his noble Friend. His noble Friend in allusion to a quotation which he made, referred to two countries, as an example of what was going on in Ireland—namely, to America and to Belgium. His noble Friend had referred to those two states as an historical argument illustrative of the subject. It appeared to him that these cases were totally unconnected with the present subject, and that they could not be referred to as examples. In these two cases the whole of the people, from the highest to the lowest, all the persons of property in those countries, as well as the poor, were engaged in the attempt to establish the independence of their country; but this was not the case with respect to Ireland, and he did not think that it ever would be the case there. Many circumstances existed which rendered it hardly possible that this should be so. There was one thing which gave him great confidence against the success of this agitation. It was that the middle classes and industrious classes of that country, in reference to the feelings of the Government towards Ireland, must be aware that there was a most anxious desire on the part of every Government in this country, whether Whig or Conservative, to do all in their power to advance measures for the amelioration of the moral and physical condition of the people of

1701
Ireland. His noble Friend who spoke last had said that the best thing that could be done to meet this agitation of Repeal was to pursue such a course as to enable him and other noble Lords, on their return to Ireland, to refer to the Statute Book for a proof of the soundness and excellence of the legislative measures which had been adopted with regard to Ireland. His noble Friend should, however, have recollected that the leaders of the Repeal Association were constantly impressing it on the minds of the people that there was no possible measure which the Imperial Legislature could pass could confer the slightest benefit on the Irish people. No measure, however beneficial it might be, could be brought forward in either House which the leaders of that agitation did not denounce as an insult to Ireland. He therefore thought that his noble Friend could hardly expect from any Government measures which would give satisfaction to the Repeal Association. That, however, was no reason why the Legislature should not pass measures into laws which they deemed beneficial to the country. The noble Marquess said, that Her Majesty's Ministers should show their attachment to the Education System in Ireland, by refusing to select any clergyman for Church preferment who was not favourable to the system. This he considered would be a most unfair course, for a clergyman might in other respects possess the highest qualities to fit him to fill a high situation in the Church, and yet he was to be passed over because he did not agree with the Government on the subject of National Education. It would also be most injurious as it would be supposed that it was an inducement held out to the clergy to change their opinions on the subject, and it would be inferred that if they did so, they might look forward for promotion. He therefore thought that the Government had acted more wisely, more honourably, and more consistently by adopting the course they had followed, and at the same time while they thus acted in a way best adapted to promote the interests of the Church, they did lessen the number of the supporters of the system. For his own part he believed that the system was good, and that the feeling against it on the part of the clergy was diminishing; and when it was farther extended, he had no doubt that they would reap the advantages that had arisen from the adoption of the system
1702
and thus without the adoption of any such course as his noble Friend suggested, they would get an additional number of supporters of the system among the clergy of the Established Church. He could not, also, agree with his noble Friend in condemning the appointments which had been made in the Courts of Justice, as he considered them to be unexceptionable. As for the Magistracy, he would not follow his noble Friend into the long statement which he had made on the subject. All that he would say was that it was impossible, after the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had adopted the course which he did in writing to those Magistrates who had taken part in the Repeal agitation, and after the answers which he had received to these communications from those gentlemen which he did, that he could escape from the result of carrying into effect their expulsion. The subject of the Registration Bill had been much adverted to. He admitted that a great deal of angry feeling had been excited by the discussions growing out of the various Registration Bills which had been introduced by different parties; He was astonished at the clamour which was excited on both sides by the Registration Bill of this year, which in his mind, was a proof of its excellence. It was, however, most violently abused by both parties—one side saying that it would open the franchise too much, while the other alleged that it would not only restrict it within a very narrow compass, but that it should be regarded as a sweeping measure of disfranchisement. He believed that very erroneous opinions had been adopted on this measure, for he was satisfied, from the Statistical Returns which he had consulted, that if the Bill had passed there would have been a great increase to the elective franchise. He did not, however, approve of all the Clauses of the Bill, though, taking it altogether, it was a great improvement on the existing law. He most strongly objected to that Clause in the Bill which rendered it necessary to take an oath in a Court of Justice in the claim for the franchise. He hoped that such a Clause would not be in the Bill which must be brought forward on the subject in the early part of next Session. He had not approved of all that Her Majesty's Government had done, and, above all, he condemned a measure which passed a few days ago, as unwise, unjust, and impolitic—he alluded

1703
to the Party Processions Bill; but, in saying this, he must add that he believed that there never was a Government more anxious to do more for the benefit of Ireland than the present Government; but, as for giving measures that would satisfy those engaged in agitation, he knew that it was a matter of the greatest difficulty. There had been several valuable improvements made in the law during the present year, and he had heard also, with great pleasure, some of the statements made by his noble Friend, holding out the prospect of future measures of improvement. He hoped, among other things, that the Government would have the courage to bring forward some measure for the purpose of making provision for the Roman Catholic Clergy in Ireland. He trusted also that in the course of a very few years there would be very little difference, or rather an equality as far as could be, of the laws between Ireland and England. He believed that, if they went on on the same plan as they did at present, in the course of a few years there would be but few points of difference between the two countries.
Lord Campbellregretted the crippled state in which this important subject of debate had been brought under discussion. The matter in debate was supposed to be the state of Ireland, but how could they do this without taking into consideration the manner in which the State Trials had been commenced, proceeded with, and concluded? He was glad, however, that his noble Friend near him had not introduced that subject on the present occasion, and he was also glad that the noble Lord opposite did not say anything to provoke discussion on the subject. But when they proceeded to talk of Ireland, without allowing the name of O'Connell to be mentioned, it was like enacting the play of Hamlet, the part of Hamlet being left out by particular desire. He had no wish to make illusions to any topics calculated at that time to excite discussion, but he felt that it was absolutely necessary to look to the State Trials as connected with the policy of the Government with respect to Ireland. The noble President of the Council must excuse him, however, in making one remark, in reply to an observation of the noble Lord. The noble Lord, in allusion to the course which had been pursued by the Government to put down agitation, said, that his Colleagues and himself did not call upon Parliament to
1704
suspend the Constitution. The noble Lord said that this was a very weighty observation, but how was it possible to consider its weight without looking to the circumstances which had taken place. Now, he (Lord Campbell) would say, that although it was most culpable to suspend the Constitution, he would rather see the Constitution suspended than the Law perverted. When a suspended Constitution was restored, it appeared in its full vigour; but when Law was perverted, it shook all confidence in the administration of justice. He should however cautiously abstain from saying anything in reference to the State Trials ["Loud cries of"Hear, hear," from the Ministerial Benches]; and notwithstanding that cheer, he should not depart from his intentions. When the noble President of the Council boasted that Her Majesty's Ministers had not asked for extraordinary powers, he could only say that the Government of the country had acted according to the usages of our ancestors, and he conceived that it was a matter of importance, not by silence to appear to approve of the argument which might be raised in the noble Lord's boast. He could not refrain from expressing his very great alarm at the apathy which he observed to prevail on the subject of Ireland. The noble Lord perhaps was entitled to boast that the rigour of the Government had preserved tranquillity in Ireland. It happened that people seemed contented while a state of tranquillity existed. He admitted, that this tranquillity did exist, but could they rest satisfied on the continuance of that tranquillity? But was the House and the Government satisfied with the present aspect of affairs? Was there not great and almost universal discontent prevailing in that country? Was not the repeal rent constantly increasing, and was there any reason to suppose that the feeling in favour of it had in any degree subsided? He agreed with the noble Lord who spoke last, that no great apprehension need be entertained as to the success of the cry for Repeal. It did not meet with much sympathy in this country, for all classes were united as one man against it; and he hoped that they ever would be, to maintain the Union as being essential to the well-being not only of England but of Ireland. He believed that the success of the Repeal agitation would be a most unhappy event for both countries, and would be productive of much greater evil to Ireland than to England. He be-

1705
lieved that when the eyes of the people of Ireland were opened, as they would be by being well governed, that they would altogether abandon the cry for Repeal. He recollected that during his connection with that country an election took place at Dublin. He alluded to July, 1841, when two of the candidates for the city of Dublin were Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Hutton. Mr. O'Connell was the great hero of Repeal; but Mr. Hutton openly avowed that he was the enemy of Repeal. The result of the election was, that Mr. Hutton polled very nearly as many votes as Mr. O'Connell. This, in his mind, was a convincing proof that at that time the agitation for Repeal had subsided. But how had it revived? He did not charge the Government with not wishing to promote tranquillity or to benefit Ireland; but what had been the result of the policy which they had pursued? The people felt a sense of grievance, and the cry for Repeal had arisen from it; and when that sense of grievance subsided the cry for Repeal would also subside. The present Government had been three years in office; and they had done nothing in the shape of legislation for Ireland. If the Franchise Bill, to which allusion had been made, was deemed by many Members of the present Government to be so essential when the late Administration was in office, and when it was pressed night after night, to the impediment of other business, why did not Her Majesty's Ministers bring it forward before 1844? The noble Lord had promised that there should be an increased grant to Maynooth, and that the system of National Education should be advanced; beyond this, all was a vague expression of a promise of future good; but there was nothing practicable, and there was nothing to show that the Irish Catholics were to be treated as fellow-countrymen. He did not say that they must disestablish the existing Church, but he said that they must form an equal Establishment for the Catholic Church, and until they placed the Catholics on the same footing with the Protestants in Ireland, there could be no peace or tranquillity in that country.
Lord Wharncliffeobserved, that the noble and learned Lord said, that he would make no allusion to the State Trials, but in reference to a remark of his, he, in a sort of sneering tone, made some observations about a perversion of law in connection with them. How the noble and learned Lord could call that an abstinence from all
1706
allusion to them he could not tell. The time would come, and he trusted it was not far distant, when the whole subject would come before Parliament; he was quite ready to meet the noble and learned Lord on the subject, but he must repudiate any such insinuations as had been thrown out by the noble and learned Lord.
Bill read a third time and passed.
House adjourned.