Sitting of 13 February 1844

MINUTES.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Bright, from Glasgow, against Vote of Thanks to Army in Scinde.—By Mr. Ferrand, from Thomas Smith, for Enquiry into Grievances of Frame-work Knitters.—By Mr. Hume, from Blairgowrie, for withholding the Supplies.—By Mr. Ross, from Belfast, for consideration of the State of Ireland.—By Mr. Williams, from Fishguard, complaining of Abuse of Turnpike Trust.

CANADA.
Mr. Leadersaid, that he wished to put a question to the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies. It appeared that two-thirds of the population of the provinces of Canada were Catholics, and the Roman Catholic religion was the established religion there by statute, nevertheless cases of violence have been committed by Orange Societies in that country. In consequence of this a bill was passed during the last Session of the Provincial Parliament for suppressing these Orange Societies, which act was, as he understood, nearly a transcript of one

681
passed by the Imperial Legislature. Notwithstanding these circumstances the bill had been reserved by Sir Charles Metcalfe, the governor of the colony, until he had obtained the opinion of the Home Government on it. Now he wished to know whether the conduct of Sir Charles Metcalfe, in the reservation of this bill, met with the approval of the Government; and also whether it was the intention of the Colonial-office to withhold the consent of the Government to this bill?
Lord Stanleyreplied, that he had ascertained by inquiring, in consequence of the notification which the hon. Gentleman had given to him of his intention to put this question, that on the 9th of December last, Sir Charles Metcalfe did reserve his assent to a bill for the suppression of illegal associations in Canada. The bill in question had not yet been transmitted to the Colonial-office by the Governor of Canada, and not having any official information as to its contents, he therefore could not give any answer to the question of the hon. Member.
Mr. Leadersaid, that the reservation of the bill took place some time ago. He should therefore like to know when it was likely to arrive in this country.
Lord Stanleyreplied, that since the 9th of December, there had been only one mail, by which Sir Charles Metcalfe might have transmitted this bill, but in the circumstances in which he was placed, it was not unreasonable to suppose, that his time was so occupied as to render it difficult, or, perhaps, impossible to draw up all his reasons for withholding his assent to the bill in time to transmit it to this country by the mail. No doubt, in a very short time he should receive the bill from Canada, and he should then be ready to give an answer to the question of the hon. Gentleman; but he must add, that he did not think that such a long time had elapsed, as there had been the omission of only one mail which could form any ground of complaint against Sir Charles Metcalfe.

MILITARY IN IRELAND.
Mr. Horsmansaid, that before his noble Friend rose, he wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman opposite. On the motion, however, of the hon. Member for Cambridge, an account was ordered a few nights ago, for returns of regiments of Infantry and Cavalry sent to Ireland,
682
during the period commencing the 1st of September, 1841, and ending the 31st of March, 1843; also returns of regiments of Infantry and Cavalry withdrawn from Ireland during the same period. He observed that this return, was made out in a peculiar manner, by which it would appear that the number of Troops that had been withdrawn from Ireland during the last two years referred to in the return, exceeded considerably the number sent to Ireland during the last year. He thought, that this must he incorrect. He therefore wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this were the case or not, and what explanation he could give on the subject? He wished to know whether the number of Troops withdrawn from Ireland, rank and file, was more numerous than those sent there during the two years referred to in the return. It would appear from this paper, that since the year 1841, eight regiments of Infantry and one of Cavalry had been sent to Ireland, while twelve regiments of Infantry and two of Cavalry had been withdrawn. He wished also to know whether there would be any objection to give a return of the number of Troops quartered in Ireland during the years 1833, 1834, and down to 1840 inclusive. In the next place he wished to know whether there would be any objection to give the returns down to the end of last year.
Sir J. Grahamshould have been glad if the hon. Gentleman had given him notice of his intention to put this question, but he would endeavour to give the best answer in his power. With respect to the return to which the hon. Gentleman referred, the reason it had been moved for by his hon. Friend, and produced, was, that the noble Lord, the Member for Plymouth, the son of the late Lord-Lieutenant, had moved for the production of a letter written by his father, while Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, during the disturbances in England, offering to place at the disposal of the Government a certain number of regiments then in Ireland. He could state, that the object of this return was to show, that until March, 1843, five regiments altogether, more than were sent there, were withdrawn from Ireland for general service in this country. The return in the hands of hon. Members would show, that during the period referred to in it, four regiments of Infantry and one regiment of Cavalry were withdrawn more

683
than were sent there. This was between the 1st of September, 1841, and the 1st of March, 1843. With respect to the latter part of the question of the hon. Member, he had no objection to give the return, but he believed that such a return had already been ordered the present Session, on the motion of the hon. Member for Coventry. The return was for an account of the Number of Rank and File stationed in Ireland from the 1st of January, 1830, to the 1st of January, 1844.

COURTS FOR SMALL DEBTS.
Mr. Roebuckwished to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question with respect to the bills which had been introduced by the hon. and learned Members for Chester and Kinsale, and entitled the Small Debts Bill and the Superior Courts (Common Law) Bill. By the first of these bills the whole jurisdiction for the recovery of small debts was given to the unpaid Magistracy of this country, which he could not help saying was a most improper tribunal. He wished to know whether this bill were introduced with the sanction of the Government?
Sir J. Graham: far from it, the hon. and learned Member for Chester brought forward last Session, a similar measure to that which had been alluded to by the hon. and learned Member for Bath, as a rival measure to the bill introduced by the Government. The hon. and learned Member for Chester had introduced his rival measure in the present Session before Her Majesty's Government had been enabled to introduce their bill. He certainly should not feel disposed to give any support to the bill of the hon. Member for Chester, as he entirely agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Bath, in objecting to entrust the jurisdiction in matter of debt to the Magistracy, for he could not conceive a worse tribunal for that purpose. He must say, that this measure was of an extraordinary character, for it embraced all England and Wales, and it placed the whole jurisdiction in matters of debt under 5l. in the hands of persons not learned in the law.

STATE OF IRELAND.
Lord J. Russell rose, pursuant to notice, to move for a Committee of the whole House, to take into consideration the State of Ireland. The noble Lord spoke to the following effect:
684
I feel deeply how much I stand in need of the indulgence of the House in the performance of the arduous task I have undertaken. I will not trespass further on that indulgence by making any apology for taking that task upon myself; and however I may feel my own inability, adequately to perform it, I can not for a moment, doubt that it is right for the House of Commons of the United Kingdom to make an inquiry into the condition of Ireland. We have before us, notwithstanding the somewhat fallacious returns presented by the right hon. Gentleman, the notorious fact that Ireland is filled with troops; and that the barracks, in which these troops are posted, have been fortified. We have heard, too, only this morning, of a regiment of infantry having been drawn up in the yard of the Castle of Dublin; that preparations have been made as if the Government were in hourly expectation of civil war. We have before us, in short, the fact that Ireland is occupied, and not governed, by those who now hold the reins of power. I say, and say it deliberately, Ireland is occupied, and not governed by the present Administration. In England the Government as it should be, and has been, is a government of opinion; the government of Ireland is notoriously a government of force. A short time ago, his Majesty the King of the French told his Chambers that he trusted Algeria would soon be reduced into a state of peace. Her Majesty's Ministers, at the opening of the Session, were hardly able to give us a similar assurance with reference to Ireland. The troops, there, it is true, are placed in positions which, considering who is the new commander-in-chief, are, no doubt, the best military positions which could be chosen, with every means of relief and communication. Far be it from me to doubt for a moment the military skill with which these troops have been disposed, or that effectual means have been organised for meeting resistance and insurrection, should resistance and insurrection arise. What I wish to ask is, why is it that the country has been so occupied?—why Ireland, which was delivered two years ago into the hands of the present Government, tranquil and undisturbed, should now be in such an alarming condition? We have this morning received intelligence of an event which may have an important influence on the destinies of Ireland—intelligence which, perhaps, will be matter of triumph to those who now

685
administer the destinies of this country, that the man in whom not only the general wishes, but the general affections, of Ireland are placed—the man to whom the people of that country, and, as I think, justly, attribute the chief part in delivering them from the chains in which they groaned until the Emancipation Act of 1839—we have intelligence that this man has been found guilty of conspiracy, and, as I presume, will by the sentence of the judges of the court be condemned to imprisonment. Sir, I can see in this circumstance no guarantee for the future tranquillity of Ireland; I can derive from your present triumph no better hope that you will obtain for yourselves the affections of that people, which have hitherto been fixed upon the man whom they call the Liberator. I can see no hope, unless you take a new and very different course from that you have as yet pursued, you can preserve Ireland as she ought to be preserved—united to you in affection—united to you in war as well as in peace—contributing to and sharing in your prosperity in the period of peace—fighting valiantly at your side, and tendering her strength to increase your strength, when you have to meet a foreign foe. The consideration of this subject has led me, and I will venture to bring the subject before the House in the same order that I have studied it, into a close examination of the whole history of our position with reference to Ireland. I am not about merely to criticise or to ask for an inquiry into the transactions of the last few months; I am about to ask the House to consider what have been our relations with Ireland since the period of the Union. I will take it for granted, as I very fairly may, until some one in this House shall make a motion for the Repeal of the Union, that we all desire and are resolved to maintain that Union; that we all wish to preserve its principal conditions; that we wish to have an Imperial Parliament of the United Kingdom, containing representatives, in both Houses, of Ireland as well as of Great Britain. Assuming this, which is an assumption quite in accordance with my own opinion, I may ask the House to consider whether the engagements made at the time of the Union have been fulfilled? Have the promises which were then made, both with respect to improving existing laws, and to future legislation for the welfare of Ireland, been fulfilled by the Imperial Parliament? If they have not, let me ask you on that ground to go with
686
me into committee, and to consider of the measures which we shall take, in order to preserve our faith, and reconcile the people of Ireland to the connection. In going over the subject, I must advert to the address of both Houses to his Majesty George the 3rd, previous to the Union in 1799, in consequence of which the Union took place. The two Houses, in their joint address, made use of these expressions:—
"We entertain a firm persuasion that a complete and entire Union between Great Britain and Ireland, founded on equal and liberal principles, on the similarity of laws, constitution, and government, and on a sense of mutual interests and affections, by promoting the security, wealth, and commerce of the respective kingdoms, and by allaying the distractions which have unhappily prevailed in Ireland, must afford fresh means of opposing at all times an effectual resistance to the destructive projects of our foreign and domestic enemies, and must tend to confirm and augment the stability, power, and resources of the empire."
The two Houses were not content with this declaration; they went on to say in a subsequent paragraph—
"And we trust that, after full and mature consideration, such a settlement may be framed and established by the deliberative consent of the Parliaments of both kingdoms, as may be conformable to the sentiments, wishes, and real interests of your Majesty's faithful subjects of Great Britain and Ireland, and may unite them inseparably in the full enjoyment of the blessings of our free and invaluable constitution, in the support of the honour and dignity of your Majesty's Crown, and in the preservation and advancement of the welfare and prosperity of the whole British empire,"
These were the representations of both Houses of the great advantages which would result particularly to Ireland from the Union. Have they been realised? "Has this complete and entire Union" been founded "on a sense of mutual interests and affections?" May I ask whether we have "allayed the distractions which unhappily prevailed in Ireland," and, whether, since the Union of the two kingdoms, we have given to the people of Ireland an equal and full share in the enjoyment of the blessings of our invaluable constitution? What I have just read was not merely the declaration of the two Houses of Parliament; but it had the sanction of Mr. Pitt, the Prime Minister of the Crown, in his speech upon introducing the measure into this House. In answer to

687
those who spoke of the Union as subjecting Ireland to a foreign yoke, Mr. Pitt, after pointing out that Ireland would be immensely the gainer by the Union, and that England was just the country with which a country like Ireland should wish to unite, said:—
"Does a Union, under such circumstances, by free consent, and on just and equal terms, deserve to be branded as a proposal for subjecting Ireland to a foreign yoke? Is it not rather the free and voluntary association of two great countries, which join, for their common benefit, in one empire, where each will retain its proportional weight and importance under the security of equal laws, reciprocal affection, and inseparable interests, and which want nothing but that indissoluble connection to render both invincible."
And he then made use of the quotation which has been so often repeated—
"Non ego, nec Teucris halos parere jubebo, Nec nova regna peto; paribus se legibus ambæ
Invictægentes æterna in fœdera mittant."
Such were the terms upon which Ireland was invited to consent to a Union with England, as declared by both Houses and by the Prime Minister. At the same time, other inducements were held out, not officially indeed, by any positive declaration of the Ministers of the Crown, but by their adherents—by those who were in some way or other acquainted with the sentiments of Mr. Pitt. It was stated that the Roman Catholics would be much more likely to obtain all the rights of British subjects under a Union of the two Legislatures, than if Ireland should continue under a separate legislature. Such was the opinion and feeling of many persons who opposed the admission of Roman Catholics to office, while Ireland continued separate; but the hopes of the Irish, however, well founded on such declarations, were destined for a long time to disappointment. But before I enter upon that subject, I wish to call the attention of the House to another part of the laws and constitution of England, and one of the most important parts; namely, the Administration of Justice. It may be said that the laws are the same for both countries—that Ireland has nominally the same law as England—that the trial by jury is the same in both countries. Is it so, in fact? That it was not so, was perpetual matter of complaint in Ireland, and more than once in England. On one occasion, I recollect that an hon. Member of this House, who in those days was ac-
688
customed to represent with great force and eloquence the grievances of all who were oppressed, whether in Europe or in America, Africa or Asia, whether the complaints were made by white men or black, I mean Mr. Brougham, brought this complaint under the notice of the House in terms of very great strength and effect, in June, 1823, on presenting a petition complaining of the administration of justice in Ireland. Mr. Brougham then said:—
"The law of England esteemed all men equal. It was sufficient to be born within the King's allegiance to be entitled to all the rights the loftiest subject of the land enjoyed, None were disqualified by it; and the only distinction was between natural-born subjects and aliens. Such, indeed, was the liberality of our system in times which we call barbarous, but from which, in these enlightened days, it might be well to take a hint, that even if a man were an alien born, he was not deprived of the protection of the law. In Ireland, however, the law held a directly opposite doctrine. The sect to which a man belonged—the cast of his religious opinions—the form in which he worshipped his creator—were the grounds on which the law separated him from his fellows, and inured him to the endurance of a system of the most cruel injustice."
Such was the statement of Mr. Brougham, in those days when Mr. Brougham was the advocate of the oppressed. Was this the statement of a man ignorant of the condition of Ireland; of a person who was stating that for which he had not sufficient foundation; who had been misinformed by enthusiasts and grievance-mongers? Not at all. Facts of the same description were stated in most positive language by Sir Michael O'Loghlin, in his evidence before the House of Lords, in 1839. He said he had been in the habit for nineteen years of attending the Munster circuit. On that circuit, he said, it was the custom of the Crown to set aside from the jury all Roman Catholics and all liberal Protestants; and he stated it as his belief that this practice was carried to a still greater extent on other circuits. He stated one case of this practice occurring as late as the year 1834, when Lord Wellesley was Lord Lieutenant, and when Mr. Blackburne, the present Master of the Rolls, was the Attorney-general. He stated that in that case, not a political case, forty-three persons had been set aside, and that thirty-six of those were Roman Catholics, and seven Protestants. Amongst them were magistrates and lease-holders, and persons of conside-

689
rable property. He said that the practice was so well known, and constantly followed, that men of liberal opinions, whether Roman Catholics or Protestants, had ceased attending the assizes, that they might not be present when such an insult was offered to them. Now are these the laws of England? Does this at all resemble what takes place in selecting a jury in Kent or Sussex, or Yorkshire, or Lancashire? Are these the laws, the just, and equal laws, which Mr. Pitt promised should be extended to Ireland? Is this the fulfilment of the promises made at the time of the Union? Is it not rather, as Mr. Brougham said, the distinction at once of sect and party—the separation of those who call themselves Protestants—which is, in fact, in Ireland a political denomination, from the rest of the community? Is it not the supremacy of political Protestants corrupting the sources of justice, and defrauding the people of that right of trial by an impartial jury which was declared due to them by the constitution of this country? What was the effect of this? I can state it in the words of the same excellent authority, Sir Michael O'Loghlin. In answer to a question put to him in the committee, of which I have spoken, he replied,
"I think the system which prevailed had a very injurious effect on the administration of justice."
To another question (p. 135) he answered:—
"In my opinion, in the first place, it gave to the persons who were convicted, or the friends of these persons, an opportunity of saying, that they were not tried by an impartial jury."
He was asked (p. 135)—
'You consider the practice to have been generally prejudicial to the administration of justice in criminal cases in Ireland?—Answer: Yes, certainly:"
Now, can we wonder, such being the case, that in Ireland the poorer classes of the people resorted to any way of settling their quarrels among themselves, rather than have recourse to the regular tribunals? Can we wonder that they frequently harboured long revenge—that they did not chuse to apply to the tribunals of the country for justice—that when the poorer Roman Catholics saw all the men of their own religion carefully and systematically excluded, a distrust of the administration
690
of justice generally prevailed? And I beg the House to bear in mind, in reference to what has lately occurred, that it has been notorious to the people of Ireland that this practice of partially and unfairly excluding Roman Catholics from juries has continually prevailed. In the same evidence, before the Lords in 1839, Lord Donoughmore gives an instance of a person harbouring a deep feeling of revenge for upwards of fifteen years. The case was that of a man who murdered another with a spade, in revenge for an assault committed upon him by his victim fifteen years before. It seems very barbarous to nourish a revengful feeling for so long, but how can we tell, that if there had been a fair administration of justice, this very man would not have complained of the assault at the time it was committed to the proper authorities, that he would have obtained redress for it in a court of justice, and that thus the wild feeling of revenge, the fierce passion, so irreconcileable with the due administration of law, would have been stifled, or, at all events, mitigated by this legal satisfaction for the injury, and this horrible crime prevented. I may be told that this is a nation so wild and barbarous in its nature, that it is impossible to restrain them; that they commit these outrages out of pure malignity and a vicious nature, and that the ordinary course of law does not afford the means of satisfying their fierce passions. Those who say this know little of the people of Ireland, nor how gratefully they accept fair treatment; they know little of human nature, who know not the evil consequences of a vicious administration of' justice—in perverting all the good feelings of a people—in provoking them to revenge themselves, rather than resort to tribunals which they consider unjust. I will then by an anecdote, which I have taken from a work of my hon. Friend the Member for Waterford show how wrong are those persons who have formed such an estimate of the Irish character. The circumstance occurred during the great Clare election. A big, brawney fellow came to the committee of the association to complain, that he had been assaulted by a person much his inferior in size and strength. "Why," was the reply, "cannot you take your own part? You are bigger than the man who insulted you?" "Yes," said he, stretching forth his brawney arm, "I could soon have had the satisfaction, if I had chosen to take it, but all violence and quarelling has been forbidden by the Association, and

691
therefore, I could not punish the fellow as he deserved." Now, if a man thus sustained his anger in obedience to the behests of an association—why was it? Because he had confidence in the association—he knew the law which had gone forth had been framed by men who had the same feelings and sympathies as himself, and who did not set up the tyranny of a sect as the measure of justice. This, then, is my first complaint, that, from the period of the Union, up to 1835, there was no impartiality in the administration of justice, that the Irish people had not the same equal justice which the people of this country have. I may be told, that Lord Wellesley was an impartial governor of Ireland—that he wished to do justice to the Roman Catholics of that country; and I most readily admit, that both he and Lord Anglesey, who preceded him, had every wish to administer the affairs of Ireland equitably, but it was the misfortune of both, to have officers under them, who went on the old routine, who frustrated all their efforts, and continued in well-high unabated vigour, the whole system of injustice. Every precedent on the file was a model for partiality; the red tape tied up parcels of bad decisions; the clerks were familiar with nothing but Protestant ascendency and Catholic degradation. Such was the bad system the office which Lords Anglesey and Wellesley, with every desire to govern impartially, strove in vain to suppress. I will now proceed to the question of the franchise of the people of Ireland. I may be told, that in considering the state of Ireland, it is of little consequence, to consider these questions of political franchise; that political power will not put bread into the mouths of the hungry, or give employment to the unemployed; that these are not the remedies which Ireland requires in her distressed condition. I do not admit the wisdom of such opinions. I cannot find any support for them in the history of this country and of its constitution. I have been accustomed to think, that the participation of equal rights, that the benefits of a free constitution are the very first and very best means by which we can impart prosperity to a country. I am justified in this view by the high authority of Mr. Pitt, who, in his celebrated speech in 1792, on the state of the finances, wherein be enlarged upon the principles of Adam Smith, and predicted great future prosperity, to the country, referred at last
692
to the source of this country's prosperity and said, "It was to be found in the free constitution of the land." Mr. Fox, in following Mr. Pitt, differed from some of the sentiments he had expressed, and doubted some of his anticipations, but in one thing he cordially concurred with him; namely, that the prosperity of England was owing to the free constitution which she enjoyed. Did either of these great men suppose, that the mere power of voting at elections, would give a man wealth? That the mere faculty and privilege of being tried by a fair jury would raise him from poverty to riches? Nothing of the kind. But they knew, that when men have the advantage of equal justice, the benefits of a free constitution, when they live, as it were in an atmosphere of liberty, knowing that they may pursue objects of their honest ambition uninterruptedly, that they may exercise their honest industry without fear or impediment, they exert themselves with ardour, they exercise that ho. nest industry with unremitting zeal, looking forward to the chance, open to them in common with others, that they will at length obtain the wealth of the wealthiest, the positions of the most trusted, the honours of the highest among subjects. Such were the principles which induced these statesmen to say, that it was to the English constitution that England owed its prosperity. And let me not be told, that we are now to learn some more speculative and abstract wisdom; let us not be told, that Government can find means to give employment to a people without giving that people the benefit of the constitution; that they can withhold the franchise, and yet confer prosperity; that is not in their power. I tell them, that with respect to Ireland—happily it is unnecessary to say the same with respect to England—the best they can do for the people of that country—no doubt they may do other things, and adopt measures highly necessary—but the best thing they can do for Ireland is to secure every man there in the enjoyment of his clear rights, and enable every man to be sure that he will be represented according to the principles of the constitution. With respect, then, to the franchise in Ireland, in the year 1793, the Irish parliament, which the year before, had rejected the proposition, gave to the 40 s. freeholders of Ireland the right of voting for Members of Parliament. That power became in the hands of the landlords, the means of filling their estates with num-

693
bers of miserable men, dependent on them, whom they brought up to vote at elections as they thought proper. Doctor Duigenan, in 1805, or indeed before that time, I think, for I must do him the justice to say, that he, at a very early period, had the sagacity to foresee the results, gave an opinion, that this corrupt mode of carrying elections would eventually turn out unfavourable to those who introduced it. He mentioned at the time, the case of a friend of his, who had gained his election in this way, but he foretold, that ere long the time would come, when the landlords would find it re-act against themselves as a body. And so it turned out; great abuses took place, and people of all classes became very willing to have some remedy applied. In 1829 when the right hon. Gentleman opposite proposed, consistently with the speech from the Throne, "a general settlement of the affairs of Ireland," he proposed an altered and higher franchise. His proposals were approved of by this House, and by Parliament generally, and the right hon. Gentleman gave them the 10 l. franchise, that is, gave the franchise to every person deriving 10 l. a-year either as freeholders or as leaseholders from leases for life. But it appeared, after the act had been passed, that the intention was not realised, but that persons from the manner in which the law was interpreted, to be entitled to the franchise, must derive not 10 l. but 20 l. a-year from their holding, inasmuch as they were obliged to show, that they had 10 l. clear profit over and above the 10 l. which was considered the value of the holding. A noble Lord, who is now one of the Secretaries of State, has taunted me for any defects that may exist, on the ground that I ought to have corrected them in the Reform Bill. Upon that occasion, I trusted much to the opinion of a noble Friend of mine (Lord Duncannon) whom I consulted on the subject, and the noble Lord gave it as his opinion that the object which we desired would be accomplished by that measure; but we have since found from the decision of the majority of the Irish judges, that we were in error in our construction of the act. The right hon. Gentleman, when he proposed his change in the franchise, stated that he proposed great facilities for the attainment of it—that a person claiming it had only to go before the assistant barrister to substantiate it, and if the claim were allowed, there should be no appeal; but if it were rejected, then the claimant might appeal to
694
a judge of assize. This seemed a fair and equitable proposition, and likely to give satisfaction. But some time after, not content with the diminution of the franchise which had taken place by the interpretation put upon it by the judges of Ireland—not content with the diminution in the number of voters which had thereby taken place—a noble Lord opposite, not then in the Government, though now sitting on the Benches opposite, proposed a bill to correct what he called the evils of registration in Ireland. Sir, that bill was so contrived, that by sending the claimant—the poor Irish voter—from one appeal to the other—by transmitting him to a great distance, through intricate passages and by costly doors—it discouraged him from seeking the franchise, and those only who were favoured by the landed proprietors of the country, would be enabled to enjoy it. Such would have been the effect of the noble Lord's bill. At that time, we, who were in the Government, said that, though Ireland was far from enjoying all she ought to have by law, yet as there then existed a period of tranquillity, it was most desirable to allow the wealth of the country to increase during that period, believing that angry passions would be assuaged, and that animosities would be likely to abate, by not introducing any question likely to be the subject of vexatious contest in this House. The noble Lord refused to listen to any such suggestions. He thought it necessary to press his bill at all times, and in all contingencies, in season and out of season. The last House of Commons decided they would entertain that bill, Parliament was then prorogued, and we had to consider the franchise and registration of Ireland. It was the opinion of a noble Friend of mine (Lord Morpeth), and in mentioning his name, I will venture to say, that no man ever held office in Ireland more desirous of improving the condition of the people of that country, it was the opinion of Lord Morpeth, that since the House had determined to entertain the question, it would be necessary in justice to the people of Ireland to propose some clearer definition of the franchise—to relieve it from all the disputes and litigations which were existing on the subject—to make the franchise large and extensive, and to base upon that extended franchise, an improved system of registration. And what was said to this? The answer was, an indignant refusal on the part of our opponents, even to enter upon the subject. The words of a right hon.

695
Gentleman, now the Secretary of State for the Home Department, were these:—
"I am determined to stand by the Reform Bill. Let its provisions be improved where necessary. Yes, I am perfectly prepared to concur in an attempt to remedy whatever defects may be found to exist—for instance, as to the machinery of registration; but I am resolved, at the same time, to guard the franchise as it stands."
Such was the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman; and the noble Lord, the Secretary of the Colonies, went still further, for he said of Lord Morpeth, that my noble Friend had brought forward his bill under false colours and false pretences. Such was the charge made against Lord Morpeth, and made because we said it was impossible to have a new and more stringent and narrowed registration in Ireland, without having at the same time an extended franchise. And had we no grounds for saying this—were we not justified in saying it? I appeal to the silence on this subject, for two years of the present Government. I appeal to their neglect, after they had pushed their bill as a measure of opposition against all remonstrance into committee, and attempted to carry it through the House. But, Sir, have I nothing more than their silence to appeal to? Yes, I have the Queen's Speech as an authority. I have the positive declaration, in the Queen's Speech, advised by the whole of the present Cabinet, that it would not be safe to adopt a new system of registration, without at the same time establishing a more extended franchise. Then, Sir, I look back—with these lights, and with the experience of other measures of the present Ministers—I look back to their objects in 1840 and 1841, and I recur to the noble Lord who said, that Lord Morpeth had brought forward his bill under false colours, and I say then what was your Catholic Relief Bill—what was that relief which you proposed after Ireland had been almost in a flame of insurrection, and when the popular power had become strong and almost overpowering—what was that bill? It was a bill which made Catholics eligible to office, and eligible to seats in this House. Compare with that Act, the Registration Bill of the noble Lord, which, as the right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Treasury, in supporting it, said, was to be a test of the confidence reposed in the Ministers of the day. What would have been the consequence? Why, first, if a Ministry like the present had been constituted,
696
scarcely a single Catholic would have been placed in office, judicial or civil; and, in the second place, hardly a Member would have been sent to this House, except at the dictation of a Protestant landlord, and the whole Catholic Relief Act would have been virtually defeated—not in the straightforward and manly manner in which the Duke of Newcastle and others, honestly adverse to the measure, resisted its continuance, and demanded its direct repeal—but invidiously, and covertly, practically and effectually destroying the whole of the benefits which were granted to the tumultuous assemblages of 1828. Well, the noble Lord in the course of the discussions on the bill repeatedly alluded to his advisers, he had been advised to adopt this clause and the other which would produce good effects. My belief is, that that bill was put into his hands by some who were more crafty than the noble Lord, and of different tempers from his, and that it was intended for the purpose of destroying the representation of Ireland by Roman Catholics, granted nominally by the Relief Act. In this conviction, I doubt whether I should wonder most at the magnitude of the injustice or the indirectness of the means by which that injustice was to be perpetrated. Such, then, is my answer to the noble Lord, who accused Lord Morpeth of fighting under false colours. Such, too, is my complain with respect to the state of Ireland, as regards the franchise in that country. And when the Ministers of the Crown now in office shrink from the responsibility of maintaining the doctrines which they maintained when in opposition, and of hazarding the peace of Ireland by a most flagrant violation of parliamentary faith; when they shrink from this, and propose other measures instead, I say I have no confidence to wait until those measures shall be ready to be discussed; but, having seen what they formerly did, I have no belief that they intend to grant a full and fair franchise to the people of Ireland. I ask you then to go into committee to consider that and other subjects—to hear what the representatives of Ireland say as to the manner in which the franchise can be framed, and to beware how you give your assent to any bill—with whatever name of extension of the franchise it may be covered—which would, in fact, give to the Protestant landlords of Ireland increased power, while it deprived the people of that country of all right to elect men who should be

697
really their representatives. Sir, I come now to another subject—I come to the question of the eligibility of Roman Catholics to office. It was justly said by the right hon. Gentleman, that if that privilege were not to be conceded practically as well as by statute, it would not diminish the evil of their exclusion. In arguing upon that point, in 1817, the right hon. Gentleman said, that,
"If Parliament conferred eligibility upon the Roman Catholics, the Crown ought not to exclude them from a just proportion of power, for in that case their exclusion would be ten times more mortifying than their existing disqualification, because it would then appear to be dictated by caprice, by injurious preference, and unfair suspicion."
The present Ministers have had many offices to dispose of, they have had those of Master of the Rolls, of Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, and the appointment of several of the puisne judges of all kinds, and I ask what judges have been appointed who are Catholics, what men holding high offices have been appointed who are Catholics? In what situation of trust or confidence has any Catholic been placed by them? And yet there is the power which you profess to give by statute, a power which if not given practically the right hon. Gentleman said would imply unjust preference and unfair suspicion. Well, then, Sir, I accuse him of unjust preference and unfair suspicion, in not granting to the Roman Catholics that fair participation in power which their talents, their numbers, their position in the State, and, above all, the law, assented to by King, Lords, and Commons, entitle them to expect. I come, however, to an objection that has been made, and that will only induce another complaint on my part. The objection is this, that all the Roman Catholics, the whole of the Catholic body, are opposed to the politics of the Ministry now in office. Why, if such be so—I ask how comes that to be the case? The Protestant Dissenters I have heard accused of undue partiality to democratic doctrines, and an aversion to those high doctrines of prerogative which the Tories, as they were called, were supposed formerly to hold, I have never heard such suspicions expressed against the Catholics. On the contrary, when the Catholic question was under discussion, it was said, that the Catholics would be too fond of authority—that the Catholic body were by their religion averse to free institutions, and that they
698
would have too great a tendency to arbitrary rule and servile submission. How comes it that these people holding political opinions, of one colour, and not separated, like the people of Manchester or of Kent, into different parties, of Whig, Tory, and Radical; but holding together, are all opposed—as they are said to be—to the present Ministry? I can easily imagine an answer to that question. And here I am certainly entitled, by the authority of the Government opposite, to prefer a charge against some of those who belong to their party. It was announced some time ago, in adverting to the result of the trial which has become known to-day, that Mr. O'Connell and others were to be indicted—were to be placed at the bar of a court of justice—for endeavouring to create feelings of hostility and among the people of Ireland against another portion of Her Majesty's subjects, namely, the people of England. The Crown lawyers in Ireland—no doubt with the authority of the Attorney-general and Solicitor-general in this country—thought that an offence against the law had been committed. Well, you prosecuted the parties, you had a charge in your favour from the Chief-justice—I say nothing of that charge at present—a verdict was delivered by a jury in your favour. I say nothing of that verdict. I am only saying, that in the opinion of the Government, both as a Government and as lawyers—such of them as belong to the law—that was a grave offence for which it was right to bring men—ay, and eminent men—to the bar of a court of justice. But now I ask, why, Sir, are there no other persons who have done the same, just reversing the words Ireland and England? Have there been no persons who have endeavoured to create among the people of England feelings of hostility and ill-will towards the people of Ireland, and who have acted in that sense contrary to the recommendation of the two Houses of Parliament—that the two countries should be bound by reciprocal ties of affection—mind, not bound by affection on the part of Ireland only to be returned by England with feelings of hostility and ill-will to the people of the other country—but by reciprocal ties of affection? Why, is there no person in this country who has endeavoured to excite feelings of hostility and ill-will in the minds of the people of this country, by calling the people of Ireland aliens? by affixing to them that term which belongs properly only to those who are found out of the Queen's

699
allegiance, and which is used for the purpose of depriving them of privileges which are enjoyed by the people of England? I ask, what has been done to that person? Has the Attorney-general prosecuted that person at the bar of the Court of Queen's Bench? Have we had a speech of eleven hours from the Attorney-general showing the enormity of his offence? No, there is an answer to that—because it is supposed that the words were spoken in Parliament, and that the privileges of Parliament protected him from the consequences. But is that person deprived of the confidence of the Crown, and has he been in any way marked as one not deserving to be admitted to that confidence? On the contrary, in the highest places in the Sovereign's councils, at the head of the magistracy and law of England, stands that person to direct a prosecution against Mr. O'Connell for having excited feelings of among the people of Ireland. Was there ever anything so monstrous as this inequality? But I must add, likewise, that I do not believe that that person holds his situation on account of any superiority in his judgments in the court in which he presides; I believe that no duties are inure highly paid, and performed more carelessly—but it is on account of the part he has taken in the politics of his party, hostile as they were to Ireland, that the office was bestowed on him. The noble Lord opposite on one occasion laid great stress and emphasis on the "Protestant Government, the Protestant Constitution, the Protestant Sovereign, of this Protestant country," reiterating the word "Protestant" in every variety and in every way. The noble Lord said—
"What we mean by Protestant government is, that the members of the Government are not to be, to quote the words of an hon. Member opposite, the 'minions of popery.'"
These words had been used by an hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodstock; but what is meant by them? What are they but an abusive and calumnious expression? Was it my right hon. Friend Mr. Sheil, was it Mr. Wyse, or Mr. More O'Ferrall, that were the minions of Popery? Who were they? But I have a still further definition on the authority of an hon. Gentleman a supporter of the Government. Two years ago the right hon. Gentleman, now Prime Minister, brought forward a motion for a vote of want of confidence in the existing Ministry. That vote was carried by a majority of one, and in that majority was included a Gen-
700
tleman who used this language, in a speech to his constituents at Canterbury. Speaking of three or four persons—Roman Catholics of the highest character and of great attainments, to whom I hardly do justice by saying that no position could be too high for their merits, the hon. Gentleman said, and I am not going to allude to any other portion of his speech—
"Look at the appointments these men and women have made. There is not one of them that is not a direct insult to the nation. See the Irish Papists promoted to place, to power, and to patronage."
These are the words of Mr. Bradshaw to his constituents at Canterbury, and he was a constant supporter of Her Majesty's present Government, and the Member who gave them the majority of one. Speaking of Lord Melbourne and his Administration, Mr. Bradshaw continued:—
"His sheet anchor is the body of Irish Papists and Rapparees whom the priests return to the House of Commons. These are the men who represent the bigotted savages, hardly more civilised than the natives of New Zealand, but animated with a fierce, undying hatred of England. I repeat, then, deliberately, that the Papists of Ireland, priest and layman, peer and peasant, are alike our enemies—aliens as they are in blood, language, and religion."
And it is the heads of that party who have prosecuted some of the noblest men in Ireland, and prosecuted them to conviction, for endeavouring to excite feelings of hostility and ill-will amongst the people of Ireland against the people of England! My belief is, that those invectives against Ireland were part of the stock in trade of the party now in power, that they were the means by which they worked upon the prejudices—perhaps honest, but ignorant prejudices—of the people of England, and induced them to believe that the Roman Catholics were about to obtain possession of the whole power in the State, and to force on Catholic supremacy; that they availed themselves of these prejudices to promote their party purposes, and excited animosity in one portion of the empire, against another to get possession of office. But I have alluded to this subject because it has been said that the Roman Catholics cannot now be placed in office, because they are not of the political opinions of the party opposite; and, I ask, what men of the smallest spirit would join a party which treats with such contumely, such insult, and such flagrant injustice, the body of the Roman Catholics, professing the ancient

701
religion of Europe, and forming more than 6,000,000 of the people of Ireland? Having thus stated what I think to be unjust, first, with regard to the administration of justice, in the next place with regard to the franchise, and in the third place with regard to the disposal of power and patronage, I will now take the conduct of the different Governments with respect to one or two of those subjects, and shall then proceed forward to the events of 1843. From the year 1836, the Gentlemen who held the offices of Attorney and Solicitor-general in Ireland, determined to give new directions to the officers employed under them in Ireland; and they instructed them to allow Catholics and Protestants impartially to remain on juries, unless there were some special objections, in which case those objections should be considered. The evidence of Sir Michael O'Loghlen, after three years' continuance of this course, showed that the result of it was greatly to increase the confidence of the people of Ireland in the administration of justice. Sir Michael O'Loghlen said:—
"It has given confidence to the administration of justice, and has taken away from the persons accused, or their friends, a pretext for saying there has not been a fair trial."
Sir William Somerville said in the same year, 1839, on oath;—
"What I remark in Ireland at present, with the greatest satisfaction, is the growing feeling of respect for the law. There is springing up in the minds of the people a confidence in the Executive Government. One particular circumstance which I think has, more than any other, tended to produce this confidence in the law, is the different system which now prevails with regard to the challenging of juries. I look upon that as a circumstance which has, more than any other, created this confidence in the Executive Government. Has the value of property increased or diminished? Increased very much."
I will not trouble the House with more evidence on this point. I will only say, that the evidence of the witnesses, and the statistical evidence as to the amount of crime will be found by any Gentleman who takes the trouble to search for them, produced before the Lords' committee in 1839—a committee which was appointed for the purpose of showing that, under Lord Normanby's administration, crime had increased, and the security of life diminished, but which ended in proving by the evidence—for there was no report—that crime had diminished, that security
702
of life had increased, and that the increased security of property was shown by this most conclusive test, that five years' more purchase was given for land in 1839 than had been given for seven years before. In that state, with respect to these subjects, we left the Government of Ireland. With respect to the administration of Ireland, Let me remind you, we obtained the concurrence of the House in a vote of approbation of the Administration of Lord Normanby. With respect to legislation the case was far different. The Lords rejected both the appropriation clause, which we proposed to add to the Tithe Bill, and which would have been a settlement of the question for years, and the bill respecting the Municipal franchise of Ireland, which we asked for on the same principles as those of the law of England, and I think the people of Ireland had good reason to complain. Yet that people seemed to feel it better for Ireland to have a Government favourable to the great majority in the principles of its administration, than a Government which was not favourable, and which would administer the laws accordingly, though it might be powerful in Parliament. But be that as it may, in 1841 the right hon. Gentleman opposite had Ireland delivered over to him in a state of political tranquillity. I do not say—for I have no wish to exaggerate—that the evils which had been accumulating for a century were dispelled by five or six years of a different administration, but the temper of the people was improved. They had greater confidence in the administration of the law, and if that confidence had been fully confirmed, I should have expected a great and sensible increase of material wealth. This appeared from the rise in the price of land. It would have appeared still more, because when there was no longer any danger that persons who felt themselves injured would attempt to redress private wrongs in their own persons, but would appeal to the law for a remedy, men of property would have sent their capital and would have gone themselves to Ireland, as they would go to any country where the law maintains its due authority, where the rights of property are respected, and where those general advantages are shared, which are possessed by this country. But it was not destined to be so. I was alarmed at first at what might be the consequences of putting power into the hands of persons who had been vehement in their denunciations of the Irish, and more especially of

703
the Irish Catholics. I was glad—I was more than glad—of the symptom which appeared in the appointment of a noble Lord (Lord Elliot), who had disagreed from the Gentlemen opposite on some portions of their Irish policy. That appointment seemed to present some gleam of hope that things would not be so ill managed as might have been apprehended. The noble Lord had declared his intentions to be in favour of impartiality—of not showing peculiar favour to one party to the prejudice of the other. That declaration he made to his constituents. For my part, I contributed what I could to the statement of the favourable treatment which the Irish had to expect. I said only a few words at the commencement of the new Ministry, and those were in favour of the appointment which had been made; and it was not until last year that I thought it necessary to interfere in any way with the administration carried on by the Gentlemen opposite. My belief was—and I state it now, after all that has passed—that notwithstanding the monstrous injustice and the flagrant wrongs that had been done, the Irish would have better consulted their own interests if they had remained in tranquillity until, by their gradual increase and strength, they could make such an impression upon the Government and Parliament of this country as would be irresistible in favour of justice. That has not been the case. Those who have more peculiarly the confidence of the Irish—the leaders of the Irish people—were indignant at the treatment their country received. They maintained with great ability with great labour, and with great activity, that the evils and the injustice under which Ireland suffered, were such, that no redress from an Imperial Parliament could be expected, and that no remedy would be effectual but a Repeal of the act of Union and again placing Ireland under a domestic Parliament. It was a matter of consideration for the Government how that cry was to be met. I should have said—I did say—that the way to meet it was to consider at once, either upon their own motion or upon the motion of the hon. Member for Limerick, what were the real evils of Ireland, to remedy those evils as far as possible; and, having done that, to stand with confidence upon the act of Union. The Government, however, did not do that. They stood upon the act of Union alone. They said, "we do not regard the spirit, we know we have the letter of the act of
704
Union in our favour—we have no more to do—we will make no concession "but will take a determined stand upon the ground on which we are now fixed." And what was the consequence? Immense meetings took place in Ireland, attended, according to the indictment which has lately been framed against the leaders, by between three and four millions of people. There may have been more, but not less than between three and four millions are believed to have attended at those meetings, asking for a Repeal of the Union, and coming to resolutions without reference to this House, without making any appeal to this House, that Repeal was a measure necessary for the welfare of Ireland. Was not this an alarming symptom? I say alarming, not with regard to the particular individuals who might be brought to justice, but was it not alarming, that a great portion of the people of Ireland should be discontented, and that more than forty years after the enactment of the Union their situation should appear to them so hopeless, that nothing but a Repeal of that Act could give them any chance of relief? But people made various speculations and formed different opinions as to what the conduct of the Government would be Some said that the meetings were clearly illegal, that they were accompanied with circumstances of illegality, and that the Government should at once issue a proclamation to prevent such meetings; other men said that such would be a very unwise course—that if the meetings were allowed to continue, the mere assemblage of numbers of people would produce no very considerable effect, and that the leaders would, in a short time, be compelled either to desist, or would be driven to some steps which would be clearly illegal, and then, that the Government could proceed against them. Such were the various opinions that prevailed. The Government, however, took neither one course nor the other. They dismissed some twenty or thirty magistrates in a most strange way. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland declared to certain gentlemen who were in the commission of the peace, that they could not continue to hold that commission because they professed Repeal opinions, and had attended Repeal meetings, and that after a declaration made by a Member of the house of Commons—which, as appeared last night, could only be known to the Chancellor by a breach of the privileges of this House—it was incumbent, it seems, on the magistracy to know of proceedings

705
with which they could be acquainted only by a breach of those privileges. The magistracy of Ireland were never informed that the Times, or the Morning Chronicle, or the Morning Herald were the official documents of the Legislature and the Government. They could not have dreamt of such an innovation upon its constitution; but still that was the law declared by the Lord Chancellor; and because the magistrates did not mind what they might find in the newspapers—that not being a formal communication by message, but a declaration by a Member of the House—and because they did not refrain from expressing an opinion contrary to his, he being a Minister of the Crown, they were deprived of the commission of the peace. This was a strange proceeding indeed; and as was to be expected it had not the effect of diminishing the numbers attending at the meetings, or the frequency with which they were held. It had only the effect of making some of them exceedingly angry, and depriving the people of those in whom they had confidence among the magistracy—thus restoring to the magisterial bench the odium and distrust which formerly attached to it. The meetings were allowed to continue from March till October, and suddenly—early one morning—the Lord-lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor landed at Kingstown, and the meetings, which had been till then undisturbed, were suddenly put down by proclamation, and a new course was suddenly resolved upon. Amidst the calm in which the meetings had been held arose an unexpected storm of proclamation. One remarkable circumstance attended the issuing of the proclamation. There had been a meeting held at Donnybrook, near Dublin. There was then to be another meeting held in the neighbourhood of Dublin. It was at a place called Clontarf. The announcement as to the holding of the Clontarf meeting was very general. Great preparations were made for it. There had been even a discussion in the Corporation as to whether persons going through the streets to the proposed meeting might not cause an interruption to Divine Service. All these things were said, were done, in preparation for the meeting; and yet no proclamation was issued, no intimation was given as to the illegality of the proposed meeting. But on a Saturday afternoon—yes, on a Saturday afternoon—the meeting being fixed for the Sunday morning, there appeared this proclama-
706
tion. I say, Sir, that those who issued that proclamation are solemnly responsible for the time at which they issued it. I do not say—I do not believe—I should be sorry to cast the imputation—that those who issued that proclamation did so, in the hope that there would be blood-shed at the Clontarf meeting. But this I do say, that they acted with a negligence and with a carelessness that showed that they did not set a sufficient value on the life and the blood of the people. They stationed troops at all the avenues to this meeting, they had them posted at all the places leading to it, and they had them in all the fields around it—what was to prevent the people coming up in crowds to the place of meeting, and, unaware of this proceeding on the part of the Privy Council of Ireland, from entering into a conflict with the troops—from some haphazard disturbances taking place between large masses of the multitude coming upon some five or ten of the soldiers, who might afterwards be aided by their comrades? What I ask, was there to prevent such an occurrence?—What but the exertions of Mr. O'Connell and his followers? Or what but their exertions in sending to every part of the adjoining country, for the purpose of preventing such a calamity? It was not the care of this protecting Government—it was not the care that the Queen's Lord Lieutenant showed as to the lives and persons of Her Majesty's subjects—it was the care of a few irresponsible individuals in sending round their friends, and proclaiming to the people, that they were not to meet at Clontarf; and it is said, that one of those individuals—one afterwards under prosecution—became a martyr to his exertions in the cause of peace, With regard, then, to these proceedings, it is necessary that this House should inquire. It is necessary to ascertain by inquiry, by a close and searching inquiry, how and why it was, that that which was public to all the world was not known to the Lord Lieutenant and his Privy Council until twenty-four hours before the time appointed for the meeting. I am not one of those who disapprove of prohibiting meetings which may be illegal, or which, by their multitudinous attendance, may end in forcible intimidation. I do not think that, if at the commencement of these proceedings—if, at the time that these large meetings were begun to be held, there had been a proclamation issued, setting forth that the Lord Lieutenant declared that the meet-

707
ing in such immense numbers, was dangerous to the public peace, and calling upon Mr. O'Connell, and the rest to refrain from holding such meetings: I do not think that such a proceeding would have been a wrong course to adopt; and I do not think that it would have been disobeyed by Mr. O'Connell. For, let the Government recollect, much as they may triumph in sending Mr. O'Connell to gaol—much as they may disapprove of the language which he has used of late, let them not forget that, on more than one occasion, Mr. O'Connell was the person to preach peace, and to dissuade others from violent conduct. When I held office, I was anxious about the course which Mr. O'Connell would pursue at the outbreak in Canada. That was an outbreak by Roman Catholics, and I was anxious to see the course that Mr. O'Connell would pursue on that occasion. Mr. O'Connell held up to odium the conduct of the insurgents in Canada, and he told the Roman Catholics, whose confidence he possessed, not to follow the example of the Canadians. I looked, too, with some anxiety to see what would be the course pursued by Mr. O'Connell when the Chartists, whose object was to overthrow the law by physical force, occasioned a necessity for the adoption of measures of precaution. I saw, that on that occasion Mr. O'Connell told the Irish people to abstain from all connection with the Chartists; because they sought to obtain their end by means of physical force. The use of physical force, he said, was not justifiable, and he dissuaded the Irish people from having any alliance or correspondence with the Chartists. There was another question, too, on which Mr. O'Connell took a prominent part, the question with regard to the trades unions. Mr. O'Connell, in oppostion to them, exposed himself, he exposed his popularity, and I believe, he exposed even his life, with a view of discouraging the movement of the trades unions. I say, Sir, these are things which a wise Government would take into its consideration: whether multitudes, over which Mr. O'Connell had an ascendency, whatever might be the language he held to them, yet, that when such a multitude were discontented, when it was obvious that there were so many grievances rankling in the minds of Irishmen—whether there was not some safety for a Government, that a person who headed that movement, should be a person who loved peace, and one who would dissuade the people by the strongest
708
language from having resort to physical force. After the meeting at Clontarf—I should have said, after the proclamation putting down the Clontarf meeting, singular as it was, the Government having taken no step till the last of the meetings—they might then, and with great propriety, have ceased and waited until Mr. O'Connell had proceeded to some step too dangerous to be left unpunished or unreproved. They however, took a different course, and thought it better to resort to a prosecution; and what was the prosecution for? It was instituted for acts done at all those meetings which they had allowed to pass—it was a prosecution for all deeds of which they had taken no notice when they occurred. It was a prosecution for articles in newspapers, which might have been proceeded against as seditious libels on the day they were published. It was a prosecution for acts, some of which dated nine months before the day the prosecution was ordered, and it appears that among the persons prosecuted was one who at a late period, along with others, had joined in meetings to which he might well have supposed, after the conduct of the Government, nothing illegal could have attached, and being a repealer in opinion, he might with safety join a proceeding which had the tacit sanction of Government. And in what way were they prosecuted? It was not for taking part in separate meetings, but it was a prosecution for a conspiracy—a species of prosecution which reminds one of nothing so much—I believe every one is reminded of it—a prosecution which reminds one of nothing so much as the prosecutions against Horne Tooke and Hardy, instituted at the commencement of the war of the French Revolution. The prosecutor brought together various acts, extending over a period of nine months—a course which Lord Erskine, in his celebrated speech, so much objected to—they brought forward a whole series of acts for nine months, to prove that there was a conspiracy to obtain an illegal end, and to reach it by illegal means; yet what were these means? Meetings that had been so long left unreproved and unrebuked. I have read with great attention the able, and, I may say, the temperate, speech of the Attorney-general; and I have read also the able and the temperate speech of the Solicitor-general, and the able, but by no means the temperate charge of the Chief Justice, and I own it appears to me, that one point is not made out from any one of them. Either the meetings

709
were legal and innocent, or the meetings were illegal and criminal. If they were legal and innocent, how can many legal and innocent meetings form a crime? or if they were illegal and criminal, why, for nine months, were they allowed to pass unreproved? Why was not the extreme power of the law put in force? It was not, surely, that you were under the expectation that the meetings would cease. It was not, surely, that Mr. O'Connell, having declared that Repeal was his object, would desist from his exertions to procure it. Some say that the meaning of this apathy was, that you had not force sufficient to enable you to suppress those meetings. It is impossible to believe that such can be the reason. It is impossible to believe that you would seek to entrap men, that you would have the cruelty to let them form the opinion that they were doing what was corrrct, that you would let them thus go on, to answer your own purposes, and at last sweep them all into one net for the sake of a certain criminal conviction, for acts which you yourselves had left so long unnoticed and unpunished. These are, then, grave questions—questions on which we are entitled to examine the conduct of the Government. There is something more than this—the indictment is for a conspiracy; and though I do not profess to have any knowledge of the law, yet it is impossible for me, or for any one who has read the various speeches made on the one side and the other, not to make out something of this law of conspiracy. It seems that the law of conspiracy is not the ancient law of the land. According to the Chief Justice, it appears that it means, not what conspiracy meant according to the ancient law, and that the ancient law has been altered, not by statute, but by decisions of the Courts of Law. It is what Mr. Bentham called judge-made law. According to the statement of the Chief Justice, it is this—but I shall not detain the House by reading the extract. It is in substance, that in Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, it was stated in the notes to the last edition, that the law of conspiracy is carried much farther than it used to be, by modern decisions, and it was stated by Lord Ellenborough that it had been carried quite far enough. It is therefore not the ancient law of the land. It is not statute law. It depends upon the decision of the Judges, and it seems to me that the greatest caution should be used, lest such a law should be strained for the oppression of the
710
subject. Occasionally it is difficult to distinguish between meetings for the discussion of political subjects, for the fair discussion of any grievances under which the people labour, and those that may be styled conspiracies. According to the doctrine laid down there might be a prosecution against any persons belonging to an association on a charge of conspiracy. Take the Anti-Corn-law League. I would suppose, there being a scarcity, and there being an assembly of the people, which might become riotous, and if the event proved so, I could consider it quite fair that they should be indicted for a riot and seditious language; but then to say that there should be an indictment for a conspiracy brought against Lord Westminster and Mr. Jones Loyd, because they belonged to the League, as partners in the conspiracy! and yet, according to the statement of the law, as laid down in Ireland, I see nothing to prevent the law officers of the Crown, or a Government hostile to the League, instituting such a prosecution; or if the Government happened to be the other way, I do not see why they might not indict the agricultural meetings. But then what is the security against such proceedings being instituted? After what has been laid down so solemnly by the Judges, I will readily admit, with great humility, not only that this which they have laid down is the law, but that it may be necessary for a Government, in certain cases, to indict persons for a conspiracy, as well as to indict them—which the present Government has not done—for being present at illegal meetings. But observe the difference. The presence of a party at an illegal meeting, and the language used there, are merely a single point which may be ascertained by evidence, ay or no, and the jury may come to a clear decision upon it; but in the charge of conspiracy everything is involved and intricate—everything is mixed up—the law and the facts are at such a distance from each other, that it requires the utmost clearness of understanding, and the utmost integrity of heart, to enable a person to arrive at a sound and proper judgment. It is obvious that such a law may be made an instrument of great oppression. There is but one remedy for it—it is that which was found in the case of Hardy and Horne Tooke. The remedy is in the fair and impartial trial by jury. In this country we need not fear such prosecutions. I put the supposed case of a person for a fair exercise of fair discussion being brought to trial

711
here for a conspiracy; why is it that he has no reason to fear any Government, however arbitrary? Because the barrier of a jury stands between him and tyranny. Because that barrier—a jury of fair and impartial men—will protect the subjects of this realm—will protect Englishmen in the exercise of their rights. It will act as their shield—as their protection against an indictment for conspiracy. Is there such a protection in Ireland? I come back to that of which I have already spoken—the statement of Sir Michael O'Loghlin, that it was the practice since the Union to strike off all Catholics, to "put by" Roman Catholics and Liberal Protestants from a jury. I beg to recall to your mind the general distrust to the administration of justice which was engendered by such a partial proceeding, and I now ask the House to see what has just taken place in Ireland. An accident, it seems, occurred in the making out of the list of jurors. According to an affidavit, it occurred in the Recorder's office; and instead of the general list of jurors that ought to have been made out, there was a list from which sixty names had been omitted. [Mr. Shaw: It was not stated on affidavit that sixty names had been omitted.] It is not stated on an affidavit it is true. I see it so stated in the challenge to the array. This is said by one of the traversers:
"But the said John O'Connell says, that the said Recorder did not, as by said statuteable enactments is directed, cause to be made out from said several last-mentioned lists one general list containing the names of all persons whose qualifications had been so allowed, arranged according to rank and property, nor did the said Recorder thereupon, or at all, deliver such general list containing such names to the clerk of the peace, to be fairly copied by said clerk of the peace in the same order as by the said statuteable enactments is directed, but, on the contrary thereof, neglected so to do; and the said John O'Connell further says that a certain paper writing, purporting to be a general list purporting to be made out from such several lists so corrected, allowed and signed as aforesaid, was illegally and fraudulently made out for the purpose and with intent of prejudicing the said John O'Connell in this cause by some person or persons unknown; and the said John O'Connell says that the said list, purporting to be such general list as aforesaid, did not contain the names of all the persons whose qualification had been allowed upon the correcting, allowing, and signing of said lists as aforesaid, by the said Recorder, but omitted the names of divers, to wit sixty, persons whose qualification respectively to be on said list had been so allowed,
712
as aforesaid, by said Recorder, which said several persons whose names were so omitted are as follows."
That was the allegation on the challenge to the array, and the right hon. Gentleman has contradicted me as to a fact, which was technically admitted by the Attorney-general and the law officers, by the demurrer the Attorney-general put in. I shall be glad to find that sixty persons were not omitted. It is stated by this that some sixty persons were omitted, and it is stated by Mr. O'Connell that thirty-five out of those sixty were Roman Catholics, that is a greater proportion than is to be found in the original list, or as it was finally made out. It is stated therein, in the legal manner I suppose, that it was done fraudulently; but I am not aware that any person is charged with fraud. I will suppose that it was done quite innocently, and without any bad intention. But supposing there was that imperfection, then I think it should have been the care of the Government law officers, and of the Government itself, that they should gain no advantage by it. It did so happen, then, that of the forty-eight names that had been chosen, there were only ten of those persons that were Roman Catholics, and it happened that it having been the former custom always to leave out Roman Catholics and liberal Protestants, that those ten Roman Catholics and two Protestants were struck out by the solicitor of the Crown. It does, Sir, appear to me that such a fact of itself deprives the whole of those proceedings of any weight or value. I can understand, if the object had been to obtain a jury to convict—if it had been the practice of some violent partizan adopted for the purpose of sustaining his own views and obtaining a jury to suit his purpose—I could then, and in such a case, understand such a course being taken. It is of such a course that Mr. Kemmis gave this testimony in the year 1832:—
"In consequence of some of the lists in your district not being properly made, the sheriff selects whom he thinks fit to put upon the jury?—That is so. Is not that packing a jury?—No; I cannot call it packing a jury. Packing a jury is a different thing. It is putting a jury to acquit or convict."
If, then, the object here had been to put a jury into the box to acquit or to convict, I could understand the course adopted: the Crown could not so mean to pervert justice; yet where there are ten Roman Catholics out of forty-eight, and the Crown proceeds

713
to try men, the majority of whom, were Roman Catholics, and then the Crown strikes out every Roman Catholic on that list, it will no less follow that the people of Ireland will think that the jury was made and packed for the purpose of a conviction, and that those accused have not had a fair and impartial jury. I could understand the objection that might have been made if those persons, whether Protestants or Roman Catholics, had contributed to the funds of the Association. This might be a proper objection to them. It might be said, "It is not because you are a Roman Catholic you are to be left on a jury: your being so, does not entitle you more than any other man to be there." But, then with regard to two of those persons who have been struck off, there is an affidavit that two of them, and there is the affidavit made by one of them, that he was not a member of the Repeal Association, and never had been a subscriber to its funds. If that, then, be so, I collect that these two were left out because they were Roman Catholics. If, then, these two were left out because they were Roman Catholics, the conclusion is that the other eight, whether subscribers or not to the Repeal funds, would have been equally omitted. The Crown, therefore, having obtained a jury, from which it took care that every gentleman of the Roman Catholic Religion should be excluded, proceeded with the trial. With regard to these proceedings, you must be familiar with them, and I have already stated that I did not mean to enter into a discussion of them. With respect to the conduct of the Attorney-general I have nothing to say, with the exception of the circumstance that has already been alluded to in this House; and I do so, not for the purpose of making an attack on him, but rather with reference to his conduct by others. In a court of justice, when the judges were just about to enter, when the whole majesty of justice surrounded them, he had so far lost his presence of mind and command of temper, as to send a challenge to another, provoking him to a breach of the peace. It was said by one Member of the Government that such conduct was excusable, because he was subjected to imputations; and what were these imputations? It was imputed that he was not to be considered so much as the counsel in the cause, but as a political party—that he felt that the Government, of which he was
714
the servant, was involved upon this occasion, and therefore he felt a peculiar interest in their success, and departed from the candid conduct which should be observed on that occasion. If such attacks afforded a sufficient excuse for the Attorney-general having acted so outrageously, I ask, is there to be no excuse for the Roman Catholics, who for year after year have been subjected to the grossest imputations, upon whom the most violent attacks of every kind have been made as Roman Catholics—whose priests have been called "demons," and who have found themselves denounced as "barbarians" and "New Zealanders?" Can you think the Irish Attorney-general excusable for his extreme loss of temper, and not be persuaded that some allowance should be made for the warmth and zeal of those who use language, going to the extreme of the fair bounds of discussion, if not beyond it, in resentment of such imputations? I have nothing further to remark concerning these trials. The traversers are now convicted. They are to receive the sentence of the law, and—there you stop. Your vigour ends there, and now let me ask you, what is the benefit you gain? How far do you advance in conciliating the affections of the Irish? What do you expect from these proceedings? Mr. O'Connell is a popular orator; he is a man who has forced the Government, and the Parliament of England, into the concession of the Catholic Emancipation Act. He is a man who has always been a triumphant speaker at popular meetings, and in every part of Ireland during the past year he has been an object of admiration to the people; but I doubt if Mr. O'Connell, convicted by a jury made for that purpose, and exclusively composed of Protestants, sent to a prison to suffer for the people of Ireland—possibly he losing his health, and suffering from his advanced age in a prison—I doubt whether his hold on the people of Ireland may not rather be strengthened than weakened; and if the suffering victim may not have still greater sway over the hearts of his countrymen, and be still more an object of love and reverence than even the triumphant leader. Let us, then, consider what is to be done with the future state of Ireland. Let us consider whether there is no measure—whether there is no course by which we may really unite the people of Ireland to the people of England. Let me observe, that how-

715
ever much we have now to do with the case of Ireland, that it is not merely for the sake of the people of Ireland we should do this, or that we should be careful in our proceedings, for the evil of the present state of things must be felt on every side. You ought to consider the present state of the finances, the expenditure in filling Ireland with military and maintaining garrisons there. You ought, too, to consider the effect of the present state of things on your foreign relations—the advantage which my noble Friend enjoyed when he spoke the sense of the United Kingdom, and felt that the Government was supported by the affections of the people, in addressing a foreign minister; and how different it is when the people are divided, and one portion of the population is governed by those who are hired and marshalled to restrain them. It is, therefore, plain that we ought on every account to endeavour to settle the affairs of Ireland. I say, in the first place, that we should take care, if you maintain the Union, that the people shall have all the benefits that were promised to them by the Address of this House, and which were sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Relief Bill of 1829. Let them, I say, in the first place have a pure and impartial administration of justice. Let us inform, by a Resolution of this House, the Minister of the Crown, that there shall be no partial, no sectarian administration of justice. If the House go into committee, the first resolution I shall propose will be on this subject. I next would endeavour to form the franchise agreeably to the wishes of the people of Ireland, and as much conformable to the law as it now prevails as possible. Hitherto there have been no forty shilling freeholders in Ireland. A freehold for life is considered a good freehold in England, why not give this to the people of Ireland? Make the franchise in Ireland as large and extensive as it is in England. Mr. O'Connell, in one of his addresses, says that the whole of the agricultural counties in Ireland have not more electors than the single county of York. There are obvious inequalities which you may correct if you are in earnest, and if you act with good faith. There can be no difficulty in governing Ireland, if you will not pursue a course of fraud and violence. If you do, there will be difficulty in your way. It will be difficult for you to conceal your fraud, it will be difficult for you to continue your violence. If you mean to do as Mr. Pitt promised in 1799,
716
and as other Members have since thought right, there will not be much difficulty on this part of the subject. As to the municipal franchise, I say there ought to be the same municipal franchise in Ireland as in England. These are things made the subject of complaint by Mr. O'Connell in the Repeal Association, in answer to the Address commenting upon the Queen's Speech. They are stated in the declaration of my hon. Friend, the Member for Waterford, and other Members of Parliament, at the close of the last Session; they were stated by the Duke of Leinster and Lord Charlemont—no demagogues, levellers, or agitators—in their petition to be presented to this House. All these authorities are agreed as to these grievances. It is, then, the bounden duty of this House to listen to these complaints. As long as this House professes to be the Grand Inquest of the nation, it is its duty to watch over the interests of the people, and enquire into their grievances, fairly and impartially. The next subject that I mean to touch upon is eligibility to office; and here again, by a Resolution, we ought to declare in the terms of the right hon. Gentleman, in his speech, in 1817, that, "exclusion, contrary to act of Parliament, is more galling to the people of Ireland than exclusion in conformity to act of Parliament." There are two courses to be pursued, by one of which Catholics are excluded, and the other by which they are admitted to office—not the emoluments of office merely, but that power and influence in the country, which are legitimate objects of honest ambition. If you had maintained the law as it formerly stood, you would have had this plea in your favour, that you acted with sincerity on your scruples, and maintained the inviolalibity of the law. But when you altered the law, and admitted the eligibility of Catholics, you did justice to the people of Ireland consistently, as you considered, with the security of the empire. Thus, instead of sincerity and prescription, you had justice and security. But if you do not act in accordance with the spirit of your altered law, you have neither the plea of sincerity, nor of the inviolability of the law, nor of security, nor of justice, in your favour. I come now to a subject very intimately connected with all the grievances of which Ireland complains; it is a subject upon which we have attempted to legislate, but in which we have not succeeded in satisfying the views of the people of Ireland; it

717
is one in which no just principle appears to me to be applied. I allude to the question of the ecclesiastical Establishment in Ireland. Under its present arrangement the Church Establishment in Ireland combines the disadvantages both of a Church Establishment, and of the Voluntary principle. It has been stated by writers who have contended against the principle of a Church Establishment, that it tends to raise one class in the State above others, placing men in invidious positions, thereby necessarily exciting jealousies and ill-will amongst them; whilst the regulations of the Establishment produce laziness amongst its ministers, and a separation of the salary from the duty. With regard to the Voluntary principle, it has been stated by Paley, Hume, and others, that an important evil attendant upon it is, that Ministers of religion depending upon their flocks for their support, are too apt to diverge from the strict and stern duty of ministers of religion, and join in the agitation of political matters, and to corrupt and pervert those religious tenets which do not coincide with the prevailing sentiments of their congregations. Now, in Ireland, the evils of both the systems described by the authorities I have referred to, will be found combined. We find, on the one hand, arising from it, great envy, great jealousies, in consequence of people feeling themselves excluded from advantages which are retained for a privileged class; and, as a necessary consequence of the great majority of the population being Roman Catholics, we find many well paid Protestant ministers with very inconsiderable congregations. These are evils described as attendant upon the principle of a Church Establishment. But if we come to the evils attributable to the Voluntary principle, we find them also in existence under the present law in Ireland. We find that the great body of the people of Ireland have their ministers supported entirely by the Voluntary principle; and the most deserving of them admit, that that position forces them into political discussions, in a way which true friends of religion would wish to avoid. I see it observed in a pamphlet commenting upon an article in a recent number of the Edinburgh Review, that it is highly desirable that the clergy of Ireland should be removed from the hustings and the platform, and from participation in political discussion, which can not but detract from the usefulness of their sacred calling. This is an admission from
718
a writer, who is against a Church Establishment in Ireland. If, therefore, we look at the rankling feeling of the people against the Established Church, which is raised above their heads, and the influence which they must necessarily have over the ministers of their own creed, who are supported by their voluntary contributions, it must be obvious, that the present system in Ireland combines the evils both of the principle of an Establishment, and of the Voluntary principle in one predominant evil. That this subject is one most difficult to deal with I will not deny. Yet I do not consider the Act of Union one of the main difficulties. It is true, the Church Establishment is one of the principal articles in the Act of Union. That Act was agreed to between the two countries, with the concurrence of the Parliament of Ireland, representing by law the people of Ireland. Yet without making any remarks upon the motives of the parties who were concerned in framing that Act, I certainly can see no reason why, if in framing it they introduced any provision which the people of Ireland did not concur in, those provisions might not now be altered to suit their views and circumstances. For my own part, I do not think you can remove the grievances which now press upon Ireland, unless on the one hand, by adopting the Voluntary principle, or on the other, by making an Establishment not for one, but for all religions which exist there. With respect to the Voluntary principle, I think that it is liable to insuperable objections. I do not think, in the first place, that it would promote the great object of establishing peace and harmony between various classes and denominations of people. Although the successors of the present Protestant clergy would lose their stipends by law, I do not think they would lose their zeal for the Protestant religion any more than is the case with the Catholic clergy now. I believe on the contrary, that the clergy of the two religions would contend more fiercely than they do now; and that is one main reason why I object to the Voluntary principle. Also I see no little danger in the proposition lately made by the hon. Member for Montrose. If the Voluntary principle were adopted in regard to Ireland, I do not see how we could long refuse an inquiry into the number of Dissenters in the United Kingdom, and the utility of the Church Establishment altogether. The system, therefore, which I should be disposed to adopt, would be one which would

719
put the Established Church, as regards the Roman Catholics and Protestants, and the Presbyterians of the north of Ireland, on a footing of perfect equality. I know the difficulty in the way of the immediate accomplishment of such a measure. I am aware that, in offering endowments to the Roman Catholic clergy, it might be looked upon in the light of offering them bribes to abandon the interests of their flocks, as regarded their civil rights. But if we begin by giving them these civil rights, and so conciliate the affections of the lay portion of the Roman Catholic population, I do not despair that, with their willing consent, we may be enabled to induce their clergy to form part of a general Church Establishment. For the present, however, the utmost that can be done would be a very remote step to this desirable end. I think, for instance, that an improvement should be made in the Ecclesiastical College of Maynooth. I think that at least double the sum which is at present allotted to that establishment should be bestowed upon it. I have in my hand a return of the salaries of the professors and officers of that College, and I think them miserably inadequate. The salary of the Principal is plainly and meanly insufficient. I think, also, that there ought to be more professors, and more means afforded by which a sound and liberal education could be obtained in the College. When I speak of a liberal education, in connection with the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, I do not mean in this to imply that I am of opinion that the clergy should be taken from a higher class of society, or belong to a different rank. I think there are great defects in the course of education now afforded to the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland; but it has been a maxim of the Roman Catholic Church, and I think it no unwise maxim for any Christian Church to adopt, that men, however lowly born, having sufficient attainments in religious doctrine and other branches of knowledge, are as capable of rising to eminence in the Church, into the highest posts among the bishops and clergy, as any man born in the highest ranks of society. All that can be done, however, in the present inferior state of the establishments for the education of the clergy, would be to give larger sums to promote the utility of these establishments, and to improve the facilities for the foundation of glebes and glebe houses. Such are the only means of improvement available at present; but I look forward to the time
720
when the present circumstances of irritation shall have passed away, and confidence in the Government pervade the minds of the people again, which will enable us to give exactly the same advantages to the Roman Catholics and Presbyterians of Ireland as are now enjoyed by the Protestants. At all events, I think that we ought to take away every thing derogatory to the position and character of the Roman Catholic bishops. You provide by statute that they shall not be allowed to style themselves by the name of the diocese over which they preside. I think that a most foolish prohibition. You declare that Doctor Murray shall not style himself the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin; but he is so, nevertheless, and a man of very high attainments and character, in the eyes of the people of Ireland. If there was any other restriction existing to prevent the participation of equal civil advantages by Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, and Protestants, they ought also at once to be taken away. There remain for consideration the arrangements necessary for extending the utility of the clergy of the Established Church; and upon this point I concur in the plan propounded, as it is said, by Dr. Whateley, the Archbishop of Dublin, for making it a Church of congregations, and not of parishes, as it is under the present system. We heard it stated last year, in tones of boasting, that in every place where there were only two Protestants, there was a Protestant minister endowed with a sufficiency, to attend to their spiritual wants; but surely there is no necessity where there are 3,000 or 5,000 Roman Catholics and only two Protestants for a parochial distribution in such a case. On the other hand, however, we heard also last year of the case of a parish where there were 1,000 Prostestants, over whom Lord de Grey appointed a minister at 100 l. a year, at the same time not separating an ecclesiastical union in which the income was much larger and the congregation much less. But in that case, I say, the rule should have been just the reverse. Instead of taking away from the emoluments of the ministers of such a parish, you should increase them. I think the Protestant Church ought to be fully provided for, but at the same time I do not believe that anything like the amount at present allotted to it is necessary for the purpose. If you compare the amount allotted to the Irish Church with that allotted for the Church of Scotland, and in most continental countries, I think

721
you will say, that it is not necessary. In Ireland, about half a million of money will arise from accumulations of the Perpetuity Fund, available at any time for ecclesiastical purposes. There are also the acts passed some years ago, for the abolition of the vestry cess, and for regulating the purchase of church leases; if you add to these the deductions of 25 per cent on tithes, you will find the Church has lost about 300,000 l. a-year since 1830. Now, how has this money been applied? Has it been given for the spiritual instruction or general education of the people? No; it has all gone in fact, if not in form, into the pockets of the Protestant landlords. I cannot think, therefore, if we have had no objection to diminish the property of the clergy to such an extent, that when a great religious and spiritual object is to be obtained, Parliament should hesitate to do what is necessary for the purpose. I come now to a subject upon which I need not detain the House long; but which, perhaps, is the most difficult subject connected with the affairs of Ireland which the House and the Government has to deal with: I allude to the disorders arising out of the state of the tenures in Ireland. It is very easy to object that fixity of the tenure would amount to a confiscation of all property of Ireland. Yet who can shut his eyes to the present evils? I hold in my hand a description by Mr. O'Connell of the present state of things in Ireland, resulting from the existing relations between landlords and tenants, and pointing out matters to which I think it behoves the House to look very seriously. Mr. O'Connell said, in one part of this address:
"The connection between landlord and tenant in Ireland, arranged as it has been by a long course of vicious legislation, wants that mutual confidence which is essential to the benefit of productive industry. The labouring population, unable to obtain employment, live habitually on the verge of extreme destitution. They must obtain land or they die. The issues of life and death are in the hands of the landlords. The massacres of the clearance system consign to a premature and most miserable grave hundreds of thousands of victims. They are wholesale murders, followed by the assassination, in detail, of the instruments of landlord rapacity. These crimes, on both sides, cry to Heaven for vengeance and redress—for a redress capable of giving to the landlord his just right to adequate rent, and to the tenant just protection for the produce of his labour and capital."
722
A little further on he writes—
"The relation between landlord and tenant cannot subsist as it is in Ireland. It is a subject replete with the utmost difficulty. Its solution is filled with dangers. It would require the aid of the honest and feeling portion of Irish landlords to enable the honest and conscientious friends of Ireland to place the relations between landlord and tenant on a satisfactory footing to both.
It is impossible to read these passages and not admit the general truth of the picture they present: and when we then recollect that this picture is drawn by Mr. O'Connell, the leader of the people, who seeks to point every argument as to the benefits to be derived from a Repeal of the Union, we cannot but think that the obstacles must be very powerful which force him to admit that the solution of the difficulty is one which must be fraught with great danger. I will not state an opinion as to what that solution ought to be. Her Majesty's Government has appointed a Commission to inquire and collect evidence relating to this subject. I doubt how far this inquiry may be necessary, seeing the abundant evidence which already has been produced before every committee, and in every inquiry and discussion that has been had on the subject of the affairs of Ireland. I see in a pamphlet entitled "A Cry from Ireland," narratives of the most heart-rending description, but as they may not have been ascertained to be true, I will not venture to repeat in this House; but which cannot all be mistaken, and which show that in the name of the law, and by the means which the law gives them, some landlords are exercising a fearful and dreadful power in Ireland. It would tend to the mitigation if not to the removal of these evils, if steps were taken to render the administration of justice more pure, and above all, more separate from the influence of the landlords. Upon this ground, therefore, I should wish to see a great extension, instead of a diminution of the system of stipendiary magistrates. I should wish also to see the law altered in every respect, where statutes passed since the Union have given power which may be perverted to such dangerous purposes as are here described. I should hope by these means, indirect as they are, that many of these acts of rapacity on the one hand, and of vengeance on the other, may be curbed and checked; but I do not say that I know any direct remedy that could now be applied to so great, so extensive, and so long pre-

723
vailing an evil. It is more than half a century since a state of outrage and calamity so general as prevails now in Ireland, existed there. Let no one think by a single Act of Parliament to eradicate all the evil consequences naturally flowing from a long course of mis-government. Having now detained the House at such length, I will not go into further detail as to the various complaints and grievances which, if the House gives me the committee I ask for, it will be necessary to take into consideration, and which it will be necessary for Parliament to legislate upon before it can hope to remove the disorders which are now complained of in that country. I wish, however, to state to you the sentiments of a great statesman, speaking after the Union with Ireland had been carried, as to the spirit in which the government of that country should thereafter be administered, and the warning and advice contained in which remarks are but too applicable to the present state of things. In answer to the allegation that the Irish were disaffected to this country, and that a law was necessary to repress treason, Mr. Fox uttered these words:—
"If it be true, as they allege, that treason has tainted the people to the bone—if the poison of Jacobinism, as they call it, pervade the whole mind of the multitude—if disloyalty be so rooted and so universal that military despotism can alone make the country habitable, it would be against the experience of the world that such a wide and deadly disaffection could, or ever did, exist in any nation on the globe, except from the faults of its governors. To this country too—to England, what a contradiction in the conduct of these hon. gentlemen to their professions! This nation was to reap marvellous blessings from the Union, but of what benefit is the junction of four or five millions of traitors? Such, the laws proposed by these honourable gentlemen tell you, the Irish are; but such I tell you they are not. A grosser outrage upon truth, a greater libel upon a generous people, never before was uttered or insinuated. They who can find reason for all this, in any supposed depravity of the Irish, totally misunderstand their character. Sir, I love the Irish nation. I know much of Ireland from having seen it; I know more from private friendship with individuals. The Irish may have their faults, like others. They may have a quick feeling of injury, and not be very patient under it; but I do affirm, that, of all their characteristics, there is not one feeling more predominant in every class of the country, from the highest to the lowest order, than gratitude for benefactions, and sensibility to kindness. Change your system towards that country, and you
724
will find them another sort of men. Let impartiality, justice, and clemency take place of prejudice, oppression, and vengeance, and you will not want the aid of martial law, or the aid of military execution."
Such were the sentiments of Mr. Fox. Such was his advice to the Commons of this country. Let us hope that this advice may not be lost. He has long been in the grave: he lies interred in that receptacle near us, where the remains of the greatest men of all ages have been consigned—
"At non in parvâ manes jacuere favillâ,
Nec cinis exiguus tantam compescuit umbram,"
The words of Mr. Fox must remain to all time to animate all those who attempt to speak in this House in behalf of the oppressed of whatever class or nation; but they will serve especially to animate those who speak in behalf of oppressed Irishmen, when they declare that such a man, loving Ireland as he did, knew only of one way to win the affections of its people. The House has now the opportunity—a late one certainly, but still sufficiently in time—when it may realise and carry into effect that which Mr. Fox said was the true policy which this country should adopt in regard to Ireland, after it had been united to us in legislative union. I will refer now to the statement of an author of great genius and celebrity, in respect to another country, in which great disorder and turbulence and unhappiness prevailed for a long period after it had been united by statute with this country. It is an observation made in regard to Scotland, by one of her sons who loved her well—I mean Sir Walter Scott,—it is related by Sir Walter Scott, that when George 3rd came to the Throne, the people of Scotland looked upon their young Sovereign, and expected under him all the harsh and rancorous policy which had occurred in the reigns of his predecessors. An officer having been proposed to him for a commission in His Majesty's army, it was reported to him that this gentleman had fought in behalf of the Pretender, in whose service he had signalised himself by many acts of valour and devotion. The King replied—"Has this gentleman really fought so well against me? Then believe me he will fight as well in my cause." On this speech being reported throughout the Highlands of Scotland, it produced an immediate and wonderful effect. The brave men of these northern regions still thought, as they had declared at every hazard, that the house of Stuart was the rightful claimant to the

725
Throne. Yet from that moment there was not one who would not lay down his life for a Sovereign who had thus opened his arms to receive them. We have now a Queen on the Throne of these realms, in the time of whose grandfather many acts of severity, of partiality, and of injustice were perpetrated; many deplorable scenes of civil conflict enacted in Ireland; martial law was established to repress revolt, and the people were agitated by many impracticable notions in opposition, as they considered, to the policy of their oppressors; and a rebellion burst out by which the whole state of society was thrown into the most lamentable disorganisation. The present Sovereign of these realms is young, as George the 3rd was when he came to the Throne. She is separated from the memory of all those calamities. Why should not the present Queen reign over the hearts of the Irish people? and however they may lean to Repeal of the Union as an abstraction—as the Highlanders entertained an abstract notion of the right of the Stuarts—the real practical benefits of equal rule and impartial justice, and the affection of Her Majesty for all her subjects, would unite them to her in indissoluble allegiance. What is it that prevents such a happy consummation? Not, I will undertake to say, the wishes of the Sovereign; for that Sovereign I have served, and a Sovereign more anxious for the benefit and happiness of all her people, it would be impossible for any Minister to serve. Never did I receive, when I was Secretary of State for the Home Department, any instructions from that Sovereign, but such as bespoke an equal regard for all her Irish subjects—for Protestants, for Catholics, and for Presbyterians. What is it then, again I ask, that stands between Ireland and such a desirable consummation as that which took place in regard to Scotland many years ago, and under the effect of which, that country has become a happy and prosperous brother of England? Will this House stand between Ireland and her happiness? If the House do so decide, it will indeed be taking a serious responsibility upon itself. The effect of that resolution will be to expose the country for many years to the evils of an arbitrary and precarious dominion over Ireland, and of diminished powers and influence as regards foreign nations; but if, on the other hand, rising above such prejudices as have too long had influence in the direction of these matters, you firmly desire to give practical efficacy to the Union between the two
726
countries, and to knit together the hearts of Her Majesty's subjects, and throwing aside the terrors of military array, and all the intricacies and quibbles of prosecutions, relying only on your own hearts and theirs, you will give the people of Ireland the glorious inheritance of English freedom—I will venture to say that in the experience of that policy the hopes of this House will not be disappointed.
Mr. Wyse: I rise to second the motion of the noble Lord. Under ordinary circumstances, I should have felt how unequal I was to do justice to the many important bearings of the question now before the House, after the speech of the noble Lord,—at once so wise and so eloquent—so energetic, and so comprehensive—with his usual sagacity, searching the present and the past, and from both, educing the soundest policy for the future—so far from feeling this sense of my incapacity diminished, I regret to find it considerably augmented. But there is enough in the question itself, to make me forget even this consideration; it is a duty to perform—a sacred duty—at a period unexampled in the history of the country. At what period have existed greater necessities for prompt, thorough, conclusive legislation? When have there been mightier parties, greater contrasts, more astounding anomalies in conflict, than in our present position? If a stranger who had witnessed the passing of the Relief Act in 1829, were again to visit in the present year our shores, could he, by any ordinary rule of historic experience, or state policy, explain or comprehend it? I, in common with others of my fellow Catholics, assisted at that great event—for great in every sense it was—both in reference to past and future;—I thought I saw in it—and not unnaturally—atonement late, but still at last, for former wrongs and follies, recognition, forced it might have been, but still ample, of the utter inefficiency and cruel absurdity of the penal code;—I thought I saw in it something even more than this; not recognition only, but repentance—and not repentance only—but amendment;—I looked from the past to the future;—I considered it, far from being a final remedy, but as the first of a series of remedies, for the recovery of one country, and the welfare and security of both;—not indeed, good government established, but an obstacle to the establishment of good government removed; abjuration no doubt of error, but what I valued

727
much more, the firm resolve of all parties to join in removing, one by one, to the very last stone, that bad work of oppression and misrule at the construction of which, they and their predecessors had so long laboured in vain. Was I unwarranted in these expectations? Could any man, at all sensible of the lessons of history, the dictates of common sense, the very scenes passing before him, have judged otherwise? If such were not the convictions and feelings and purposes of the actors what folly it must have been on their parts to have moved at all! I saw a Minister of the Crown in his place in Parliament, in the teeth of his invincible resolves of the preceding year, solemnly admitting that the time had at length most fully come when resistance could no longer be maintained, except at the hazard of civil war, boasting of large sacrifices of personal feelings and friendships to the public good, uttering ardent aspirations to Heaven, that it would "knit together all hearts in the bonds of brotherly love and affection," and pointing with a lofty hope to the future, as to a new era of equality, fraternity, and prosperity, of which he took to himself the glory of having been the founder. I saw the Parliament receiving this recantation and prophecy with approbation, almost with acclamation, and even the most reluctant at length bowing to a necessity they could no longer prevent or control. Out-of-doors, the prospect was still more encouraging. No opposition, no triumph. The Protestants acquiesced; the Catholics received the boon with open hearts and arms. They shewed none of the excesses of the manumitted slave: they resumed their rights without one word of recrimination on those who had so long withheld them. No memorial to commemorate, no banquet to celebrate, no medal, no arch of triumph, no illuminations. I myself joined with my fellow-labourers to dissolve the Association before the act arrived; to prohibit every expression of exultation, lest it might give the slightest offence, even to the bitterest of our opponents. Differences of religion were forgotten, identity of country only remembered. A generous amnesty was proclaimed, and for the first time in our history (1782, was the triumph of a portion, 1793, only a half toleration) was the entire people allowed to join heart and hand for the people's good. Never yet opened on any country, better or brighter hopes of thorough regeneration. Nothing seemed necessary, but to carry out what
728
had been so well begun, and for this, nothing more was requisite than what any Government, who think it worth their while to stir at all, must be supposed to possess—common generosity, and common understanding. We are now in the year 1844, fifteen years have passed away, a period long enough, it might be thought, to have tested both measures and men. Fifteen years have now passed away, and what do we behold around us? Any one of those bright, and natural anticipations, rendered a reality? Any one of those pledges thoroughly redeemed? The Emancipation Act a fact or a falsehood? The Catholic and Protestant completely equal? Concord restored, peace universal, prosperity in steady and continuous advance? Look to the history of the last few months, nay weeks; there shall we find our answer. What does it present? The bonds of society broken: the nation separated into hostile armies: sectarian dissensions, civil contentions, international hates, fears of rulers, indignation of subjects, these are the chief features of that fatal history. By the Act of Union, Ireland was to be made one country with England, "bone of her bone, flesh of her flesh:"—millions of Irishmen have risen up, as one man, to protest against it. By the Emancipation Act, religious equality and peace was to be for ever established: nearly 400 Catholic meetings have just been held to protest against the wrong and insult which have been lately offered to their body (four-fifths of the nation) by the Government, in striking off all the Catholic jurors from a jury destined to try Catholics, and in the issue of whose verdict scarcely a Catholic heart in Ireland but was most deeply interested. Equal laws were to be indifferently administered to all: the law of the rich was to be the law of the poor, the law of the Englishman was to be the law of the Irishman, the law of the Protestant was to be the law of the Catholic: Has this been done? Has the promise been kept? What do we hear on every side? Complaints long and loud, and what is worse, just—of franchises curtailed, justice tampered with, privileges but half given, and those which have been given rendered abortive and ineffectual in operation. Eligibility was to have become election: Catholics were not only to be admissible, but to be admitted to offices of trust and emolument. Where are they to be found? not only are they excluded, but their most marked opponents are promoted in their places. Po-

729
verty was to be exercised with religious dissension from the land: it has returned with seven devils in its train, worse than itself. Every good has been turned to evil, every intention has been distorted or neutralised in execution: names indeed have been somewhat changed, but Ireland is still in great measure the Ireland that she always was. Despite of Union Acts, despite of Emancipation Acts, despite of Reform, Municipal, and Poor Relief Acts,—despite of every legislative remedy yet applied, Ireland is yet to be reclaimed:—not by law, but by force, by the grace of bayonets and artillery, and not by the bond of men's hearts (the only sure and lasting guarantee for the connection) you hold that land. It is to-day, as it has been for centuries, a mere garrison government.—You encamp on the soil, but you do not rule the mind of its people. This is the Ireland of 1844. What is it better than the Ireland of 1829? Has the Emancipation Act yet been passed, or turned out, as has so often been said of the Reform Act (perhaps on similar grounds) a complete failure? It is on your Statute Book, but I do not see it yet in your practice. It is not indeed dead, but if we regard its action, it assuredly sleepeth. If it fails, it is because they who ought to be its zealous executors, will not allow it to succeed. Our condition is an enigma, an anomaly, but the solution is to be found opposite. On those Benches sit the men who first introduced the measure: on those Benches sit the men who were and are entrusted with its administration. If it has failed, they, not Ireland, are accountable for its failure. And yet they seem amazed at effects which they themselves have produced. The act has not been carried, but with reluctance, beyond the Statute Book. Not how much ought to be given, but how much could safely be refused, has been the question. And yet they are astonished. They would govern by contradictions, and wonder that all is complicate: they would repeal in act what they give in words, and wonder that all is not tranquillity: they would degrade Ireland to an inferiority to England and wonder that there is no real union; they would degrade Catholics to an inferiority to Protestants, and yet wonder Catholics should complain that the Emancipation Act has not yet become a reality. But the real wonder is their own fashion of governing. To me, I confess, it is utterly incomprehensible. I know of only two rational modes of governing any country: by fear, or by love,—by
730
force, or by justice. Either of these are quite intelligible their means are different, but so also are their objects; the ends at all events are clear, and the means are adapted to and equal to their accomplishment. But the third mode which is neither of these, and affects to combine both; which is gentle when it should be strong, and strong when it should be gentle; which pretends to command affection, and attempts to terrify into attachment, which imagines, by the cheap artifice of words and promises unaccompanied by acts, to seduce, when it fails to alarm a country into obedience: this forcible-feeble policy appears to me a complete solecism from beginning to end, it has the vices of both and the virtues of neither, and is just that mode of government which is sure to render the governed discontented, and the government sooner or later contemned and ineffectual. A despotism I can understand. I can comprehend a policy like that of Russia, in regard to Poland. It pretends to nothing but annihilation, and adapts its instruments to its purpose. Down comes an Ukase, and sweeps away representation; it is followed by another which extinguishes the press: a third perverts education: a fourth prohibits the national language, and the national religion: and a fifth transports the inhabitants, and seeks to obliterate nationality itself. It does not even affect moderation. It kneads, breaks, crushes together: it is not participation, but subjugation, which it aims at; not union, but absorption. I can understand this, and I can also understand attempts at a similar process, from time to time, in Ireland. I can understand the policy of the Norman invader, attempting to push his English encampment into the heart of the Irishry, granting English law, English customs, English alliance, to those aliens in blood—aliens in language, though not yet aliens in religion, with whom he was surrounded—as a favour. I can understand Elizabeth, adding this instrument of subjugation rather than concession to those which had preceded, and not only insisting on Anglicising Ireland, as we now insist on uniting it, by force, but as the only mode of Anglicising it effectually, on Protestantising it also: I can understand James confiscating by wholesale, that he might plant by wholesale, and reckless of the habits or feelings of the natives, instead of winning Ireland to England by the mild influence of English laws, forcing England on Ireland, by the rude substitution of English proprietors. I can

731
understand Cromwell, disdainful of the slowness of these peace proceedings, revolutionising not by the pen, but by the sword, and hopeless or careless of incorporating, recurring at once to extermination. He deprived the Irish as far as he could of Ireland, by driving the wretched remnant of the nation beyond the Shannon, into the wilds and wastes of Connaught, as his Saxon fathers had driven the Britons into Wales and Britany, thus making, as he hoped, by the extinction of one people, place for a second. All this is obvious, it requires no explanation it is straight marching to a well-defined object. The purpose is seen, and how it was attainable. What followed, was equally creditable to the same savage, plain-spoken policy. William's wars were nothing more than a struggle between the old and new possessors of land, and the power and privileges which land confers, between the ancient proprietors and the new adventurers of James, Cromwell, and William, in which, with England at their back, the latter naturally succeeded. And all after-history is, under different forms, only a repetition of this. Protestant religion, English connexion, British constitution, are but so many various ways of saying the same thing—land and power for us; exclusion, poverty, weakness, for our enemies. Protestant ascendancy was made chief gaoler of the Irish people, and was protected by England, for its anti-national services. For it, and its abettors, the whole Penal code was constructed and maintained. The muscle was to be enervated, the mind was to be extinguished, of the great mass of the Irish people, that these new masters, and their masters over them, might reign in peace, over slaves. For such an end—no very glorious one, certainly, but still, as I said, intelligible—was this atrocious code well adapted. It was to make Ireland the bondsman of an oligarchy, and to make the oligarchy, as price for the privilege of this domestic tyranny, the bondsman (turbulent it is true, but still crouching and subservient) of England. Henceforward a party was substituted for the nation—the governors were everything, the governed nothing. Men spoke of their country, and in every thing their country was left out. This was the government of fear, and force. I said it was intelligible. It had at least that merit, but had it any other? Had it, even in reference to the end which it proposed, the only merit for which such a system was worth anything, the merit of success?
732
I do not ask what was its morality, or its happiness, or its prosperity. These were considerations which never entered into the contemplation of its constructors: I do not ask how far it went to benefit the great body of the people. For them I have already said, it was not intended. But I do ask, what was its soundness, where was its security? where were its conquests, its glories, its rewards, how far did it benefit the governors, even at the expense of the governed? what gained the oppressor, as a last result, beyond the oppressed? This odious, this Tartar policy, by a righteous dispensation of Providence, was a failure—a succession of failures; it was attempt, and defeat, throughout. Had it, in any one stage, been thoroughly carried out, it might have answered its end. If the invasion, conversion, extermination, confiscation,—if any one of these projects had been complete—there would have been, doubtless, much evil; but this evil might have, perhaps, been followed by some good. But everything was done by halves—men and circumstances revolted against it. The Norman instead of conquering, was conquered. In vain, year after year, the Irish enemy (as the records of Irish corporations testify) was solemnly expelled from the towns; they as constantly returned, and finally absorbed their invaders. The English Baron changed his name, and became more Irish than the Irish. Elizabeth established a ritual instead of a faith; an establishment instead of a religion. Her Common Prayer had to be translated into Latin, to win the prejudices of the people, though the Mass had been abolished in England, because amongst other reasons, it was in Latin; and yet the Protestant Church of Ireland remained one vast sinecure;—teachers without scholars—shepherds without flocks. Read Boulter, you will there see the ignorance of the clergy could only be equalled by their indolence and immorality. They were hardly, in their lives, Christians:—the people, as it might have been anticipated, remained Catholics. Cromwell drove the Irish into Connaught,—Connaught restored them after his death back to Ireland. Half the Catholic property of my neighbourhood is held by the surest of all titles, the confiscating patents of Cromwell's soldiers. Even the plantation of James prepared for the wars of Charles, as the wars of Charles by puritanical emigrations, and hostile accessions from the refugees from England, led to the outrages of Cromwell, and all the fatal, and

733
profitless disasters which followed. The conquest of William left nothing but a fortress government, in the midst of an enemy's country. Even the penal code, as a permanent defence, was itself defective. It involved conditions, which must have proved fatal, even to its administrators. With all its bad perfection, it did not go far enough, for the foolish wickedness of its authors. It had flaws. It did not annihilate—it did not incorporate—it did not reconcile—it did not convert. It impoverished the people, but with the people, it impoverished those also who had to live on the people. The Catholic was prohibited from holding leases of land: with what spirit could the serf cultivate it? He could not make money at home, he sought and made it abroad, and returned with it. Excluded from all opportunities of expence, he was like the Jew forced to accumulate—he accumulated. The Protestant master, in the mean time spent; his position forced him to prodigality. He soon wished to sell—he soon was compelled to sell; but there were few purchasers in the market. A relaxation in the strict provisions of the code became necessary—not for the benefit of the Catholic tenant, but of the Protestant landlord; the leasing laws were remodelled;—not for the advantage of the Catholic purchaser, but the Protestant seller (competition raises value) the Catholics were allowed to purchase property. But in the removal of one stone, they rendered certain the removal of the whole. The first acre of land a Catholic was allowed to make his own, virtually secured every other right and privilege which has since followed. On that day was virtually passed the Emancipation Act. With leases came the franchise, again for the advantage of the Protestant landlord and not of the Catholic tenant. The tenant was allowed to vote, but not for himself, but for his landlord: instruments they had been; it was never intended they should be any other than instruments. But with wealth, came education (they smuggled it, they travelled for it)—and with both, power, and with power discontent at oppression, and with discontent, the determination and means, sooner or latter to get rid of it. They were associated with all the burthens, and defrauded of all the benefits of the State; that State a free State; creating the desire contributing in its own despite the means of sooner or latter acquiring them. Not one single law which might not be shewn, equally with those to which I have just alluded to
734
be a source of misery, wretchedness, debasement, and humiliation as well to the oppressor as to the oppressed. Such are the eternal laws of God; no man can exercise tyranny over his fellow man with impunity; at the very time he thinks himself most successful in crushing his slave, he is most the victim of his own tyranny. After all his base truckling to England—after all the large price of national dignity, power, and prosperity, which he had paid for this patent of doing wrong, the Protestant, in the height, as he believed it, of his power, found himself compelled to prepare the destruction of that very edifice, at which he had so long laboured. The concessions of 1776, which raised the Catholic from villainage, were as a matter no longer of choice, followed by those of 1793 which half emancipated him. But who for a moment could suppose, that he, or indeed mankind and events could stop here: they did not. Then as now, in 1776, in 1793, in 1829, there were men who cried out "that concession had reached its utmost limits," then as now, there were men who clamoured "conspiracy," but then as now they created that very necessity which they wished to prevent, then as now they drew tighter that very confederation which they hoped to have for ever scattered. By their sagacious delays, their reluctant concessions, they gave the power, but did not extinguish the desire to obtain ample and complete justice. They forced the people on themselves. The Catholic Association was founded. A fatal precedent was established far more perilous than the largest of the franchises, which had been so pertinaciously refused. They created, by refusing to incorporate the people into the State, a State outside of the State, a law which was not the law, and a constitution which under the most legitimate forms, was destined to break through the Constitution. They raised a power, above and beyond the power of the Government, which wielded souls as well as bodies, and perfected an organization, such as I believe never yet existed in any country and which I am quite sure, never could exist for any long period without crumbling in pieces all its institutions. But this occurred not suddenly or by chance. It required many a long and severe lesson, before the people became fully sensible of their rights or the means by which they were attainable. In 1776, the people could not be induced to join in the simplest, the most humble demands. There exist papers addressed to some of the

735
principal Catholics of that day, by which it appears, that it was with the utmost difficulty even those gentlemen could be induced to petition at all. The great mass of the population lay altogether dead or inert, they hardly seemed to know or feel they had wrongs. A few years after, those four or five leaders met together in a back room in Dublin to apply to Parliament for a redress of grievances, and if afterwards these four or five increased to numbers sufficient to fill a chapel, or cover a mountain's side, not to their own exertions only, but to the unwise policy of their rulers—to the constant stimulant of insult and of oppression—it must be attributed—they were spurned and they confederated; they were prosecuted and they flourished. Waterford broke the yoke of the Beresfords, Clare followed; not a county in the next election, but would have shewn itself a Clare or a Waterford. There was then as now, an Association, there were then as now, Monster Meetings, there was then as now, call it what you may, Conspiracy or Combination, the common sense of wrong, the common resolve to obtain rights, the unanimous action for a legitimate object, of seven eighths of the Irish people. Then as now, there was the same cry of impossibility of not yielding to clamour what had been refused to justice, down to the very eve of Emancipation. The strongest speeches perhaps ever made against it, were those of the preceding year. Yet Emancipation did pass, and pass too at the instance, and by the instrumentality not of its advocates, but of those very men who up to that hour, had been most opposed to it. Unhappily it passed too late, for all the good it was otherwise calculated to produce. It was given under the dread of civil war—avowedly with reluctance: not from conviction, still less from generosity; not given but extorted; a conquest and not a boon. It dissolved indeed the confederation but left behind the secret of how it might be re-combined. Had such a course been adopted with the Reform Act or Reform Agitation, where should we be now? This was the end of the government of force in Ireland or at least ought to have been the end, had the men who undertook to terminate it understood the nature of their task. Had they for a moment looked back or looked forward they would at once have seen, that it was impossible any longer to maintain it, and this once admitted there was no alternative, but to adopt a totally opposite policy in its place. Every page of
736
history taught this; it was a system most evil, even if it were practicable; most impracticable, even if it had conferred the greatest good. What were the gains at the end, of all? Concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few, consequently poverty and weakness for the many, disruption of the orders from each other, great luxury, great corruption, with great misery, great crime side by side; the separation of the nation from its governors; legislation, partizan factious, palliative weakness, and oppression combined; the people existing in want and hostility, anxious for alteration, prone to sedition, ready to rush at every opportunity into riot, if not revolt. Were these blessings? Certainly not. Would any country regardful of its safety have consented to prolong them if it could help it an hour? Certainly not. There are men who think Emancipation ought and could have been delayed. Ask the Duke of Wellington if he thinks so. Others, still more extravagant, think it ought and can be repealed. Repeal the Magna Charta! you can expunge a statute from your Statute Book, but it is the sword only which can hew their liberties from the hearts of a free people. The coercion system stood condemned—condemned by its own ruins—by its inefficiency, not less than by its wickedness. There remained only the course of justice, the course of equality and conciliation. Did you adopt it? During the short time in which the right hon. Baronet Sir Robert Peel, remained in office, from the passing of the Emancipation Act to the passing of the Reform Act, all parties were disposed to give him credit for the fairest intentions to carry out the new principles of Government, which with the new law, it was naturally presumed, he had also introduced. Perhaps the period was too short to justify any opinion one way or other. One thing, however, is tolerably certain, these intentions were unfortunately never developed. The gates of the constitution were thrown open, but as far as office was concerned, there were watchers placed beside them, to forbid the Catholic to pass. The people, indeed, did all they could to make it a reality; in the hands of the Government it remained a phantom. Not only none of the members of the late Association were promoted, but none of those who were opposed to, or unconnected with the Association. How could it be otherwise? The men in power were not the men, truly speaking, who had passed Emancipation, but the men who could not prevent Emancipation from

737
having been passed. Another Government succeeded to that of the right hon. Baronet; the Whigs came in, and with them, other maxims—another spirit—another policy. They ruled, not in opposition to, but in accordance with the intention as well as letter of the Emancipation Act. They sought to make it a truth. They had much to do to expel the bitter recollections of the past; to give the country a future; to win the people to their rulers; to persuade factions to an identity of feelings and interests. They had no magic spell, but that so obvious, and yet so little used—simple justice. They deserved and obtained the confidence of the people, by confiding in the people. The Catholic, admissible by law, was no longer excluded by Government. Crime was subdued by justice, tempered with, but not enfeebled by mercy. Property was taught that it had duties, as well as rights. The unpaid magistracy was checked in its partizanship by the Stipendiary. Great legislative measures were passed, embracing, not sections, but the whole people. The Reform Act, and the Municipal Act, restored to the citizen, whether Catholic or Protestant, his legitimate share in the Government of his country. Education was made national; the several religions, government and people, were associated—were interested—in its joint administration. Ireland, for the first time, looked up to, and relied on its Government. All could not be done—but all was hoped. No nation ever trusted with more patient confidence to intentions. Repeal slumbered, and England saw with astonishment, for the first time, regiments ordered from the Irish shores to quell her own disturbances. If the country was not wholly, or at once pacified, pacification, in its true sense, had at least begun. The right path had been entered on. This was the system of justice, and equality, and love. Compare it with that of wrong, and degradation, and hostility. Which of the two is the better?—which has been the easiest?—which has been followed with most success? But the third—the no-system—the system which hangs between both, with promises in words, and distrust in acts, this system was adopted in all its evil consequences, by their opponents, the Gentlemen who sit opposite. On the Opposition Benches, as on the Ministerial, their whole purpose, when they could no longer refuse, seemed to have been to maim or delay. If a Reform Act was to be passed, the question was not how much, but how
738
little was to be given to Ireland. If a Municipal law was under consideration for Irish boroughs, the point was not whether it would benefit the country, but whether it would alarm the Bishops. National Education was denounced simply because it was national; and the very Catholics whose gratitude was claimed were held to be hardly trustworthy on their oaths. A Registration Bill was hurried on, with the most factious speed, not to extend or improve, as it purported, but to limit the franchise, as the act for the confirmation of the Articles of Limerick, was an act for their violation. My noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) has detailed to you, with equal clearness and justice, the proceedings upon that bill; what do they shew, but that of which we have witnessed a thousand proofs, that the same anti-emancipation spirit which had so long resisted the passing of the Emancipation Act in 1829 still survived, notwithstanding all their professions, in the acts of the same party, in 1840 and 1841—that they would, if possible, extinguish the vitality of that measure, and replace the Irish Catholic virtually in the same position he occupied before it had become law. If any of the measures which the late Government had in view for the amelioration of the condition of the people of Ireland failed;—if any, in passing, had been curtailed in their fair proportions of good—if any in their provisions, had fallen short of what the people had a right to demand, or in execution had not come up to what their authors themselves had anticipated; this curtailment of benefit, this inefficiency of operation, is to be ascribed to the efforts, repeated, indefatigable—to the obstructions openly avowed, and gloried in by the party with whom the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) was surrounded while he sat on this side of the House, and who still continue to support him, I am sorry to say, in the same spirit and with the same views on that. Such was your policy in opposition—what has it been since you have returned to power? You asked for a fair trial. Did you not get it? You asked for patience, and time. Was it refused? For weeks, for months, nay, for a whole year, the entire Catholic people of Ireland waited with crossed arms. There was no resistance, no agitation. They shewed no disposition to take undue advantage of their new position, but a willingness rather to give full opportunity for the development of any plan which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues

739
might have in contemplation, for the better government of their country, and the better carrying out of the principles of Emancipation. The Irish people hoped and believed that long absence from power would have taught the right hon. Baronet amongst other "sweet uses of adversity" a little more prudence, if not generosity; a somewhat juster sense of what was due to Ireland, than what he had evinced when he last held the Seals of Office. It was not, indeed, quite easy to forget the recent attacks on their creed and country, the attempted abridgement of their rights, the vindictive and unworthy manner in which the appointment of a few Catholic gentlemen to office was visited by various Members of the opposite party, for no other reason but because they were Catholics. I was in Germany at the time, and I well remember reading to my surprise, in the German papers, the measureless indignation which was poured out on the Government, for having dared, in "this Protestant country" to have selected me and other "Papists" (and yet the Emancipation Act was the law of the land) for offices of trust and honour under the Crown. To the Germans, it appeared altogether incomprehensible. I well remember their reflections on reading the account. "Is it possible," said they, "that all this can be true? Can it be, that this people, who set up as teachers in freedom and generosity to all mankind—who rush from north to south, and from east to west, lavish of their labours, and their treasures, to free the slave, to enlighten the ignorant, to preach philanthropy and civilisation to all nations, should thus in their own country, in their own government, use every means in their power to keep inferior those whom their own laws have declared to be equal, to perpetuate prejudices, which they of all other nations, on their own shewing, should have been the first to set aside. We have long since managed these matters better here: Protestant and Catholic have long continued to fill, without any jealousy or injury, the highest offices indiscriminately. We should be ashamed of such folly in the 19th century; these idle quarrels have long been put to rest." Nor, is this liberality confined to Germany. In France, the first Minister of the Crown is a Protestant, and a Protestant, against whom no Catholic will be found to rail. These things sunk deep into the Catholic mind of Ireland: and yet galled and insulted as they were, they were still willing
740
once more, to give as I have said, a fair trial. They clung to every symptom which could give hope. They had heard of a liberal Secretary, of an impartial Lord Lieutenant. Well! they endeavoured to believe these reports true. They thought they saw in the declaration of the noble Lord (Lord Eliot) when returned for Cornwall, evidence of a determination to govern impartially. I thought so too: I looked on that speech as a manifesto of his party. I had a right to suppose that it contained the sentiments, not of the noble Lord only, but of those with whom he acted: of this, at least, I thought I might be quite secure, that the noble Lord would not pronounce so frankly his opinions, unless he were prepared as frankly to carry them out; nor remain an hour with Colleagues, with whom, on such grave matters, he could not thoroughly concur. I extended his views to the Lord Lieutenant: and in common with others of the Liberal party in Ireland, believed for a moment, that though we should not have the government of the Marquess of Normanby, or Lord Fortescue, we should have one which at least would remember that by the Act of Union, Ireland was intended to be incorporated with England, and by the Act of Emancipation, the Catholic was raised to an equality with the Protestant. I was still further encouraged in this presumption by the first intimations on the question of Education. That question, over and over again, I had heard denounced by many of their most zealous supporters—not in Exeter Hall, whose atmosphere is more congenial to such inconsiderate ebullitions, but in the calmer temperature of this House;—denounced not for details, but on principle;—denounced, as opposed to the indispensable obligations of Protestantism, contrary to the word of God, as well as to the interests of the State: denounced as a system which no Protestant, who believed in his religion, could countenance; as a system which any citizen would be justified in resisting with little less than rebellion whenever and wherever he could. That system, so contrary, as it had been termed, to conscience, I found not only was to be sustained by the present Government, but extended and enlarged: new grants were to be given, new schools were to be founded, and the whole placed on so permanent a basis, as to remove all apprehension of future change. Not a voice worth counting amongst the opposite party was raised against this declaration: those conscientious and determined men,

741
who were ready to set "their lives on a pin's fee," to resist it, who summoned the faithful, as one man, to separate from the uncleanly thing—"to your tents, Oh! Israel!"—sat behind the bench of the Minister, mourning, it might have been—but quite mute. Their Protestantism had received some new revelations, their consciences had, by some unknown opiate, been drugged to sleep. Such, however, was the fact, and after so direct a wheel round from former errors, it was not too much, I did think, to anticipate, that the abjuration would be carried farther, and by little and little, we should find them, unknown to themselves, unchided by their followers, converts from all their heresies, and tolerably sound liberals at last.—Favour, of course, we did not expect, but we were sanguine enough, I confess, to look for justice at their hands. These pleasing prepossessions, however, soon passed away. The spirit which had interfered to deprive us of the full efficiency of the Emancipation and Reform Acts—which stunted our Municipal Act of half its advantages—which on every occasion was ready to limit and shorten the franchises of the people, which even in conferring graces, had the perverse ingenuity to convert them into insults—which made measures otherwise healing, principles of new irritation; this mad, this pernicious spirit soon re-appeared. It first shewed itself in the dismissal of the Stipendiary Magistrates. You called it economy, but who could mistake it for your first sacrifice to your old North of Ireland allies? It was not the Treasury which had to do with it, but the Castle. It was inconvenient that the loyal Magistracy of the North, should, in the discharge of their hereditary functions, be under the inspection much less the control of strangers. But, where was your active impartiality all this while? The next proceeding of your Government was to place upon the Bench gentlemen, to whom I am in no-wise personally hostile, but who the Catholic people of Ireland could never forget, were marked by persevering resistance to their rights and by the open avowal of opinions in vehement hostility to those entertained by the entire of their body. These gentlemen were placed on the Bench to administer equal and indifferent justice between man and man—between man and man, in a heated and divided community—divided beyond all recent example; at a period of more than ordinary excitement—and though I am the last man to contend that high legal eminence has not a right to
742
look to the legitimate recompense of former labours, still I must say, that a Government professing to rule Ireland by opinion, and not by force, had no choice between abandonment of the most flagrant of such professions, or seating on the Bench men whose opinions were in some degree in harmony with those of the vast majority of the population. But this step in one direction was perhaps balanced by another in the opposite. When the Orangeman was promoted, the Catholic probably was not forgotten. No such thing. From their accession—the first moment of their accession to power, I look in vain for the admission to any office of importance, of any one of the Catholic body; there does not occur a single Catholic promotion of note. You say, indeed, it is your misfortune, but not your fault. Misfortune indeed! but I should like to know of whose creating? How comes it, that the whole of Catholic Ireland is thus banded against you as one man? For this sole and simple reason, because you are banded against all Catholic Ireland. What renders Catholics averse to receiving office from your hands?—it is not so much your Toryism, as your Anti-Catholicism. Office was not offered; who would solicit it?—Abused, reviled, slandered in the morning by your press and your supporters—by supporters unheeded, unchecked, or for aught I know, approved of by you;—wounded in the most sensitive part of his nature, in his religious creed and conduct,—how could you expect, that he would be so forgiving, so spaniel-like, so crouching as to debase himself by asking to be your servant in the evening? But even this impartiality "d'occasion" soon wore off—another Session passed—the true metal began to appear. In the Arms Bill debate, enough was elicited to show the whole of your future policy for Ireland. Many grounds of complaint, many demands for legislative redress were brought under the notice of the Government. The Church Establishment, the Franchise, the Representation, the Education of the people, were again and again, pressed upon the notice of this House. You affected not to know our grievances—what could be more simple than the discussion on the motion (of the same nature with the present) of my hon. Friend the Member for Limerick, W. Smith O'Brien last year? You complained that we did not explicitly point out our demands. What could be more precise than the Remonstrance addressed by the liberal Irish Members to the English

743
people, at the close of last Session? Well! What answer did we receive? The only answer—at least the only clear answer vouchsafed us by the Government was this—our oaths were doubted, and we were told "concession had reacheded its utmost limits." We were told in a country where every thing is in progress, whose very constitution is one history of change—under laws, whose chief value—is their susceptibility of improvement—that we alone—we forming one-third of the population of that country—we of all others most requiring change—progress and improvement should not only stand still, but remain satisfied with our immobility! This was your impartial conduct in this House; what was it out of it? Magistrates were dismissed—dismissed for having attended meetings, which you either could not, or would not declare illegal,—dismissed without notice—dismissed on no intelligible, or unvarying rule, but by rules changing with the circumstances or feelings of the moment, and by their dismissal rendering the partizanship of those who were retained more violent and effectual. These were the proceedings for months of this Government of liberality—of a Government which gave itself out as intending to rule by opinion, which claimed the support of the Catholics of Ireland, not merely for benefits given, but for benefits to be received. We went home to our constituents with additional wrongs and renewed insults. The sincerity of our oaths questioned, all redress refused, an Arms Act instead of an Act of Grace in our hands; told to remain stationary, told to remain silent, told to bow, told to despair. The Emancipation Act was rendered futile in our regard; and beyond the Emancipation Act we were warned to look no farther. I am not surprised, Sir, that the people of Ireland at such announcement, galled by rejection, stung to the quick by contumely, should have gone to the lengths to which they did proceed, and spoken a language the too natural result of despair at the denial of all interference on the part of the British Legislature. If this House had, in time, entertained those questions, and shewn some sympathy in the wrongs and claims of the people of Ireland, this House would not, this evening, have been called upon to consider both, under the distressing and perilous circumstances under which the country is now placed. It is because this House, the natural and professed guardian of the people's rights, has shewn itself deaf and dead to their com-
744
plaints, that the people have been compelled to look at last to themselves, and themselves alone, for redress. It is because you will not hear them, that they appeal elsewhere—you have no right to complain that they meet on the mountain's side, have you not shut these doors against them? And now, when this House and Government have left no alternative; when you have taught, forced, required from them agitation, you turn round, and with Bills of Indictments in your hands, and surrounded by cannon and bayonets, denounce, with hypocritical zeal for the laws, the agitators. "You are traitors," you exclaim, "Conspirators, a confederation against the peace and unity of the Empire; the question now is, not redress, but punishment." No Sir! not these men, not the men outside of the doors of this House, but those within it, not the people in their meetings, but those who govern the people, those who sit on the benches opposite, they I maintain it, are the true conspirators, the real criminals in this matter. I say this in reference, not to any one act of the Government, but to the animus of their entire Irish policy. The dismissal of magistrates was a natural accompaniment of their Arms Bill, the proclamation and prosecutions were the obvious following up of this dismissal. Meetings might have been dangerous, they might have been illegal, not for what they did, but what they might lead to; magistrates ought not perhaps to have attended them, such might have been the opinion of the Government, but I cannot see why such a proclamation as prevented the Clontarf meeting, might not have prevented others; and why the people should not have been cautioned before the magistrates had been punished. When they had got so far, why did they not stop there? After they had succeeded in preventing the meetings, why proceed to the prosecutions? I take the assertion of the Government at its fullest value; they state that their object was to vindicate the majesty, by inspiring a respect for the law But to inspire this respect, it was surely necessary to impress on the people a confidence in its justice, an unreserved conviction of a thorough impartiality in its administration. Have you effected this? The Trials are over; is this, I ask you, the effect they have produced even in this country, on the public mind? It might have been the misfortune of the Government, or it might have been its fault, but whichever it was, one thing at least is certain, that a

745
large number of names was omitted from the jury panel in the late prosecutions, and of this number not less than thirty-five were names of Roman Catholics. Some of these latter were persons of the highest respectability. I have received a letter from one of the gentlemen so excluded, a gentleman of the most unexceptionable character and conduct; he stated that he was no Repealer, had never been a member of the Repeal Association, or connected with any of its proceedings, but had almost exclusively confined himself for years past, aloof from all politics, to his own industrial pursuits. Previous to that list having been struck, a person, it appears, called on him with an address to Her Majesty, of the most violent tendency, and involving a concurrence with the views of the Repeal Association, to which he was invited to append his name. He refused the application, and has since discovered that the person in question was a Tory, and as he believes a Tory spy, employed to seduce persons similarly situated, into an unguarded expression of Repeal opinions. Whether these circumstances were the result of accident or intention, I will not pretend to say; I prejudge no man; but all must admit this, that a more unfortunate, a more untoward accident, if such it were, could not have occurred, at a period when the feeling of the country was natuturally so excited, and when it was a matter of the greatest moment, that whatever verdict should be pronounced, should be beyond all doubt, as well as all impeachment; not only unquestionable, but unquestioned. The people of Ireland very generally believed, that these names had been omitted on purpose, in consequence of a regularly laid plot against their liberties, and this impression was further confirmed by the striking off from the special jury every Catholic without exception. Other grounds might now be stated—others were alleged, the moment the subject became a matter of general observation; but it is remarkable, that these causes of exception, subsequently urged with so much vehemence, were not even hinted at at the time. Indeed the presumption is, that even an inquiry had not been thought of at first, and that it was not until the public indignation had begun to express itself, that the charge of Repeal opinions, and Repeal connection, was put forth. This explanation or excuse came too late. The people of Ireland judged by the naked fact: ten Catholics (no one questioned this) had been struck off from
746
the special jury list—the whole number be it observed on that list—they naturally supposed there could be no other motive for such sweeping clearance than the circumstance of their Catholicism; and concluded, putting together former conduct and expressions from the same quarter—that this objection to them and their religion, arose from a distrust entertained of their conscientious discharge of the duty about to be imposed on them, in administering the laws of their country. Can the House be surprised, that the Irish people—that every Catholic to a man, from the highest Peer to the lowest peasant, should feel indignant at such an imputation? Is there one amongst you, who, at such a charge against the faith or community to which you severally belong, would not rise at once, to repel even the suspicion of such a stain with indignation? But was this all? The Catholics felt indignant, that Catholics alone should be struck off. They asked and asked truly, were there not other bodies of men in Ireland who might be suspected of maintaining principles equally, if not more hostile to the peace and concord of the empire, than those which had been imputed to their body. I hold in my hand a manifesto published in 1838, by the Orange party, containing as it states, "an authoritative exposition of the objects, and a demonstration of the necessity of Orange institutions." This manifesto, after complaining of the insecurity of the persons and the property of Protestants in Ireland—after stating that they were in the progress of actual extirpation,—that they had no religious or constitutional rights which they could exercise with impunity, and that the Executive was groaning under the despotism of a ferocious majority, goes on to recommend all Orangemen to re-combine again, and unite in one body as an Orange Institution; "as such an institution," so they expressed it, "was eminently calculated to inspire its members with confidence and its enemies with respect, by constantly exhibiting to the public a display of moral force based on the organisation required to make physical force effective." I pray the House to attend to this last declaration; the imputations, the charges sought to be sustained against the Repeal Association and the late meetings, is here not a matter of disguise or doubt, but boldly, nay, insolently proclaimed, as the chief ground for the resumption and renewal of this avowedly Anti-catholic Association. I may be

747
told, that the Repeal Association lives, but that the Orange Association is dead—or at least formally suppressed—in accord with a Resolution of this House, and a Message from the Crown; but my answer is, the animus still survives—the prejudices and animosities, which first gave it birth, still unhappily endure. No inquiry was instituted, whether of these jurors, any belonged either formally or virtually to this Anti-Catholic Society—and yet here was a jury which was to sit in judgment on traversers almost exclusively Catholic—and the counsel for the Crown dares still to boast of their impartiality! Such a prosecution was too one-sided in its management to inspire confidence in the community, for which it is said to have been intended. Are we to form a more sanguine opinion as to its results? Did this House believe, did the country believe, that because Mr. O'Connell and his fellow-traversers were convicted by the verdict of such a jury—there were no others ready—nay anxious, in full reliance on public opinion, to step into their places? I tell them distinctly, that so far from having completed, the Government has hardly yet commenced its task. To-morrow they may have to combat Associations, other than the Repeal Association, which in their exultation, they fondly imagine they have extinguished today. Mr. O'Connell may be imprisoned, they may think that with his imprisonment the trial and all its objects are fully answered—but have they reflected, that this very trial will necessitate a whole series of others; and if they be not determined to go to the utmost limit of the Law and the Constitution, they will find that their gains have indeed been small, their triumphs virtually defeats; instead of water, they have thrown oil on the flame; and far from having recovered, they have still farther estranged the affections of the Irish people? I can tell the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) that if he trusts solely to the letter of the law, there are a thousand means by which the Irish people can elude it. They, no doubt, strongly rely on the Association, but not on the Association only: if it were struck down tomorrow, there are other means behind in reserve, for carrying out, for encreasing agitation. They have their county meetings, town meetings; parish meetings, chapel meetings, does the Minister mean to put them all down: or if not, how many of them? Where will he stop? What is the precise number at which such assemblies
748
cease to be dangerous? Where is the scale to regulate the crime or peril of the conspiracy, the tariff to measure their legality? If it were numbers which had alarmed the Government, these numbers are increasing; if it were violence of language and feeling which had given rise to these apprehensions, it was not diminishing. If it were outbreak which was feared, no precaution could prevent it, but if the people really willed it: no precaution was necessary, no such occurrence would take place, for there was organization. The worst result of the policy of the Government, one which I much fear will endure long after other evils shall be healed; the real, though permanent evil of their policy is, the habit which it has given the people to look without the Constitution for a remedy for their grievances, instead of within it. This habit was first produced by the delay which took place in granting concessions which had really become necessary. The delay in granting the Reform Act laid in this country the foundation of the Anti-Corn Law Agitation; the delay in granting the Emancipation Act laid in Ireland the foundation of the Repeal Agitation. By these habits, you ensure a continuation of disturbance. No country, I maintain, can go on with two Constitutions: one the Constitution of the Statute Book, the other of Public opinion. You brought matters to the verge of civil war by inconsiderate rejection: you avoided it by abrupt concession. Are you prepared to run again the evil chances of a similar course? You will not grant, how then do you mean to prevent, Repeal? What are the means you are now taking to appease the agitation which aims at it? You are employing against it measures which you did not, which you would not, use against the agitation for Emancipation and Reform, for well you knew that such measures would be idle and useless, that such weapons would break in a thousand fragments in your hands. I can tell you, that the weapons you now use are not one jot stronger, not one jot more effectual. Strike strongly if you strike justly, but not otherwise. You do neither. The Repeal agitation is not to be put down by a prosecution; it may be by justice; not by your policy, but by the adoption of a course the most opposite you can find to that which you lately have pursued. Nothing is more insufficient, nothing more dangerous than such a policy. It is half justice. Half justice is a most dangerous thing. It gives the people, in whose regard it is adopted,

749
the means of getting more and the desire of getting more: with both operating desire and means, the object cannot be difficult in the long run of attainment. Better, indeed, to give no justice at all than half justice; but there is something better than either—full justice to all men. What did the policy pursued by the late Government accomplish for Ireland. It diminished the amount and nature of crime, in some degree, established a confidence between landlord and tenant, and commenced, for the first time in Ireland, impressing on the people a conviction of impartiality in the administration of justice. From an increase of tranquillity naturally followed an increase of the security of property, and with the security of property, the value of property as its nanatural concomitant. Ireland, under a really fair and impartial government would speedily have increased her resources, and with the increase of her resources given her people a new interest in the pursuit of all the industrious arts. What is her condition at present? I am informed that at an intended sale of Irish property some weeks ago, the price offered was so low, not amounting to more than fifteen or sixteen years purchase, that an application was made to the Lord Chancellor, to allow the sale to stand over for the present. Yet this was not till lately the case. On turning to the evidence given before the Lords' Committee on the State of Crime in Ireland, generally known as Lord Roden's Committee, hon. Members will see the most striking proofs of gradual augmentation of value in landed securities, especially during the last ten years. Several witnesses of extensive experience and unquestionable respectability were examined, amongst them Mr. Simpson, the well known auctioneer, who has disposed of property in Ireland, to the extent of 800,000 l. and upwards, Messrs. Guiness & Co., Messrs. Mahoney, Mr. Tandy, &c., they all speak in the same sense, and shew from a large reference to facts, that Irish property had been steadily advancing from sixteen to twenty and from twenty to thirty years purchase, in the more favoured counties, and there was every indication of a still farther increase gradually placing it on a par with English and Scotch investments, had not this salutary tendency been checked by recent political events. Some of the witnesses went still farther, and showed that this increase was in precise proportion to the more or less increase of tranquillity.
750
The most marked contrasts were observable; so much so that a graduated scale of prices might almost be made out, from the state of the calender of offences, and the amount of political agitation in each district. But now comes the material question. Admitting all these results, admitting them to be the effects of the causes just stated, how are these causes to be got rid of, by what means are we to extinguish principles productive of so much discord, misery, and insecurity? I see no means to effect this, but the removal of the causes which have led to these effects, and not of one, but of all, and not slowly but at once, and not partially but thoroughly, dealing not with surface exhibitions of disease, but going at once to the constitution of the patient—in a word re-constituting Ireland on a completely new basis, governing her henceforth in every particular, as a second, a sister England. Redress her grievances, supply her wants, grant her demands—her grievances are real, her wants are real—and who can deny, who admits either of these positions, the justice of her demands? But I am asked, what are they? I am called on to point out not only what we suffer, but what we ask. Some of the more pressing of our demands can be easily stated. They refer to the Franchise, to the Representation, to the relations of Landlord and Tenant, to Education, to the state and claims of the two Churches; these are the great moral questions, now attracting the most attention in Ireland, with which are more or less connected many other social ones, such as railroads, cultivation of waste lands, emigration, Poor-laws, charities, and every other, which have for object or result the useful and permanent employment of the people, but these I must postpone to some future debate, not from undervaluing their importance, but from a conviction that it is almost idle to look for their successful promotion, until the great political measures to which I have just referred to are first settled. And first of the Franchise. The Government has announced in general terms, its intention to place before the House, at an early period of the Session a Registration Bill. I asked the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department (Sir James Graham), whether it is to contain provisions upon which I conceive its character will mainly depend, the right of tenants at will, under certain limitations, to obtain the Franchise;—in the refusal of the right hon. Secretary to grant any information, I am of course precluded from

751
going into any discussion of its merits or defects. Thus far, however, I must be permitted to say, that it is idle to think of alteration at all unless with the object of really benefitting and satisfying, not a party, but the great body of the Irish people. This, I am convinced, cannot, and ought not to be expected unless the Franchise be made both more extensive and more certain. Our diminished and diminishing constituencies speak trumpet-tongued for the first; for the second, we have the experience of ten years to prove, that certainty is utterly impossible without a clearer and simpler definition, or a withdrawal altogether of the "beneficial interest" condition. A Registration Act, which aims at some higher purpose than a mere party measure, ought to look beyond the present. Its ultimate tendency, even more than its actual applicability should be kept in view. We demand an addition to our Representation. The proportions, as this House is now constituted, between the different countries are not fair. We did not think them so at the passing of the Reform Act, we do not think them so now. England was favoured more than Scotland—Scotland was favoured more than Ireland. We were overruled—but that is no reason why we should surrender our right, or not renew on every fitting occasion our claim. I do not call for an addition to the Members of this House, they are perhaps too numerous, but I call for an alteration of the proportions. The House may object to an immediate re-opening of the Reform Bill, but as from time to time circumstances may arise which may make it expedient to disfranchise English boroughs, many of which have given too flagrant proofs that they ought never to have been allowed to retain the privilege, why not transfer their representatives to Ireland? In a word, are you prepared to continue the enormous disproportion now existing between some of our largest counties, Cork and Tipperary for instance, and some of your smallest districts, and at the same time pretend to say that we are treated, I will not say with kindness, but with common matter of fact justice. Such a state of things I fairly tell the House will not be patiently acquiesced in, and it is for it to say, at what period and under what circumstances, it can be most advantageously altered. The relations between Landlord and Tenant, are in some degree at present under the consideration of the Government. A Commission is en-
752
gaged in enquiring into the subject. I have no doubt it will act with proper impartiality: in any case the Commissioners have a right to a fair trial: it would be unjust as well as unwise to throw additional difficulties in their way by premature censure or prophetic warnings of failure. At the same time, I regret that its composition should have subjected it in Ireland to the imputation of being a one-sided or landlords' Commission. The admixture of some organ or representative of the exclusively tenant interest would have been advisable. Its task is as arduous as it is important. The present condition of the Irish peasantry arises from a complication of causes. They have been now for some years in a transition state, and affected by almost all the usual evils of such a state—the middleman is passing into the condition of the simple tenant, the farmer into that of the labourer, the cottier and labourer expelled too often in masses from the counties to the towns. To this, must be added the difficulty of forming any intermediate proprietary class, between the great landlord and the small tenant. The existing number of small fee simple proprietors is exceedingly limited, I believe more so than in almost any other country of Europe not absolutely in a state of despotism and serf-ship. The result is obvious, there can be in such a state of things no yeomanry, no landed middle class. Greater facilities I think might without injury be given to the further transfer of land in small allotments, so as to place the acquisition of these estates within the reach of the humblest, who should have sufficient industry and perseverance to accumulate. This would not only gradually create a most important link between rich and poor, so necessary but so much wanting in Ireland, but act also, in a country where land is so much an object of competition, as a most powerful stimulant to industry and foresight. The expenditure of the tenant, when well directed, no one can doubt, is a benefit conferred, not only on his landlord, but on the country, and deserves every fair protection and encouragement; but this does not imply, that every expenditure which the tenant takes it into his head to make, is necessarily to be included under such a category. Some control is necessary—some guidance—the approbation of the landlord, as the chief interested party, should be obtained. But the evils of the present system are not confined to the tenant; the whole of the

753
relations between landlord and tenant require revision. The landlord is often too rash and too grasping in the selection of his tenants. He should be prevented, as far as statutes can prevent, from injuring both himself and them. A law, depriving him of all right to recovery of rent due beyond one year, would make him much more circumspect in his choice, more attentive to character and solvency than to promises, and would go far to protect the tenant from those exorbitant rents and consequent arrears, which so often are allowed, with a false appearance of humanity, to accumulate and hang over the tenant for no other purpose than to render him the slave of the landlord. But this, or indeed any other enactment, will be of little avail unless accompanied by an improvement in the character of the people, and this improvement I hold to be impossible, unless based on good government, both in administration and legislation on the part of their rulers, and on the part of the people on a sound and generally extended system of education. Much has indeed been done in this respect, but not one third of what ought to have been done. Considerable progress has certainly been made in providing for the education of the lower classes, but the middle classes have been altogether neglected, and the higher have not yet had all the advantages which they have a right to expect. I have more than once in this House ventured to propose measures which I thought would adequately meet both deficiencies, and shall yet, I trust, have opportunities of again urging them on the consideration of Parliament. For the present, I shall confine myself to the improvements which I think might be made in the higher departments. There are two State Establishments of the kind in Ireland, the University of Dublin, and the College of Maynooth. Both are susceptible of great and advantageous changes; the College of Maynooth should be enlarged and elevated not merely by extending its buildings, and augmenting its endowments, but by raising and extending the character of its education, so as to render it, in every particular, worthy of the important object for which it was designed. A reform and enlargement of the system of the University, though in a somewhat different sense, is not less necessary. Let it be remembered, that there is in Ireland a population of not less than 8,000,000, and that of these 8,000,000 7,000,000 are Catholics, and only 1,000,000 Protestants—for these 8,000,000 there is but one University, and that University is
754
Protestant; for although Catholics are admissible to its studies and degrees, they are still excluded from its dignities and emoluments. Under such circumstances, I am clearly of opinion, that we ought to give the Irish people a Catholic University of equal rank and importance with the existing Protestant one, or render this latter really Irish and national, by admitting Catholics as well as Protestants to its other advantages, as well as to its studies and honours. The last question I shall touch on is the Church; but before I enter on the subject itself, I trust I may be pardoned some preliminary observations which circumstances reluctantly force from me. I feel—as every Catholic must feel—pained and indignant at finding, that whatever may be my conduct or convictions, I am at at all times exposed to the imputation, from gentlemen differing from me religiously and politically, of not having a sufficiently delicate perception of the obligations which I undertook in entering this House. The oath I then took, is from time to time paraded, by certain individuals, impressed, certainly, with a due notion of the importance of their own religious views, but with very little consideration for the religion and consciences of others, as a bar to preclude interference in any question having a religious aspect, which may be brought under discussion in this House. I shall not demean myself by entering into, or refuting assertions so rashly ventured, touching the manner in which I or other Roman Catholics have observed obligations so solemnly entered into, before God and man. I need not such defence, neither I nor other Roman Catholics. I recollect that my ancestors perilled their lives, sacrificed their rank, and were deprived of a large portion of their property and of all their rights, for their adherence to their religion and the convictions of their conscience. I trust that I am not in this respect their unworthy descendant. I trust that I remember what they suffered, and for what. They might have entered the House of Commons, and some of them the House of Lords. What kept them out? An Oath. It is not at this hour I or my Catholic fellow Members are likely to depart from such an example. In the midst of wrongs, of calumnies, of insults, they abided by their faith: they were proud to have chosen that nobler part—and had a right to be proud; they left at least that inheritance, conscientious fidelity to our obligations,—it is not now it shall be taken from

755
us. An oath is to be regarded in two senses, in the sense of him who imposes it, and in the sense of him who takes it. Now before we enter into serious debate on the Irish Church, I must say that I think it right we should have, if for no other purpose than to preclude these painful discussions, a distinct and unimpeachable definition of what the Catholic Oath is meant to be. The right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Peel) was, I believe, the person who drew up that Oath, or at least who adopted and introduced it into this House. I therefore ask him here, in their presence, in what sense he meant to impose it on the Roman Catholic Members, what was the precise meaning which he attached to its words?—Did he mean, that in all matters affecting the Church of Ireland, Roman Catholics were to be precluded from taking any other view of its interests than those entertained by the right hon. Baronet, or were they to be allowed to prefer those of the noble Lord, which are the very opposite, though both Protestant, both orthodox, to those of the right hon. Baronet—or did he go so far as to require that they should altogether abstain from all discussion or voting on such subjects.—Does this Oath mean to pledge us to one side only, as the only true and legitimate supporters, and forbid all concurrence with their opponents, as the unquestionable subverters of the Establishment, or in order to avoid all difficulties, does it enjoin total abstinence and prohibit any interference one way or the other, in all such thorny discussions—I wish to know from the right hon. Baronet what is his signification? I have mine. I ask him, for the "animus imponentis;"—the "animus capientis" I am fully qualified to answer myself.—I took that Oath, in its obvious sense; and do not see how I am debarred by its strictest interpretation, without gross inconsistency and injustice, from taking my share, as a legislator, by discussion or vote, in all I judge to be necessary for the complete reform of whatever abuses I believe to exist in the Ecclesiastical Establishments of the country. Can I be supposed to have juster views, or stronger attachments to the Protestant Church, than many of the excellent Protestants I see around me? Why should I consider them subverters of this Church to which they are so devoted, in which they believe? If you are of a contrary opinion, why do you not first attack them, not for violation of their oaths, but for the foulest hypocrisy, the most flagrant desertion of all religious principle whatever?—If you
756
will not call them enemies to Protestantism, why should you call us? What do we do, more than they? For my part, I think them its truest friends. I act in reference to your Church, as in similar circumstances, I should act in reference to my own.—An Establishment, is framed for the use of the Church, and a Church for the advantage of Religion. It is only, in as much as it tends to diffuse and maintain religion amongst the people, that it can be considered of advantage—that it fulfills its purpose. If therefore, I think that religion will not be destroyed, by reducing the emoluments of the Clergy—if on the contrary, I am convinced, that it will be extended and augmented; that by thus diminishing unnecessary luxury, greater activity will be imparted, and its lessons be brought more within the sphere of those classes to whom its ministrations are more peculiarly useful and applicable,—am I not justified in supporting any proposal of the noble Lord near me, for the attainment of such object, and why should I be reminded of the breach of an Oath, with the strictest observance of which, a constitution totally different from the present of the Church Establishment is perfectly compatible? I have so far argued the question in reference to the Representation, but there are other parties still more interested, the Represented. The constituencies, no one doubts, have the fullest right to make their opinions known and felt in this House, for or against the Church Establishment.—Some may be Catholics, others Protestants, others opposed to both, some for, others may be against State Churches;—If Roman Catholic representatives be debarred from legislating on such subjects, it is not the representatives so much you deprive of a privilege, as those large and mixed constituencies, Catholic and non Catholic, who sent them here. Had they chosen a Protestant you could not prevent him from voting for the absolute and entire destruction of the Establishment. Will not such constituencies have a right, under such circumstances to turn round and say, "Our opinions and feelings are opposed to the present state of the Church Establishment,—we think it ought to be reduced—we are determined that our opinions shall be known; as those of our own creed are restricted in their powers of opposition, we must choose a Protestant who coincides with us, who lies under no such limitations, and will give expression and effect to our opinions and will." Here is a preference; here is a disqualification at

757
once established. If constituencies were compelled so to consider the subject, we Catholics would be but half emancipated. I agree with the noble Lord that the Church question is one of the greatest difficulty, but one also of the greatest urgency; it is of the most serious magnitude, and yet one on which we shall soon be compelled to decide. It is not a question whether this clergy or that shall have the revenues, but whether both their flocks shall have the instruction, and advance in the virtues and happiness for the promotion of which all clergies of all communions are designed. It is whether 7,000,000—nay, a whole nation, Protestant as well as Catholic, shall be kept in constant turmoil, to gratify the passions or prejudices—the bigotry or illusions of a few. That the Catholics will not accept a salary for their clergy is beyond question or doubt. You have only to look at what has recently occurred at their annual Synod in Dublin, to see that the Hierarchy has distinctly pronounced against the acceptance of any money. Similar objections, I understand, have been felt, to the acceptance even of glebes. The proposition of the noble Lord, the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston) to relax the law, now impeding private endowments, is no doubt an improvement—a benefit as far as it goes—but it is not absolutely requisite, and as a conciliatory measure insufficient. Money can be left in the hands of Trustees for the benefit of the clergy, just as it is now done with respect to endowments for charitable purposes. I can speak from personal experience: one of my own family endowed an almshouse for resident poor men and women; the endowment is vested in trustees, the administrator is the Catholic bishop. There can be no difficulty, then, apart from such a relaxation, even at present, on the part of individuals, in settling lands, in the nature of glebes, for the benefit of the parish clergy, though such a relaxation would, of course, afford greater facilities, and additional protection. This is quite feasible, but to expect the Catholic people to accept anything in the shape of endowment, much less salary, which would necessarily connect their clergy with the State, is quite another question. Nor is this singular; their reasoning is obvious; their clergy were first the objects of persecution by the law, next of distrust and contempt by the State, and then of invective and slander, by those supposed to be the advisers and confidential supporters of the Government, and the organs or at least expression of the opinions of a large
758
majority of the people of this country. It is natural, it is human, and not merely Irish nature, that they should feel the resentment and indignation of men—men, be it remembered, of flesh and blood like yourselves—at such unmerited, such unjustifiable treatment. They stand necessarily leagued—the result of your own bad laws and worse administration—with those who are in hostile movement against your Government. What consolation would money be to them, if they lost what the Catholic priest values above everything, the religious influence which the faithful pastor ought to possess over those around him? He will, therefore, refuse your offer of a stipend, and continue in opposition to your Government; and if ever he becomes an adherent of the State, he will be an adherent, not bought by money, but by conciliating; by the gradual progress of affection and attachment. That the clergy are not necessarily hostile to the State is shown by their conduct during the government of Lord Normanby, who felt some sympathy for the Clergy and the people. That Clergy cannot but feel that they are the Clergy of 7,000,000 of people, and that those of the Protestant Church are the Clergy but of 1,000,000. It is all well to say that the Protestant Clergy in Ireland are the Clergy of the United Church of England and Ireland. But use what forms you please, you cannot cheat men's senses. The Protestant and Catholic Churches in Ireland bear the proportion to the population which I have mentioned. Let the Protestant Church have such advantages as are consistent with this position: let its ministers have their fair emolument for the inculcation of their faith. No one is more desirous than I am, that every one belonging to that Church should be fully instructed in every point of their religion; but I must vindicate for the Catholic people a similar right to be instructed by theirs. Their Clergy is in every way worthy of respect, and should be placed beyond the reach of contumely and abuse. I quite agree with the noble Lord that it matters little from what rank the Clergy are taken. For some situations (and every Church, but especially the Catholic have many) I should prefer their being taken from a lower rank. They have duties to perform, which must be repugnant to men bred in the lap of comfort and affluence. They have to traverse wild tracts of country at every hour and in all seasons, they are ever in the midst of contagion and death, and this not as a matter of choice, and on the

759
impulse of enthusiasm, but in the bounden ministration of those offices which they have solemnly engaged themselves to perform. There is a deep sympathy between the Clergy and their flocks. They remember the times when their forefathers were expelled from their native soil, when a price was set on the priest's head, and a reward held out to him for the abandonment of his religion; and now, when that day is passed, and persecution is over, it is not wonderful that a sensitive people should feel the liveliest gratitude to men so sorely tried, and so faithful through every trial. I am not for the ascendancy of any religion, and least of all of the Roman Catholic. Seeing that we live under a free government, and not a despotism—looking to the checks of public opinion and the control of this House—I wonder how such an apprehension can be entertained, and particularly with the disposition existing amongst the Roman Catholics themselves. I have no ambition to raise the temporal splendor of my own Church, at the expense of the Protestant, but I wish to see the two Churches engaged in the task of doing mutual good—of forgiving and forgetting, and earnest only in a rivalry of the practice of every Christian virtue. When this is effected and other measures of redress are passed; when you have given up prosecutions and forsaken bayonets, then for the first time, the Irish people will give you more than lip service—you will have the devotion of their hearts. Is it not a disgrace to you, in the eyes of the whole of Europe, that Ireland should be in her present state? It is a just retribution, that states must submit to as well as individuals; they cannot do wrong without drawing it also on themselves. Danger after danger have you had to encounter—revolt after revolt to put down. Such are the fruits of the harvest you have sown. There is Ireland standing by you in the midst of her poverty, oppressed and discontented, but still strong; there is she ever at your side in the midst of your most luxurious banquets, and your greatest prosperity, like the Roman slave in the midst of the triumph, reminding the conqueror of his mortality. England has just claims to stand in the front rank of civilization and humanity; but she wants one thing—which having, she has every thing, which wanting, she wants everything—"domestic peace." She may obtain that essential ingredient to her true and permanent glory; but it is not through vio-
760
lence, nor through dread, nor through menace, but through the talismanic rule—simple, but strong—of "doing to others as she would be done by." This is the inflexible law of human nature. It was not made for Ireland or England—it governs not the past only, but the time to come. To this must the pride of England succumb at last. Before you make it a matter of peace and war, while there is still a neutral party to take advantage of, act justly, act wisely, act worthily of yourselves and us; abjure your errors, as you did in 1829, and set the glorious example of doing right a second time, against your prejudices, and in the teeth of your opinions, cherished it may be, but which for all our interests have lasted too long.
Sir James Graham: I by no means complain, Sir, of the length of time consumed by the speeches which commenced our proceedings this evening. The magnitude of the subjects brought under discussion, the importance of the crisis at which we are called on to come to a decision, fully justify the length at which the noble Lord and right hon. Gentleman have addressed us. At the same time the House, I am sure, will feel with me, that the task I have undertaken in following the noble Lord and right hon. Gentleman, difficult as it must be at all times, will be rendered still more difficult by the length of the opening speeches, and the period of the evening at which I am called on to answer them. But as you have heard the accusation against the Government with great patience, I am quite sure you will extend to me the same indulgence, and listen with equal patience, while I attempt to defend it. I can assure you, that I shall not unnecessarily trespass on the time of the House; but the position I occupy will remind the House that I am required to make a statement of the case on the part of the Government. I must express something like a personal feeling at the commencement of what I am about to address to you. I cannot help lamenting that on this fatal Irish field I first parted from the noble Lord (Lord John Russell); that on this field we have often met in hostile array; and that on this field we shall never meet again, except as opponents. I state this with regret; but what has fallen to-night from the noble Lord convinces me that we never can agree in our views as to Irish affairs. But although I must express a wide difference of opinion generally with the noble Lord on this subject, yet there are two points, to

761
which I may allude, on which I cordially agree with him. In the first place, I will advert to a topic, though it trenches on the rules of our debates; referring to which, the noble Lord, speaking from experience of the office I now hold, stated that no Sovereign ever reigned over these realms who was more desirous than Her present Majesty of promoting the happiness and contentment of all classes of Her subjects, without distinction of creed or nation. I have the greatest satisfaction in bearing my humble testimony to the same fact. In all the instructions I have received from Her Majesty, I find proofs that the statement of the noble Lord is correct, and in no degree exaggerated. I hope I shall be excused for thus going beyond the strict limit of debate, and following the example of the noble Lord, considering that on such an occasion the course may be justified. There is one other point on which I cannot disagree with the noble Lord. I allude to the glowing eulogium which he pronounced on the memory of Mr. Fox. The noble Lord read several passages from a speech of that great and distinguished man, in one of which the principle was laid down, that a military Government was not suited to Ireland. I agree in that sentiment. I agree fully in that sentiment. And are these empty words? What has been the conduct of the Government which I am called on to defend? Am I arguing in favour of a Coercion Bill? Am I vindicating the trial of political offences by court-martial? Is this the character of the proceedings which we are called on this night to defend? Far from it. It is not military law—it is not military executions that we have to vindicate. It is the honest attempt in times of great difficulty, to govern Ireland by means of the established law, by her ordinary tribunals, and by trial by jury. We are not seeking any unaccustomed or new powers, it is not a departure from the law of the land in any particular that we have to defend, but it is in defence of the law itself, which I am happy to say has been triumphant, that I stand forward to-night to vindicate the Government. Now, Sir, what said the right hon. Member for Waterford? I am most desirous to imitate the temper and tone of the right hon. Gentleman, who, dealing with the most exciting topics, with those well calculated to inflame the feelings and passions, treated them in a manner the most unobjectionable. But the House will remember that the right hon. Gentleman charged Her Majes-
762
ty's Government with being the "real criminals;" I am not disposed to evade that accusation, and I again appeal to the House whether, when we are so charged as criminals, you are not disposed to hear our defence. In following the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) I wish that I had had an opportunity of immediately addressing the House when the noble Lord sat down, because I might have handled the subjects on which he dwelt with more satisfaction when they were more fresh in my recollection. The noble Lord, I am sure quite unintentionally, mingled the questions of past conduct and future policy, with regard to Ireland, so as to render his accusations somewhat indistinct and confused. I, in following the noble Lord and right hon. Gentleman on the great and extensive subjects which they have handled, am persuaded that it will facilitate the discussion to divide it into two branches: first, the recent conduct of the Government; and, next, the general policy to be hereafter adopted. If time admitted, I should like to go back to the early period to which the noble Lord adverts; but it is my duty more particularly to confine myself to the recent official acts of the Government. I must, in passing, observe that I was somewhat surprised at the facility and readiness with which the noble Lord passed over the Government of Ireland under Lords Wellesley and Anglesey. The noble Lord must remember, that in all the acts of those noblemen, he shared the responsibility. He adopted their policy, and cannot now repudiate what he then approved. I have said, that on Irish affairs I parted from the noble Lord; but let us see how far we went together. The noble Lord said, that the Union yielded no fruits. I say, that while I had the honour of being a colleague of the noble Lord, great and important measures were passed, yielding to Ireland great and important advantages, and communicated in the spirit of a free and liberal Government. When Lord Grey came into power, the Emancipation Act had passed. I shall shortly run over the measures of Lords Anglesey and Wellesley, which the noble Lord has treated so lightly, but which I considered at the time of vital importance, and which I still think worthy of grateful remembrance. I must observe here, that from the time I left the Government the interval was very short—very short indeed—before the respected head of the Government also left it; and I cannot advert to such a subject without saying, that however glowing the eulogium

763
the noble Lord pronounced on Mr. Fox, Lord Grey is as worthy of the noble Lord's panegyric, and deserves in no less a degree the respect of the noble Lord. To omit all notice of the fact that Lord Grey passed many measures in a liberal spirit for Ireland, seems to me extraordinary, when it is remembered that the noble Lord was his colleague; and when we call to mind the sacrifice of office which Lord Grey submitted to for the sake of his principles, it is not too much to say that he would not have remained in office, not three or four years, but three or four months, unless he could have given effect to that policy on which his heart was always set. And how did he illustrate his good faith after taking office? He carried three great and important measures. He enlarged the Franchise in Ireland, he established a system of National Education, he passed the Church Temporalities Bill, a bill, as I think, strengthening the Protestant Church, by extending its basis, and by diminishing the weight of its superstructure. But is this all? Not content with the mere communication of civil privileges, the noble Earl agreeing in the policy for which the noble Lord, the Member for London, has this night contended, demanded for the Roman Catholics a full participation of office and power, and his government of Ireland was marked by justice and strict impartiality. I shall now advert to the first point on which the noble Lord dwelt at some length—the recent administration of affairs. I think the noble Lord said, that when the present Administration came into power the country was in a state of tranquillity, the Repeal agitation comparatively still and insignificant, and that anything formidable on that question dates from the accession of the present Administration. Now, Sir, perhaps I may be excused for very shortly reading to the House an account of the various Repeal meetings which were held in Ireland in the year 1840. I take the enumeration from the Pilot newspaper, generally understood to be the organ of the Repeal Association. So early as July, 1840, a series of repeal meetings commenced. [A Member: How many persons attended them?] I shall give not only the names of the places, but of the number who attended them. On the 26th of July, 1840, there was a Repeal meeting, at which the Roman Catholic clergy were present. On August 6, a meeting of 200 clergy and gentry; on August 13, a meeting of 10,000 persons at Tuam; on Sep-
764
tember 1, a meeting of 30,000 at Navan; on the 12th, one at Skibbereen; on the 20th, at Macroom; in October, one at Limerick; one at Kilkenny of 200,000; at Drogheda, a meeting of 16,000; at Waterford, on the 28th of October, of 60,000; in November one of 6,000, besides several smaller meetings. Early in 1841, there was a meeting at Mullingar, of 60,000; at Belfast, of 1,300; on the Curragh of Kildare of 20,000; and at Drogheda, just previous to the Melbourne administration going out of office, a meeting of 25,000. Now, I have here what I was prepared to read, the several speeches which Mr. O'Connell addressed to those meetings. On reflection the consideration of the present position of the hon. and learned Gentleman, especially as he is not in the House, forbids my reading any one of those speeches, because I do say that if I read them the House would agree with me, that at no peried ever since the accession of the present Government did that hon. and learned Gentleman express himself with greater heat and vehemence than in some of the speeches which I have before me. I will next observe that the noble Lord, in dealing with a most important branch of the subject, the administration of justice, touched on the constitution of common and special juries. I will first touch on the common jury. The noble Lord in strong terms eulogised the rule laid down by Chief Baron Brady. [Lord J. Russell: No, by Sir M. O'Loghlen.] Well, by whomever laid down we found it in operation, and did not alter or vary it in the slightest degree. To say absolutely that the Crown should not order persons to stand by, would amount to a denial of justice. Nothing has been more striking in the course of the present Session than the general approbation (I partake in the feeling, and I rejoice to see it pervades the House) bestowed on my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-general, no less for his temper than for his ability. I am sure, however, my hon. and learned Friend will be the first to avow, that in the honest discharge of his duty he has found it necessary to set aside jurors to no inconsiderable extent. I cite the case of the recent trials at Cardiff, and, if I am not mistaken, at a trial where the right of the prisoners to challenge was allowed, and when all the jurors were set aside on the part of the Attorney-general, the entire panel consisted of only nine jurors, thirty or forty having been ordered to stand by on the part of the Crown, Therefore, the House will see

765
that, with respect to trials of this description, even where the administration of justice is not tainted with suspicion, this power must exist—to be exercised, I admit, with caution and forbearance, subject always to responsibility; but it is a power which, unless the ends of justice are to be defeated, and trial by jury brought into disrepute, must exist. The noble Lord, who is generally very accurate, fell, as it appeared to me, into some misapprehension on this matter, and did not perceive the difference between ordering common jurors to stand by, and striking from the list of special jurors. Now, I am not aware that the rule in Ireland, with regard to ordering jurors to stand by, is the rule of Sir Michael O'Loghlen, but I am sure that the statute which regulates the striking of special juries is an act of Parliament which was brought into the House by Sir Michael O'Loghlen. Therefore the law in Ireland with regard to the striking of special juries, is a law which the noble Lord cannot impeach. It was brought in under his administration by a very eminent lawyer, who was deeply attached to liberal opinions. I think I heard the hon. Member for Taunton say, that the striking of special juries was a matter of discretion; but so far from being a matter of discretion, it is tied up by the strictest enactment. The special jury in the case in question was taken from a list of 716 special jurors. Although it interrupts that part of the case with which I am now dealing, I will, in passing, observe, that from that list of 716, certain names were omitted. The noble Lord has stated that 60 names were omitted, and he relies upon a statement made in the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland. I am told, and I believe it, that that statement is a great exaggeration, that nothing like 60 names were omitted—I believe not half that number. But be that matter as it may, it has never been contended out of this House, nor as yet has it been contended within it, that Her Majesty's Government is responsible for that omission. The right hon. Gentleman, the Recorder of Dublin is present. In the course of the debate, I have no doubt he will give a more detailed explanation of what occurred than I can possibly do; but, as I have stated, it is a great exaggeration to say, that 60 names were omitted. I deeply regret the omission, and am sorry to feel, with the noble Lord, that some prejudice has been created by it to the administration of justice. The statement, however, was
766
an exaggeration, and the House will see if the number be only 30, as I believe it to be, or somewhat less, it is hardly possible, considering that that 30 was composed partly of Roman Catholics and partly of Protestants, that in a list of 716, from which 48 names are to be drawn by ballot, any great and important change could be effected in the result, by the omission of a number so small in proportion to the whole. But now, Sir, I proceed to the striking of the jury. The House will observe, under the act of Parliament it is prescribed that the parties shall strike alternately. In passing, I will observe what was remarkable—the officer of the Crown, it is said, struck Roman Catholics, the striking being alternate, it is worthy of observation, the traversers struck off no Roman Catholics, but Protestants exclusively. But the case as first presented to the public was this—that ten Roman Catholics had been struck off by the Crown, not because they were Repealers, but because they were Roman Catholics; and with regret greater than I can describe to the House, I have seen that a body the most respectable among my fellow-subjects, I mean the English Roman Catholics, have resented this striking off Catholics from an Irish jury as an insult offered to themselves, and have given to that which was a matter of politics the graver character of religious strife. I saw this with the deepest regret, because I know the suspicion to be groundless. But now allow me to call the attention of the House to the degree to which this case has been narrowed within the last week. It stood for a long time, that ten Roman Catholics were struck off by the Crown, because they were Roman Catholics, and not because they were Repealers. The noble Lord really stated a part of the case which is decisive on this point. Very early that accusation was taken notice of in the Court of Queen's Bench, and it was urged that it was most desirable that the traversers, who alone had access to the books of the Repeal Association, should verify that these ten Roman Catholics were not members of the Repal Association, and one of the counsel undertook that an affidavit should be filed, negativing the fact of their connection with the Association. If I mistake not, it was not till towards the close of these proceedings, that this affidavit appeared, and most important it was; because that affidavit disclosed the fact, that eight

767
out of the ten Roman Catholics were members of the Repeal Association. I, therefore, now have only to show the motive for striking off the other two. I cannot believe that it will for one moment be contended that the Crown was not justified in keeping any name off the jury list, because they were Roman Catholics, even though they were Repealers. There is no impeachment in striking off persons who are partizans. I will put a most simple case. If, in a fox-hunting country I were to bring an action of trespass against the master of the hounds, and there was a large body of the members of the hunt as special jurors, my solicitor would not act with common sense if he did not strike all those gentlemen from the jury. Or, if I brought an action in resistance to a claim for tithes, he would be wanting in ordinary prudence if he did not strike all the lay impropriators from the jury. It is not a question, therefore, which touches the honour of parties, but it is a simple question, what are their strong pre-conceived opinions?—and in the course of this debate I shall be astonished if any Gentleman has the rashness to contend, that eight Roman Catholic members of the Repeal Association ought in justice and in reason to have been left on the jury. I will now consider the case of the two jurors who were not, according to the statement of the solicitors for the traversers, members of the Association, though Roman Catholics. Their names are Michael Dunn and William Hendrick. I hope the House will bear with me while I state facts intimately connected with this grand question—namely, whether it were the wish of Her Majesty's Government to administer justice with impartiality in Ireland, and without distinction of class. Dunn resided in St. Patrick's ward in Dublin, and I am informed that there are four persons of that name, and three of them had signed the requisition for the Repeal meeting at Tara, and as we then believed, and as we still believe, Michael Dunn, the brazier, who is the person I am now speaking of, signed that requisition. He has himself made an affidavit, in which he has negatived the fact that he is a member of the Repeal Association; but he has not negatived the fact that he signed the requisition for a Repeal meeting, either at Tara or in his own ward. I will now state another fact to the House. I state deliberately that the instructions given by me to the Irish Government with respect to that
768
jury were most explicit. It was in the power of Her Majesty's Government to have tried the question by a common jury. In that case the traversers would not have been entitled to challenge a single name; whilst Her Majesty's servants might have ordered jurors to stand by without stint or limit. By taking that course we might have gained an advantage, but we felt that such a course would be in violation of public opinion, and we thought it would be unseemly that the traversers should be precluded from challenging; we thought on the whole it was a course to be avoided, and we directed the servants of the Crown to apply for a special jury. What was the effect of that? To give to both parties a perfect equality of right. Forty-eight names are selected by lot, and that number is reduced to twenty-four, by alternate strikes, the Crown and the traversers having an equal and the same right, and the number being thus reduced the selection of twelve from the twenty-four then takes place by ballot. And I would beg the House to observe that it is not only that you may strike, but that the act is imperative, that you must strike; and, as I said before, the obvious common sense rule of justice is, that each party should strike those whom they thought had prejudices in their case contrary to their respective interests. Now, I will go further, and I state to the House again, most deliberately, that the instructions of Government were not to strike off Roman Catholics, because they were Roman Catholics—but only to strike off Roman Catholics in circumstances in which the duty of the servant of the Crown would have led him to strike off any other person. These were the instructions that were given by the noble Lord (Lord Eliot), and I do not say that these were instructions only, but I am satisfied that to the best judgment of the persons engaged they were fulfilled. I have now disposed of nine out of the ten. There remains the tenth case—that of Hendrick; and I state that Hendrick was believed at the time of striking the jury, and at some time subsequent to that, to be a Protestant. It would be a dereliction of my duty if I stated to the House the reasons for striking off Hendrick's name; but I do state most positively that he was believed to be a Protestant, and was struck for grounds having no connexion whatever with religion. I will not pursue this question further, but I can conscientiously state that nothing was so opposite to the wish of the Government as the exclusion

769
of Roman Catholics from the jury upon account of their religion. No such instructions were given; on the contrary, instructions were given to avoid such a course; I believe they were faithfully fulfilled, and notwithstanding the prejudice which has been excited on this subject, I am quite satisfied that no accusation was ever more unfounded. I must now advert to one other observation of the noble Lord, with respect to abstaining from prosecuting those meetings earlier, which were held to promote the Repeal of the Union. I will state, on the part of the Government, that throughout the last Session of Parliament there was the greatest disinclination to interfere with the right of petition; but we regarded those meetings with anxiety; we believed that they went to the verge of the law, if they did not trespass beyond it; they were very multitudinous, the language used at them was very violent; and there were certain circumstances connected with them, such as the marching in military array with martial music, and other accompaniments, which I believe brought these meetings within the definition of unlawful assemblies. It is possible that some of those meetings were illegal. But what is that admission made by the noble Lord? When he asks, why did you not prosecute? the moment we are taunted with not prosecuting—that taunt implies an admission that the acts were illegal. But waiving that, I contend that if at first we had prosecuted for attendance at some one of these meetings, for some speech delivered there, or for some article in the newspaper, no moral impression would have been produced, and it is even doubtful whether we should have obtained a conviction; and hence the great object which the Government had in view, viz., the proving the supremacy of the law over the leaders in this course of sedition, would not have been gained. The noble Lord has had experience with me upon this very point. Lord Grey's Government did try to prosecute the editor of a newspaper—one of those very persons now prosecuted—for publishing a letter of Mr. O'Connell's. The Government obtained a conviction. Mr. O'Connell, though his name was to the letter, did not own himself the author, and Mr. Barrett, the editor of the paper, was condemned, and was sent to prison. There may be various opinions as to whether he were properly treated. Mr. O'Connell himself censured the course adopted, and characterised it as mean and shabby in the
770
extreme; and, as far as he was himself concerned, I think, perhaps he was right. The object of the present Government was to procure the punishment of the "very head and front of the offenders," and by pursuing the course Her Majesty's Government have pursued, not by dealing with particular meetings, nor particular speeches, nor particular paragraphs, but allowing the whole scheme to develope itself, by pursuing that course I say we have succeeded in proving the leaders of this scheme of agitation guilty by a jury fairly constituted and under the direction of a unanimous bench. ["Hear."] Yes, not before a single judge sitting at oyer and terminer; but in the most solemn manner, by trial at bar, in the metropolis of Ireland, with the eyes not only of Ireland, but of the whole of Great Britain fixed upon every stage of the proceedings. And at the same time we have the acknowledgement of the Gentlemen opposite, that upon the whole the Attorney-general conducted the case calmly and temperately. [Lord J. Russell was understood to dissent.] Well, if the noble Lord doubts the fact, I will refer him to the speech of Mr. Whiteside, the counsel for one of the traversers, in which he compliments the Attorney-general, saying that he had conducted the case with great fairness. The traversers suggested various delays to which we could not accede; but the moment they pleaded we offered no opposition to any reasonable application for postponement. One such application they did make, grounded upon the imperfect state of the jury list, and Her Majesty's Government did consent to a postponement for the purpose of ascertaining whether or no the list were imperfect; and while I am upon this subject I may state the pleasure with which I have heard from all hands the most complimentary expressions employed towards my right hon. Friend the Recorder of Dublin, for the trouble which he took, and for the impartiality which he displayed in the revision of the list. Now, had we taken the opposite course—and the verdict of the jury, a most discriminating verdict, clearly establishes the fact—I repeat, that had we tried any of those parties, or all of them, for attending an illegal meeting, we should not have convicted them. Look at the verdict. The first count charged that the meetings were illegal and seditious, and went on to state that they were held and assembled for illegal and seditious purposes. Now the jury have negatived the fact that the meetings were in themselves illegal and se-

771
ditious, but have found the parties guilty of attending them for illegal purposes. Nothing can be more intelligible. It is not for me to contend that all those meetings were illegal. My belief is that they were held for particular purposes—to intimidate the Government and to force the Parliament into a breach of national faith; by intimidation to force the Legislature to take a course which the Legislature without such intimidation was not prepared to take. The motive in the case was everything, the means used singly and separately might not have been illegal, but that was no proof of the absence of an illegal motive; and this was exactly the opinion of the jury. They said the meetings separated peaceably day by day; any one of the articles taken separately may not have been illegal, but they do show a combined purpose to effect an object which though not illegal in itself yet by illegal combination renders the parties combining amenable to the law. Now, the noble Lord has expended some argument against the law of conspiracy, and has compared it with constructive treason. I need not remind the House of the difference between the highest capital offences and misdemeanours; but I deny that there is any novelty in the law of conspiracy. Even if there were any novelty, I contend that we have at present to contend with a new state of things. One of the most sagacious of living men drew my attention not long ago to a saying of one of the most profound thinkers that ever lived among women. The duke of Wellington called my attention to the following observations in Madame de Stael's History of the French Revolution:—
"In these days," says Madame de Stael, "On conspire toujours sur la place publique, où plutôt, on ne conspire pas, on s'excite les uns les autres."
In these latter days Leagues meet in theatres. Demagogues spout in the market-places; and conspirators build conciliation halls to disseminate sedition among the multitude. I deny that the law of conspiracy is new; but, even if it were, I say that it would be necessary to frame it, to meet such a state of things as the present. But it has been said, "Why, when you determined upon proclaiming the meetings, did you act as you did in proclaiming the meeting at Clontarf?" I beg your attention to this. The noble Lord said, the proclamation was marked with so much
772
negligence and carelessness that it endangered the lives of the people, and he then passed a glowing eulogium upon the exertion which Mr. O'Connell employed to prevent the meeting. I concur in the eulogium so passed. The noble Lord reminded us of Mr. O'Connell's preaching peace, and gave him great credit for opposing chartists and trades' unions. Now, I do not wish to aggravate the case against Mr. O'Connell, but I would remind the House that this very argument was urged in his defence upon his trial, and that it was met by the Crown, and proved by the Crown to be part and parcel of the means by which that conspiracy was conducted. If any one meeting had been riotous, if the peace had been broken, the effect desired by its leaders would not have been produced—the slightest infraction of the public peace would have been immediately checked by an overwhelming force, and would have been fatal to the design of' conspiracy. Whilst I recollect I will also touch upon another point in the noble Lord's speech. The noble Lord, in more than one paragraph of his speech, with a great deal of forgiveness and a great deal of the most amiable charity, praised Mr. O'Connell very much, whilst he condemned in a like degree Lord Lyndhurst. Lord Lyndhurst may be comforted, when the noble Lord opposite abuses him: censure falls light from the panegyrist of Mr. O'Connell. Now, Sir, I stand here the colleague of Lord Lyndhurst. I am his friend. I am astonished that the noble Lord should have thought it becoming his station to have spoken of the Lord Chancellor of England in the terms which he has thought proper to use. Away with all high aristocratic notions of noble birth and other adventitious circumstances: here is a man who from his first entrance into public life has risen by the exertion of pre-eminent talent: watch his progress at the University—watch him at the Bar. In political life, it is true, he has created some enemies, but not many in this country, where he is best known; but I will undertake to say, Sir, that no man ever adorned the judgment seat with judicial functions of a higher order, his integrity is incorruptible, his talents first-rate; and, Sir, I think it hard that a man who has risen to pre-eminence after a long life, by means not dishonourable, should in his absence be taxed, even in party strife, and by the leader of a party, in a way so severe and so unjust. I am confident Lord Lyndhurst would not have

773
spoken of any political opponent in his absence in any such terms. But is this all that is ungenerous? The noble Lord has not only reminded you of certain expressions imputed to my noble Friend, but was further betrayed into saying what I am sure he cannot mean and must wish unsaid, that Lord Lyndhurst, not for his talent, not for his public virtue, not for his pre-eminence in his profession, but that he had been selected for the Woolsack by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government on account of his having insulted the Irish people. Perhaps the noble Lord was excited. I am quite sure that upon more calm reflection, these are expressions which the noble Lord would not have used. But to come to the fact of the expression attributed to Lord Lyndhurst; I say that Lord Lyndhurst, in the presence of the House of Lords, who heard the expressions—who knew precisely what fell from him—five or six days afterwards positively denied the use of them in the sense in which they had been misrepresented. I say he positively denied their use in the sense which was applied to them. Lord Lyndhurst himself, in the explanation to which I refer, reminded the noble Viscount then at the head of the Government (Viscount Melbourne) and the President of the Council, that they were both present when the expressions were used, and that they neither commented on nor objected to them, as it was undoubtedly their duty to have done if they had understood them to have the meaning imputed to them. No; it was not till a false gloss had been put upon them elsewhere that any comment or explanation was required or made. Now I will pass from this subject, which I thought it my duty to notice, and I can assure the noble Lord that the pain with which I heard his attack upon Lord Lyndhurst was very great, because I thought it an attack unworthy of a generous adversary. The point to which I was adverting when I was led away by these considerations was the imputation of negligence and carelessness on the part of the Government with regard to the proclamation forbidding the meeting at Clontarf. The requisition for the meeting at Clontarf was sent to me upon Thursday the 27th of September. On Saturday, the 29th, a proclamation was issued by the Committee of a very peculiar character, to which it is my duty shortly to call the attention of the House. At that moment, the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland was absent
774
from Ireland on account of his health. My noble Friend the Secretary for Ireland, sent to me a copy of this proclamation. It is headed, "Repeal cavalry—Clontarf meeting—muster and march of the mounted Repeal volunteers." It would be tedious were I to read the whole proclamation, but all the expressions used in it are studiously of a military nature, and they are intended to give to the whole assemblage a martial character. In former meetings, there had been a display of infantry. Mr. O'Connell had boasted that his infantry was superior to that which the Duke of Wellington commanded at Waterloo, and far more powerful than that which Napoleon led to Moscow. But this was the first occasion on which a summons was issued for the assembling of cavalry. I will not, as I have said, trouble the House with the whole proclamation, but will just read the first paragraph, which will show the nature of the whole.
"1st. All mounted Repealers from the city or from the south and west sides of the county to muster on the open ground, Harcourt-street-fields, on Sunday, the 8th of October, at 12 o'clock at noon, and form into troops, each troop to consist of 25 horsemen, to be led by one officer in front, followed by six ranks, four abreast, half distance, each bearing a wand and cockade distinguishing the number of his respective troop."
It was conceived by my noble Friend that this was a new and peculiar proclamation; and it will now be necessary for me to call the attention of the House to the progress of events in Ireland about that time. Several immense multitudinous meetings had been held in different parts of Ireland, and the violence of the language had increased as the multitudes augmented. There had been the meeting at Tara, and the crowning at Mullaghmast, attended with the peculiar circumstances of banners and martial music which distinguish all the meetings. Large contributions had been received from foreign countries; a tax, amounting in one week, I believe, to 3,000 l., had been levied upon the Irish people; there was impending the meeting in Conciliation-hall of 300 representatives, who were to assume the character of an Irish Parliament; and then, at last, came this proclamation of a military character. It is asserted, and I think the noble Lord rather confirmed the statement, that this was to have been the last meeting. Let me negative that assertion. I have the words of Mr. O'Connell, used by him at

775
Mullaghmast on the 1st of October to contradict it. He said:—
"He would not have met them at Mullaghmast again, but for the purpose of showing the completeness of their position and expectations. He had arranged six or seven meetings more, and by the time they were held, he thought the Ministry would be shown that their do-nothing policy would not remedy the grievances of Ireland."
The meeting at Clontarf, therefore, was not to be the last, but in calling that meeting one of an additional series, this proclamation of a military character was issued; and as I have stated to the House, I received it in London on the 1st or 2nd of October. I summoned the Lord-Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and the law officers of the Crown to a meeting on the day that I received this communication. It was on Sunday, I think, that I received it, and I summoned the meeting for the following day. We met; we deliberated. Now, that proclamation had issued from the Corn Exchange, whether with or without the knowledge of Mr. O'Connell does not appear; but it became the subject of consideration in the Association on the Monday, and then the question was discussed whether or not the military terms should be withdrawn. Alterations were made, though they were not wholly withdrawn, and a second proclamation was issued. For the word "troops" "groups" was substituted. But several military terms were retained, and in substance the proclamation was identically the same. A meeting was to assemble in the heart of Dublin in mid-day, and for the purpose of demonstration to march under the Castle-wall. [Mr. Wallace: "Will the right hon. Gentleman read the second proclamation."] Yes. It is dated, "Sunday, October 8, 1843;" the summons to appear mounted upon Conquer-hill was omitted.
"The committee for this great national demonstration, being apprised of the intention of many repealers to appear mounted at Clontarf, recommend the following rules to be observed for the regulation of the cavalcade:—1. All mounted Repealers of the city or from the south and west sides of the county to muster on the open ground, Harcourt-street-fields, on Sunday, the 8th of October instant, at 12 o'clock at noon, and form into groups" (not troops) "each group to consist of 25 horsemen, to be kept in order by"—the words "officer" and "half-distance" are omitted—"some one or two in front, followed by six ranks, four a-breast, each bearing a wand."
The military character even of this se-
776
cond proclamation is quite transparent. It became necessary for Her Majesty's Government, aided by the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and the law-officers of the Crown, to consider whether this second proclamation had altered the case. We deliberated; and on the Wednesday morning it was considered necessary that the Lord-Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor should repair forthwith to Dublin. Her Majesty's Government did not give a peremptory order that this meeting should be proclaimed, because circumstances might vary; but the authorities had a discretion to consider the facts on their arrival in Dublin, and to decide according to certain fixed instructions which were laid down. The Lord-Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor arrived in Dublin on Friday, having left London on Thursday morning. On the Friday, they immediately summoned a Council and deliberated on the facts, and they determined to proclaim the meeting; but they had to weigh well every word of their proclamation, to put it into form, to pass it through the Hanaper-office, and to have the great seal of Ireland affixed. The whole of this was done between Friday at noon and Saturday at noon. The proclamation was instantly made as public as possible, and was posted upwards of thirty miles round Dublin on Saturday evening. It was a meeting, be it remembered, for the districts, and the immediate vicinity and neighbourhood of Dublin, and the proclamation could be known therefore, by four o'clock on the Saturday afternoon in Dublin and its immediate vicinity. Now, admitting the full value of Mr. O'Connell's exertions in preventing the meeting, I am happy to say, that it did not take place, and that nobody was injured, no mischief was done to life or property, and no evil consequence of any kind ensued. I have dwelt as shortly as the justice of the case would admit on all the circumstances connected with this Proclamation, because I feel convinced that a simple narration of the facts is the very surest mode of meeting misrepresentation. Having now trespassed upon the patience of the House for a considerable time, I shall omit some topics, which, if it were earlier in the evening, I should be disposed to discuss. But I am asked—what is the benefit of the course we have adopted? I will tell the noble Lord and the House. Already very important benefits have been gained; for the last three months there has been comparative

777
peace in Ireland. With returning tranquillity there has been a revival of industry and more extensive employment. But is that all? I do conceive an immense object has been effected by proving that without any extraordinary powers, either asked or granted, trial by jury, and the law as administered in Ireland, by an unanimous Court, have been triumphant over a most dangerous conspiracy. That is my short answer to the question what is the benefit of the trial? But the noble Lord said, incidentally, that we occupy Ireland by a military force. Most certainly we do occupy Ireland by a military force. When a demonstration is made, clearly showing an intention to wrest Ireland from Her Majesty by a display of physical force, does the noble Lord himself object to any such proceedings? Am I to understand that to be his opinion, when the Government are convinced, in common with the jury who have now convicted the parties, that there was a design to tamper with the army, to overawe the Government, to assume the functions of the Executive by the appointment of a police, and by the establishment of courts of law and of equity, and that the functions and powers of Government were, one by one, to be assumed by the Repeal Association,—does the noble Lord say, that it was not the bounden duty of the Government, both to the people and to Her Majesty, to take precautions against such proceedings? Until these military demonstrations had taken place, for they might well be called military demonstrations from the manner in which the Repealers were brought together and compared to the finest troops in Europe, and stated to be even superior to them, we were not justified in taking more than ordinary measures of precaution; and until the month of March last, so far from having a large portion of the Queen's army in Ireland, we had a somewhat weaker force compared to that of former years. I have a return which I thought the hon. Member for Coventry had moved for, and which I am ready to produce, if he does call for it, and which has been called for in the other House of Parliament. It shows the total rank and file of all the forces in Ireland on the 1st of January in each year, from 1830 to 1844. Now, Sir, I think it quite right to conceal no facts at the present moment with reference to this point. I believe the force in Ireland is equal to every emergency, and to prevent all delusion on the subject, Her
778
Majesty's Government will produce the return. On the 1st of January, 1844, there were 21,251 men in Ireland. When I had the honour to be the colleague of the noble Lord in 1833 and 1834, the amount for the first of those years, was 23,998, and for 1834, 23,035. Between the 21st of September, 1841, and the 1st of March, 1843—that month in which the monster meetings began, when Her Majesty's Government did think it necessary to act with decision in respect of this matter, two regiments of cavalry had been withdrawn, and one only sent; twelve battalions of infantry were withdrawn, and eight only sent. On the 1st of January, 1841, the total force was 14,687 men; on the 1st of Jan., 1843, 14,476. [Cries of "Marines."] The marines are not included in the return; but they are generally about 600. I readily and most decidedly admit that melancholy indeed would be the prospect of this country if Ireland were permanently to be held by a military force; but when a design is entertained to wrest Ireland from this country by force, that design must be resisted: far be it from me, however, to contend that a military policy is the soundest policy upon which to govern any country. It may be said, these are mere words, and that they prove nothing. Let me then shortly glance at the measures the Government have undertaken and those they are prepared to take with regard to Ireland. I listened attentively to the noble Lord, and to the right hon. Gentleman and I have been unable to discover in what fell from them on the policy which they suggested to be pursued with regard to Ireland, any thing very new, or very useful; but Her Majesty's Government have, as the House knows, issued a Commission with reference to the occupation of land in Ireland, and the terms of that commission are,
"To inquire into the state of the law and practice in respect to the occupation of land in Ireland, and in respect also to the burthens of the county cess, and other charges which fall respectively upon the landlords and occupants, and to report what alterations may be made, with a due regard to the just rights of property, the cultivation of the soil, the extension of the advantages of agriculture, and the relation between landlords and tenants."
These are extensive subjects, and into many of them, I have no doubt, that an inquiry ought to be made, and will bring forth useful information. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Kildare, made an observation last Session, which appeared

779
to me to be full of truth and wisdom,—namely,
"It is no answer to me to say, that the law affecting landlord and tenant, in Ireland, is the same there as in England, for the different circumstances of the two countries, and the different state of society in each, may cause the same law to produce very different effects."
I will illustrate what I mean by a reference to the Law of Ejectment. I recollect that some years ago the hon. Member for Cockermouth proposed a measure by which the power of ejecting a tenant under 20 l. a year was given to the magistrates. On that occasion my right hon. and learned Friend the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland who was then a Member of the House, objected strongly to the principle, and said that the adoption of such a measure might produce very serious consequences. He added that he thought that that part of the law of England relating to ejectments was better for being somewhat tardy, and that it was desirable that the process for that purpose should be adopted in the Assize court of the county, and before an assembled bar, and an auditory that would carefully attend to the case. By such a course, he said, time would be afforded to allow any warmth of blood to subside, and angry feelings to be allayed. But there are circumstances connected with ejectment in Ireland, where a summary process is given to the Quarter Sessions, which may be attended with practical evils. It therefore is a question whether it would not be advisable carefully to investigate the summary process of Ejectment by Civil Bill in Ireland. Again the question of Compensation for Improvements made by the Tenant, is one of great practical importance. In England, buildings on farms, and under drainings, are generally made at the cost of the landlord; but this is not so generally the case in Ireland. In that country I understand that even for improvements made under lease, no allowance is made to the tenant on his lease expiring; or on his leaving his farm, I think that some arrangement might be made by which the interests of the tenant may be preserved, and that too is a subject deserving careful investigation. Again, with respect to sub-letting, which takes place, to a much greater extent in Ireland than in this country, the effect of which is to produce a deterioration in the condition of the peasantry, and to hold out an inducement to landlords to clear their estates when leases fall in, of large numbers
780
of the population. This state of things is sometimes productive of great misery and hardship to innocent parties entitled to indulgent consideration. But all these circumstances have been brought under the attention of the Commissioners, and I believe that all these, and other topics, have already undergone, or will undergo a careful consideration; and I hope, before the close of the Session that some measure, founded on the report of the Commissioners, may be introduced into the House, and pass into a law. The hon. Member for Waterford joined the noble Lord in condemning the Government for reducing the number of the stipendiary magistrates in Ireland. I might have said that this was the only great improvement connected with the law of landlord and tenant in Ireland, which was suggested by the noble Lord. The only measure which he recommended was, an increase in the number of the stipendiary magistrates. Now, it appears very strange to me, considering how recently the noble Lord was a Minister of the Crown, and for how long a time the noble Lord was in high office, namely, from 1834 to 1841, that the noble Lord did not adopt this course, as well as bring forward and carry into effect many important measures which now seem to fill his imagination. The right hon. Member for Waterford upbraided the Government for reducing the number of stipendiary magistrates by ten. I entreat the House to attend to the facts I am about to state. The number of stipendiary magistrates in 1838, '39, '40, and '41, under the administration of the noble Lord and his colleagues amounted to 59. In the estimates of 1841, the year they left office, they took a vote for 59 stipendiary Magistrates in Ireland. At a very curious period, namely, in the month of June, 1841, the noble Lord and his colleagues bethought themselves that the time had arrived when it was expedient to add to the number of stipendiary magistrates in Ireland. The estimates having passed, there had been for four years only fifty-nine stipendiary magistrates in Ireland—on the 15th of June, an addition was made—they added one to the number of Irish stipendiary magistrates on the 15th of June. They added two on the 28th of July; they added two on the 6th of August; they added one on the 16th of August, and, as if to mark the day when Lord Melbourne resigned the seals of office into the hands of Her Majesty, the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland appointed an additional stipendiary magistrate

781
on that very day. After the Government was a condemned Government, then, and not till then the necessity occurred of adding to the number of stipendiary magistrates in Ireland. In the course of three months they added seven, and, as if it were not only a death-bed repentance, but in the last gasp of an expiring Government, they appointed one on the very day when they left office. Let that course be contrasted with that which has been pursued by the present Government. So far from reducing the number of stipendiary magistrates, ever since we have been in office we have had one stipendiary magistrate more than the late Government had in 1841. We certainly did not think it consistent with our duty to maintain the seven last appointments. But have we acted with harshness towards these gentlemen? I cannot think that any of them had the slightest claim on the consideration of the present Government; but, notwithstanding much obloquy which has been cast upon us, we have appointed four of these gentlemen promoted between June and August, 1841, to vacancies as they occurred, the fifth died, so that there are only two out of the seven unprovided for, and of these one had been appointed on the very day of the late Government's resignation. So much with regard to the measure recommended by the noble Lord as to the number of the stipendiary magistrates in Ireland. It is also remarkable that the attack of the right hon. Member for Waterford, with respect to Ireland, rested mainly on the question of National Education. I have to state to the House that it is the decision of Her Majesty's Government, in the Estimates of the present year, to propose a considerable addition to the vote for National Education. We are quite satisfied that more constant and frequent inspection of the national schools is necessary. We are quite satisfied that training schools for masters and mistresses to manage the approved system of education throughout Ireland are wanting; and, I repeat, it is our intention to propose a considerable addition to the vote for National Education in the Irish Estimates for the present year. The right hon. Member for Waterford suggested another boon that might be conferred on Ireland. We have directed our attention to the state of the law with regard to the power of making grants for charitable and religious uses in Ireland. In the session of 1832, Mr. George Lamb, the lamented brother of Lord Melbourne, brought in an
782
important act, which became law, and which placed Roman Catholics in Great Britain on the same footing, with regard to the enjoyment of gifts for charitable and religious uses, as Protestant Dissenters after the passing of the Toleration Act. The object of Mr. Lamb's act was declared to be this, "to enable to acquire and hold in real estate property necessary for religious worship, education, and charitable purposes." It did not extend to Ireland, and it is our intention to propose to Parliament a measure which will have the effect of placing Roman Catholics in Ireland on the same footing as Roman Catholics in Great Britain, and as the Protestant Dissenters, with reference to Grants of Land for religious and charitable uses. I now pass to a third subject touched on by the noble Lord, namely, the state of the franchise in Ireland. I think the noble Lord must have forgotten that when the Irish Reform Act regulating the franchise in counties was introduced, the leasehold qualification was 10 l. clear yearly value in Ireland as well as in England and Scotland. The terms were the same—the interpretation, of course, upon the same words with the same object ought in the two countries to be the same; but for the sake of greater perspicuity the terms "clear yearly value," used in the English and Scotch bills, were, in the progress of the Irish Reform Bill, set aside for the words "beneficial interest," in Ireland. I have no doubt the interpretation put in Scotland and England upon the words "yearly value" and by the majority of the judges in Ireland on the terms "beneficial interest," as equivalent to "clear yearly value," was the right interpretation. But the effect has been greatly to narrow the county franchise, and it is the intention of the Government, in their registration act for Ireland, to propose an extension of the county franchise, as a compensation for the restrictive operation to which I have alluded. I think it also right that I should state to the House, as indicative of the spirit which actuates the Government, since we have successfully resisted the attempts to overawe the Legislature and the Executive, that it is our intention to deal, in a certain particular, with the franchise of the cities and towns. At the time of the passing of the Reform Act no Poor-rate had been carried in Ireland. The borough franchise in England depended on the occupation of a house valued at 10 l., coupled with the payment of poor-rate and Queen's

783
taxes for a given antecedent period. No poor-rate existing in Ireland, the condition superadded in Ireland to the 10 l. value, was the payment of all local rates and taxes. In Dublin, for instance, I believe I do not overstate the matter when I declare that there are, at least, eighteen or twenty local taxes, the omission to pay any one of which operates as a disqualification, and the most solvent person qualified ten times over by the value of his house, in consequence of the omission to pay any one of these local rates, loses his qualification. This is vexatious. It appears to me to give no additional security, and it is no test of the solvency of the parties; but, in addition to this, since the passing of that enactment, the Poor-law has been introduced into Ireland, and a poor-rate, a most important rate, has been superadded. It is, therefore, the intention of the Government that in lieu of all local rates and taxes there shall be substituted the payment of borough-rate, jurycess, and poor-rate. It is only just to my noble Friend, the Member for North Lancashire, that I should notice an attack which was made upon him with some harshness. The noble Lord was accused of having said of the late Government, that in dealing with the franchise in a registration bill, they fought under false colours. It is true my noble Friend did use that expression, but he used it with reference to the terms of the bill, seeing it was brought in by the then Secretary for Ireland nominally for the single purpose of defining the franchise, whereas it was irrefragably demonstrated by my noble Friend that it was intended, not to define, but materially and essentially to alter it. Another taunt has been cast upon my noble Friend, and my right hon. Friend, and myself, with respect to which I will only say, that we all voted for the proposition suggested by the noble Lord, the Member for Sunderland, to be substituted for that of the Government—that the 5l. qualification should be tested by the surplus of rating over rent; because we considered the refusal of leases as operating as an undue restriction upon the franchise. The noble lord commented also upon the appointments, by the present Government, of a chief justice, a master of the rolls, and two puisne judges. We have fought this battle before; but there is now "confirmation strong as proof of Holy Writ," that the ground we took before was right. It is said we did not go to the foremost ranks in the legal profession,
784
which are filled with our political opponents, to find one qualified to fill these high stations. Who are the counsel chosen by the traversers to defend them? Surely the traversers in the late trial were good judges of the most distinguished talent at the Irish Bar. Whom did they select as counsel for their defence? Every one so selected, with the exception of Mr. Pigott, Attorney-general to the late Government, Mr. Shell, the late Vice-President of the Board of Trade, and Mr. Monaghan, is a Protestant and Conservative. But Mr. Moore is a Protestant, and was certainly Solicitor-General of the late Government. I have a very few words to say upon that which I admit, with respect to the people of Ireland, is the most important of all subjects which can be considered, I mean the Protestant Church by law established in Ireland. I am afraid it lies at the bottom of all our difficulties with respect to the Government of that country—a point which was glanced at, but only glanced at, by the noble Lord, and touched upon with excellent feeling by the hon. Member for Waterford himself, professing the Roman Catholic religion. He asked my right hon. Friends at the head of the Government, to put a construction on the oath to be taken by Roman Catholic Members at the Table of this and the other House of Parliament. I trust my right hon. Friend will not answer that appeal. The oath is not the oath imposed by him, it is the oath imposed by the Legislature; and I conceive there can be no advantage in discussing in this House the import of oaths. The Legislature, when it admitted the Roman Catholics to a full participation in the rights of a free constitution, made that grant fully and freely, on the condition only of the oath being taken; and, making that condition, the Legislature has marked its confidence in Roman Catholics, that they would take that oath in its fair and candid meaning; the interpretation is left to the conscience of each individual. But I must very shortly notice the observations which fell from the noble Lord relative to the Church of Ireland. His object, as I understand it, is, that equality should prevail. In passing I must say, that we should have imagined, that on making a motion of such great importance, which is equivalent—the noble Lord will not dissemble it—to an attempt to take the reins of power from the hands of the present Government—a motion made under

785
such circumstances, and with such an object, almost avowed, should have led to a distinct statement of an intelligible policy supported by an united party. The noble Lord cheered when I used the words "perfect equality." I could not divine from what fell from him, that he was prepared to propose perfect equality. I understood the noble Lord to say, that the life interest of all the clergy should be upheld. But unless you call on the State to make good the amount of income of the present established clergy to the Roman Catholic clergy, the noble Lord's measure must be postponed, until a new generation shall have arisen—a long postponement of peace to Ireland. And how is equality to be obtained? Only in three modes—you may add at once a sum equal to the present endowment of the Protestant clergy to be applied to the endowment of the Roman Catholic clergy. That can only be effected by drawing upon the resources of the United Kingdom, and calling on all persons of whatever persuasion in Great Britain to contribute to that endowment. I think you will find it difficult to persuade the Presbyterians and Protestant Dissenters of England to contribute to taxation for the endowment of the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland, and to this extent. But that is only one of your difficulties. The hon. Member for Waterford said, the Roman Catholic clergy would not accept of an endowment. What would be the object of such an arrangement? Clearly to effect a connection between that clergy and the State, and the value of such a connection depends on the terms. Then again I foresee another difficulty. Suppose the secular clergy in connection with the State; they might be supplanted by mendicant regulars, subject to no control, but men of fervent piety, possessing great influence with the multitude; and the endowed clergy would probably degenerate into mere pensioners of the State. I confess I should upon principle have had no objection to Roman Catholic Endowment, and had I been in my place in this House in 1825, when my noble Friend, the Member for South Lancashire, proposed a resolution to that effect, I should have given it my support. I believe, however, the time is gone by for such an arrangement; and even if it were still possible or practicable, I do not believe, that it would produce either peace or contentment in Ireland. I think, therefore, we must discard that proposition. An hon. Gentle-
786
man on the other side has said, try your measure of equality by the common rules of arithmetic and nothing will be more easy than its settlement. Suppose you proceed upon the principles of subtraction, and overthrow the Established Church in Ireland. To that system the noble Lord has repeatedly declared his inviolable hostility. It was a dangerous measure, he has said, to which he would never consent—one which he repudiated, as contrary to the most sacred principles. If so, how is the result contemplated by the noble Lord to be arrived at? The hon. Member for Sheffield suggests division as the principle, and the noble Lord himself seemed almost inclined towards a division by three—by Church of Ireland, Roman Catholics, and Presbyterians. I don't think the noble Lord would find it very easy to accomplish that division. There might be many who would be very ready to agree to a division by two, who would not adopt a division by three; and with regard to the equal division of the Protestant Church property by Protestants and Roman Catholics, I believe that it would open a scene of more angry contest, and more implacable strife, than any which has hitherto agitated Ireland. Sir, I regret having occupied so long the attention of the House, but with respect to the Protestant Church of Ireland, I say, at once, that I reject all these nostrums. I say, that any proposition which has been suggested as likely to be feasible, is inconsistent with that preference which the Protestant state of England as a fundamental principle, has decided on giving in favour of the Protestant Church Establishment. I stand upon the choice made by this country at the Reformation, confirmed at the Revolution, sealed by the Act of Settlement, and ratified by the Act of Union. I hold that preference to be amongst the firmest foundations of our liberties. I believe it to have been the work of the greatest Statesmen, and I do not believe that it will be overthrown by any Repeal Association, or any body of Conspirators such as we have succeeded in convicting. One word with respect to this motion. I have endeavoured, however imperfectly, to go through all the leading topics glanced at in the course of this debate. I may have touched upon them imperfectly, but I have stated my opinions fairly and frankly. I have dissembled nothing; I have kept back nothing; I have stated everything I thought it my duty to declare. I must say, that I do not think the noble

787
Lord who is seeking to displace the present Government has been equally explicit. It is for the House, however, to judge. If they think upon the whole, that Her Majesty's present advisers, in a great crisis of public affairs, have acted in a manner unworthy of the confidence of the country—unworthy of the confidence of this House, and injurious to the best interests of the State—let them declare it by their vote, and give that vote in favour of the noble Lord. If on the other hand, they think that we have not forfeited the confidence of the House; if they are of opinion, that in the midst of great public difficulties, it is for the public good to strengthen the hands of the Executive Government, and that they think us still entitled to that confidence and favour, for which we are sincerely grateful—then I call upon the House by a decisive and large majority to negative the proposition of the noble Lord.
The debate was then adjourned, and the other orders having been disposed of, the House adjourned at a quarter-past twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1a. Metropolis Improvements. Private.—Reported.—Sang's Naturalization.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Lyttelton, from Charles Miller, M.A., for Alteration of Tithes Commutation Act; from Rothley, Mountsorrel, etc., in favour of Allotment of Land to Labourers.—By Earl Fortescue, from Belfast, for Enquiry into the State of Ireland.

STATE OF IRELAND.
The Marquess of Normanby: There are some subjects, my Lords, of such urgent and paramount importance in the mind of the speaker, that they completely supersede and banish all considerations of self. And it is under this impulse alone that I am induced to undertake the task, to encounter the discouragement, and bear the responsibility of bringing before your Lordships a subject of such magnitude as that of which I have given notice, but I entertain feelings of such intensity as to the present danger and future prospects of Ireland, that whatever other disqualifications I may labour under for the task, I shall at least address your Lordships with that earnestness of purpose which, as it most merits, has always proved the best passport to your Lordships' attention. I may allude to another feeling, because it has its rise in no merits of my own; it arises, my Lords, from the acts of others. My Lords, I have another inducement to address you on this subject, that even at present, in the midst

603
of all this excitement and all this agitation—to the object of which I am known to be opposed—I daily receive proofs from different parts of Ireland of the kindly recollections entertained by a generous-hearted people of one who had sincerely, as they believed, and as in truth he had, their interests deeply at heart. I am, therefore, induced to intrude on your Lordships, and I do so because no one will deny that there is that in the present state of Ireland which imperiously calls for the immediate attention of Parliament. One year since there was an agitation in that country—for an object, which the prudent believed to be impracticable, which the moderate regarded with disfavour, and which was opposed in this country with a unanimity almost unparalleled. This agitation was headed by an individual who, Whatever his claims may be to the gratitude of his fellow-countrymen hereafter (and I am far from denying the extent of these claims, which I am convinced posterity will recognise)—had, however, by many of his proceedings, rendered himself distasteful to the large majority of the people of this country. What is the state of things in Ireland now? The Repeal of the Union is not one degree less impracticable, but men's minds are diverted from that issue. They canvass freely, they criticise unfavourably, much of the conduct of Government in relation to these proceedings. It was in 1829, in introducing the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, that the present Prime Minister alluded to the then state of the country. He said, that there were 7,000,000 of Catholics united as one man in the support of that measure. I am far from thinking that so great a number are united now in the present agitation, although the Government appears to think so; but this I do think, that Government has wantonly exercised the power of uniting them against itself. But, my Lords, on the occasion to which I have alluded, the Prime Minister also stated, that the vast proportion of the wealth and intelligence of Protestant Ireland were favourable to the concession. The people of Ireland are not now, it is true, united in the same degree on the subject of the Repeal of the Union, but they do unite in calling upon Government to enquire into the state of the country, with a view to doing something to remedy the evils under which they suffer; and it does also appear, that they come forward, some in one way, some in another, to declare themselves opposed to the proceed-
604
ings of the Government. In reference to this, I need only allude to the petition just presented, from the leading Protestants in Belfast, and I have reason to state, with confidence, that the feeling embodied in that petition is increasing, is becoming general among the leading Protestants of Ireland, and that much of this arises from the manner in which the question has been treated. I am about to move a resolution, in which it may perhaps be thought by Government, that there is nothing in principle in which they do not concur. I own that that is not the way in which I view it; and I will tell you that candidly—and I will tell you why—it is because I think the principles included in my Resolution are principles which noble Lords opposite unscrupulously opposed, when they were not in power, to which it is true that they gave some plausible lip homage at the moment of their accession to power, but which they have since utterly neglected; and this I think I shall be able to prove before I sit down. But no other proof of the necessity for inquiring into the subject is wanting, than that contained in the petition presented by my noble Friend? Another noble Friend has another petition to present—a petition, the signatures to which give it a share of that species of authority which petitions of former days possessed, and which induced the then Ministers to alter the course they had been then pursuing towards the Roman Catholics of Ireland. My noble Friend who took the chair on the occasion on which that petition was agreed to—the first hereditary subject in Ireland—is a person adverse to putting himself forward on public occasions, most attached to retirement, and one whom only imperious necessity would induce to take the course which he has pursued—I allude to the Duke of Leinster. These influential men are, one and all, unfriendly to the present proceedings of Her Majesty's Government, and all think that remedial and not coercive measures are what the circumstances of Ireland imperatively require. But is this all? Have not the Government, also, by their conduct, conspired to rouse in England, as well as in Ireland, the feelings of the Catholic body. Have not there been proofs of this fact afforded not only by meetings, but by the letter also from one of the first Catholic noblemen in the country, and one of those most opposed to the hon. and learned Gentleman at the head of the agitation—I allude to the Earl of Shrewsbury, in the sentiments of

605
which the whole Roman Catholic community of England fully concur? All these are things which require that this House should turn its serious attention to the conduct of Government; and I can assure you I speak it with great regret, but with as much sincerity, that I entertain very great alarm as to the present state of Ireland—alarm, my Lords, not indeed of any armed outbreak; but I will not more particularly allude to the nature of what the dread I speak of may be, lest, even by indirectly alluding to it, it might be supposed hereafter, that what I now said actually tended to produce those evils which it is my greatest wish to avert. But, as I commenced by alluding to the kindly feeling shown in Ireland towards myself, I must say that, with respect to any criticisms in which I may indulge on the conduct of Government, or any arguments which I may use against it, I do feel it to be part of my duty to give the most earnest advice to the people of Ireland in favour of patience and obedience to the laws, and I trust that that advice will be there received in the friendly spirit in which I here give it. It appears to me, that when this agitation became formidable, there were two courses open to the Government to pursue, and after having selected one or the other, and followed it up with perseverance, each then might have led to separate and distinct advantages. One of these courses was, to have interfered at once by proclamation, and prosecution, to put down the proceedings complained of. I am, my Lords, far from giving any opinion as to whether such a course would have been a discreet one at the time; but if a course of interference was in contemplation, it would have been more straightforward and more manly to have put it in execution at once. And I say, my Lords, also, that if the Government at that time had in their possession evidence on which they thought they could establish a charge of sedition, it was their bounden duty to have brought it forward at once; and more than this, if it was the intention of Government to have adopted this course—that of not looking at the predisposing cause of agitation until they had put that agitation down—then it would have been desirable to have acted with decision on another account—that of opening and paving the way to those remedial measures to which I tell you, my Lords, you must come at last. But Government did not adopt this policy. I do not blame them
606
for their selection of the course they at the time resolved to pursue; but I do think that it must be obvious that the advantages of the course on which they did enter were contingent, and that its evils were immediate. It would be sure to alienate the affections of some of their more eager friends, and, coupled, as I think it was, with unnecessary violence of expression—to give rise to the impression that they would strike, but they dared not. I must say, too, my Lords, that the best chance for the success of their policy would have been to have accompanied it with remedial measures; but, without expecting them to be just, much less generous, common prudence might have dictated to them that if efficient vigour was not shown, needless irritation should be avoided, and yet they interfere to prevent their own policy from being fairly carried out, by that most senseless step, the dismissal of the magistrates. With this one exception, my Lords, they did appear determined for some time to persevere, in what their friends were good enough to call, their do-nothing policy. But just at the moment when it seemed that they were likely to reap the fruits of a policy which went upon the assumption, that the agitation would wear itself out, when common sense was supposed to have all along pointed out to them that there was that in the nature of this agitation, that it could not long maintain itself at the point it had then reached, and could not go beyond it without entirely changing its character, they stepped in, altered their course, and proceeded to issue proclamations. [Earl Wharactiffe: "Hear, hear."] My noble Friend cheers, but I would be glad to hear from him either an answer or an explanation. It has been said, my Lords, that there was a desire on the part of Government not to give a triumph to one party over another, but it appears that they waited just long enough to give that party a triumph, not over the majority of their fellow-countrymen, but over the Ministers themselves. My Lords, their own organs showed this to be the case, by the contemptuous praise which they bestowed upon the Ministry, for at length adopting the course they had long recommended. These were not simply his opinions. [Lord Wharncliffe: "Hear."] My noble Friend cheers, as if that were a new view of the subject. I am not inclined to attribute to political parties, without the best proof to bring the charge home to them, articles which from time to time appear in the

607
periodicals of the day; I should be very sorry to be responsible for much that had appeared in similar publications with which I might be supposed generally to agree; and certainly it would be very unfair to attribute them, without such proof, to those in office. But in the month of September last my attention was drawn to an article which appeared in one of these periodical publications. I have studied the style much, and think I can trace the hand of an old Friend who knows more of Ireland than any of the noble Lords opposite. The view taken by the writer is friendly to the non-interference of Government with the agitation for the Repeal of the Union—there had been various large meetings in different parts of the country in favour of Repeal; with respect to those meetings which had been held since the accession of the present Government to office, what was said in the Quarterly Review of September last?
"The preceding great meetings had all ended without a breach of the peace; and the presumption grew stronger and stronger that each succeeding meeting would have a similar peaceable result * * *And no one, we should suppose, would think of trying a nice point of law by an attempt to disperse one, a series of which had hitherto passed off without disturbance * * * He grew stronger in the belief that the Fabian policy will at last defeat him; what will, what can he do, if he cannot provoke the Government or the Protestants to a collision?* * *He may do some public mischief and create much individual distress; but whilst the Government and Protestants can remain on the defensive, he can do no more, and the mischief may be considered as a temporary inconvenience, compared to the calamities which, without a contrary course, would certainly be produced."
Such is the opinion of the writer on the policy till then adopted by the Government, and which he no doubt supposed would be consistently pursued. They, however, changed their plans and pursued a course directly opposite, they issued a proclamation on the evening of the day preceding the great intended meeting at Clontarf, that proclamation was postponed to the very evening before the meeting, although every fact of the case had been before the Government three weeks. I should wish to know whether any noble Lord has ever heard a single man, in private conversation, defend the Government in that proceeding, and whether so much rashness, following such unparalleled
608
vacillation, is not perfectly consistent with the whole conduct of this Government. I should like to hear some satisfactory explanation given of such conduct. If it is defended in this House it will be the first time that it has yet been defended either there or in any of the organs of the Government ["Hear, hear," from the Ministerial Benches.] I shrink not from these cheers. If the noble Lords opposite have anything to say in favour of this act of the Government—and it is not a trifling and unimportant act, but art act for the adoption of which their responsibility is great—I am sure that I shall not hear from them any of those taunts which have already been so unsparingly used against those parties with whom the Government has interfered—taunts of cowardice against them, because of the obedience, on the appearance of the proclamation, which they had manifested towards the laws. What the defence of the noble Lords opposite may be I know not, and I will pause for that defence until the noble Lords have an opportunity of converting their cheers into intelligible language. I think it is hardly necessary that I should on this occasion give my own opinions on the question of Repeal, because it happens that I have been in a situation which has enabled me to give that opinion already as strongly as any of their Lordships—not only within those walls, but face to face with a considerable portion of the Irish people. I will pray your Lordships' attention while I allude to one particular instance, and mentioned when it occurred. In the year 1836, while making an excursion to the south of Ireland, I received an address proceeding from a very large proportion of the inhabitants of one of the ridings of Cork, in which those, and they were many, who had previously entertained sentiments in favour of Repeal, had, in consequence of measures which they had every reason to expect would be introduced by the existing Government, given him assurances of altered opinions on the subject of Repeal. On that occasion I stated to them, as the ground on which I thought it fair that the question should be met, that they did me but justice in believing me to be their sincere friend, and that in that sincerity it was, I told them that my opposition to the Repeal of the Union was founded on, and in exact proportion to, my love for Ireland herself. That opinion

609
was given at that time in answer to the Address of nearly 100,000 of the inhabitants of the West Riding of Cork, assembled at Mallow, and embodied the principles of the Resolution which I am about to propose to your Lordships. It was said to me on that occasion,
"We seek for equality with the British people, common interests, and reciprocity of benefits, and to be legislated for as a part of Great Britain. With less we will not be content."
And I told them that with less they should not be content. But when I state my opposition to Repeal, I will say to those who advocate that measure, believing them to be sincere in their declarations that they do not intend to interfere with the rights and prerogatives of the Crown—and if they are not sincere in those declarations, they must be met by other arguments—that Repeal would not secure for them that which they desire from it—that leaving untouched, as the declarations of the Repeal Association propose to do, the prerogatives of the Crown and the privileges of the Peerage, it could not secure to them that power of progressive legislation on many subjects, which is what they really want. But whilst one feels this strongly, it is a perfectly legitimate subject on which any one may entertain a difference of opinion. Even after sixteen years trial of independent legislation, some of the greatest men of that day then in the zenith of their intellect, did not view the question in this light—not merely Irishmen carried along by the first outbreak of overflowing nationality, but a noble Friend of mine now no more, till lately the sound expounder of constitutional law in this House (Lord Holland), and another still living, but prevented by the state of his health from attending (Lord Grey), who had long been the first ornament of your Lordships' House—if we go to Ireland, we find that almost every leading man of different parties, who has since been a sharer in the government of that country, had resisted that which we now maintain as synonymous with British connexion, I may and do believe, that we are right and they are wrong, that the annihilation of British connexion would, according to the natural operation of cause and effect, be the result of the continual conflicts of two independent legislatures. But are we to found on such an assumption of our own, accusations of intentional treason against those who, justly dissatisfied with, must, in the
610
actual condition of their country, ask for the restoration of that which existed in eventful times, was established with the sanction of all parties here—there having been in. 1782 actually a struggle between the outgoing and in-coming Government, which should have the credit of establishing the independence of Ireland;—and this independent Parliament existed for sixteen years, and was destroyed by means which it is now every where admitted do not fear inquiry, and in the teeth of some of the former friends of British connexion, some of the first names of the day. I will repeat at the same time in 1844, as I stated in 1836, that my opposition to Repeal is founded on my love for Ireland herself. But we are now told that this freedom of opinion should not be carried too far; that the Government has adopted the policy set forth in the Speech from the Throne at the last prorogation of Parliament. And what is the tone of this Speech? It is a most constitutional doctrine, that for any thing stated at the conclusion of the Session, perhaps more than at the commencement, Ministers are to be held responsible, and it is more than ever desirable that they should be most careful in any statement they make on such an occasion; but they stated in the Speech from the Throne, at the conclusion of the last Session of Parliament, that Her Majesty relied on the solemn declarations of Parliament. Why Parliament had made no solemn declaration—unless it was a former Parliament. In former days—in a former reign, Parliament had made such a declaration. [Lord Wharncliffe: "Hear, hear!"] The noble Lord cheers: but does the noble Lord mean that it is according to the practice of the Constitution to allude in a Speech from the Throne to a declaration made in a former Parliament, and in a former reign? I believe it to le quite unheard of. What is the object of a dissolution of Parliament, but to appeal to the sense of the people, and how is a new House of Parliament to be held responsible for the declaration of a former Parliament? [Marks of dissent from the Ministerial side of the House.] Well, then, surely the noble Lord does not mean to say that the declaration of a former Parliament is more binding than an Act of Parliament? and I allude to what happened about the Union of Scotland. Seven years after the union of that country with England, a motion was actually made in this House for a Repeal of the Union, and was

611
lost only by a majority of three; the number of Peers present being equal, and the majority consisting of three proxies, and, also, within seven years of the passing of that Act of Parliament, the Duke of Argyle, with a deputation of Scotch Members, waited on Her Majesty, Queen Anne, and declared to her personally, that if their discontents were suffered to continue, they might be raised to such a pitch as to prompt them to declare the Union dissolved. That was in times renowned as good constitutional times, and it shows that the noble Lords opposite are a little incorrect in taking the declaration of a former Parliament as binding on them. Lord Sunderland on that occasion declared, that he was one of the persons who took part in carrying the Act of Union, but if it did not answer its purpose he would be quite ready to vote for its repeal. But if the noble Lords opposite attach so much importance to a declaration of Parliament, why did not they get it?—there could be no difficulty—but if they had obtained such a declaration, there must have been attached to it a similar declaration to that which had accompanied the Address in 1844, that they would attend to the complaints of the people and redress their grievances, and if they had done so they would have been told, that "while in opposition you thwarted the efforts of those who wished to redress the grievances of the people, and since you have been in power you have taken no step at all to do justice to Ireland." But there is another point of that Speech to which I must refer; I mean that part of the Speech in which Her Majesty is made to allude to the persevering attempts to excite discontent. There may have been such attempts; but those who advised that Speech should recollect that there were two ways of making persevering attempts to excite discontent—by a denial of that which was just, as well as by agitation for that which was impracticable. Let your Lordships carry back your recollection, and see if there were no phrases used, if there were no measures refused which render them answerable for much of the discontent which exist. What was said by my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack? All who know that noble Lord in private, are well aware that there can be nothing more foreign to his nature than any persevering attempt to excite and animosity. But public men must be judged by their public words, and he did make use of a phrase in that House calculated to excite discontent far and near, and if parties are
612
condemned for using the word "Saxon" with the purpose of exciting discontent with the powers which govern Ireland—and a most improper attempt it is—and draw comparisons between the origin of the Irish people and the people of this country, or of the religion of the Irish people and that of England, let it at least be remembered that for doing so they have a very high precedent. [The Lord Chancellor: That was two Parliaments ago.] If that is the best defence that can be made for it—the noble and learned Lord says it is two Parliaments back—it is bad indeed. [Laughter.] But I must say this is too serious a subject on which to jest. It was by those unfortunate words that impressions were made which have outlived those two Parliaments, and it may take many more Parliaments before their impression will pass away. I know that far and wide, in the autumn of 1836, in every part of Ireland, the feelings that were so widely prevalent, were greatly exasperated by the insult of that taunt. In those days there was another phrase used, not by any noble Lord actually in power now, but countenanced by many of the supporters of the present Government. It applied to the other House of Parliament, and was made at a public meeting. They were told that the Government was supported only by an Irish majority. I say, that any man who used that phrase, if he was an honest man, must have been in his heart a Repealer. To draw that distinction between Members coming from one part of the country or another, is striking a vital blow at the principle of Legislative Union. If it is the intention to draw such a distinction, it is at once departing from the principles of the Union, and is as much as saying that Ireland is not a part of the United Kingdom, but is a province. Am I singular in this opinion, not as applied, perhaps, directly to these words, but that the principles of the Legislative Union are, that perfect equality shall be maintained? That is an opinion, not only delivered by me, but by much weightier authority—delivered in Ireland from the bench of justice, in 1833, by a learned person who is now no more, Mr. Baron Smith, the father of the present Attorney-general of Ireland—of whom I will say a word presently. That learned Judge, in his charge to the Grand Jury, said:—
"As long as England conforms to the true principles of the Union, I shall wish the strict

613
and blending connection which is established to subsist. But one of those principles, and a main one, is this, that Ireland, which before the Union, was an independent, though connected country, should by the Union, not have lost, but incorporated its independence, and become of the British empire—not a province, but a part. We owe what we call allegiance to the Union, but not to any connection substantially different from what the Articles of the Union have subscribed. It is our charter for which we have paid a weighty price, which it is our right and duty loyally to defend, and which but with our lives we ought to surrender. If we were violated (but it never will be), an Irishman's duty might become very different from what it is."
That was the opinion of Mr. Baron Smith, not before one of those popular assemblages, where since, others of his family had distinguished themselves; but it was delivered from the judgment-seat, and therefore bore with it all the weight of his judicial character. But the attempt of noble Lords opposite is one which has never succeeded, and never will, and that is under free institutions, to attempt to govern by a minority. That is the whole question at issue, and that, I say, is attempted in Ireland. Have they ever attempted it any where else? What is their conduct in Canada? Is it not felt there that the only way to secure the affections of the people is to govern by the majority, and not by the minority. Look at the despatches and instructions of the last two Governors, and compare the state of Canada now to that of Ireland. I wish to allude to one point before I conclude, and I may as well introduce it here. It has again and again been said, that the whole of the influence which was obtained in Ireland during the administration of my noble Friend behind me and myself, was owing to our distribution of patronage, and that this patronage was placed entirely at the disposal of Mr. O'Connell. Referring for a moment to Canada, it had been found necessary to give the patronage to those who were represented by a majority in the Canadian Legislature. But I will only now take an opportunity of referring to what I stated myself on this subject, on the motion of the noble Earl opposite, at the end of the year 1837:—
"It has been stated by persons who must know better, that Mr. O'Connell has all the patronage of the Government in Ireland. I utterly and indignantly deny the truth of that statement. Mr. O'Connell, like any other Member of Parliament requiring information
614
from the Government, has, I admit, had several communications with it; but I can confidently state, that the applications of Mr. O'Connell have been fewer than those of any other Member of Parliament. Neither has Mr. O'Connell been consulted more than any other Member of Parliament in any one appointment made by the Irish Government. Mr. O'Connell holds no Government patronage in Ireland, nor does he exercise any of the patronage that belongs to the Government. Mr. O'Connell does not bind nor control me in the exercise of my judgment, or in the distribution of my patronage. I bow to no man. But whilst I bow to no man, like Lord Chesterfield, I will "proscribe" no man. The taunt against me is, that I have treated Mr. O'Connell in the same way as I would treat any other Member of Parliament. So I have, my Lords, and so I will always continue to do. But I fearlessly and utterly deny that the Government has been controlled by Mr. O'Connell, or has consulted with Mr. O'Connell as to any of the appointments that have been made; and as to the charge of the Government having the steady support of Mr. O'Connell, I honestly confess that that is a circumstance, considering how much he carries with him the hearts and affections of the Irish people, that I can regard only as a great advantage, and as one that ought not to be made a matter of reproach. But that Mr. O'Connell influences me—that he actuates me in the discharge of my duties, or that I am governed or actuated by any other than my own sense of right, I utterly and totally deny in the face of your Lordships, and of the noble Lord by whom the charge was brought forward."
That was my statement in the year 1837, when it was easy, if there had been any inaccuracy, to correct it. I repeated it in the discussion which took place in the year 1839, and now that I have been out of all official connection with Ireland for four years, I will appeal to my successors whether all the appointments made in the Church, the Law, and the Police—of course there might be individual exceptions—but I will ask whether the selection of the persons appointed was not made with reference to their efficiency to fulfil the duties they had to perform? I think it right to say thus much, as there is so much ignorance prevailing on the subject. I have always felt that a great deal of difficulty has arisen in governing Ireland in consequence of the way in which the Catholic Question was carried, the persons by whom it was carried, and the time at which it was carried, which was thirty years later than it, ought to have been. It is unfortunate that it should have been carried by the persons by whom it was

615
carried, for from their solemn and repeated declarations previously there is too much reason to apprehend, that they acted entirely at variance with their real opinion. With respect to the mode in which it was carried, it was coupled with many provisions which were useless in themselves, aggravating to the people, and diminishing the gratitude which would otherwise spontaneously have flowed; and I can only account for the difficulties which have arisen by these unfortunate circumstances. But that question having been carried, I think it is unnecessary to trace the course of the different Governments down to the present time with reference to the state of discontent which now exists. I can not be very accurate as to former years, for I was engaged myself in distant parts of the world, and therefore have lost personal cognizance of the events; I can not, however, pass over that period in the presence of my noble Friend behind me (the Marquess of Anglesea) without reminding your Lordships of the devoted zeal of my noble Friend in the cause of Ireland, during that period, of his love for the people, which carried him through all the difficulties which surrounded him, thwarted as he was by those whom he might have looked to for support; while, at the same time, his honest and zealous intentions were but too often misconstrued by those he so much loved, and so ardently desired to serve. But, passing over that period, I come to those of my noble Friends, who succeeded. And first, I will say, that one of the great objects of my administration, and that of my noble Friends was the impartial administration of justice, so as to give confidence to the great body of the people in that administration. Sir John Davies has said, that the people of Ireland were remarkable for their desire for impartial justice, and if that devoted fondness for justice still continues to this time, that I fear must in some degree be attributed to its being to them so rare a luxury. For this statement I have authority of every kind, and among others, of no less a person than Lord Redesdale, late Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who once stated on the judgment-seat that there was in that country one law for the rich, and another for the poor, and both equally ill administered. This declaration was most creditable to that noble and learned Lord, representing in that country as he did a party who were imbued with many Eng-
616
lish prejudices on that subject. Then, with reference to the purity of the administration of justice, and the confidence of the people in its impartiality, the greatest blow which it has received is the proceeding of the Government in the dismissal of the magistrates last year, for attending Repeal meetings. It is impossible to conceive anything more extraordinary than the manner in which it was done. It is stated, that it was done in consequence of a declaration made by Ministers in that House, and in the other House of Parliament. Why, the first thing that struck me about this statement was its evident insincerity. Is it possible to suppose that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland did not know what the feeling of the Government was on the subject of Repeal? The speeches of the Ministers in Parliament could have conveyed no new information to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. But then, it may be said, they were not necessary for him, but that they were necessary for the magistrates. Why, upon one occasion, when the present Lord-lieutenant of Ireland was attacked in that House, for something which was said to have occurred in Ireland, he replied that he never read the newspapers. If the Lord-lieutenant did not read the newspapers, why should not the magistrates have the same excuse? But, on constitutional grounds, this was a most unreasonable step to have been taken. Ministers have made many declarations with reference to Reform in Parliament, to the Catholic Question, to the Corn-law, and on other subjects, but these declarations have not always been carried out, for sometimes the person who made them has been the man to propose a very different course. Is the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, then, to be the judge of the sincerity or the steadiness of the declarations of his Colleagues in Parliament, and to act upon the result of such uncertain speculations? But, to pass by this part of the subject, I will say that the dismissal of the magistrates was utterly an inefficient step. If any notice was to have been taken of the Repeal agitation, a graver, a more efficient, a more deliberate step ought to have been taken. The magistrates, if they attended those meetings at all, were likely, as long as they were intrusted with the commission of the peace, rather to see that order was maintained, and so he believed, in many cases, they had done. Fifty-one magistrates were dismissed in different counties, hardly any of whom had before been known much

617
of as Repealers; but every one of them was irritated by this dismissal, and came more ostentatiously forward. No magistrate had been made less of a Repealer, but many an ex-magistrate had become more of an agitator. But another measure which was taken by me, and followed up by my noble Friend, which I am convinced gave the greatest confidence to the people in the administration of justice, was the selection of stipendiary magistrates; on this I shall have much to say of appointments made, and reductions commenced, but I will postpone it till another opportunity. In another respect, the present Government has been most particularly unfortunate. As to the appointments made by them to the Bench, I will not allude to the manner in which those learned persons now administer their functions; I am only alluding to the fact that those appointments have destroyed the confidence of the Irish people in the administration of justice. As to Mr. Baron Lefroy is it not well known that soon after the measure of Catholic Emancipation was passed, he was not allowed, then being second sergeant, to go the circuit in the place of one of the judges who was ill, which would have been the usual custom? And this, in consequence of a declaration he made, qualifying his allegiance in consequence of the passing of that Act. There is another act of the late Administration which gave confidence to the Irish people—it was the sincere and honest spirit of the Educational System introduced by that Government. Yet Sergeant Jackson, who had vehemently opposed that system in the House of Commons, has been raised to a judgeship. But all these appointments, had as they are, sink into utter insignificance compared with the appointment of Mr. Smith, to the Attorney-generalship of Ireland. At a meeting in January, 1837, attended by persons all of one party, and with the reporters all of one party, Mr. Smith was reported in the Evening Mail, a paper of his own politics, to have said of the Roman Catholics, and it has never been denied by him, "I am sorry to say circumstances have occurred to induce us to believe that they have very little regard for the sanctity of an oath, or little hesitation to violate their compact." Such an observation, the emanation of unscrupulous faction, might have its short-lived triumph, but it ought also to entail lasting disqualification. No situation under Government could properly have been conferred on such a man; but of all situations under
618
Government that the noble Lords opposite should have appointed to the office of Attorney-general a person who had made that declaration, that he would not believe upon oath, seven-eighths of his countrymen, is most astonishing! Either he believed this or he did not; but if he made the statement in a moment of excitement it showed his deficiency of judgment and discretion, and of every characteristic which the noble Lords opposite ought to have sought for in a person they placed in that important office. But supposing he did believe it, then he said that that unhappy man who could form such an opinion of seven-eighths of his countrymen and a majority of the Christian world, was a person wholly unfit for any great public employment. Whatever qualifications he might have had I care not, what his usual discretion might have been, or what valuable assistance he might have given to the Government in Parliament; but this I will declare, that if Government honestly intended to act upon the principles of impartiality which the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) has professed in his place in Parliament, and which has been solemnly repeated by the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, this ought not to have been done. Had I been that noble Lord, I would rather have cut off my right hand than have signed the appointment of Mr. Smith to the office of Attorney-genera] for Ireland ["Hear, hear,"and some sensation]. It is not my intention to attack Mr. Smith; I attack the Government through him [Loud cries of "Hear, hear"]. I say it is an appointment which the Government ought not to have made: and I will not allude to a more recent instance of Mr. Smith's conduct more than by saying, that it was a bad thing for the Government to have in the situation of Attorney-general a person whom it is utterly impossible they could ever elevate to the Bench. That has been the usual course of promotion of persons who discharge their duty faithfully and discreetly, and I will venture to say, there is not a man in the present or any other Government who would appoint Mr. Smith to the office of an Irish judge. Now, with respect to this prosecution, which has been so judiciously intrusted to Mr. Attorney-general Smith, the parties were charged with a conspiracy. I will repeat what I have stated at the commencement, that it was the duty of the Government, if they had evidence of sedition, of seditious meetings, and seditious libels, to

619
have prosecuted directly for those, and not to have introduced this new system—this monster indictment, with all its accumulation of different charges, the effect of which has been to excite in a large portion of the English public, who had formerly looked with comparative indifference on Irish subjects, a feeling of unfairness with respect to these prosecutions. As to the use that may hereafter be made of this for other purposes I will not say a word; but this I will say, that the noble Lords opposite who attended the Hillsborough meeting in 1834 may think themselves fortunate to have escaped many of the charges which have been laid before the jury on the present occasion. But whether it was right to prosecute for a conspiracy or not, can there be two opinions that these proceedings were least calculated to obtain the sanction of public opinion, which is ever so desirable in such cases? In the first place as to the formation of the jury, one most extraordinary circumstance, and one, I believe, unheard of before, is the loss of a certain portion of the panel. Oh, but that was an accident. I do not mean to deny that; it may have been an accident; but certainly it was an unfortunate accident; for, whereas the proportion of Catholics to the rest of the panel was as one to four, in the slip of paper that was lost the proportion was as five to four. But what became of this slip of paper? Where has it been? I remember to have heard the noble and learned Lord sitting near the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack (Lord Brougham), in a speech in another place and now twenty years ago, with respect to the administration of justice in Ireland, and in which the choice of judges and jurors was handled in a way that I can never forget,—I remember that noble and learned Lord to have related a story of which I will now remind your Lordships. It was in reference to a Mr. Mac Namara, who stated that he had been asked to undertake for his client to bribe the tinder-sheriff to tamper with the panel. He was asked whether he had given the money, and be replied that he had not. "Why did you not do so?" "Because he did not do what I asked." "What, was he indignant?" "Oh no, he said the panel was gone up to the Castle!" I never heard of the panel going up to the Castle before; but perhaps of late, since we have had a return of the "good old times," some of these customs may have been revived! With reference to the omission of Catho-
620
lics, the first thing that strikes me upon this is the ignorance exhibited by the law officers of the Crown as to the political sentiments of the Catholics on the jury panel. It was only a few days ago that the Solicitor-general alluded to the fact that all these people were members of the Repeal Association. But I believe it has turned out that the fact was not so, and that they were not members of the Repeal Association. I know one of them, at least by character, who is stated to be a most respectable person. If he were a repealer he would have said so: but he declared that he was not. Upon this I will say, that it should have the first object of the Government, in endeavouring to procure a conviction, to take care that it was one by an impartial jury. Did they expect that, by omitting all Catholics, they would have an impartial jury. [Lord Wharncliffe: Yes.] Well, then, I will only say—[Lord Wharncliffe: I meant repealers.] But was there no question between Catholics and Protestants? [The Lord Chancellor and Lord Wharncliffe: "None,"] What! was there no question between Catholics and Protestants in the city of Dublin! ["None."] Was there not a distinct appeal made to the Protestants to come forward to register and secure a jury? [Lord Wharncliffe: "Who appealed?"] I will read the appeal which was addressed to the Protestants by the Evening Mail.
"Every thing in Ireland at this moment resolves itself into a question of religion, and not of politics. The agitation is religious—the Repeal is religious—the whole organization of the country is religious; and the struggle, whenever it comes—as come it will most assuredly—will be a war of religion, and not of politics."
When such an appeal as that was made, when committees and agents were appointed to secure a Protestant jury, I do say that it was unworthy of the Government to act the part of a private prosecutor, who endeavours to get a panel in favour of one particular view, and whose greatest objection is to an impartial jury. I have some authority for my view in what occurred very nearly at the time when my noble and learned Friend sitting on the side of the Woolsack (Lord Brougham) made his motion. There was an inquiry into the conduct of the sheriff of Dublin, in a case in which strong party feelings prevailed. The Lord-lieutenant had been very much insulted; and the question was, "What jury should

621
be summoned?" Mr. Plunket being examined upon the subject in the House of Commons, and in answer to the question, "What panel would you wish?" said,
"I should wish, if possible, a panel of unprejudiced men, and if that is not to be obtained, I should wish a panel composed of persons of all opinions, and not confined to persons of one description only."
On a question of this sort, then, on which the Irish people are immensely excited, the Government should have taken every step for procuring a verdict that would have carried public opinion with it. That is the course which a public prosecutor ought to pursue. One word as to the conduct of this case, and particularly with respect to what has been said by my learned Friend, a gentleman with whom I have always lived in habits of great intimacy, the present Solicitor-general for Ireland. I think it an unfortunate slip, and one that was likely to prejudice the case, when the learned Solicitor-general told the jury that the verdict might affect the law, and that if they did not return a certain verdict upon the evidence which was before them, ulterior proceedings might be taken in another place, and measures be brought forward by the Government in which they would have deep concern. In short, he threatened a Coercion Bill. Whilst noble Lords are told in the Speech from the Throne to abstain from remarks upon Irish questions, lest they may prejudice the jury—how are the intentions of this impartial Government carried into effect by the Government officers? Why, the Solicitor-general, in a speech to the jury, threatens them with consequences in which they, as Irishmen, are concerned as well as others. He threatens them with consequences to them, and their country, on account of the discharge of what is their duty towards both the prosecutor and the traversers. He told them that—
"It was the duty of Government to call on Parliament to give them additional power to put down the agitation. There was no necessity for such a step, for Sir Robert Peel expressed his determination to try the ordinary power to assist him; nor will he, unless their verdict shall have proved the existing law to be insufficient for that purpose."
No doubt it was unintentional, and the next day he retracted it. [The Lord Chancellor: "He said he did not mean it."] No, he said "retract." It was all very well to say that he retracted it, or that he did not mean it; but the threat had gone forth
622
and what good was it for him to tell the jury the next day that he did not mean what he had said? I am perfectly aware of the delicacy, in this place, of saving anything as to the conduct of a judge in the discharge of his duty. I am not competent, indeed, to say anything of the law that has been laid down; but as to the tone of that charge, I must really tell your Lordships what, has happened to myself, and then leave the statement to make its own impression. It will be recollected that the last part of the Solicitor-general's speech and the summing-up of the Chief Justice came together: I took up the charge of the Chief Justice, and I actually thought that I was reading the Solicitor-general's speech, not the summing-up, and my reflection was, what a spirited reply it was. I allude to speeches made by a Barrister an eminent man (Mr. Burrowes) twenty years ago, and the Chief Justice quoted this, an Advocate's Address for his client, as authority on constitutional law, he so put the question to the jury, that he mixed up the opinion of Burrowes and of Baron Alderson, that it was impossible to say which was which. A noble Friend of mine (Lord Fortescue) did call the attention of their Lordships last year to another charge of Chief Justice Pennefather, who, in charging the jury on a libel case, ended by saying, "It is a most diabolical libel—it is a most gross and infamous libel;" and I do not think that that was mincing the matter. I should like to put it to any noble Friend who has ever sat in any court of criminal jurisdiction in this country, whether this was the tone and manner in which any English jury should be addressed by a judge? There are many subjects which I should have liked upon the present occasion to have alluded to, and among them are the appointments made by the Government; but I think it better to postpone my remarks till another opportunity. There are many things, also, in the communication of the Lord Chancellor with the magistracy, which, if your Lordships would grant the inquiry, I would bring forward; but with respect to which, if this inquiry be refused, I shall move for papers, and on a future occasion address your Lordships. But there is one thing to which I cannot help alluding; it is to an appointment made by the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland about the time when these proceedings were drawing to a close, when a verdict was about to be given

623
which intimated the illegality of making physical demonstrations of numbers for the purpose of overawing the Legislature and the Government. The right hon. Baronet, at the head of the Government, has in the other House read a letter addressed to the Lord-lieutenant, giving him advice as to the way in which he should bestow his clerical patronage, and recommending him to attend to the merits of the party to be appointed to the office. The right hon. Gentleman has also on a former occasion—and I owe him gratitude for it—stated that all the ecclesiastical and clerical appointments made by me were excellent, and I think I may appeal to all noble Lords, however much they may differ from me in politics, to confirm that statement. If, then, the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government approve of my appointments, how does he justify the appointment to which I have alluded—the elevation of the Rev. Holt Waring to the deanery of Dromore? I will read to your Lordships a statement, taken from a paper of the same political sentiments as the noble Lords opposite, of the arrival of a deputation, headed by this Rev. Holt Waring, at the meeting at Hillsborough in 1834:—
"At an early hour of the morning (some of them, indeed, over night) the great landed proprietors of the county repaired to the different points on their respective estates at which it had been previously agreed they should meet their tenants, and march at their head to the general place of assemblage, so that the area in front of the hustings did not present a very crowded appearance, until the arrival of the men in large masses, each having a pride of marching border fashion, shoulder by shoulder, beside his neighbour and brother, with whom he was ready to sacrifice life in defence of his country and religion. Shortly after eleven o'clock, a tremendous shout from the town announced the approach of the first party. They were from Moira, and were headed by the Rev. Bolt Waring, who was drawn by the people. A flag, the union jack, was hoisted at Mr. E. Rielly's, as the signal of their arrival. In a few moments they were seen descending the steep hill from the town, and approaching the place of meeting in a close, dark, and dense mass, comprising certainly not less than 20,000 persons."
[Lord Wharncliffe: It was very like a parish priest.] That is the strangest defence I ever heard! In his zeal to defend his noble Friend the Lord-lieutenant in one of his extremely judicious appointments, the noble Lord says, that this conduct "was extremely like a parish priest."
624
[Lord Wharncliffe: Yes; go on.] Here followed the remainder of the paragraph as given in most of the papers of the day. I have not a copy by me, but the extract ended with "deployed to the station assigned to him." If this was not a military array by the Church Militant, I can not tell what is, and if the Rev. Holt Waring were not prosecuted, he owed it to the good fortune that his friends were not in office. All those who were in office at that time, would recollect the impression of the Lord Lieutenant, at those proceedings, and that he deemed them most serious; but he had not an Attorney-general Smith to prosecute. By the Government which was now in office, the noble Earl opposite would not possibly have been left unprosecuted; and I must acknowledge that it was rather fortunate for himself and his compeers, that my noble Friend near me, was in office rather than the noble Earl's own friends, or they might have heard more of the 20,000 who arrived with the Rev. Dean, who escorted him to the front of the platform, and deployed around, filed off, and took the position assigned to them. Now, with reference to the declared intentions of the Government, and the expectations which have been held out to the Irish people. The noble Lord, who has had a difficult card to play—the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland—at his election in 1841, declared somewhat more explicitly what had before been said in effect by other Members of the Government. Lord Eliot on his reelection at Bodmin, on the 22d day of Sepber, 1841, speaking with reference to Ireland, said, "He knew that the policy of Sir It. Peel would be a sound and a wise policy—a policy of peace and conciliation. He would legislate for it in a generous as well as a just spirit." This was the promise held out in 1841. The people of Ireland look to promises made to them: they are willing to believe the best of every thing. But what have they done between 1841 and 1844? What is the proof of the generous as well as the just spirit which has animated their legislation. The only legislation, from that to the present time of any importance, has been the Arms Bill, and in reference to that Arms Bill, I think that what has occurred has justified some of the apprehensions which Members had entertained. It was stated, that at one petty Sessions, the magistrates, but for the presence of Mr. Gore Jones—a much abused stipendiary magis-

625
trate, of whom they had heard much formerly, and whom I have had often to defend from unjust attacks made upon him for the zealous discharge of his duty—would have done the very thing which the Government which has brought in the Bill told them the legislature had never intended. These magistrates were thereupon told, that what they had done was in accordance with the intention of the Government, and they corrected the error next Session. The noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland wrote a letter—and a very proper letter I think it—to the magistrates; and although they used to hear that I my noble Friend (Earl Fortescue) and myself would not go on well, because we had not the confidence of the local authorities, yet I will venture to say, that neither ever received such a rebuff as the present Government has had administered by Lord De Vesci, and the magistracy of the Queen's County. They plainly told the Government, that the letter of the noble Secretary was an unreasonable interference with them. The mode in which that letter has been penned, showed that it is not very easy to rule when the acts of the Government are not just in accordance with magisterial views. I shall be expected, in consequence of my notice of motion, calling upon your Lordships to examine the causes of the present discontent, to say a few words on the topics opened in the petition this evening presented by my noble Friend behind me (Earl Fortescue), and in the declaration of many most respectable Protestant and Catholic gentlemen connected with Ireland. Certainly, with reference to one question raised in them, I cannot touch upon Irish questions without stating distinctly, fairly, and candidly, in my place in this House, that the present state of the Irish Church should be the subject of further inquiry, and that whilst we hold it as a first principle, that that Church should be adequate to all the wants of the Protestants of Ireland, and due security should be taken that it should be so adequate; that the whole of that question, with that reservation, ought, in my opinion, to be open to the consideration of Parliament. I will say boldly and openly, that I think it necessary, for the safety of Ireland, that the Roman Catholic religion should be put on a footing of equality with the Protestant. I will not now say how far it would be desirable to pay the Clergy of the Catholic religion, but I think that, as in every country in
626
Europe that I know of, in which there is a mixed population of Roman Catholics and Protestants—for instance, Wirtemberg, Bavaria, and Prussia, it should be the acknowledged Church of that portion of the people who belonged to it, with of course, such restrictions and conditions as Parliament should deem advisable. This I say fairly and candidly; and it appeared also to be the intention of Mr. Pitt when he carried the Union, to abolish these restrictions; and with regard to his not effecting his intentions, we must recollect the opposition which Mr. Pitt had encountered. Both in the Irish Parliament and in the English Parliament, the greatest portion of the opposition came from the Protestants. Anything which Mr. Pitt had stated, therefore, must be taken as being most fully intended by him. Mr. Pitt, on the 31st. Jan., 1799, said:—
"It is not easy to say, on general principles, what system of Church Establishment in such a country would be free from difficulty and inconvenience. By many I know it will be considered that the religion professed by the majority of the people, would, at least, be entitled to an equality of privileges."
Mr. Pitt gave a qualification afterwards, the reason for which did not now exist. He said,—
"I have heard such an argument used in this House, but those who apply it, without qualification, to the case of Ireland, forget, surely, the principles on which English interest and English connection have been established in that country, and on which its present Legislature is founded. No man could say, that in the present state of things, and whilst Ireland remains a separate kingdom, full concessions could be made to the Catholics without endangering the state and shaking the constitution of Ireland to its centre."
Mr. Pitt therefore obviously, by the stress he laid upon the present state of things, and whilst Ireland remained a separated kingdom, looked to the removal of these difficulties by the measure of the Union. The opinion of Mr. Pitt on this subject was more fully given on the 21st of April, 1800, when he stated what he had intended in these terms:
"It may be proper to leave to Parliament an opportunity of considering what may be done for His Majesty's subjects, without seeking at present any rule to govern the Protestant establishment or to make any provision on that subject."
That speech of Mr. Pitt was perfectly consistent with the article of the Union, which said, that the doctrine and discipline

627
of the Church of Ireland should be maintained, that it should be united to the Church of England, and the two henceforth form one Church—doctrine, discipline, and government, are the words used—Establishment is now mentioned, and at the same time used this extraordinary phrase, "in like manner as the Church of Scotland, in Scotland." Now, Ireland was not originally treated in the same way as the Church of Scotland, for the religion of the majority was not made the established religion. And thence much of the mischief which has since arisen. I will request your Lordships for a moment to allow me to refer to the proceedings which took place at the time of the Scotch Union as shewing the spirit of liberality on the subject then prevailing:—"On the Union with Scotland a provision was moved, declaring that when the Presbyterian religion was to be established there, nothing in this act should be construed into allowing the Church of Scotland to be what it was then styled—the true Protestant religion." This proviso was rejected, and the Bishop of Oxford said—
"That in treating with persons of a different religion, and allowing them to maintain the truth of their own religion, he did not thereby weaken his own faith in his own."
He added, as a fact not bearing upon that argument, that they had been often told, when Presbyterian government and presbytery were established in Scotland, that it was a most impolitic as well as wicked thing, for that the best part of the nobility and gentry of that kingdom were against the tyranny of the presbyterian government, and in favour of the episcopal. This was, therefore, a completely parallel case to that which had been alleged with reference to Ireland. But in spite of this representation the Presbyterian religion was established in Scotland at the time of the Union. I only throw this out to show, before we come to a decision on the claims of the Irish people, that there is much in the analogy between the two countries which may require your deliberate attention. With reference to what has attracted much attention, the payment of the Catholic Clergy, without declaring further, I would say that this was a most unfortunate moment to make such a proposition; that those who most desire such a result, could not take a course more likely to defeat their own wishes, than to bring the proposition forward at a moment like the present. And I am borne
628
out in this opinion, by what was stated by Mr. Grattan at the time of the Union. He said,
"The Catholics had been accused pretty liberally of disloyalty by those very advocates who now seem to think it proper to remove their imputed treasons against the King, provided they shall be followed up by real treasons against the people. I do not believe, I never did believe, the general charges made against the Catholics. I do not dispute, I never did dispute, the propriety of giving salaries to the Clergy; but it should be salaries, not bribes, salaries for the exercise of their religious duty, and not wages for the practice of political apostacy."
Without taking the words of Mr. Grattan as strictly applicable to the present state of the Catholic Clergy, but lamenting the part which they had taken in political matters, still I see much of sound reasoning, and much applicability of the reasoning of Mr. Grattan against the proposal of any measures for the payment of the Roman Catholic Clergy whilst the Roman Catholic Priests are in the state of excitement in which they at present are. I cannot, however, mention this body without once more giving my tribute of acknowledgment for the active assistance they have afforded to me—for that activity and zeal which have uniformly been borne witness to in that committee which has been moved by the noble Earl opposite (Lord Roden), in the prevention of outrage and in the detection of offenders. It is common to attribute much of the misfortunes and of the crimes prevalent among the peasantry of Ireland to the influence of the religion of the people, but from what I have witnessed among them I would say, that there never was a people whose faults and sufferings more obviously arose out of their relations with man, and less out of their relations with their Maker. There is no country in the world in which there are such general privations and sufferings, and among whom there is a more general and universal practice of all the social and domestic virtues—who are better husbands, better wives, better fathers, better mothers, better sons; better in short in all those relations in which it would naturally be expected that the fruit of religious instruction would be found [Cheers.] No; it is to the struggle for that subsistence which your boasted legislation has failed to procure for them, and which your free institutions have partly withheld from them, that almost all the crimes are to

629
be traced with which you charge them. And I must say this of the Roman Catholic religion, which with all its pomp and power, is supposed sometimes to foster infidelity amongst its votaries, that I do not believe that there is any where a more wide-spread and enduring sense of religion than amongst the pious population of Roman Catholic Ireland, or more truly Christian relations than subsist between the unendowed clergy and the pauper flocks. I turn now to a question of more generalinterest—to the question of the franchise, and of the representation. It has been made rather clearer by the declaration which has been made by Ministers in the Speech from the Throne, because if it be once decided that there is to be an extension of the suffrage, it is only a question of degree. I cannot say that I have not great fear that the franchise is very different to that which I should think necessary to do justice to the people and amend the restrictions on the constituency. I own, however, that I am surprised at the declaration made from the Throne on this subject, when I recollected what had passed in the other House of Parliament, and under the administration of my noble Friend behind me. When the Government had proposed a Bill, a noble Lord introduced another; and when it was proposed that this noble Lord's Bill should be stopped till they could see its probable operation on the franchise, the proposal was scouted, there was such extreme necessity for the measure that it must be pressed at all risks. It was a startling, though welcome inconsistency, to be told in the Speech from the Throne, that after due attention had been paid to the subject, there would be brought forward a proposition to extend the franchise to such an extent as the operation of the Registration Bill should render desirable. With respect to this point, your Lordships are not aware of the extent of the inequality which prevails between the franchise in Ireland and in England. If you take the population of Great Britain, including Wales, in round numbers, at 18,000,000, and the population of Ireland in round numbers at 8,000,000, you will find the proportion of the population between the two countries, as 2¼ to 1; but the number of electors in England, Scotland, and Wales, is 850,000, whilst the number of electors in Ireland is 100,000; there is, therefore, a proportion of 8½ electors to 1 between the two countries, with a population of 2¼ to 1;
630
and if you take the number of Members it will be found at 5½ to 1, with a population of 2¼ to one. Then you may be told, that you should look to the state and condition of the population in Ireland, and recollect, that to its misfortune, 2,000,000 of the population are paupers. That is an extreme estimate; but suppose that I strike off the 2,000,000 of supposed paupers, and believe that all the population of England is independent, that there are no workhouses here, no paupers, and take the Irish population at 6,000,000, the population is only 3 to 1 as compared with Great Britain, whilst the proportion of electors is 8½ to 1, and the proportion of the representatives 5½ to 1. I think I hear the First Lord of the Admiralty remark, that the whole question does not depend on the numbers of the population. [Lord Haddington: I said no such thing.] I thought I heard the noble Lord say so—suppose it were said, that the representation ought to be a mixed question of population and revenue, but in taking into consideration the extent to which we ought to adopt the principle of revenue, we should recollect, that one of the grounds of the Irish claim is, that they declare, that by the present system their interests are neglected, and the resources of the country are not developed; and further, that so long as Parliament sits in London—and if that is the necessary consequence of its being an United Parliament, then he hoped so it would always do—its necessary tendency is to produce absenteeism, and to reduce the proportion of revenue which would enter into their calculation. It appears by the petition entrusted to my noble Friend behind me, that a large proportion of the Irish people, who are not satisfied with the present mode of Government, but are not yet prepared to advocate Repeal, require that the number of Members for Ireland should be increased, and the franchise extended to a degree which would put the Irish people on an equality as to representation with the people of England. I have said the other night a few words which have been supposed to throw out some manner of doubt as to the appointment of the Government Commission now sitting in Ireland, of which the noble Lord opposite (the Earl of Devon) is the head. I do not now wish to revive the subject, but I should have been more satisfied had the result of what I then said, been to elicit some explanation as to the extent of the inquiry which the noble Earl is to conduct. My

631
noble and learned Friend on the right made an observation on that occasion which I think that he (Lord Brougham) will qualify on reflection. It was, that to any interference with the relations between landlords and tenants he would object in the same way as to compel a passenger to give alms to a beggar. [Lord Brougham: Any interference to compel landlords in the use of their property.] I think that an extreme case might be made out in which the Legislature would clearly find it to be its duty to interfere. The more my noble and learned friend applies his mind to this subject the more will he feel, that there are many points worthy of serious consideration with reference to the relations between landlords and tenants. One is, that in Ireland the landlord has a monopoly of the means of existence, and has a power of enforcing his bargains, which does not exist elsewhere—the power of starvation. I do not say, that there are not a great many worthy landlords in Ireland; but it is undeniable that a great many evils exist, and I have little doubt that a case might be made out, in which the Legislature would find it necessary to correct some of these evils. I disclaim, of course, what passes under the unhappy title of fixity of tenure. That is not the sort of regulation I would propose; but I think some measure might be proposed which would be just and fair and beneficial to both parties. From some connection with Ireland, I think it possible, that the Government without instituting this commission, might have found out some of those points in which an alteration would be beneficial. In reference to this point, I think that people in England are not aware of the different position in which a tenant in Ireland stands from a tenant in England. As to the extent in which the Irish tenant is saddled with repairs, there is a profound ignorance; and again, as to the hardship of the tenant in the proportion which the rent bears to the produce, which has been recently and accurately stated in the publication of an English gentleman (Mr. Wiggens) who had for some time been an agent for estates in England and Ireland. He said, that where the produce for an Irish farm was 150 l., the share of the landlord was 100 l., or two-thirds; whilst in England, where the produce of the farm was 300 l., the share of the landlord in the shape of rent, was 100 l., or one-third. Mr. Wiggens went on to say, that the burthens
632
on land in England were double those in Ireland. In England they would be 40 l. and in Ireland 20 l., therefore, the share reserved for the tenant in England out of 300 l. was 160 l., whilst the share of the Irish tenant was only 30 l. out of 150 l. I had hoped that the system of attributing the horrible crimes of the people to religious motives instead of to the depravity of the persons, was at an end, but I see, with respect to the Finnoe murder, that one gentleman is reported to have stated that it all came from employing Catholic policemen, and that it was part of their religion to persecute Protestants; but it does fortunately happen, for the vindication, if such were necessary, of the parties, that the person who has so much distinguished himself in the defence of his master, was, I am glad to say, a Catholic, though I am sorry also to say, a Repealer, which I wish he was not. Considering all these circumstances, I cannot help thinking that I have made out a good case for inquiry. I consider it necessary because of a circumstance which has come under my own knowledge. Some years ago, when I was in Lombardy, there existed great and general discontent. In the year 1830, the disaffection was not confined merely to those who indulged in the patriotic hopes of national independence; the administrative dissatisfaction was also universal: since then the creation, or rather the revival of local councils under popular control for the apportionment of local burthens, in the thriving municipalities of Austrian Italy, had entirely removed from those who still longed for national independence, much of the substantial grievances which gained them active sympathy amongst the mass of the people. It had been predicted of those institutions in Ireland, that they would become normal schools for political agitation; that prophecy has not been fulfilled, and these municipal tribunals, imperfect as they are, have tended very much to the tranquillization of the people. Although I have troubled your Lordships at much length, I cannot avoid, before I sit down, calling your attention to one important circumstance—I refer to the almost utter ignorance prevailing in England on the subject of Ireland. It is undeniable that 8,000,000 of people are governed by a nation which troubles itself little about their real condition. The population returns, as regard Ireland, present a curious fact: the return was completed on a day in June, and it appeared

633
from them that out of the 8,000,000 only 30,000 had been born in England, and half of these were the children of Irish parents while they were resident in this country. It is unfortunate for Ireland that so little knowledge of her character and interests prevails among Englishmen. As to the Government, I believe that none has ever existed which possessed so little actual and local knowledge of any part of Ireland. The noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) was indeed born in Ireland, and she may well be proud of him, but the exception in his case is more apparent than real, for throughout his brilliant and glorious career, although no man could wish that he should have been anywhere but in the scenes of his triumphs, he has certainly spent the greater part of his life at a distance from his native country. No other Member of the Administration can be said to have any local connection with Ireland.
The Lord Chancellor: There are two who have filled the office of Secretary for Ireland.
The Marquess of Normanby: I do not dispute the fact, but Sir Robert Peel has been Secretary under circumstances very different from the present: he has been Secretary for Ireland at a time when the toast of "the Glorious and Immortal Memory" was wont to be given from the Secretary's table. His knowledge, therefore, does not apply to the present time, or to the present state of feeling and opinion.
The Lord Chancellor: Lord Stanley was also Secretary for Ireland.
The Marquess of Normanby: I am unwilling, for many reasons, to advert to the Irish Administration of my noble Friend Lord Stanley. Excepting the noble Duke, there is not a native of Ireland a Member of the Administration. I see among the Ministers several Scotchmen—one, two, three, or perhaps three and a half, for the noble Lord the President of the Council is in part claimed by Yorkshire, but not a single Irishman, excepting the noble Duke. The loss sustained in the death of my noble Friend, Lord Fitzgerald, may be said to have been felt with double severity. Whatever may have been the faults of his early Irish education, sure I am that my late noble Friend's views regarding his native country were always governed by the strictest sense of justice and propriety. It is no wonder, then, that such ignorance of Ireland prevails
634
in England, when among the Ministers themselves there is not one who possesses any personal knowledge; but it would be a great mistake to suppose that the rest of the world look on with indifference; for out of England the affairs of Ireland excite the strongest interest. The power of public opinion is a new feature in the present age; it is, as it were, the creation of peace and civilization, it has now grown to the full strength of manhood, fostered by the diffusion of knowledge, and the interchange of opinions. Public opinion in all the countries of Europe is applied to every great transaction of the world, and this I can say, that strongly as I have at some times spoken, from my keen interest, of the wishes and grievances of Ireland, and much as I have often felt that I have exceeded the sympathies of those I address here, I have never talked with a foreigner, let his political sentiments be what they might, who was well read in the history of Governments, who did not give it as his decided opinion that the prime source of the agitation of Ireland was its misgovernment by England. If this opinion be general, and I have every reason to believe that it is, I must confess that I think in my conscience that it is just; but I trust the time will soon arrive,—and I believe that the mis-government, which all lament, arises out of neglect and ignorance of the real wishes and interests of the people—the time will soon arrive, when even those who are most opposed to the concession of equal rights will feel that they can no longer resist the power of public opinion, and surely it is far better to yield with a good grace than to maintain a resistance as irritating as it is ineffectual. If your Lordships are prepared to go on with the attempt to govern Ireland by a minority: if you are resolved to persevere in what never has succeeded in any country, in any age, or under any form of Government: if you are satisfied to rest the impartial administration of justice, upon the exclusion from all connection with it of those who profess the faith of seven-eighths of the population: if you are satisfied to continue to exhibit to the eyes of Europe the spectacle of a free country ruled by military occupation: if you are content to assert that the sword is the fittest instrument with which to attach Irish affections to the benefit of British institutions; if their religion taught them, even in a vain abuse of its holy

635
name, to maintain a system of doing unto others what you would not have others do unto you, you will reject the present motion for inquiry, and refuse to affirm the Resolution I have laid upon the Table. But if, on the other hand, your Lordships are disposed to make a declaration, however tardy, in favour of the fitness of conferring equal rights—even yet there may be time for success; it is true delay may now be, as it has often been before, the one ingredient to mar the otherwise certain avowal of conciliation; but if your Lordships will now join in such a welcome declaration, and thus avow the strong opinion of one branch of the Legislature, the loyalty of the Irish people is yet unshaken, their hopes are buoyant as their patience has been of long endurance. I am confident that the pacifying and tranquillising effects of such a welcome change will be as instantaneous as they would be general; and then, and not till then, will you be able to offer to the Sovereign of these United Realms that security for Her Throne and for the greatness and stability of Her Empire which is to be derived from the affections of a happy and powerful, because an united people. His Lordship concluded by reading his Motion;—
"That this House having, in answer to Her Majesty's most Gracious Speech, assured Her Majesty that they entered into Her Majesty's feelings in forbearing from Observation on Events in Ireland in respect to which, Proceedings are pending before the proper legal Tribunal, feel it, in consequence, to be their Duty to take the earliest Opportunity, when no Prejudice can arise there from in the Minds of the Jury, to record their Intention to examine into the Causes of the Discontents now unhappily too prevalent in that country. And also, that, with a view to the Removal of existing Evils, and the Restoration of Confidence, this House look to the Development of the only True Principles of a perfect Union, by securing to Her Majesty's Subjects, of all Classes and Persuasions, in all Parts of the United Kingdom, the practical Enjoyment of equal Rights."
Lord Wharncliffesaid: When my noble Friend laid his Resolution on the Table of the House, I confess I could not understand what was the object he proposed to accomplish. It appeared to me that there was no part of it to which I could not give my assent. True, in another place, a noble Lord, when giving notice of a similar motion, is reported to have said, that if he should succeed in persuad-
636
ing the House to go into committee he should then move certain resolutions which would be highly inculpatory of Her Majesty's Government, and would charge them with grave and manifold offences. But, my Lords, there is not one word in either the Resolution of my noble Friend, or in that of the noble Lord in another place, to lead me, or one of your Lordships, to form any idea that such was the intended course. However, my Lords, the speech of my noble Friend has made all clear; he has made several distinct charges against the Government, and I am here ready to meet him and to thank him for the opportunity which he has given me of making an explanation to your Lordships. The charge made against us is, first, in respect of the agitation, which he says we allowed to go on for the purpose of entrapping the offenders; and, secondly, he charges us with malpractices in our conduct in attempting to obtain a conviction of those persons who were at the head of the conspiracy which existed in Ireland. My noble Friend said, in the first place, that we took the wrong course in the beginning—that there were two courses open to us—first, to allow those meetings to be held—to allow them to proceed; in fact, to allow them to wear themselves out. There might, he said, be persons who would have blamed such a course, but he was not one of them. He further said, we adopted that course in the beginning, but we abandoned it, but without reason, and adopted a course which put us in the wrong. The other, he said, was to have put down the meetings, and bring the persons engaged in them to the bar of justice. Now, I tell my noble Friend, that he is wrong in both assumptions. We never thought the meetings would wear themselves out—we saw as clearly as any body possibly could that they never would wear themselves out. We thought, and still think, bringing together great bodies of people on purpose to intimidate and force the Legislature to pursue any particular course was illegal. We were prepared to say so at all times; but what was the position in which we were placed. It would not do for us to interfere and say these meetings are illegal. No; we were compelled to prove the fact. It was not the mere assembling of numbers of people, who were most carefully kept from committing any breach of the peace—they meeting for a

637
legal purpose—that was not what we had to look at—it was more our business to take care that those meetings, though held for a purpose legal in itself, did not become illegal by their being held in furtherance of a conspiracy to be carried on by illegal means, for the purpose of attaining an object which in itself was legal. Although the object be legal, no man has a right to attempt to carry that object by means which are obviously illegal, and it was on these grounds we acted. We perfectly knew the danger and inconvenience which the meetings necessarily gave rise to. We knew very well we should be attacked for our policy, and we were attacked on all sides, by friends as well as foes, and hard it was to bear the peltings we received from our friends; still we knew we were acting right, and made up our minds to bear all the obloquy which was cast upon us; knowing we were acting cautiously, though surely, we were content to be called the do-nothing Ministry by our friends, and bear all the taunts of those who were opposed to us. It was our business, before we did anything against those persons who were carrying on those proceedings, to get evidence which we could produce in a court of law, to show that their proceedings were illegal; and I will tell my noble Friend that universal England will not only say that the meetings were illegal, but that our course was right. I tell him that universal England viewed those proceedings as a tissue of illegal proceedings, carried on for the purpose of carrying out a mea- sure which in itself was legal, if carried out without intimidation. We saw those meetings go on, and we knew that seditious speeches were made at them, we knew that most improper proceedings took place; still we allowed them to go on. They grew worse and worse. My noble Friend shakes his head as if to say no, but say they did become worse and worse; and let my noble Friend allow me to ask him how long before our interference was it that the chief person who conducted those meetings had the hardihood to tell the people of Ireland that no persons in the world had a right to make laws for Ireland, except the House of Lords and Commons of Ireland, in conjunction with the Queen! How long before our interference was the Mullaghmast meeting held? Then said my noble Friend, respecting Clontarf, why was not that
638
meeting allowed? the last as it was intended to be. Why my noble Friend knew not what he was talking about. That was not to be the last meeting, for at the meeting of Mullaghmast, Mr. O'Connell distinctly stated, that he had made arrangements for holding some six or seven other meetings after Clontarf. Well, we did interfere, and I will say this, that if we had allowed that meeting to be held at Clontarf, so near the capital as it would have been, we should have deserved to have been arraigned at your Lordships' Bar for our supineness. To that meeting the thousands were to be marched in military array, and the call for that emanated from the Corn Exchange Association; they were to be marched in regular rank and file, and the horsemen in troops. No doubt that awkward word was afterwards with drawn and changed into groups, and officers were called wardens; but did not everybody see through the transparency of such flimsy pretexts for getting out of a scrape? Dublin was in a state of agitation and intimidation, and then was the time we chose for putting an end to the mischief. We were in possession of evidence enough to convict those persons who had taken the prominent lead of the agitation; we had evidence of their seditious speeches; we thought the time had come when we had such a case against them as would enable us to bring them into a court of justice without endangering the rights and privileges of the Crown. Where did we interfere? Why, at a place where we were fully prepared—where we could bring to bear upon the given point a large military force—when it was clear that our hands were so strong that we could interfere with the certainty of putting a stop to the meeting without the shedding of one drop of blood,—when we could put down the agitation without the horror of sacrificing human life. Many of my noble Friends around me felt much hurt at our conduct, and joined heartily in the cry of the "do-nothing" Ministry. I entreated them to have patience, and told them that we were watchful of all that was going on, Still it was hard to bear their reproaches, but I hope they will allow me now to congratulate them, because I consider we stand upon much stronger ground than before, and that merely in consequence of the manner in which we have conducted ourselves in respect to what was going on.

639
Then, my Lords, my noble Friend complained of the lateness of the proclamation for putting down the Clontarf meeting. Now, my Lords, there is nothing in that. The first notice we had of that meeting was on the 28th of September. At that time the law officers of the Crown in Ireland did think that the time had arrived for stopping the agitation and prosecuting the principal offenders. On the 30th they prepared the proclamation, and as soon as it was finished they sent it over to London by post. It arrived in London on Sunday, October the 1st, and at that time Lord de Grey was in England for the benefit of his health, which, unfortunately, was not good. He was sent for; and, upon his arrival, a consultation took place. As soon as possible, the various Members of the Government who were in the neighbourhood of London, assembled in London,—that was on the Tuesday,—the evidence and the opinion of the law officers of the Crown in Ireland were sent down to the law officers in this country, who also advised a proclamation; and, in consequence of that opinion, Lord De Grey left London, and arrived in Dublin on the Friday. As soon as he arrived, he summoned a Privy Council to consider the proclamation; the alterations of "groups" for "troops," and of "wardens" for "officers," had in the meantime taken place, and it required consideration. However, the Privy Council determined to issue the proclamation on the Friday, because they determined to stop the meeting and the proceedings of Mr. O'Connell and his fellow conspirators. It was very necessary to be guarded as to the words of the proclamation. Although it is true, that it was not until the middle of Saturday that the proclamation was issued, yet the moment it was issued persons were sent forth to post the proclamation throughout the city, anti people on horseback were sent thirty miles from Dublin to take care that it was generally known. We also took care that there should be a competent force ready on the spot; and I put it to the people of England whether it is not a justification to us, that in point of fact no meeting took place, and not the smallest accident occurred. Now with respect to the trial—but before I proceed to that part of the subject, allow me to say a few words as to the conduct of the Attorney-general, of whom the noble Marquess has spoken
640
in such strong terms. With him I have no personal acquaintance whatever; until he was appointed Attorney-general I not only never saw him but I never heard of him. [A laugh.] My noble Friend smiles. I know nothing of the Irish bar; but this I must say, that when he was appointed Attorney-general I heard from all quarters the greatest praise of him. I heard it said by persons opposed to us in politics, "you have appointed the fittest man for Attorney-general;" and although the Irish Attorney-general had been assailed with all sorts of attacks, to-night was the first time he had ever been told of the passage in the speech which the noble Marquess had quoted. With respect to these previous proceedings, my noble Friend seems to think that we gave these people no warning—that we proceeded without any warning whatever. I must say that I think they had complete warning. I do not speak merely of the declarations in Parliament to which the noble Marquess has alluded—I do not speak merely of Her Majesty's Speech at the end of the Session—but I say, that the dismissal of the magistrates was a warning, and ought to have been a warning. It is said, however, that the Lord Chancellor for Ireland did not put the dismissal of these Magistrates merely on the ground of their attendance at these meetings, and did not precisely say, these meetings were illegal; but he put it on this, that after the declaration of Ministers, it was wrong to attend these meetings. I again repeat, that my noble Friend at the head of the Government must have felt, in the first place, that there could have been no justification upon our part, if we had not felt that men who could attend meetings of this description—who might be called on to keep the Queen's peace against the very meetings which they were attending—were not the persons who were entitled to hold Her Majesty's commission. I say, that that was a complete warning, if they chose to take it; and they were told so here in this House. My noble Friend says, that it was not a warning. I am inclined to believe that even those agitators, who make so many speeches, apparently for the purpose of getting them into the newspapers, would not hold that this was not a warning. Let us now come to the trial, and to the accusations which are made against us. It is said, and very truly, that one of the great

641
benefits of this country is the impartial administration of justice, and that in Ireland, as in England, they have a right to the impartial administration of justice. A word or two about perfect equality by-and-bye; but, with respect to this subject, I say, I defy him to put his finger on any part, not only of this transaction, but of any transaction, connected with courts of justice in Ireland, in which, since the accession of this Government to office, there has been any breach of impartiality or justice to Ireland. The first question on this point is the striking of the jury list. It is said, that there was a great attempt, on the part of the prosecutors, to make out a favourable jury list. My Lords, who began? who first objected? Did the Crown object? No; the traversers first objected. They had a perfect right so to do; but with what object did they object? I take it for granted, they thought the old jury list was unfavourable. It was to be done, according to law, by the Recorder. It was to be done in open court. Protestants might go, on their part, if they thought proper. Repeaters—for I will not call them Roman Catholics—might go on their part, and nobody was more complimentary to the Recorder as to this transaction than the repealers, the traversers, and their attorneys. But it seems, that when they came to strike this jury, some of the list was missing, and I believe my noble Friend is right that it did so happen, that a greater number of Roman Catholics were omitted than there were of Protestants. What takes place? But before I come to that explanation, let me ask my noble Friend, what Government has to do with that? He told us the old story about jury lists having been sent up to the Castle, but I say that Government had nothing to do with it. It was the Recorder's business to make out the list, and if a proper list was not sent into court when the jury was to be struck—if any name was omitted, I say, the Government had nothing whatever to do with it. The Recorder may be exceedingly to blame—it may be great negligence on his part, but I deny that my noble Friend has any right to accuse us. It is true there were two lists lost; they were put away, and were found some days afterwards. In whose charge were these lists? In a Protestant's charge? No; they were in the charge of a certain Mr. M'Grath. I have not the honour of knowing him, but I am
642
told that he happens to be a Roman Catholic. It has been said, that somehow or other the Government contrived that the Recorder should do this business, and I suppose we shall now be told, that we had bribed this Roman Catholic. I will not go further into that, but will only say, that there are other Administrations and other quarters to which the charge of bribery may be applied. I say, then, that this was no scheme on the part of the Government. It is true that some of the slips were omitted, but Government had nothing whatever to do with it, and the person who omitted the slips, and who ought to have produced them, so far from being a Government man, was, in point of fact, a Roman Catholic. A few words on the subject of striking the jury. The proceeding is this:—There are forty-eight names on the jury, and the prosecutor and defendant, on either part, have a right to strike off twelve. There then remain twenty-four. I apprehend the right is this—viz., to strike off all whom they think improper on account of any pre-expressed opinion, or from want of education, or from being stupid, or from a thousand other causes. They strike off those particular individuals who they do not think will give a fair chance of success. I apprehend, that if I, as prosecutor, were to try a party for a conspiracy, emanating from a certain Association for a particular object, I never should think that those persons who were either members of that Association, or subscribers to that Association, or who had declared themselves for Repeal, were persons without bias, and to whom I should trust my cause. What happened? We have it upon the affidavit, not of Mr. Kemmis, the solicitor, but, upon the affidavit of the attorney for the traversers, that these people were struck off, because Mr. Kemmis believed them to be repeaters. He says, first of all, it appears, that of the twelve struck off, two were undoubtedly Protestants. There remained then ten, of whom eight are not denied to be repealers. There remained then two. The name of one is Hendric. Perhaps Mr. Kemmis, the Crown Solicitor, was very stupid; perhaps other gentlemen were equally stupid, but it does so happen, that there was a great consultation about these two gentlemen, and they firmly believed one was a Protestant, and they continue to believe that he was a Protestant. He was struck

643
off then, they believing him to be a Protestant. The other man was Michael Dunn. He belonged to St. Patrick's parish; and it appears that St. Patrick's parish was fruitful in Dunns, and that on the list there was not less than four Michael Dunns. It so happens that not long ago there was a petition from that parish in favour of Repeal, and to that petition was appended the name of Michael Dunn. That gave the Crown Solicitor a notion, that this Michael Dunn was the person on the list of the jury who had already declared his opinion in favour of Repeal by signing a requisition for a meeting to petition in its favour, and that he was consequently biassed. But says my noble Friend, "See what you have done, you have excited all the Roman Catholics against you. See what my Lord Shrewsbury has done; see what the Catholics have done." I ask, was it wise on the part of the Catholics to accuse the Government—to accuse their Protestant countrymen of having done that which declared, that they would not believe a Roman Catholic? I deny, that any such thing was done. I differ from the noble Lord who signed the petition—there was no imputation on Roman Catholics—there is no such feeling. It was not because those persons could not be trusted on their oaths, but it was because, whether Catholics or Protestants, they had declared themselves in favour of Repeal, that they were not fit persons to sit on the jury. I hope then, I have established that we were not anxious to pack a jiffy, or to do anything but give a fair trial between God and their Country to these persons. I now pass to the charge, and I say, that nothing proceeded from the Court or from the Chief Justice tending in any degree to soil the ermine. The Chief Justice listened with the greatest patience to all the proceedings of the Court; he heard all the arguments, he heard all the evidence, and having heard all the arguments and all the evidence, he came undoubtedly to a strong opinion, that the persons charged with the offence were guilty of that offence. My Lords, I say, that a Judge having so conducted himself, having been so patient during that trial, having shown no bias whatever during the whole course of it—having been instructed to give the unanimous opinion of the Bench—not sitting there alone, but accompanied by three other Judges, whose duty it was to express their opinion to the jury—[Lord
644
Campbell: On the law.] Not only on the law, but on the bearing of the facts of the case—I say, that it was his duty, if he really believed these persons were guilty, to say to the jury, "If you believe, as I do, these facts, you will find these persons guilty of conspiracy—for it is a conspiracy in law." When, after hearing a trial impartially, and showing no bias on either side, a judge arrives at a full conclusion in his own mind, that the accused is guilty of the offence with which he is charged, it is his duty to give that opinion to the jury. So much, then, for the trials, upon which the noble Marquis has founded almost his whole attack upon the Government. I stand upon our defence here. I say, that the trial was conducted with as much fairness as any trial was ever conducted; that we have done nothing unfair to procure a conviction; that we produced a case as strong as was ever produced in a court of justice; and that the jury have only done their duty in returning their verdict as they have done. I leave it to the people of England, who hear what passes, or who will know tomorrow what passes within these wails, whether we are not acquitted upon this point, or whether there is any one point on the trial on which Government can be blamed. A word or two as to the Attorney-general Smith. No man can lament more than I do what passed upon the trial; but I do not lament it for the sake of Government. The Government had not, in point of fact, anything to do with it. Whether it did harm or good to the Government or to the traversers, I must lament it for the Attorney-general's sake—I lament it for his sake, as I should lament that any man should so far forget himself, even upon the strongest provocation, as to put himself in a position in which he might justly be entitled to blame for indiscretion; but I appeal to your Lordships—I appeal to all men who have common sense—whether there is not a degree of vituperation which cannot be borne, and whether it is not likely to produce such consequences as have been produced? But the trial being over, I agree with the noble Marquess, that it is the duty of the Government for the future, that as the Government has vindicated the majesty of the Law, and asserted the authority of the Queen in her own dominions, it became the duty

645
of the Government to see what measures could be effected for the future peace and welfare of Ireland. In the first place, I do not think, that an inquiry by a committee of your Lordships' House is the proper course to be adopted in this respect. It is, in my opinion, the especial business of the Government, and the Government alone, to consider and determine upon what measures it will be advisable to propose for effecting the object so much desired by all parties. The noble Marquess then alluded to the Queen's Speech, and, first, as to the Commission of which my noble Friend (the Earl of Devon) is the head. The noble Marquess laid it as a great fault to that Commission, that he did not know its object. Amongst other objects, it is intended, undoubtedly, to look into the relation between Landlord and Tenant—it is undoubtedly intended to see whether something cannot be clone to remove matters which must be allowed to be unjust; not to dictate to Landlords on what particular terms they shall let the land—not to deal with tenancies in any way—but to leave it to the Landlord and to the Tenant to make a bargain in letting their lands, but to take care that no injustice is done to a tenant. There are many things to be considered. My noble Friend knows perfectly well, that in the North of England most of the tenants hold as they do in Ireland. No Tenant leaves without a valuation of his stock, and of everything he has on the ground, and of the improvements he has made on it—he is paid for them. If he has made improvements in a certain number of years, according to his bargain with the Landlord, he is repaid, and this is not a mere matter of arrangement between the Landlord and Tenant, but it is a common-law right, or a right by custom, which the courts of law acknowledge, and on which verdicts have been recovered. That is one of the points upon which inquiry is to be made. There are other things into which we are also anxious to make inquiry. We do not intend to interfere between Landlord and Tenant, except to protect the Tenant from injustice—we do not wish to give him a tenure against the wish of the Landlord. The next thing to which the noble Marquess alluded, is mentioned in Her Majesty's Speech, viz., the Registration of Voters. Your Lordships know, that one of the rights to vote in counties is that of
646
a person having what is called a beneficial interest to a certain amount in land. There have been different opinions as to what was the legal meaning of the term, "a beneficial interest." The question should be decided, and the term, "beneficial" should be so explicit that there should be no mistake about it. We think, and upon good grounds, that the result will be a considerable diminution in the number of voters for counties. The Government contemplate revising the present system of levying not only the county but the borough rates, and to confine the collection of them within better defined limits, so as to relieve the people from the greater part of those payments. The next subject to which we intend to direct our attention, is that of National Education. We contemplate taking measures for the better education of the masters and mistresses of the national schools, and we intend making better regulations for the visitation of those schools. The next subject to which we intend to direct our attention, and to which reference has already been made in the other House of Parliament, is the question of giving glebes or other endowments to clergymen in Ireland, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, who may be in need of such a provision, but especially to create a provision for the Roman Catholic clergy out of a trust fund set apart for that purpose, and if persons wish to make endowments for the Roman Catholic clergy to legalise them; and this leads me to the question of perfect religious equality as mooted by the noble Marquess as to putting the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland on a footing of perfect equality with the clergy of the Established Church. I have no hesitation in saying that I can not consent to, this. It should never be forgotten that by the Act of Union the Protestant Church was recognized as the national Church of Ireland; and we are bound by every obligation to keep it up in preference to all others. It was again recognised as the national Church at the time Roman Catholic Emancipation was granted; and we are not prepared to make any concession on this point, however we may be inclined to create a better maintenance for the Roman Catholic clergy. But how would the noble Marquess carry out his views of perfect religious equality? Does he suppose that the people of this country would go with him? Would he allow the Crown to appoint the Protestant

647
Bishops and permit the Catholic Bishops to be appointed by the Pope? Would he agree to allow Roman Catholic Bishops seats in that House? To carry out his views the noble Marquess must, in the first place, create a provision for the Roman Catholic equal to that of the Protestant clergy. Does my noble Friend say he would take away any of the property of the Church? Then, if not, where is the provision to come from? Is an annual sum to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund for this purpose; so that not only every Roman Catholic in England, but every Protestant, and every Dissenter as well, is to be made liable. Is the noble Marquess prepared to say, that the people of England will consent to be thus taxed, or does the noble Marquess mean that he would not pay any of the clergy at all, either Protestant or Catholic? That would certainly be equalising with a vengeance! The next plan for effecting this perfect religious equality would be the destruction of the Protestant Establishment in Ireland; but that I believe would not give satisfaction to the people of England. The third plan would be that recommended in an article I have seen in a quarterly publication, and my noble Friend indites articles against us in quarterly publications, but we are not responsible for such publications. Now, the publication to which I allude proposes another scheme in reference to the present position, and proposes equality of the two Churches. The writer proposes that on the death of the present incumbents the incomes of every church, and every piece of preferment, should be vested in commissioners; that the parochial subdivison should be no longer continued; but the country should be divided into congregational districts; and that the commissioners should pay a certain sum to the Protestant clergy and to the Catholic clergy indifferently. I do not know whether that is a scheme which my noble Friend considers would answer the purpose. What is the amount of the value of the livings in Ireland? Supposing they were all vested in trustees for the maintenance of the Protestant and the Roman Catholic clergy, would they realise a fund adequate? The noble Marquess has said that it was a great insult to the people of Ireland, that the Lord Lieutenant should have promoted the Reverend Holt Waring; and when I heard my noble Friend's lively description of that Gentleman's triumphal
648
procession in military array, I could not avoid observing that it reminded me of a priest entering a town at the head of a great body of people about to join some of the late monster meetings of which we have heard so much. I can only say that this clergyman imitated too closely the conduct pursued by the other parties; and all I can add is, that clergymen would be much better employed than in mixing themselves up with such proceedings. But I am at a loss to know, that if some years ago the Reverend Mr. Waring may have attended a meeting avowedly for the purpose of maintaining the Union between the two countries, that should now be remembered and brought forward as a charge against the present Government of Ireland. Then it is said we have lost the confidence of the majority of the people of Ireland. I do not stop to contend that we have not, but we are supported by the majority of Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland, Scotland, England, and the Colonies; but then it is said, we legislate for one part or portion of the population of Ireland, and that no Roman Catholics are promoted to high offices: that is not our fault; we have done our best to invite qualified persons of that persuasion, and if they do not come and meet us in a similar spirit we are not to blame. I conclude by thanking the noble Marquess for the opportunity he has given me of vindicating our acts. We have done our duty; our conduct is before the country; we are ready to abide the result of the opinion of our countrymen; we are ready to aid Her Majesty in maintaining the Legislative Union inviolate, and in upholding the supremacy of the Law.
The Marquess of Normanbywished to say in explanation, that he had never offered any suggestion about the paying of the Catholic clergy. On the contrary, he had said that he thought, it not expedient to attempt it. But he certainly expressed his wish to see the Catholic clergy put on a footing of equality, which was the object of the Emancipation Act.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, that undoubtedly the noble Lord, the President of the Council had made an able and eloquent speech, and had addressed himself to their Lordships in a tone with which he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) was highly gratified; but he regretted extremely that he could not agree with the noble Lord in by far the greater part

649
of what he had said. Unfortunately, although the tone of the noble Lord, when speaking of Ireland, had been highly gratifying; and although that tone had been assumed before by some of the noble Lord's Colleagues, yet it had happened that the deeds of those who adopted that tone did not correspond with its conciliatory spirit. He was, therefore, rather disposed to look into the acts of the noble Lord and his Colleagues, than to regard their words, and to see distinctly what it was that the noble Lord declared to the House, and weigh well the value of it. But, before he did so, he would allude for a moment to what had been done with respect to the past. The noble Lord, he thought, was giving great thanks for small mercies, when he expressed so much gratitude to the noble Marquess for the opportunity which he had afforded him of meeting these charges; for, although the noble Lord had met the charges most boldly, yet he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) did not perceive the noble Lord had answered them. The noble Lord had said, "we did so and so, and we leave it to the country to say whether we were right or wrong," but he did not answer the charges made against him and the Government, or justify that which they had done. The noble Lord contented himself with the old story of saying, that he had not read the newspapers. [Lord Wharncliffe: I did not say that I had not read the newspapers.] No, no; but the noble Lord said, that he had never heard of Mr. Smith, a Gentleman appointed to be Her Majesty's Attorney-general. Yes; this Gentleman, who was appointed to that important office, was nevertheless a person of whom one of Her Majesty's Ministers had never heard. And why? Because, said the noble Lord, he was not conversant with the proceedings in the Irish law courts. Perhaps if the noble Lord had been conversant with those proceedings, he would not necessarily have been conversant with the name of Mr. Smith. But still the noble Lord might have been aware of the remarkable meeting at which Mr. Smith made himself as remarkable by the speech he delivered there, and by which speech, Mr. Smith, for the first time, became known. But to revert to the mode in which the noble Lord had met the charges brought forward by his noble Friend. It appeared to him, that the noble Lord had not given any answer to those charges.
650
There was one charge which the noble Lord had totally left unanswered—what was the state of Ireland at this moment? and what was it when the noble Lord and his Colleagues came into power. Had the noble Lord attempted to account for the disastrous and calamitous condition of that country. He thought it was discreet and wise of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Roden), whom, though differing with him in politics, he hoped he might be permitted to call his Friend—he thought it was discreet and wise in his noble Friend, on a former occasion, to take no notice of the present state of Ireland, considering the attacks which he himself had made, in the sincerity of his heart, with great violence, upon a former Ministry, when the condition of Ireland was the subject of his animadversions. On that occasion, his noble Friend (the Marquess of Normanby) was accused by the noble Earl of being in fact as had as, if not in truth a member of, the General Association, because he did not take notice of its proceedings, and prosecute the members of it. What had become of that Association? What had been the state of Ireland throughout the whole of last year? and what was that state at the present moment? What was the state of the Government in Ireland? It held authority there by military occupation, and by no other power whatever. That was the fact. No man who resided in Ireland, or who had been there as a sojourner for any portion of time, could attempt to deny it. There ought to be explanation on the part of the Government to account for this state of things, because no new matter had arisen in Ireland. Nothing whatever had occurred in Ireland that might not have been anticipated by Her Majesty's Ministers at the time they assumed office. The right hon. Baronet, at the head of Her Majesty's Government, had candidly said, before being called to power, that Ireland would be his difficulty. And why did he say so? Because he well knew the nature of the Government which he would of necessity have to administer affairs in that country. It was quite evident, from the tone taken by the right hon. Gentleman upon more than one occasion, that he felt embarrassed by the consciousness of the natural complexion which his Government in Ireland must assume, and from the whole tenor of his Government in that country, conducted, as it necessarily was,

651
by the particular description of men who stood forward to support him. It was a vice inherent in the party which supported the Government, and from which the Government could not extricate themselves. They might have done so at one time. But there was one fundamental error and vice in the policy upon which the Government of Ireland proceeded. He was not now alluding to those party attacks which noble Lords, when in opposition, made against the late Government. He was taking a wider view of the subject, when he said that the great practical vice of the present Government in Ireland was this, that there existed a feeling that the Roman Catholics could not safely be entrusted with political power, or with the exercise of those full and free franchises which the rest of the country enjoyed. The people of Ireland being Roman Catholics, the argument necessarily came to this, that they could not admit the people of Ireland to a full, fair, and free equality with the rest of the country in the exercise of the rights of the subjects of the British empire. That was the argument used upon the discussion of the Catholic question; and it was on that occasion declared by those who now governed the country, that although Catholic Emancipation had been granted, still they had not changed their opinion. The fact therefore was, that the British Constitution was not administered in Ireland, because there was no public opinion recognised in Ireland; there was no appeal made to it, there was no wish to conciliate it. The noble President of the Council had said, that the Government had watched the meetings which had been held with great anxiety until they could find, what he termed, an opportunity to put them down. Assuming that there was great anxiety for this opportunity, he would ask, in the name of common sense, whether the same opportunity was not afforded at Mullaghmast or at Tara, where meetings were held disturbing the peace of the country? and if the Lord-lieutenant had chosen to issue his proclamation, whether they would not have been as easily dispersed as that of Clontarf? There was no reason to doubt it. But when the Government made up their mind how to act, they committed themselves of lathes in not following up their act by a different kind of prosecution, for they had alleged that seditious language had been held.
652
If that were true, and seditious language had been held at former meetings, they might have instituted prosecutions before. But he contended it was contrary to the whole spirit and feeling of the people of this country, as well as of the people of Ireland, to let persons go on in a series of acts which were asserted to be not legal, and then at last bring forward an accumulated series of those acts against them whereupon to found an accusation and a charge. It would be absurd to deny that these persons had been guilty of conspiracy in the legal sense of the term, and he believed that the jury had found a perfectly honest verdict. Whatever he might think of the complexion and the religious and political opinions of that jury, he was bound to say he believed they had found an honest verdict. He was told that conspiracy must be shown by overt acts; but overt acts possibly legal in themselves, but tending to an illegal object. But he contended again that it was contrary to the feeling of the people of this country to attack men by that sort of proceeding, a proceeding which was a branch or part of that hateful and odious charge known as constructive treason, the construing a number of legal acts in such a way as to show an illegal intention. It was not a mode of proceeding likely to conciliate public opinion. He would venture to say, that some of those persons who had been tried had no notion they were engaged in a conspiracy any more than the character in Molière's comedy had, that he had been talking prose—they had no idea they had committed the offence for which they had been tried, and that was the opinion of the great majority of the people of Ireland. However, the Government was determined to put down those meetings, and they issued the proclamation, and he differed entirely from the noble President in his opinion of that proceeding. He deemed the steps taken by the Government to be characterised by rashness, and to have incurred the danger of bloodshed. If it were true that the proclamation could not be published until a late hour on the Saturday to stop a meeting to be held on the Sunday, that should have been a reason for the Lord-lieutenant to have acted differently. It would have been more consonant with the discretion and prudence of a Christian Government to have allowed the meeting to go on rather than have incurred the risk of

653
bloodshed on the Sunday. But, if the noble Lord had read the newspapers, he would have known that the very danger that was deprecated was actually incurred, that the people were assembled in crowds, during the night, to be ready for the meeting of the morning; and until the arrival of the messengers from the Repeal Association in post-chaises, the people were not aware that the meeting would not be allowed to take place. Whatever might be said of Mr. O'Connell, he believed that it was owing to the immense influence of that learned Gentleman, and which he exercised effectually, that that day passed over without bloodshed, the proclamation having been issued, the meeting prevented, and the trials resolved upon. If there was one thing more desirable than another in these proceedings, in a free country especially, it was, that public opinion should go along with them. The first thing was to have an impartial tribunal. He had said, he believed the verdict to be an honest one: he could not know whether it was an impartial one. He knew that it would have been hard to get an impartial jury; but when his noble Friend stated that there had been a call made to the Protestants to come in and fill up the jury list, the noble President asked, in return, by whom that call had been begun? Whether it had begun with Catholic, Protestant, Presbyterian, or Jew, it mattered not to the question. [Lord Wharncliffe: What had the Government to do with it?] So much, that before they instituted proceedings, they had a right to look at all the consequences likely to flow from their act; and was it to be conceived by any man that this consequence would not naturally and to a certainty ensue—a discussion upon the constitution of the jury—and that the whole trial would be thought to turn upon the mode in which that jury was formed? He would refer as to a case in point, to the Bill brought in by the Lord Chancellor last year, for the purpose of changing the venue, but which merged at last in the question of the jury. Both parties, the Catholics on the one side, and the Protestants on the other, were inflamed with prejudice, and could it be expected, after ten Catholics had been struck off the list, thus leaving three of the traversers, being Catholics, to be tried by a jury exclusively Protestant, that public opinion would go along with the Government—that the public would be-
654
lieve the jury to be a fair and impartial jury, or that they would be convinced hat any real offence had been committed by the accused—the offence, moreover, being one of a constructive nature. Every one of these consequences ought to have been looked to by the Government, anticipated as likely to arise naturally, and to have been fully provided for, before the prosecutions were instituted. There was me part in the proclamation in particular, which struck him as being so rash, as exhibiting so much blundering, needless energy, that, without meaning any disrespcet to his noble Friend, who filled the office of Lord Lieutenant—he had no desire whatever to allude to him personally—he spoke only in reference to the Lord Lieutenancy, he being of opinion that this office would be much better abolished—that he was obliged to draw attention to it. He was sure, had there been no viceregal court, and had the powers of Government been otherwise vested, he was sure it was impossible this could have occurred—that such an important proclamation would have been posted up on a Saturday night, thus risking the peace and the sanctity of the Sabbath. There was another circumstance for which the noble Lord was not to be personally blamed—it was the vice of the Irish system of Government. He alluded to the calling on the Privy Council to assist at the deliberations. In general Roman Catholics, who were members of this Council were summoned without distinction; but in this single case, the rule was departed from. The Lord Lieutenant on this occasion was surrounded with his particular adherents, and, with the exception of Lord Donoughmore, there were no Roman Catholics present, though many were within reach of summons. This matter, he could tell their Lordships, had not escaped the observation of the people of Ireland. The noble President was proud because he had got a verdict, and appeared to think that now all was right. He admitted one good consequence that had resulted from the Government proceedings—there had been no more monster meetings. But had the agitation ceased since these meetings had ceased? He did not wish to appear as an agitator, but he occasionally followed that practice which the noble Lord had repudiated—namely, reading the newspapers; and if he were to trouble the House with extracts, he could show that

655
language had been used upon the subject of Repeal since the date of these prosecutions, as strong, or stronger, even, than that which had been used before. Seditious songs, the diction of which was far stronger, had been printed and copied, he believed, into almost every newspaper. The Repeal Association still existed; the agitators did not intend to give up their agitation. He viewed these things, however, as of comparatively little account; but what he regarded with the greatest anxiety was the progress of the repeal question in the public mind, and the consideration whether the people of Ireland were acquiring more confidence in the impartial administration of Government in that country. The question whether the Irish nation, Roman Catholic as well as Protestant were better contented than they had been with the administration of the executive Government, and of the law, and whether they were better contented with the Legislation of the Imperial Parliament. That was a subject of vital importance to consider, and let not the noble Lord think that because they had a military force in Ireland, which caused any attempt at rising ridiculous—a rising. however, which he, for his part, did not believe had ever been meant to be made—that therefore they had secured the tranquillity of that country. Such a state of things was not tranquillity, nay, it was not civil government, and upon that point he would quote the words of one of the most illustrious men who had ever sprung from an Irish race—he meant Mr. Burke, and who had said that
"The effect of force can be but temporary. By force you may for a time subdue, but you do not remove the necessity to subdue, and that country is not governed which has continually to be coerced."
That was the sentiment of Burke; and let not the noble Lord, then, suppose, because there were fortified barracks in which fugitives from an insurrection might seek refuge, or armed ships in the harbours to shelter the families of those who might be engaged in strife, that therefore the country was in tranquillity and peace. There was much at the termination of the speech of the noble Lord which he was glad to hear, and he would have been still better pleased had the beneficial measures been more general and more extensive. A step had, however, been taken, and a step in the right direction, and he thanked
656
Government for what they had done and for what they proposed to do. He alluded to the proposal for enabling Government to endow the Roman Catholic Church. He strongly felt the necessity for such a measure, and he was delighted to hear this was to be done. He also was glad to hear that the grants for National Education were to be increased. That, however, was undoubtedly an absolute necessity if they meant the present system to be continued at all, for the whole Educational establishment had arrived at that pitch, that the grant must he increased or the system given up. He was one who thought that scheme was the most excellent that could have been devised for joint education. He knew there were great difficulties and objections to be encountered in any attempt at establishing a joint education; but, be that as it might, the present was a wise and beneficent measure, and had worked great benefit to the people. At the same time, if the Government meant that the system should be established in Ireland—if they meant to protect that scheme of National Education, he must tell them it was not only by increasing the grant—and he hoped that the increase would be a large one—but it was not only by increasing the grant even to the full extent by which the system could be thoroughly and practically worked out, that then their intentions would be realised. The plan would never be carried out to its original extent until it was brought in harmony with the Protestant as well as the Roman Catholic clergy. It had been objected against this scheme by a noble Lord opposite, and by others out of doors, that it would not succeed, because it was not supported by the clergy. That fault, however, lay not with the system, but in the unfortunate party spirit which had unfortunately been infused into the system. It was this party feeling which had divided the clergy from these schools. If the Government meant to uphold National Education in Ireland, they would let it be known that it was their intention to bring it in unison and harmony with the working clergy of Ireland, by their choice of the persons whom they selected for employment, and would show that they (the Government) did not approve of those who made violent speeches, and took strong measures to put down and counteract that system, and to excite against it the ill will of the clergy. But the per-

657
sons who had been promoted in Ireland, had been more distinguished by hostility to the National Educational scheme than by any thing else. He did not mean to assert, that those persons were otherwise unworthy of their promotion; but he must remark, that the very last prelate who had been appointed, however distinguished for ability in other respects, has been more conspicuously before the Irish public in their efforts against the National Board, than in any other capacity. So long as the Government favours and advancements were granted to those who were distinguished for their opposition to the Education scheme, and who had pronounced it contrary to the religion established by law in the country, the ministers would not give real and effectual support to the National Board. The noble Lord the President of the Council had alluded to the Commission for Inquiry into the relations of Landlord and Tenant. They were told that the effect of that Commission would be, that no injustice would be committed by the landlords of Ireland. But that was not sufficient. Care must be taken, that no injustice should be done by tenants also, or they came at once to fixity of tenure. Every one knew the mass of pauperism and destitution which existed in Ireland, and if the Government wished to relieve that, why had they appointed a Commission which could effect no good for a year? It would not be fair for him to deny that there were parts of Ireland where land was too high; but he presumed that was also the case in England, for he occasionally read of cases where landlords returned to their tenants so much per cent. on the amount of their rents. He would say, that at that time of great agitation, when such dreadful crimes were perpetrated, arising out of this very occupancy of land, it was rash in the Government to issue a Commission, which must undoubtedly convey to the popular mind in Ireland an intimation that the Ministers thought the landlords of Ireland were the parties who were doing wrong, and that to them much of the misery of the country was to be attributed. A new Commission had been issued; but the Government did not choose to attend the reports of Commissions which were already on the Table of the House. Now one of the greatest grievances in the rural districts, was the pressure of the cess and local taxes upon the land. There was a report from a Commission, appointed by the late Government, to inquire into
658
the working of the Grand Jury Law, and that report, made in April, 1842, showed him 160,000 l. might he saved to the counties of Ireland entirely in rates, and cesses, and taxes that pressed upon the tenants. It was of no use appointing these commissions, if when the reports were made, they were laid upon the Table, and no notice taken of them. The report he alluded to, he had hardly ever heard mentioned; it was in the library, but he did not know whether any of the Members of the Government had read it. Then there was the Commission of Inquiry into the Poor-law, and it appeared that now the poor-rate could not be collected without troops and police, and that there was a regular campaign, and an army maintained, to collect the impost in some unfortunate baronies. The grievances of Ireland were such, as every well wisher to that country must wish to see redressed, not by Reports of Commissions, but practically and well. The Commissioners of that Poor-law Inquiry stated, that no one measure could be devised by any set of men for the amelioration of Ireland; but they recommended a series of measures—a system of emigration, of public works, and others, by which much good might be done. The public works in Ireland had paid the Government over and over again, by an increase of taxation. He regretted he could not concur in the defence which the noble Lord opposite had made of the Government. He (the Marquess of Clanricarde) could not admit, that the noble Lord had given any reason whatever—and the responsibility rested with him and the Government. The state of Ireland was now that in which property was insecure, while the law was maintained only by the presence of physical and military force. The present Government had found the country tranquil, and in the enjoyment of a free constitution; they had now brought her into such a state, that she could not be considered as placed under a civil government; and he believed, that unless the Government took much stronger and more effective measures than they had yet taken, the state of the country would not improve. Let it be remembered, that we paying an immense army for doing nothing, were but for upholding the misgovernment of Ireland. He would not hold out any threats; therefore he would not allude to possible contingencies. He knew it had been held, that if England were placed in

659
a situation of great difficulty, Ireland would add to the embarrassment of the State; but he did not believe this, because Ireland had too great a share in the glory of this country, lightly to desert her in the hour of need or danger. He did not believe, that the Irish would be more backward than they had hitherto been in maintaining the power and dignity of the country. He trusted to the good feeling, to the loyalty, to that fidelity which had been called by the great Grattan, the desperate fidelity of the Irish people. At the same time he thought the feelings of human nature must actuate the Irish as they did other men, and that if this country persisted in governing them by military force alone, they could not hope to retain the affections of the people.
The Earl of Rodensaid he could not allow the unwarrantable aspersions thrown out by the noble Marquess to pass unnoticed. In finding fault with the late Government on account of the various agitations which existed during their tenure of office, he (the Earl of Roden) had held it to be his duty to call the attention of the House to what he conceived to be the misgovernment of Ireland by the noble Lords opposite. He was not influenced by any party views or objects, and was actuated by no feeling but a sincere desire to forward the happiness and prosperity of the country to which he belonged. The noble Marquess had said that when other persons were in office he (the Earl of Roden) had taken no notice of such transactions, but passed them over in silence. He would call the attention of their Lordships to the real facts. On the very first day of the last Session he had taken the liberty of giving notice in that House, that in consequence of the agitation for the Repeal of the Union it was his intention to put a question on the subject to Her Majesty's Ministers. He did, on that occasion, give his opinion as to the circumstances which marked the agitation, and called the attention of Government to its progress. Towards the close of the Session he felt it to be his duty to follow the same course he had always followed on this question, and he again appealed to noble Lords behind him to adopt the measures which the state of public affairs pointed out as necessary. He maintained, therefore, that there was no ground whatever for the statement of the noble Marquess with respect to the line of conduct which he (the Earl of
660
Roden) had pursued. He could not help saying a word or two on the speech of the noble Marquess who had brought this subject forward. He had listened to that speech with great attention. It was a speech of great talent, and distinguished by much information as to the state of Ireland; but throughout the whole of his remarks, the noble Marquess appeared to have taken it for granted that the people of Ireland approved of the course which he had taken when he was in that country, and that the great body of them entertained the same opinions as the noble Marquess. Now, he begged leave to tell the noble Marquess that in that country there was a very large and influential portion of the inhabitants who differed most widely from the opinions and conduct maintained by him; persons who traced the very circumstances in which Ireland was now placed to the conduct of the noble Marquess. It would be in the recollection of their Lordships, that on the inquiry before the Committee (on the State of Crime in Ireland) for which he had moved, many circumstances connected with the career of the noble Marquess in that country were elicited, and no person who considered these circumstances could refuse to admit that persons of all opinions, anxious for the peace and welfare of the country, were opposed to the course which the noble Marquess thought it his duty to pursue during his temporary reign. The noble Marquess might laugh; those times were gone by; but they were now reaping the effects of that wholesale discharge from the gaols which was carried on under the auspices of the noble Marquess, without any reason for the extraordinary course he took. The noble Marquess had uttered very strong language, condemnatory of Her Majesty's Government, referring to the magistrates who were removed from the commission in consequence of the countenance they had lent to the Repeal agitation. But he would ask, were no magistrates removed when the noble Marquess and his friends were in office? Where was the difference between their removals and the removals of his noble Friends behind him? In the latter case magistrates were removed for taking part in an object which was now proved to be a conspiracy, to effect by illegal means the dismemberment of the empire. Under the late Government, one magistrate was removed because his wife had an orange ribbon in her breast on the 12th of July,

661
and others were displaced for reasons equally frivolous. Among them was the Rev. Holt Waring, the same individual whom the noble Marquess afterwards appointed on the commission of the peace, and who was still on it, as he ought to be, being a man of large landed property. As to the circumstance on which so much stress had been laid, that that gentleman had been appointed to the deanery of Dromore after having attended the meeting at Hillsborough with a large number of followers, the fact was that a great part of them consisted of his own tenantry. Those removed from the commission of the peace by the present Government were men who had supported by their presence the Repeal of the Legislative Union, which meant neither more nor less than the disruption of the empire. Magistrates attending meetings called to obtain that object could not be fit persons to hold the commission of the peace, and he thought Government would have been extremely culpable if they had allowed those men to remain any longer in the commission after they had ascertained their views. The noble Marquess had stated that he conceived it would be much better that the question of Repeal should be legally canvassed in that and the other House of Parliament, instead of putting persons on their trial who had been engaged in promoting that object. Why, that was the very opinion which they (the Ministerial side) held, and therefore it was that they found fault with Mr. O'Connell and the other agitators who were crying out for Repeal. For what reason did they not come to that and the other House to discuss the subject, in order that it might there be decided whether the measure was possible, and likely to be productive of benefit? The agitation carried on during the past year had been the source of numberless evils to Ireland; it had produced the greatest dismay; it had been the means of checking industry, of stopping commerce, and preventing every benefit which would naturally have accrued to the country; and therefore, he confessed that he had found fault with noble Lords behind him for not having before taken measures to bring it to a close. After the explanation of the noble Lord the President of the Council, however, and the effects which would probably be produced by the result of the late trial, he was inclined to think that Minis-
662
ters were perhaps in the right, in allowing things to proceed to the length they had reached before they struck the blow which now appeared to have been effected. One thing to be remarked was, that many Roman Catholics were as much averse to this agitation as any persons could be, and found it to interfere fatally with their objects of industry, but they were forced to join in it in consequence of the long delay which took place before Government arrested the progress of the agitation. But the old adage was good, "better late than never;" and he trusted the course which had been pursued and the effect produced by the trial would prove most beneficial to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects. Much fault had been found by the noble Marquess with respect to the challenging of the jury, but he thought the noble Lord (Lord Wharncliffe) had given a complete answer to that charge. He begged the House to bear in mind, that the Repeal question had been made a great religious question in Ireland. Almost the whole of the Roman Catholic hierarchy and priesthood had joined the Repeal movement, and therefore it was very natural to say that it had been made a Roman Catholic question. The idea in the minds of the people was this—he spoke not from what he had been told by others, but from what he had heard and observed among the people themselves—it was, that the passing of Repeal must destroy the Protestant religion in Ireland, and establish the Roman Catholic in its stead. That was their opinion, that was what they believed, and, therefore, he said it was now regarded in Ireland as a religious subject. Such being the case, was it not natural to say without at all impeaching the oath of any Roman Catholic, without at all supposing that a Roman Catholic juror was not as competent to give a verdict as a Protestant, that there might be some bias in the minds of the individuals, and that when they came into the jury-box, this bias might be the means of their giving a verdict which otherwise they might not have returned? He would mention a circumstance which would show what caution was necessary on the part of the Attorney-general in choosing the persons who were to be placed in the jury-box. On the grand jury, there were three Roman Catholics. The grand jury found the bill, and after the bill had been brought up, one of the jury came forward, and having

663
taken the oath that he would keep his own counsel and the counsel of his fellow-jurors, told the judge that he dissented on one point from the verdict to which they had come. He said that this was sufficient to have induced the Attorney-general to be careful as to the persons whom he put on the jury. Had that functionary allowed persons to be jurors who had that strong bias in their minds, it would have been said by every one who looked at the circumstance, that he was not an honest man, and that the Government only wanted to have a sham trial. Under the circumstances, he thought the Attorney-general was quite right in the course he had pursued. The noble Lord had stated at the Table the measures which Government had in contemplation, as sets-off to the coercive steps which had been taken. He should not give any opinion on those questions; they would come before their Lordships in the regular shape; and he should take an opportunity of stating his sentiments regarding them. But with regard to one of those subjects—that of National Education—he felt it his duty to say a word, as one who had opposed in that House, in as straightforward a manner as possible, the introduction of the system. He opposed it on principle—not, as the noble Marquess had said, from parliamentary motives, but because it deprived the people of the Scriptures of Truth; and he declared in that House, when he did oppose it, that these were the reasons why he would not consent to any system of education in Ireland which robbed the people of that country of the greatest treasure and blessing they could enjoy. As a resident proprietor of Ireland, he could not but thank noble Lords behind him for the course they, as Members of the Government had pursued, as to the late trials. He could not but be of opinion they had pursued the course likely to give peace and prosperity to that part of the country, as well as satisfaction to the people of England. He hoped they would steadily continue in their course, turning neither to the right nor to the left, but asserting the supremacy of the law, and determined to apply every means in their power to put down attempts to disturb the peace of the land.
The Earl of Devonsaid, as so much allusion had been made to the subject of the Commission of which he was a Member, and as so much misconception ap-
664
peared to prevail respecting it, he thought it proper to say a few words, in order that that misconception might be removed. It had been supposed, that the Commission would take a very narrow course in examining witnesses, and that they would not enter on those topics which it was most important to the welfare of Ireland that they should consider. He would state very shortly the course the Commission had taken, and which they meant to pursue. It was in the latter part of November that the Commission was issued to inquire into the Tenure and Occupation of Land in Ireland, and ascertain the burdens which pressed respectively on the landlords and on the tenants. On the very first day of December, he had proceeded to Ireland, and he remained actively engaged in the duties of the Commission till the meeting of Parliament. The course they had taken in order to acquire information was simply this. After deliberating two or three days together, they issued a circular letter addressed to all the boards of guardians, to all the Protestant and all the Roman Catholic bishops, pointing out the subjects on which they wished information, and requesting their assistance in procuring it. He was happy to say, that in every quarter they had met with the most kind answers; all parties seemed disposed to give information and assist them in their inquiries. They had pursued their inquiries in Dublin in pursuance of their object, they had felt it to be their duty to examine there persons of various classes, and they had at the same time made known by circular letters their intention to visit in the course of the inquiry various parts of the country, in order to collect information on the spot. It must be obvious to their Lordships, that they could make no inquiry into the occupation of land which did not embrace all the existing relations between landlord and tenant. It would be their duty to examine accurately all the information contained in the reports to which the noble Marquess had referred, and which, he agreed with the noble Marquess, had not obtained all the attention to which it was justly entitled, and it would be their further duty to consider any measures that might be suggested to them, in order to carry out the recommendations contained in the various reports, as well as any which they might themselves propose. Their proceedings

665
had been carried on in Ireland up to the meeting of Parliament, and in the early part of March they would again repair to that country and continue their inquiries. He could assure their Lordships there was no part of the relations between landlord and tenant which could be made the subject of inquiry, and on which recommendations could be made, which would not attract their attention. They did not approach the subject with any preconceived idea that the landlords were wrong, or that the tenants were wrong, but with an anxious desire to ascertain what were the causes of that state of things which, unhappily, now subsisted, and had long subsisted in that country. It had been stated, and truly, that the poverty of the tenants was the cause of that state of things. It would be their duty to point out any measures which might appear to them advisable, in order to remove that poverty, and alleviate the distress which now weighed down the agricultural population of Ireland. They would bring their labours to a close as early as possible, and at an early period after, noble Lords would have an opportunity of examining all they had done, and till then, he trusted their Lordships would give the Commissioners credit for an earnest wish closely to examine the subject, and to lose no time in doing so. Of the policy of issuing the Commission it was not his business to speak; he could only say, that the inquiry would be prosecuted through every channel likely to give impartial information, and he had the satisfaction of saying, as far as he had the opportunity of judging, that the desire to furnish this information had been elicited in various parts of the country by the course which the Commission had taken. He might be permitted to add, it was a mistake to suppose that when they were absent from Ireland, they were altogether idle on the subject of the inquiry. Much of the inquiry they could pursue in this country. There was hardly a day on which some portion of his time was not devoted to the subject. Their Lordships would scarcely credit the amount of information which had been laid before the Commissioners, the arrangement of which enforced considerable labour on their secretary. The letters he had that day received were marked 561 and 562, which would give some idea of the extent of their correspondence. As some observations had been made as to the selection
666
of their secretary, he might add, that the choice of secretary having been devolved upon the Commissioners, and many applications from various quarters having been made to them, they had taken all the pains they could in the selection of an individual who had given great attention to the subject, and who had made long inquiry into the tenure of land; and they had every reason to be pleased with the choice they had made.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, having been in Ireland for some months, he thought that a very good reason why their Lordships on the other side of the House, who were not perhaps very well disposed towards him, should give him an opportunity of expressing his sentiments on this occasion, in preference, perhaps, to any English Lord who had not been there at all. In giving support to Her Majesty's Government on general principles, some noble Lords were doubtless far superior to him, but in respect to his knowledge of the country, he thought he had a fair claim on their Lordships' attention. He might say that, without vanity, as far as residence could entitle him to say so, he possessed knowledge. He must say, he thought the attacks which had been made on the Government were very unfair. They had been charged with that which they could have had nothing to do with. They had not, and they could not have had anything to do with the arrangement of the jury panel on this or any other occasion. The panel was selected by law, and if there was any person to be blamed for what had occurred, it was the Recorder; and he was not blamed, because it was known that he discharged his duties as an honest judge ought to do. He contended that the language of the Attorney-general, in stating the case, was such as a sound lawyer, and a cool, calm, and dispassionate man ought to have used. There were no flowers of eloquence in his speech. He was in great hopes that the noble Marquess would have come forward with remedies proper for the condition of Ireland, instead of confining himself entirely to blaming the conduct of the present Government since they had come into power. The noble Marquess said, the popular will had not sufficient influence on the representation of Ireland. Were not, he would ask, 105 Members sufficient? Would the noble Marquess ven-

667
ture to say, that 620 Members in a room were not sufficient to conduct any mass of public business? When that was the case, and when it was known that they might frequently come to vote, but did not, would the noble Marquess tell them, that if there were other Members in the House they would be found more efficient still? If he thought the representation insufficient, he should be as ready as any man to enter the lists on the subject; but he could not conceive on what grounds any rational man could give ear to the charges of the agitators on the subject. When he saw a noble Marquess, who was not connected with Ireland by property or by residence, but who had happened adventitiously to be there, standing up to instruct the Irish Peers in their duty, as if there were not other persons capable of defending Ireland from injustice, in case any had been committed. The noble Marquess had made many insinuations not very complimentary to the magistrates of Ireland respecting their conduct in enforcing the Irish Arms Act. The fact was, that there had been only two places in which there was any attempt to give a strict interpretation to the Irish Arms Act—one in the county of Cork, and the other in Queen's County. This was a subject on which no proper opinion could be given, except by one who had been resident in the country. Who could tell what might happen at any moment? The opinion of the magistrates was, that Repeal Wardens were not fit to hold arms, because, in case of a rising, they would be most forward against Her Majesty's Government. Arms had been refused to be allowed to persons whom it was feared would use them for the purposes of assassination, and for this the magistrates had been denounced as Orangemen, and had had much opprobrium cast upon them. That feeling, however, he rejoiced to say, had been transitory. Their Lordships must know that the magistracy of Ireland did defer their opinions to that of the Government, and the known feeling of the House of Commons. The insinuation, therefore, of the noble Marquess was unnecessary, and came from him with a very bad grace. They were then reminded by another noble Marquess of the burthens which pressed upon the occupiers of land. The noble Marquess who originated the debate found fault with the excessive taxation of the Irish people, but suggested
668
no means whereby it could be diminished. The report of the Committee upon the Grand Jury had been alluded to, in which there was much useful information, with which subjects, as well as that of a new Poor-law, he thought the House should grapple. His noble Friend—whom he did not see in his place—had denounced the Poor-law as much as any man, but certainly not more than it deserved; he did not, however, inform their Lordships that that Law was a Whig measure, which had been imposed on the country by his hon. Friend, a very confident ex-minister, whose assurance had been very well described by the Rev. Sidney Smith. He invited the noble Lords to co-operate with him in bringing about an amelioration of that law in Ireland, to which at the time of its passing he (the Marquess of Westmeath) gave his utmost opposition; when he was answered by a noble Lord, "If you do not take care of your poor, we must see that you shall be compelled to do so." The experiment had been tried—the new Poor-law had been forced down the people's throat, it was completely at a stand-still, and they were obliged to employ an army to levy the rates; and before long the present Government would see that some change was necessary in that law to preserve that country in peace and put down agitation. The noble Marquess, who opened the debate, had touched a little upon the Landlords and Tenant Commission; and from his observations it appeared that he seemed to think that the result of the present state of things in Ireland was a consequence of the price of food being regulated by the landlords. [The Marquess of Normanby denied that such had been his statement.] He was glad to hear his noble Friend give that explanation. The con-acre in Ireland was, generally speaking, given by middle men, and not by the landlords. The middle men, in fact, were the rulers of the land; and in the absence of markets, which could not exist in a country where there were not the ordinary money payments for labour, the necessity of occupying the land in this manner was the result. Unfortunately many of those who employed labourers did not pay them in money, and the labouring population were consequently compelled to seek their food in this objectionable manner. Not only had the landlords of Ireland nothing to do

669
with the existence of this system, but it was to them a great misfortune. With respect to the agitation which had recently been going on in Ireland, he begged to remind their Lordships of a fact which had been dwelt upon on many previous occasions, namely, that the statement of Ireland's grievances had generally been put forward by the leading agitator in that country. He (the Marquess of Westmeath) admitted that unhappily things in that country were not exactly what they ought to be. But yet it was to be observed that, almost upon every occasion when those grievances were laid before the public through the medium of the newspapers, it was done by persons who assumed to themselves to direct the people how they should feel, and what they should do in consequence. He did not, therefore, apprehend the fulfilment of those predictions of evil which it was alleged were hanging over that country at the present time. He (the Marquess of Westmeath) had an intimate knowledge of the feelings of the people of Ireland, among whom he almost constantly resided, and who he was certain, if they were allowed to express their opinions, would declare that they were most anxious that this agitation should be put an end to, and that the government of that country may be so exercised, and the law so administered, as that they may feel that they shall receive protection if they venture to resist the exactions which have been imposed upon them, and which exactions have afterwards been represented as voluntary subscriptions by the parties who have been exciting the country, and disturbing the peace of Her Majesty's subjects within it. The Irish people were an amiable race, but unfortunately were not so highly instructed as could be wished. They were almost generally under the influence of the Roman Catholic priests, of whom, although he did not wish to make a sweeping condemnation, yet certainly they were very much identified with the present system of agitation, as was proved by their own avowals at many of those late meetings which had now been declared illegal. It could not be doubted that the Roman Catholic bishops, with one or two honourable exceptions, were all engaged in that movement. He himself had known a priest, who, upon refusing to allow the repeal rent to be made in his chapel was suspended by his bishop for a month. He
670
mentioned this fact in order to show that he had no intention of making a sweeping charge against the whole of the Roman Catholic clergy, although the greater portion of that body had identified themselves with agitation in that country. Upon one occasion, at Lismore, Mr. O'Connell himself told his hearers, that his friends and colleagues in agitation (alluding to the Roman Catholic clergy) had lately thrown aside their duties of preaching, and he (Mr. O'Connell) had, therefore, himself put on the gown, and taken to sermonising. The clergy and agitators being thus united, the people were made to believe that it was to their interest to act in the way in which they had lately done. The noble Marquess who opened the debate had represented that there was but one feeling throughout Europe with reference to the affairs of Ireland, and he (the Marquess of Westmeath) was sorry to say he believed this to be in a great measure correct, although he did not believe the evils of that country were attributable to the administration of the present Government. The Conservative or the Protestant party in Ireland had declared their sincere wish for the maintenance of the Union between the two countries; but they had not thought it worth while to issue any counter statements in France or any other part of Europe to those which had been issued on the continent of Europe by Roman Catholics of Ireland; but it did not therefore follow, that the statements which had been made in those foreign countries were true.
Lord Howdenstated, that he certainly should not have taken up their Lordships' time, had it not been tor his connexion with Ireland; but he could not refrain from expressing his regret, that his noble Friend should have thought it his duty to have brought this motion forward; or, he should rather say, that in the prosecution of a certain particular object, he should have deemed it expedient to have done so. If the question should come to a vote, he should feel it his duty to vote against the motion, although he agreed entirely with his noble Friend (the Marquess of Normanby) in his wish that equal rights with England should now be given to Ireland. He objected, however, to his motion, on the ground that it was ill-timed, and therefore mischievous; particularly so at this moment, and under the present circumstances, when it was evident that the

671
result of it would only be to embarrass the Government; and knowing as he (Lord Howden) did of the intelligence and acuteness of the noble Marquess, he could not help thinking that he must himself have been aware that such results must have followed upon his motion. At this late hour of night it certainly was not his intention to follow in detail the two noble Marquesses in their long and splendid speeches. With regard to what had been said by the noble Marquess upon the other side of the House, he entirely agreed, and though he thought proper to make a few general observations—he should not make them in the plural—he thought the speech of the noble Lord who had moved the motion was calculated to excite a feeling in the minds of the people of Ireland that the long standing, compacted, and he would say crying, evils of that country, all lay at the door of the present Government, and that the whole of the mismanagement of that country was to be applied to them, but for whose policy the whole would have been swept away. Noble Lords would, no doubt, give their strenuous support to this motion, from an idea that perhaps a parliamentary vote was necessary to awaken the slumbering energies of the Government; but he thought they would do well to reflect upon what was said of them when they were seated on the Ministerial Benches by that very personage in Ireland, whom he need not name, who never allowed an opportunity to slip where in there was a chance for him to express his hatred and contempt of them. It would no doubt be disagreeable to his noble Friends to recall to their memory the expressions which had often been used by the individual to whom he alluded with respect to them; neither would he disgust the House by repeating the vituperative epithets by which he was accustomed to designate the Whig party. But he might, perhaps, be allowed to put his noble Friends in mind of one of Mr. O'Connell's speeches, as it might tend to relieve the dull tedium of debate. That Gentleman had stated, with reference to the Whigs, that they were mere bars with which the windows were stopped to keep out the cold; that they were not worth one farthing except for the purpose of keeping other parties out. There were two accusations which were generally thrown in the face of the Government; one was, that they were an indifferent or
672
do-nothing Government; the second, that there existed an hostility to Ireland. Could any man say, that at this time of day such a thing as hostility to Ireland was possible? Could it be believed? And yet such charges had been brought in inflammatory speeches by parties who were not responsible in situation, and who, therefore, might say anything which would suit their views, while, on the other hand, the Government were responsible for even any indiscreet expression which might not have a dangerous tendency. Could any man believe that Ireland was not the last thought at night and the first in the morning? There was no more insidious manner of agitating Ireland than by telling that high and noble spirited people that they are neglected by this country; for the Irish, as was the case with all people with noble affections, are a credulous people. He believed that, on the whole, two-thirds of the time of Parliament had been occupied by Irish affairs, to the exclusion, very often, of other most pressing matters. He did not find fault with this. On the contrary, he thought the state of Ireland, and the happiness of its people, were subjects deserving and requiring all their consideration. But could there be any imaginable object in the minds of the Government, even for their own security, and perhaps that was putting it in the most selfish point of view, that could be paramount to the welfare and tranquillisation of Ireland? What use was it, then, except a party use, under any pretext, however plausible, thus to add agitation to agitation, and embarrassment to embarrassment? The wording of the noble Marquess's motion was so inoffensive that he had certainly nothing to say against it, it being, in fact, much milder than could have heen anticipated, or than it would have been three or four days back, when perhaps he imagined that the proceedings in Ireland would have turned out very different to what they have done. But now that the law in Ireland had vindicated itself with its own right hand, he hoped with his noble Friend, and with equal sincerity, that all just complaints might be removed from that country, and that its happiness might be promoted by every possible means. Still he believed that one necessary condition for the happiness of Ireland was an insurance of its tranquillity; and he had no hesitation in avowing his concurrence in what was said

673
by the noble Earl who moved the Address, though at the time he highly disapproved of it on the ground of its being impolitic, that if by chance (which God forbid!) at a future time any measure should be wanting for the welfare of Ireland, to give strength to the Crown or peace to the subject, the call would not be made in vain. His noble Friend had given his opinion upon the Union between the two countries. That was a subject which he should hardly think it right to mention, as he was convinced that every noble Lord in that House was determined to preserve it inviolate; though he was at times inclined to think that some of them—sometimes by acts, sometimes by speeches—did what they could to make it an unhappy Union. With regard to the Repeal of the Union there were two classes of persons—the deluders and the deluded. Among the latter there were a great number of persons who believed that it would lead to good, and to whom nothing was wanting but that instinct of self-preservation which Nature had given to all other creatures. He would say, that the preservation of the Union was but a secondary question to England, whereas to the people of Ireland it was of vital consequence, for, if they should be so unfortunate as to have their wishes conceded,—
"Magnaque numinibus vota exaudita malignis,"—
if they were to cast off the tie which bound them to this country,—if England were to leave them to themselves, not fifty years would roll over their shores before the vaunted "flower of the earth" would be plucked by some unfriendly hand, and the "gem of the sea" would be "set in the crown of a stranger." He asked their Lordships' pardon for trespassing so long on their attention, but there was something so unfortunate in the noble Lord's bringing forward this motion at the present moment, as to force him to give his opinion in condemnation of it.
The Marquis of Normanbywished to correct a supposition of the noble Lord's and to declare that it was utterly unfounded. He had not altered the terms of his motion; it had not ever been in any other shape; he had never contemplated any other motion; and this had been seen by some of his noble Friends six days ago.
Lord Beaumontsaid, that when his
674
noble Friend, the President of the Council, sat down, he felt both pleasure and satisfaction—pleasure, because the measures proposed by Government were indications of a liberal policy—satisfaction—and satisfaction of a personal nature, because the explanation which he (Lord Wharncliffe) had given with regard to the jury in Ireland, justified the conduct which he (Lord Beaumont) had thought proper to pursue, for he not only had declined joining with his co-religionists in complaining of the striking off the Catholic jurors in Ireland, but had tried to persuade many of them not to join in the outcry, and had actually succeeded in prevailing on some to absent themselves from the meeting called on the subject. He was sorry, however, to say, that that feeling of satisfaction was partly shaken by what had since fallen from the noble Earl opposite. If his interpretation of that noble Earl's speech was right, if he had understood the drift of his argument, a slur had been cast indirectly on the Roman Catholics of Ireland. If he mistook not the noble Earl's meaning, the noble Earl had justified the Attorney-general in challenging the jurors, on very different grounds from those which had been so clearly stated by his noble Friend the President of the Council, for the noble Earl had founded his justification on the ground, that the names objected to, were those of Roman Catholics, and not on the ground, that they were those of Repealers; and that Roman Catholics were objectionable, because—for this was the argument of the noble Earl—they believed, that if the Repeal of the Union were carried, the supremacy of the Catholic Church would be established in Ireland, and that, therefore, however unjustifiable they might deem the measures adopted for obtaining a Repeal of the Union to be, they would, as they adopted the Jesuitical principle that the end justified the means, be biased and prejudiced as jurors.
Lord Rodenwished to explain. What he had stated was, that the people were taught to think, that if Repeal were carried, the Protestant religion would be destroyed, and the Roman Catholic religion would be established instead of it. That that being the general feeling, he thought, particularly after the instance of the grand juror whom he mentioned, who, after taking an oath

675
to keep the Queen's and his fellows' counsel, afterwards declared, in the face of the Court, that he did not assent to the finding of the bill of indictment,—that the Attorney-general was bound to be very careful in not putting into the box those who would have such a bias. He said this, without in any degree disparaging the Catholics, or saying that they were not as good as any one else.
Lord Beaumontsaid, he would accept the noble Earl's explanation, and in order to make the explanation consistent, he must suppose the noble Earl to believe, that a jury of Roman Catholics would have found the same verdict as the twelve men who were sworn. [Lord Roden: "I will not say that."] But that is the very point to which he wished to come. The noble Earl must allow that, or the imputation he complained of is not removed. He (Lord Beaumont) would allow, that the Attorney-general was justified in objecting to every juror who was tainted with Repeal, and the noble Earl might even say, that as some of the leading Repeaters frequently boasted, that the majority of Roman Catholics were with them, the circumstance of a jury professing that religion was good grounds for concluding that he was tainted with Repeal opinions. But this objection was previous to the jurors being sworn, and even if acted upon, did not imply that if they were sworn, they would not act contrary to their previous bias, and return as conscientious a verdict as that which had actually been given; in which case the verdict would have been the same. [Lord Roden: "I would not go so far."] The noble Earl would not go so far as to say, that the verdict would be the same. What then did he mean? If he thought the verdict a right one, and that it would not be the same if the jury were Roman Catholic, was not that accusing them of bias even after they were sworn? On this ground, he had a right to complain of the noble Earl. The case was self-evident—the same evidence would have been produced before them—the same law laid down, the same facts proved, and the same conclusion must have been come to as had lately been arrived at, if the Roman Catholic jurors would have given, when on their oaths, as conscientious a verdict as that which had been conscientiously returned by the twelve men who had com-
676
posed the jury which had actually pronounced their decision on the case. This he believed, would have been the result if the jury had been Catholic, and on this account he maintained, that the traversers had nothing whatever to complain of. The Attorney-general was justified in striking off those whom he believed to be Repeaters; the cause of the traversers was no ways damaged by the circumstance of there being no Catholics on the jury, and the verdict must have been the same even if the whole twelve had been members of that persuasion. The noble Earl still declined to assent, but he (Lord Beaumont) would take the bright side of the picture drawn by his noble Friend the Lord President, instead of looking at the darker colouring given to the subject by the noble Earl opposite, and admitting the explanation given by a Minister of the Crown as the most likely to be the correct one, he (Lord Beaumont) would drop the subject by assuring their Lordships, that he believed the Attorney-general had only done his duty, and done it in the most conscientious manlier. In regard of the general question, he (Lord Beaumont differed from his noble Friend (Lord Howden) who had just addressed them; for he (Lord Howden) objected to the measure on account of the time it was introduced, whereas, he (Lord Beaumont) supported it on that very ground. He thought the present was the most fitting and proper time for the House to adopt such a resolution. If their Lordships ever remembered anything so unimportant as what had formerly been stated by him, they would recollect that last year he (Lord Beaumont) said, that whatever conciliatory measures they then proposed would be considered as concessions wrung from their fears, and that they ought to suppress agitation before thinking of any attempts to conciliate hostile interests by measures of concession. That had now been done—the agitation had ceased—peace had been restored, justice done, and the present was peculiarly the moment when concessions might be made without detriment to the character of the House or the Government. As they had now carried the law into execution, had put down the system of combined agitation which had been declared illegal, and vindicated the lawful authority of the Crown, they now stood on such high grounds that

677
whatever they would propose in the way of remedies for Irish grievances, would be regarded not as concessions wrung from fear, but as the acts of their own free will and bounty. The present was therefore, the very moment to consider, what measures of a conciliatory nature might be proposed. He was, however, in some degree disappointed, both with what had fallen from his noble Friend behind him, and with what had been stated in the speech of his noble Friend the President of the Council; for with regard to the former, he had expected that some great and broad course of policy would have been laid down—some clear and decisive line distinctly traced out—some positive measures proposed, in fact that the noble Marquess would have laid before the House his plan of campaign against the growing evils, and, considering his knowledge and experience as to the state and temper of Ireland, taken upon himself to put forth his views as to future policy, and propounded the measures which he thought best for the welfare of Ireland, so that the House might have had the option of choosing between what he (the Marquess of Normanby) proposed, and what had been so plainly and candidly stated by his noble Friend opposite. But unfortunately the noble Marquess only urged the House to propose measures but suggested none himself. He was disappointed with what had fallen from his noble Friend opposite, the President of the Council, for though the measures proposed were all in a right direction, they had been put forth by the noble Lord on the part of the Government, as though they were its ultimatum, the very utmost and furthest extent to which they would go. The evils to be remedied were great, and he thought the remedies proposed were not equal to the extent of the evils. He (Lord Beaumont) did not attempt to disguise from himself the great difficulty which attended all legislation on the state of Ireland. That difficulty consisted in the existence of two extreme opinions, which prevailed unfortunately to a great extent, and caused all intermediate steps, all that came between those two extreme opinions, to be considered as half measures which did not go effectually to the root of the evil, nor meet the crying exigences of the country. Though he alluded to these opinions, and would mention them as the great difficulty which at
678
tended all discussion on this question, he would beg of their Lordships to bear in mind that he (Lord Beaumont) did not coincide with either. One or other of these extreme opinions were held by a majority of the people in Ireland, a certain number of persons in this country, and by some and not a few on the Continent, and so virulent were both these opinions, that like a poisonous mineral they infected the system (if he might use the expression) and crept into the veins of every measure proposed, and turned things good in themselves into a source of evil. One of these opinions prevailed amongst the Ultra-Protestant party, the other had a far more extensive influence amongst their most prominent opponents, and both were based on that delicate subject, religion and the animosity which sprung from religious zeal. He knew that there were many amongst his co-religionists, who believed that nothing, would relieve or even ameliorate the condition of Ireland, till the supremacy of the Protestant Church was destroyed, and such persons looked on all other proposals as perfectly inefficient and absurd. He need not repeat that he differed totally in opinion with these people, but he thought it necessary to state that he was convinced that no measure however good and excellent in itself, would satisfy them, in order to show that the condemnation certain proposed plans were likely to meet with in that quarter, would be no proof (with him at least) that they were not both good and efficient measures. He (Lord Beaumont), would put both extreme parties out of the question as entertaining impracticable notions, and not draw the conclusion from their dissatisfaction, that the Government had not done wisely in the measures it proposed. The noble Earl opposite went further still and said, that there were some even, who wished to establish the supremacy of the Catholic religion on the ruins of the Protestant. Now, he (Lord Beaumont) thought the number who entertained such a wish very small indeed—he believed that Catholics generally dreaded Catholic supremacy as much as they dislike Protestant supremacy. The object they have in view is the voluntary principle and the dependence of the clergy on the good-will of their parishioners. This lead him to the question of paying the Roman Catholic Clergy; whatever might be the merits of that

679
proposal, he must observe that one circumstance had now effectually prevented that offer from being made, namely the late distinct refusal of the Roman Catholic clergy themselves to accept any such grant at the hands of Government. He knew not on what grounds the refusal had been made, but he was not sorry that it had been made, for if they had accepted it it would not materially alter their social connections or political influence in Ireland; for though some few of them might receive a sum of money and so have no motive any longer to join in agitation and keep alive discontent, their co-adjutors, who would not be paid, would do the work of mischief instead of the parish priest—become the favourites of the people and carry on all the active business of the district. They must regulate the clergy as well as pay them, or no good will follow. For these reasons he would object to that plan, though he had heard it stated by many persons better acquainted with Ireland than he was, that such a provision ought to be given, because if given, it would tend to relieve parishioners from many of the charges to which they were now liable; for the latter object he would suggest that the Government should rather assign them glebes—assist in building residences for the parish priest and advance money to build churches—in which case the Government would have the satisfaction of seeing that the money did not fall into idle and unworthy hands. In all other countries this was done; in Constantinople, the Sultan was in the habit of building and repairing the Christian churches: if some such steps as these were taken by Government, the people would be relieved from one of the heaviest taxes levied at present by the Catholic clergy upon them, for when it was known that a sum had been advanced and assistance afforded for building the necessary places of worship, the laity would remit the demand so constantly made for subscriptions to keep in repair the chapels of their persuasion. As to the other subject which had been alluded to by noble Lords who had preceded him, he (Lord Beaumont) must confess that he did not much approve of the Land Tenure Commission, because if Parliament once interfered with landlords in Ireland and tied them down in the use of their property, he was afraid the interference would soon be extended to England and great con-
680
fusion in the agreements between landlord and tenant would ensue. Noble Lords must be aware that it was impossible to adopt an uniform rule in all agreements, and that the number of years' compensation for improvements allowed outgoing tenants must differ according to the variety of circumstances and the nature of the improvements; he, therefore, begged of them to be cautious how they interfered, and take care that they did not add another source of discontent to the owners of real property, for, what with the Anti Corn-law League and their actual burthens they had already plagues enough upon their hands. He would now, in conclusion, express his satisfaction at the hopes held out of measures favourable to the future well-being and suited to the present state of Ireland; but while he acknowledged his admiration of the clear, candid, and able statement of the Lord President of the Council, he (Lord Beaumont) would still add, that he should like to see Government induced to go a little further in the same direction, and for that purpose he would give his cordial support to the motion of his noble Friend near him.
On the Motion of Lord Campbell, who rose amidst cries of "Divide," and "Go on," the Debate was adjourned to Thursday.
The House adjourned to Thursday.